File :-(, x, )
Filters Anonymous
I use a skylight filter, pictured, for all my shots it seems.
I think the major use of it for me is protecting the lens, but I wanted to ask if there's any point with actual filters on digital cameras these days, given that most of what they do is so easily replicated using, if not the camera itself, then Photoshop.

The skylight filters slightly attenuate blue, right? I don't believe it seems to change the image much, but thought I'd ask.

Thanks /p/!
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwaredigiKam-0.9.1Firmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0930556964Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:29 11:40:55Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-1878851424Color Matrix130Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeTv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed192
>> Anonymous
Uh oh, uploaded the full size one. If you can't be bothered loading it, don't blame you, the filter just says "KOOD 55mm SKYLIGHT Japan".
>> Anonymous
you wouldnt be able to (well maybe you would, but who would want to, itd be a dickton of work) replicate a polarizer filter. and ND filters just allow you to use slower shutter speeds in bright light, something else photoshop won't let you do.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Not that anyone cares, but I uploaded the properly sized version.
>>51247
Good point, although I don't have any polarizing filters :/ I need to pick some up.

So, most people still use filters on their digital cameras as well as the film ones?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwaredigiKam-0.9.1Firmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0930556964Image-Specific Properties:Image Width972Image Height648Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:29 11:40:55Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width972Image Height648RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-1878851424Color Matrix130Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeTv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed192
>> Anonymous
might be kind of hard to get IR pics without an appropriate filter on a digital...
>> Anonymous
Filters that are still useful on a digital camera:
- Polarizing filters
- Neutral filters (for shooting in really bright sunlight, or for artistic long exposure effects)
- Transparent filters (for protecting your lens)

Mostly useless filters:
- Anti-UV/skylight and anti-IR filters (CCDs in digital cameras already have built-in filters that stop invisible parts of the spectrum)
- UV-only and IR-only filters (for the same reason, unless you have a special camera like Fuji S3 UVIR)
- Optical effect filters (the same usually can be achieved in photoshop, and the effects are mostly gay anyway)

Absolutely useless filters:
- Orange, yellow and other colored filters (if you want B&W photos, you're going to convert them using photoshop anyway. And these filters will just screw up the white balance)
>> Anonymous
>>51251
>- UV-only and IR-only filters (for the same reason, unless you have a special camera like Fuji S3 UVIR)

Really? I thought most digital cameras were capable of noticing at least some IR light, such that with a filter blocking visible light you'd get IR photos.
>> Anonymous
>>51253
The IR filter on the CCD isn't perfect, so you can get an IR photo if the exposure is very long (much longer than required for film under same conditions). That's why I listed the IR filter under "mostly useless", not "absolutely useless".
>> Anonymous
>>51254
So, with something like this, I could get photos with just IR light, assuming I had a tripod and a nice slow shutter speed?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hoya-R72-52mm-Infrared-Filter/dp/B0000AI1FZ
>> one !craoLd8Ou2
     File :-(, x)
i used a uv filter to protect my lens... look at the reflection under my left eye :(

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:29 14:17:43Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length30.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>51255
Probably yes, if you're not scared of guessing the focus and 15 second exposures.

But if you're serious about IR photography, you'd better get a film camera and some infrared-sensitive film (or a digital camera where the internal IR-UV filter is removable - I heard you can do that with Sigmas)
>> Anonymous
>>51259
> if you're not scared of guessing the focus and 15 second exposures.
I have R72. You can get acceptable results with less than 1sec exposure, handheld shots are possible.
>> Anonymous
>>51261
Wouldn't the camera sensor make a difference to how long an exposure you need too, not just the filter?
>> Anonymous
>>51267
Yes
>> Anonymous
>>51267
Sensor sensitivity AKA ISO.
>> Anonymous
>>51269
But also the IR filter in front of the sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>51269
>>51269
Not only that. Camera with a bad sensor IR filter will allow much shorter exposures than a camera with a good one. (Case in point: the internal IR filter on the sensor of Leica M8 was so faulty that IR effects were sometimes visible even at normal exposures without any filters on the lens. Drama ensued)
>> Anonymous
>>51273
And the spectrum of sensitivity of the sensor itself. There are CCDs out there for industry that extend WELL into the IR and UV spectra.
>> Anonymous
>>51275
in fact, all sensors are sensitive to infrared light, sometimes even more than to visible light. That's why they put filters on them.
>> Anonymous
>>51251

Shooting black and white (in the absence of colour) isn't the same as shooting colour and then just removing it in photoshop. Also the coloured filters you use that "fuck up the white balance" are supposed to do exactly that for black and white photos, you want to enhance or desaturate certain shades to improve the look of the black and white photo. Jesus when were you people born? the 90's? You should at least have some experience shooting black and white or have seen black and white films.
>> Anonymous
>>51286
Plz read carefully and think before you go insulting people.

B&W film records only brightness, and that's why you can mess with the shades using a colored filter.
The digital sensor, on the other hand, is made of RGB pixels and always records color information. Thus, you physically cannot shoot true B&W with a digital camera, any B&W images you get are the result of digital conversion from color to B&W in-camera or with photoshop. That's why colored filters are useless - you already can lighten or darken certain shades during this conversion stage.
>> Anonymous
Digital IR using a filter is fine, depending the camera, as previously stated, can effect how long of exposure times you get. Example with Canon 30D expect around 1second in broad daylight.

You can test your cameras IR sensitivity by playing with a remote the uses IR light to send signals to your tv. Simply compress a button and photograph the front of the front of the remote, if there's a light there bingo! Your camera has shitty IR filter making IR way easier, though it could fuck up other normal shots >_>

Another option is to get your camera converted to shot IR only. There's various websites that do it, but for most of us buying a second camera of that quality for only IR is a bit extreme.

If you have multiple sized lenses consider the Cokin filters, though i have had some glare problems with it when I have sunlight in the 11am-2pm setting.

>>51287

color filters still have their place in digital photography to give certain effects, like a red filter to darken/gradient the sky, kind of like a polarizer does but more extreme, and then you compensate for the color differences in photoshop or convert to BW

There are certain effects hard to achieve without color filters, it's just most people don't bother or poorly fake it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hoya R72 filter, bright sunlight, bit of shopping....
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
>>51512
wtf@all the chromatic aberration and terrible quality and colors and everything about the picture's quality. The picture itself is pretty good though, looks much nicer in the thumbnail.
>> Anonymous
>>51512
Cool, but needs less JPEG artifacts.

>>51542
It's taken with an IR filter, so it's supposed to have weird colors.
>> Anonymous
Skylight filters usualy add a slight color tint to remove more blue than UV filters. Since digital cameras can alter the white balance, it hardly does much. Same with Photoshop. However to get that tint, you're still removing more light.

UV filters are normally clear. But they remove a certain spectrum area of the UV segment, which may or may not have an impact on pictures. It depends on if the sensor can detect that range. Regardless, I find it helps remove more of that long distance blue haze in long distance landscape shots in bright sun than a lens without it. Hard to do that in Photoshop, and I don't really want to mess with hundreds of pictures I've taken individually.
>> Anonymous
>> 51544

Yeah, jpeg artifacts suck, they're much more evident because the picture is a combination of luminance from an IR pic (which looks like a pink stained b&w pic direct from the camera) and the chroma channel of a second jpeg of the same shot, taken without the IR filter.

If I was smart I'd have taken them both as TIFF (no RAW, cheap camera) but when I took them it was just as a before and after, i had no intention of doing any post processing or combining them.

I'll take some more, as the weather's getting warmer (need strong sunlight for IR pics with my camera unless you want to wait 16 seconds...) as soon as i find my damn charger...