"Warm up" by white balancing or post-processing instead. Colored filters just make mayhem with the camera's white balance, cause flare spots, and can cause the channels to blow out unnecessarily. They're just not suitable for use in digital photography, apart from a very few very specialized situations..

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

I agree. The onyl filter I use now is a polarising one..

You can acheive mostt hings in post processing using something like ps elements - and you'll save a bundle of money and have the chance to play with filters at your leisure without hurting the original image...

AdrianGB wrote:.

I agree. The onyl filter I use now is a polarising one..

You can acheive mostt hings in post processing using something likeps elements - and you'll save a bundle of money and have the chanceto play with filters at your leisure without hurting the originalimage..

Consider Paint Shop Pro instead of Elements for that purpose if you dont want to spend the big bucks for Photoshop. One of the things they left out of Elements is the ability to make an action you can bulk run. Scripts (same as Photoshop actions) in PSP is well designed and easy to use. Once you find exactly the warming you want to use it can be bulk applied rather than having to apply it to each image individually..

The CD-only versions of PSP on Ebay are the full program and can be registered with Corel. Just make sure it is a Corel CD and not a rip-off. You can get the latest version for under thirty bucks...

From everything that I have read you should do everything you can to make the initial shot correct and spend less time in PP. I have PSE5 and am starting to use it, novie at this point. How long would it take in PSE5 to make the necessary adjustments, on average since nothing is standard...

Flash64 wrote:.

From everything that I have read you should do everything you canto make the initial shot correct and spend less time in PP. I havePSE5 and am starting to use it, novie at this point. How longwould it take in PSE5 to make the necessary adjustments, on averagesince nothing is standard..

That's certainly a good ethic to follow. Even still doing so doesn't have to entail placing a warming or cooling filter in front of the lens. These filters were designed for use with daylight balanced panchromatic film ie; limited to 5500 deg. kelvin, or essentially the average color balance found around noontime on a sunny day while standing in the front lawn of Kodak's headquarters in Rochester, NY..

Since your digital camera has a variable white balance, you could simply dial in a slightly lower kelvin value to warm things up a bit or use a few other tricks like shooting with a Cloudy - minus WB on a sunny day, taking a manual white balance off of a slightly "bluish" reference, etc. Naturally, shooting RAW files will give you some extra freedom for fine tuning color corrections after the fact if necessary..

Adjusting the WB has additional benefits due to the fact that unlike panchromatic film digital sensors are divided into fairly discreet Red, Green, and Blue elements (usually). Each group will have a differing response to the filter which can lead to a host of new, albeit relatively subtle problems..

As for post processing, PSE and similar editors often provide a digital means of duplicating the effects of CC filters such as the 81A/81B. These digital filters also allow you to adjust the intensity of the effect for added flexibility..

But, if you just have to get that glass, the 81A would likely be your best choice overall. The 81B tends to be a little too heavy handed unless you're going for an especially dramatic effect..

Have fun!.

'Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!'.

Tom Younghttp://www.pbase.com/tyoung/..

...and, in fact, the only situation in which you might want to use a color-correcting filter is under incandescent light, and then only if you have the luxury of shooting off a tripod. That kind of lighting requires quite a dramatic shift in white balance, which will visibly increase noise in the blue channel while risking blowing out the red one. Using a blue filter under these conditions will balance out the channels..

However, if you're shooting hand-held, there's no point even then you'll have to increase ISO to keep shutter speeds under control, which means that the filter will simply bring up the noise in all channels to the same level as you would get only in the blue channel if you shot without one..

Again, for digital photography forget color-correction filters..

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

When I bought my filters I only wanted to buy 1 warm up filter and I went for the 81B, this is the 'middle' of the three. It doesn't appear to be too strong for me, although it's personal preference..

I am a capable manipulator of Photoshop but very rarely use it for anything other than the most basic of functions, cropping resizing etc. I use it because I want to. I don't particularly want to spend hours in front of my monitor faffing about, although some people enough this. So on the odd occasion that I want to use it for anything other than basic stuff, I'll use it to change a sky for a better one, or convert to B&W, duotones etc..

I know it's a bit of a cliche, but I enjoy faffing about with filters at the point of capture much more than faffing about on photoshop..

Richie..

...but that still doesn't mean that faffing about with filters works better..

(Applying a warming filter effect in Photoshop takes all of three mouse-clicks. Four if you want to pick which one to use.).

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

I gotta agree, not to mention PS will give you control over how much warming to add. Can't do that with a filter..

Mark..

Petteri Sulonen wrote:.

...but that still doesn't mean that faffing about with filtersworks better..

I'm not saying it's better, merely that I prefer mucking about with my camera rather than mucking about on the computer. It's just personal preference..

As I mentioned before, I do use Photoshop but mostly when I only want to do something that would otherwise be difficult to replicate 'in camera' such as swapping skies etc..

The thread was leaning towards the 'don't use filters' side of things, was merely trying to balance things out .

Richie..

Trickypl4 wrote:.

... I prefer mucking about withmy camera rather than mucking about on the computer. It's justpersonal preference..

....

The thread was leaning towards the 'don't use filters' side ofthings, was merely trying to balance things out .

This isn't about balance, or preference, it's about a right and a wrong way of doing things. Any coloured filter on a digital camera simply removes valuable data that you can never get back. Add to that the fact that (in all but the most limited and contrived circumstances) the filters don't even work as intended, and you have a technique that cannot be recommended...

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

This isn't about balance, or preference, it's about a right and awrong way of doing things. Any coloured filter on a digital camerasimply removes valuable data that you can never get back. Add tothat the fact that (in all but the most limited and contrivedcircumstances) the filters don't even work as intended, and youhave a technique that cannot be recommended..

The original question wasn't, "Should I use a filter," it was, "Which filter," the answers the OP was given were advising him not to use filters. My original reply was to try and answer his original question, which I thought I did..

With regards to removing valuable data you can never get back I disagree. If you use a graduated neutral density filter/s then you retain valuable data in the sky which otherwise would have been lost without one. Then it wouldn't matter how much PP you do, if there is absolutely no detail in the sky you'll never get it back..

Anything that can help you obtain the desired effect should be used and encouraged in my opinion..

Like I mentioned before, I use filters, I use Photoshop. I would also smear a filter/lense with jam or peanut butter if I got the effect I was after..

I never thought people would get so upset about something so silly. It's almost as bad as the Canon vs Nikon debate. Yawn..

Best Regards.

Richie..

Trickypl4 wrote:.

The original question wasn't, "Should I use a filter," it was,"Which filter," the answers the OP was given were advising him notto use filters..

Don't let being angry with me get in the way of your ability to read. The OP asked which WARM UP filter. To which the answer, quite correctly, was "don't use one"..

My original reply was to try and answer hisoriginal question, which I thought I did..

Yes but your answer cannot be recommended..

With regards to removing valuable data you can never get back Idisagree. If you use a graduated neutral density filter/s then youretain valuable data in the sky which otherwise would have beenlost without one..

As I have already said once, don't let your anger cloud your ability to read. I specifically said COLOURED filters..

Then it wouldn't matter how much PP you do, ifthere is absolutely no detail in the sky you'll never get it back..

Three filters are definitely suitable for use on digital cameras - ND filters to force a long exposure; graduated ND filters for the reason you give (but multiple exposures and Photoshop can do more); and of course polarisers..

A few more still have a place - such as special effects filters like starburst, if you like that sort of thing!.

But that's not what we were asked about...

Firstly, can I say that I'm not angry at all. With you or anyone else for that matter. I don't do anger, haven't got time for it..

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my ability to read, thank you..

Lastly, I was trying to *help*, if you or anyone else wants to disagree with me then that's fine, not a problem. I'm not worried or concerned and I'm certainly not going to get upset about it..

It would seem that my answers and genuinely helpful nature has caused offence on this subject, so I shall make no further comment.

All the Best.

Richie..

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

[snip].

A few more still have a place - such as special effects filterslike starburst, if you like that sort of thing!.

Also infrared and didymium, if you're into *that* sort of thing..

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

That's the Net for ya. I certainly wasn't upset about your preference nor your helpful offer of advice; indeed the case for "no filters" was made so there was a place for the "filters" case as well..

But the fact still remains that your use of colored filters to tone digital photos is quirky: it will give you sub-optimal results, less control over the outcome, it's more work, and it's more expensive. Perhaps in the future you might want to tone down your advice with something like "You don't really *need* to use colored filters for digital photography since you can replicate the effect in post-processing, but if you *want* to, here's what I do.".

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

Trickypl4 wrote:.

It would seem that my answers and genuinely helpful nature hascaused offence on this subject, so I shall make no further comment.

I have no problem with any kind of discussion/disagreement over technique - on the contrary, that's what forums like this thrive on. But what you did was to misrepresent what had been said, and when I joined the discussion your response was:.

I never thought people would get so upset about something so silly.It's almost as bad as the Canon vs Nikon debate. Yawn..

That takes the discussion into a whole different area - you can't win the debate on technical grounds so instead you mock the people who have disagreed with you..

As for your assertion that it is "silly" - well, not if you're a beginner reading this thread who spends money on coloured filters on your advice then wonders why they don't work properly. When they could have achieved the same effect with more control using the software that, in many cases, they already own...

Petteri Sulonen wrote:.

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

[snip].

A few more still have a place - such as special effects filterslike starburst, if you like that sort of thing!.

Also infrared and didymium, if you're into *that* sort of thing..

What does a didymium filter do, photographically (I know it absobs yellow around 589nm)? Can't you simulate that in Photoshop?.

And speaking of infrared and Photoshop, I read that Photoshop CS3 has an infrared filter effect. How can that be any good? There isn't any IR information to extract in the first place..

Leonard Migliore..

Leonard Migliore wrote:.

[snip].

What does a didymium filter do, photographically (I know it absobsyellow around 589nm)? Can't you simulate that in Photoshop?.

Makes the reds and browns go ape without touching the blues. Try it on a "fall colors" or a "Grand Canyon" type of scene. You can get close in Photoshop, but not exactly..

I've never used one in anger, although I did play with one back when I was in a camera club..

And speaking of infrared and Photoshop, I read that Photoshop CS3has an infrared filter effect. How can that be any good? Thereisn't any IR information to extract in the first place..

Exactly; it's pseudo-infrared. Something that looks like an IR photo but isn't really..

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..