petercbrandt wrote:
As a pro before 2006, I used a lot of filters, from Kodak cc .o25 to 4inch cross-star and everything in between, so much so, I had an aluminum carrying case (10x6x18") for them. The ones in perfect condition I interested is listing for sale. With Photoshop processing, I'm not using them in taking photos, so I'm inquiring if there is any interest out in Uglyhedgehog country.
It varies by filter type:
Color-correction filters--- No reason to use--processing does the same thing with the ability to fine tune.
Skylight (1A or 1B)-- ditto
Filters that affect exposure (ND, GND, contrast-reducing)-- As necessary as ever, but perhaps not used as often.
Polarizers-- Absolutely necessary!. Information on the polarization of light is not captured by the sensor,
so it's
impossible to filter based on polarization in processing.
Effects filters-- Some have good digital equivalents some don't. So it depends on the effect and what
software package is being used.
Protection filters (e.g., UV or coated plain glass)-- Still necessary. The risk of scratching the front element,
denting the filter ring or getting dust on the lens has not diminished. Repeated cleanings can still
wear the coating off the front-element of the lens. A new filter is a lot cheaper than a new lens.
Most digital cameras with most lenses will not see any diffrence between UV filter and a plain glass filter
(with the same coating). But since they are about the same price, but the UV. Then you can use it with
the minority of cameras and lenses where it does matter, and with film cameras.
Please note that a mutli-coated UV filter priced at $10 is a far superior optical system to your $5000 lens:
no aberrations, no distortion, no measurable absorption of light--a true "diffraction limited" system.
There is loss light due to the two air-glass surfaces. But since a zoom lens can have more than 30 surfaces,
unless you are using a contrasty prime lens, you probably won't notice any difference.
Moreover, if a bright light (e.g., the sun) outside the angle-of-view strikes the thick, convex fron element
of your lens, there is a good chance it will bounce around inside the lens, producing insidious flare, is much
greater than if it strikes a thin, flat, coated filter. I'm talking about the kind of flare you can't see, but that
reduces contrast. The result is rather similar to a light leak in your camera: the sensor gets fogged.
Hopefully, we all use the ideal lens hood for the focal length all the time.
(Finally, whether or not processing can perform the function of a particular optical filter is not determined
by what other photographers are doing, but by science. If every single UHH member carries a rabbit's foot
charm, that is not evidence of the efficacy of charms--it only prooves that bad ideas are contagious.)