Charles P Loc: Southern Central NY State

I have and use CLP and ND filters quite a bit for outdoor shooting. I also use good quality UV filters most of the time. I shoot dirt track racing in all kinds of weather, and sometimes the mud is just a flying. I haven had it hit the lens yet, but it has been close a few times (like on my face). And man that really smarts! I guess I need a UV filter for my head.

leftj Loc: Texas

Get yourself a welders mask with a clear shield.

Charles P Loc: Southern Central NY State

Good Idea, leftj.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Image quality should never be the most important thing in photography... unless one's images have absolutely nothing else to offer the viewer. If a filter can give me an effect I cannot achieve any other way, I will use the filter without hesitation. Obsessing over image quality and avoiding all filters only places limitations on the expressive possibilities that can be achieved with photography.

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

BINGO.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

I have an large collection of Cokin filters left over from my film days that I use on occasion when I want a certain effect. Otherwise it is a CPL and graduated neutral density, or plain ND filters the majority of the time. The colored graduated filters from Cokin come in handy to warm or cool the sky when needed.

leftj Loc: Texas

Do you do PP. If so the colored filters are not needed.

JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

Agree with twowindsbear. Exactly what I carry, and I keep a clear or UV on the lens to protect it. You will hear both sides on this forum as to the need. Most recently I had a new high end L series lens on my Canon full frame, with a UV filter. Either a bird, or sap, got onto the filter and it actually etched away the surface. So for me, well worth it. JimR

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

By far the most widely useful filter for digital is a Circular Polarizer. It can do things for images that simply can't be done in post processing.

Most other filter effects can be quite easily emulated in post-processing software.

The reason for using UV filters on film cameras a lot was because most film was overly sensitive to UV light and would get a blue cast. The filter helped prevent that. It had nothing to do with lens "protection".

In fact, just how much real world, physical protection might you expect from a thin piece of glass? Plus, lenses are a lot tougher than people think. (Far tougher than the filters people are sticking on them!)

Watch and learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

All that said.... Yes, I've got quality, multi-coated UV filters to fit my lenses. They're stored separately until actually needed, until they might actually serve a purpose. Which really isn't very often. If I'm out shooting in a sand storm (unlikely), I'll use them. Next time I'm shooting a paintball battle (also pretty unlikely), I'll use them. When I'm at the beach, a bit more likely, I'll use them (salt spray gets on everything and is difficult to clean off). I might even use them for a scenic shot where there's a blue haze that the UV filter can reduce (which is why I carry UV filters, instead of plain clear ones). But since they are so rarely needed, they were low priority for me.

Shooting through an extra layer of glass will always degrade you images to some extent. With a high quality, multi-coated filter, under most lighting conditions the "loss" is so negligible you're unlikely to notice. But under more strenuous lighting conditions, the filter can cause problems. I had to "fix" flare issues in 1200 images made in strong backlit conditions by a second shooter I'd hired for a job, when he ignored my request he remove any and all filters from his lenses. That was many hours of unnecessary work. No filter should ever be used directly shooting sunrises or sunsets, either.... extra layers of glass cause various types of flare problems. Especially avoid using a multi-layer filter like a Circular Polarizer. It's also bad practice to unnecessary stack multiple filters on lenses... which means any time you want to put a useful C-Pol on a lens, you have to first remove a mostly useless UV filter.

So while I have them for situations where they serve a purpose, they are not on my lenses all the time... very rarely, in fact, and acquiring UV filters for my lenses was pretty low priority, in the overall scheme of things.

Your highest priority should be a quality, multi-coated C-Pol. For their price, the best are B+W F-Pro (8-layer multi-coated) and XS-Pro (16-layer multi-coated, slim frames for ultrawide lenses). No one makes better and you can easily spend 1.5X or even 2X as much and not get as good a filter. Another brand that are identical in all respects cost nearly 3X as much.

Another type of filter that's useful with digital are Neutral Density. These are rather specialized, though. One or two strong ND filters can be used to allow slower than normally possible shutter speeds and/or larger than normally possible apertures in relatively bright light conditions. A couple ways these are used are to make running water in a stream look "creamy" or to be able to shoot portraits with shallow depth of field effects such as a strongly blurred background. Personally I have far less use for ND and these special effects, than I do for C-Pol.

You also may not need filters for every lens you own. For example, I almost never put a C-Pol on any of my longer telephotos. I also don't recall the last time I used one on a macro lens. I tend to use them mostly on normal to wide angle lenses, simple because the types of things I shoot with those lenses are more likely to need the effects of a C-Pol. They also can be useful for portraiture (short telephotos), architectural or product. photography.

The effects of most filters can be done just as well or even better either by the camera or in post-processing software. For example, the ability to set white balance, or even let the camera set it automatically in a lot of situations, means that color correction and color conversion filters are unnecessary. The same with black and white effects filters, which can be easily emulated in Photoshop and other software. Graduated neutral density effects are far better done in software, too. In fact, with digital the same sort of technique can be applied to images where it was impossible to use a Grad ND. Forget warming filters too. In fact, if you set a custom white balance or even let the camera do an auto white balance, any warming filter on your lens will be cancelled out. There are ways to get the same effect using tinted targets (Warm Cards and similar) to set a custom white balance.

timcc Loc: Virginia

Good write-up! The only thing I would add is to be careful using a polarizing filter on a wide-angle lens. Because the filter is most effective when shooting at a 90 degree angle from the sun, you may get an odd sky (darker on one side) with a wide-angle lens, especially with an ultra wide-angle.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

If you are talking about Film photography you couldn't be more incorrect. And if about Digital it is close to a 50-50 toss up based on opinions and preferences.

For Pan B&W films like Tri-X or FP4+ you should always leave a yellow filter on the lens to absorb the excess blue in daylight and excess sensitivity B&W to blue light. And many other CONTRAST filters are very useful. Try a # 29 and tell me you don't see dramatic clouds. And yes, UV would fog film and alter colors so UV (B&W), 1A or 1B (for Color) films.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Actually digital sensors, both CMOS & older CCD sensors themselves are very sensitive to both UV and IR light (or radiation), but cameras have built-in filters over the sensors to remove those far ends of the spectrum. Also those filters may be removed and replaced with a visible light blocking filter to create Converted IR and/or UV cameras. I have a Converted IR Pentax K-100D Camera myself, @665 or so nm.

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

While I agree that a filter CAN cause problems if it is dirty-or-damaged & I really do hate to BLAME_THE_VICTIM, but in the age of digital photography aren't YOU responsible for not checking the work of the individual you hired at some point in time during the shoot especially since you had asked him to remove the filter?!?

Did you check his equipment BEFORE beginning the shoot?

... Perhaps it was something OTHER THAN THE FILTER which was causing the anomalies which you needed to fix!?!

BTW. I've attached a picture which I took a few months ago where I was (obviously?) "directly shooting (a) sunrises" ... so, while "rules to live by" may be good guidelines/outlines/parameters, they are possibly dependent on the quality of the equipment ...

Regardless, I'll never understand how people (like yourself!) will blissfully use Zoom lenses which certainly have MORE glass-air surfaces while decrying the use of a (hopefully) clean filter because "Shooting through an extra layer of glass will always degrade you(r) images to some extent"!?!

(Download)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Here's an example of the variation in the polarization darkening of the sky using a wide angle filter (24mm, FX body). Sun is to the left.

(Download)

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

People neglect you answer. It is true. I had a lens generally thought to be sharp that I stopped using. I sent it to the mfr. and it was good. The filter was off. I took all my filters off and it was equivalent of buying new lenses. You can fix most issues in post with digital RAW files. Treat your gear like the $2,500.00 investment it is and ditch the filters.