New filter question (Page 3): :sm06: :sm04:...

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

Longshadow wrote:

Does that mean there will be a larger unnoticeable difference?

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

Thanks, all. Actually, why I was asking was that one day, traveling home on leave on a Greyhound bus, Canon 1V S2 rangefinder camera, 50mm lens, sky1A filter, probably Ektachrome 100 film...I took a photo through the windshield. The filter eliminated much of the windshield's green tint, making the color balance better. Just wondering if the 1A might have the same effect on digital.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If in AWB, optimally, the camera should internally adjust to compensate......and the use of color compensating filters should be redundant and un-necessary. YMMV 8-)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Thomas902 wrote:

Food for thought... br i Cataract Symptom: (Color... (show quote)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Thomas902 wrote:

Food for thought... br i Cataract Symptom: (Color... (show quote)

Beautiful shot and great information for all of us, Thomas

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

Longshadow wrote:

I'm odd, I prefer the "as shot" shot.

I'm primarily looking at the planes, not particularly the clouds.

That's what I am thinking, too! Thanks CHG_CANON and Thomas for the examples!

Fyi... after my double cataract surgery several years ago it looked as if a dingy yellow filter had been removed from my eyes, and ~2 stops of light had been added!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Thomas902 wrote:

Food for thought... br i Cataract Symptom: (Color... (show quote)

I think that woman is stunningly beautiful and you did a fabulous job capturing her beauty.

Yes I did eventually read the text, and good points all.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

BE KIND

To whom it may concern....BE KIND.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

You don't need and shouldn't use those filters with a digital camera. They will cause a color cast that you will need to remove in post processing.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

jackpinoh wrote:

You don't need and shouldn't use those filters with a digital camera. They will cause a color cast that you will need to remove in post processing.

My eyes must be shot, I don't notice it.

Chopper Bill Loc: East Tennessee

Correcting color balance of digital images negates any worries about the tint of these filters. Only 2 things matter to me:
1) Although a filter won't protect a lens in a bad fall over it will protect the lens from smudges. Go ahead, wipe it with your t-shirt after you've spit on it. So what? It's expendable.
2) Buy a decent filter. Would you put a junk filter on your $2500 lens? Spend $100 on a decent filter for heaven's sake.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Chopper Bill wrote:

Correcting color balance of digital images negates any worries about the tint of these filters. Only 2 things matter to me:
1) Although a filter won't protect a lens in a bad fall over it will protect the lens from smudges. Go ahead, wipe it with your t-shirt after you've spit on it. So what? It's expendable.
2) Buy a decent filter. Would you put a junk filter on your $2500 lens? Spend $100 on a decent filter for heaven's sake.

What's the resultant visual image difference between a $35 filter and a $135 filter (other than $100)?
I know, the charts and graphs say it's different, but can a person actually tell looking at an image?

Chopper Bill Loc: East Tennessee

Longshadow wrote:

What's the resultant visual image difference between a $35 filter and a $135 filter (other than $100)?
I know, the charts and graphs say it's different, but can a person actually tell looking at an image?

I guess it depends on how closely you look. When you enlarge your images enough to make a 30x45 Inch mural for the wall even the slightest defect will become apparent. Does it matter to you that the leaves on a background tree in your landscape art are visually distinct? Do you shoot from a tripod using a 3 second shutter delay to allow the camera to dampen out the vibrations of the mirror snapping up? Sure, the average viewer (takes pictures with his cell phone) will not examine your work closely enough to appreciate your dedication to detail, but who are you creating your images for in the first place? I think that's the difference between commercial photography and artistic photography.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Longshadow wrote:

What's the resultant visual image difference between a $35 filter and a $135 filter (other than $100)?
I know, the charts and graphs say it's different, but can a person actually tell looking at an image?

I guess it depends on the filter and the person looking. I have definitely seen noticeable differences such as color casts, reflections, on cheap vs more expensive filters. YMMV.