Filters necessary these days?

I've been holding off on getting a set of filters for B&W and color. My workflow is that I scan my negatives and do processing in photoshop. Is there any advantage to using filters in my situation other than a polarizing filter or maybe the UV filter in hazy situations?

A UV or clear filter is used to protect the lens by some photographers and not used by others.

From my understanding, (I own Lightroom but not Photoshop) by scanning and using Photoshop you really don't need filters for effect except for the Polarizing screen you mentioned.

I scan my 8x10 negatives but I still use filters because eventually I do plan on fixing a small darkroom and contact printing.

I don't do any filters for digital work, but a UV/Haze filter is good for film work. Just buy good ones so they don't mess with overall image quality. PS/LR do wonders, but a filter on the lens is easier to cut through the haze then trying to do it after the fact.

Since we're not really discussing hybrid workflows on this site, I would say yes, filters are necessary and cannot be replaced by VC filters when printing because you are altering the wavelengths of the light hitting the film.

Excessive processing of specific color ranges in PS or any other editing program can add odd artifacts and excessive noise even if one is very good at it. If you're shooting color and converting to monochrome, you're better off shooting B&W and using filters to adjust tonal density.

A yellow to red filter can save you from overexposing a bright sky for example.

I don't know anything about photoshop other than it can help me remove dust spots if I scan negatives. I use filters all the time for B&W film. A light yellow filter lives on my lens and makes for more natural looking skies. There is so much light at the blue end of the spectrum on a bright day that skies get overexposed and end up washed out. On a dull day filters make little difference to the sky. Orange and red filters can give more dramatic skies but are perhaps not really "natural" but more "effect". Filters can also be used to lighten specific colours e.g. a red filter would make a red rose look light in colour or a green filter to brighten vegetation. Different films react differently to filters due to varying sensitivity across the light spectrum. The effect of a filter also varies according to proportions of the various wavelengths of light present so effects are different at dawn as compared to midday and Summer compared to Winter.

Would you recommend the Cokin P system or standard screw in Hoya filters? My largest lens size is 72mm.

I like them with B&W to control/enhance contrast. You can pick up great black and white filters on the auction site cheap.

Filters are useful even if your are scanning.

A UV or Haze filter for each lens - black & white and color
Polarizer - black & white and color
For Black & White only:

Test it out! Get a yellow and orange filter, even something cheap or free and take some photos of clouds, plants, people and buildings with each filter and without. Try any sort of post processing, analog or otherwise and see if you can duplicate the effect. I use an orange filter for dramatic texture on stone and brick. Not sure how digipost software could duplicate that.

As a very long standing personal rule, I do not apply, or do not authorise (at the lab), any supplementary "filtration" in post (e.g. scan-step, via Lightroom). All filtration is done on-camera, in-situ. A KSM circular polariser, red filter (either/both for B&W; C-POL exclusively for colour work), yellow filter, Skylight 1B, 81B and UV(0) filters are the only filters in my kit, with a mix of UV(0) or C-POLs resident all the time on lenses. The protection a filter affords the vulnerable (and costly!) front element cannot be denied, but the filter itself should not hobble the known optical characteristics of the lens; e.g. if your lens costs $5,000, don't put a $5.00 "bottle-end" filter on it! Some of my filters cost $449 (KSM C-POLS). I do get misty-eyed if I lose one...

If your doing analog prints filters are a must. I carry a full set of Nikon 52mm filter for black and white film. When ever I shoot b&w film, they are with me.
It is a lot more work to post process a shot for a certain look, when just screwing on a filter before the shot gives the same result.

This reminds me I need to practice my polarizing skills on color film. Been for the most part just shooting all my color film without any filters.

I have used Cokin filters and they are OK for certain situations. If you have lots of different lens diameters then you need the corresponding filter holders and adapter rings. Once you put an adapter ring in a holder they are not easy to get out again (or at least I find it difficult). With a Cokin holder on the lens you can't put the lens cap back on so it can work with camera set up on a tripod but too cumbersome for walking around. I try to go out shooting with lenses that use the same filter thread so I only have to carry one set of circular screw in filters. Get yourself one of the pouches that can hold a set of 6 filters and you can keep all the same size ones together otherwise it can become tedious.

There are usually lots of filters on the auction sites. Some sellers ask ridiculous money but if you are patient you can build up a set of quality filters for very reasonable money.

If you decide to try filters do keep a notebook of what you used for each frame. Then you can see the effect when you traditionally print or scan your negatives. This is how I learned the basics and I still have a lot to learn. It's fun!

IMO filters are always useful because you can see their effect right into the viewfinder so if you want to change for instance from yellow to orange you can do it on the spot.

For B&W I usually use a yellow or orange filter if I'm shooting outdoors and a green filter if I have to shoot people, it makes them look better and less ghostly.

A linear polarizing filter is a great asset for both colour and B&W because you can "dose" the amount of polarization and in certain conditions it improves dramatically the colours.

This is the same Corvette shot at the same time (overcast day) with the same camera, same film but two different lenses, a M85mm f2 and a K24mm f2.8, the 85 had a polarizing filter while I didn't have it with me for the K24:





The downside is that in the shadow it tends to give a blue tint to objects.

I also use expensively warming or cloudy filters and I think UV filters are mostly useful to protect the lenses.

BySumbergsStache said:

I've been holding off on getting a set of filters for B&W and color. My workflow is that I scan my negatives and do processing in photoshop. Is there any advantage to using filters in my situation other than a polarizing filter or maybe the UV filter in hazy situations?

Click to expand...

Hello!
Your question is really for DPUG.
You should use a UV or Skylight filter in every lens you have in order to protect it and to avoid cleaning the front element so often.
Other filters for B&W and Colour use as dictated by situation.

Ricardo Miranda said:

Your question is really for DPUG.

Click to expand...

So, someone asks about using or not a filter in front of the lens of a FILM camera. And because he was so foolish as to state that he intends to s*** the film further down the process, his question is declared off limits.

Yet another example of a certain type of attitude that apparently has the blessing of the management and gives me second thoughts having paid my subscription, motivated by the valuable contributions of some knowledgeable members.

Ricardo Miranda said:

Hello!
Your question is really for DPUG.
You should use a UV or Skylight filter in every lens you have in order to protect it and to avoid cleaning the front element so often.
Other filters for B&W and Colour use as dictated by situation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet his answers would be different on DPUG too!

I know someone who uses Photoshop for perspective control and claims he doesn't really need view camera movements. He mostly just needs a little tilt. I don't know. Like I said earlier, I don't own Photoshop. I do know that I enjoy the analog methodology better than adjusting things on a computer but that's me.

BySumbergsStache said:

I've been holding off on getting a set of filters for B&W and color. My workflow is that I scan my negatives and do processing in photoshop. Is there any advantage to using filters in my situation other than a polarizing filter or maybe the UV filter in hazy situations?

Click to expand...

Only you can answer your question because it depends on what you photograph and how you like your images to look.

Other than a polariser, for colour work most filters are used to change the balance of colour and this can be easily done in your post processing.

For B&W, filters are generally used to alter the rendition of particular colours. Whilst you can replicate most of these effects digitally there are still subtle differences. For example, every few years models with freckles become 'the big new thing' in fashion photography. Using a blue filter with B&W film makes the freckles much more noticeable and this is not so easy to replicate digitally.

For my photography I have not used filters for years. Using Delta film in a two-bath developer renders the images how I want them. Many people ask what filters I use because of the tone of the sky. They are always surprised that I do not use filters and fail to understand that this is the result of where I place the exposure in combination with the two-bath developer and how I print the negatives in the darkroom.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

Ricardo Miranda said:

Hello!
Your question is really for DPUG.
You should use a UV or Skylight filter in every lens you have in order to protect it and to avoid cleaning the front element so often.
Other filters for B&W and Colour use as dictated by situation.

Click to expand...

This really isn't for DPUG, because he's asking whether or not to use filters for film shooting.

Also, using a lens solely for the purpose of 'protection' and 'cleaning' is not ever what a filter was designed and developed for, and using a filter for that purpose is strictly succumbing to marketing hype by the filter manufacturers. A front element of any lens, even the cheapest lens made, is worlds thicker and stronger then a 'protection' filter. And when you talk about post war lenses, even the coating is stronger then most filters. There isn't a filter made, at any price, that doesn't affect the image quality, and while some filters may only affect it in a very minimal way, it's still affected.

As for cleaning, do you not have to clean the filter? And seeing how filters aren't coated like a lens is coated, you have a greater chance of damaging the filter with normal cleaning then you ever would with normal cleaning of a front element.

Sorry, but those two reasons alone are not the reason to use filters.

***WARNING WARNING WARNING*** - Brief digital reference;
Digital cameras (sensors) have a UV 'block' built-in, making the need for a UV/Haze filter completely unnecessary. All of a sudden, filter manufacturers saw a decline in UV filter sales when DSLR's came about. Almost every lens sold for folm photography was sold with a UV/Haze filter, and that market vanished with the advent of digital. So the filter marketers came up with the use of 'lens protection' at the sacrifice of image quality. You will never find a UV/Haze/protection filter on any of my personal digital equipment.

***Back to Analog***

Film does not have anything built into it to not record UV, and different films will behave differently, depending on their sensitivity to UV. This is why the UV/Haze filter came about. The filter cuts the atmospheric haze down a bit, and makes for better images. Just look at any of the comparison photos when you do a search for 'UV filter' on google. UV filters are pretty much needed for analog capture.

So in answer to the OP's question, yes, folks are still using filters in the analog world. It's needed in the analog world.


One more thing about filters for protection. About 3 years ago I made a video (looked for it on youtube, but I may have deleted it) where I dropped 1/2" carbide tipped drill bits onto a couple of lenses, with and without a filters. When dropped from about 2 feet, the filter smashed into nice shards, and in 1 case a glass shard then scratched the front element. Without a filter, the front elements sustained no noticeable damage until about 4 feet, and that was only chips. It took to about 6+ feet until I was able to crack a front element. Read into that what you would like.

Sorry, I'll rather have an inexpensive filter and a hood to protect my lenses than not having them and then regret when one drops a lens.
I learnt it the hard way.

Ricardo, if you're going to have a filter for protection, that's cool, I have no problem with that, but I wouldn't cheap out on the filter. Get a good one at least, so you can maintain as much original image quality as you can. I remember reading about a year or two ago about a protection filter that was indestructible. May want to see if it ever came to fruition, and go that route.

And FWIW, a filter won't help in the case of a dropped lens. A hood would serve you better for that purpose.

It is a bit immaterial whether the OP is shooting film or not, because the question is about whether digital post-processing controls make on-camera filters unnecessary.

But even if the question was about optical print processing techniques instead, IMHO the answer is no, at least for black and white.

On-camera filters change the relative balance of the information on the negative. For colour, that results in one colour having more of a presence than another. So that effect may be reproduced with what is essentially the addition of colour filtration later in the process.

But for black and white, the result is just a variation of grey tones. There is no colour information left once you have a black and white negative. There is no way of differentiating in "post" a mid-gray that results from a red subject from the same mid-gray that results from a blue subject. So if your goal is to darken the blue subject while leaving the red subject unchanged, you must use an on-camera (red) filter.

There is also no "post" process that will replace the effect of polarizing filters.

With respect to Kirks518 post about UV filters, that is news to me. I was under the impression that digital sensors had built in IR blocking filters, not UV blocking filters. In any event, UV will have the effect of reducing film resolution, so for film use in high UV environments, a UV filter should be considered, because there is no "post" process that will accurately restore lost resolution.

Svenedin said:

I have used Cokin filters and they are OK for certain situations. If you have lots of different lens diameters then you need the corresponding filter holders and adapter rings. Once you put an adapter ring in a holder they are not easy to get out again (or at least I find it difficult). With a Cokin holder on the lens you can't put the lens cap back on so it can work with camera set up on a tripod but too cumbersome for walking around. I try to go out shooting with lenses that use the same filter thread so I only have to carry one set of circular screw in filters. Get yourself one of the pouches that can hold a set of 6 filters and you can keep all the same size ones together otherwise it can become tedious.

There are usually lots of filters on the auction sites. Some sellers ask ridiculous money but if you are patient you can build up a set of quality filters for very reasonable money.

If you decide to try filters do keep a notebook of what you used for each frame. Then you can see the effect when you traditionally print or scan your negatives. This is how I learned the basics and I still have a lot to learn. It's fun!

Click to expand...

Better yet trade in your equipment and buy a Hasselblad with CF or later lenses and one set of filters will work for almost all the lenses.

I find what I can't replace BW filters on the lens with Photoshop, LR and else.
All you could do in hybrid mode is to expose negative correctly and alter it as you want digitally. But it has nothing to do with filters on the lens.
Any digital alteration is taking away from the image, not adding or modifying as with filters on the lens.

Kirks518 said:

And FWIW, a filter won't help in the case of a dropped lens. A hood would serve you better for that purpose.

Click to expand...

Have you dropped the one? I did. M4-2 landed on beton sidewalk from my hand. To be exact, the lens landed. To be 100% correct, it was the filter which hit the beton first. Top plate was the second. The filter was slightly deformed with glass not broken. The lens filter thread was not damaged. The M4-2 top plate has ding from it... The RF part was for service.