DPReview TV: Do you still need camera filters for digital photography?

Ease up people. This video may not change the world of photography, but it provides good information to reinforce what most of us already know. If you don't like his style, just move on or make your own video and see what personal comments that gets.

I love your work, Chris. Thank you for another great video. There are many interesting elements in the video format not present in the reading form, and you bring out the best of those elements. Please keep up the excellent work.

I subscribe to this review to read it. I don't want to watch videos. When you have something to say, print it don't video it.

Another not covered are didymium filters out there (Hoya red intensifier for one) that strip a particular wavelength (yellow orange) from the spectrum that can't be replicated by digital manipulation. Sunglass manufacturers are increasingly using it too because it helps the red-orange and green-yellow cones in the eye differentiate reds and greens a bit better and colours pop (although I find it leaves the overall image colder). There are even some making colour blindness specs using it. Astro photographers use it too to help strip out the light pollution by sodium lights.

Subject matter aside, I really like your style, Chris—it's always a pleasure, and I consider you a major assett to DPR.

Good video on polarizing, ND, and graduated ND; but not to my liking on UV. In this video, a UV is described as being useful as a lens protector. Fine, they will do that. However, many older UV filters do have a color tint. Green, for example in Tiffen UV filters. My point is that if you want a lens protector, get a multi-coated clear lens protector, don't use some UV filter you have lying around.
While I'm on my soap box, let me comment on filters in general. I've never had a problem with reflections from an uncoated polarizing filter. Your experience may be different; but that's my experience. For UV, clear, and Skylight filters, I insist on good optical glass, multi-coated on both sides, no shiny retaining rings, blackened edges on the glass, and well blackened matte finish on the mounting ring.
Jerry

For those of us who are deaf, it's a pity that there are no subtitles.

As an Aviation Photo-journalist, I regularly get called on to shoot light propeller driven aircraft for magazine covers. When you're shooting at 1/100" or less to get nice blurred prop arcs, you end up with massive depth of field with the small apertures.

I therefore regularly have to use various ND filters to open up the aperture, narrow the depth of field so that I don't get a confusing sometimes cluttered background that detracts from the subject. Better to shoot in camera the to get the desired effect than to reply on PS. I'm old school, 'shoot in camera and do the minimum in PS just to enhance, not alter'.

Favorite filter of all time: R72 infrared. I still remember the excitement first time I shot infrared on a 5mp Sony 717, which had the IR pass filter from the factory!

IR photography is like looking into the upside down sometime, for Stranger Things fans out there. It can be a pain to get your ND + R72 filter combo right, it requires long exposures and post can be a PITA. But once you pass that learning curve and it starts clicking, you develop your own style and marvel at the results.

Good video but additionally: some filters are just plain fun and can do fun things to your images, and why not use them? I have an old Star filter I use on occasion, and have real fun telling people with a straight face no I did not do this in Photoshop.

Great video! Thanks!

Not touched on here, but I still think one of the best uses for ND Filter/Filter systems is for portrait and fashion photography to be able to slow down the shutter speed, open the lens up and mix nicely with flash.

Everybody forgets that UV/Clear filter's are also used for weather sealing, both Canon and Nikon have admitted they need to be in place to complete the weather sealing of a lens. Now obviously on higher end super-tele zooms or primes they are not needed, but Nikon at least does include one in a drop-in filter that's technically a lens element in the optical formula. I only own use Nikon Clear filter's and they are great, no image degrading and really well built, great optical glass. I'd rather get dust, debris, oil and water on my filter than the front element. I can replace a filter after a year or two of use and meanwhile I've never touched my front element. Had cleaned my front element a hundred times, that will take off some of the coatings and or scratch the lens, etc. I do own and love the Polar Pro CP filter's and also I own a Nikon drop-in CP for my 400mm f2.8E VR FL.

I use the Megabux variable circular polarising shitot filter. Guaranteed to make every picture shi... well, very good. It actually does nothing, but makes you think it does.

I'm kind of surprised only the basic old filters seem to be discussed, colours, ND's, pols. There are new filters designed for specific tasks that have very selective wavelength attentuation (expensive though) that might find a place in general photography.

Lens Hood Only....Like the Digital Gods intended!

I have been a photographer for over 50 years and create technical training videos for online courses for a large university. This is a particularly nice introductory piece, informative, quick and right to the point. The inevitable polemics in these comments are totally out of place. Good job Chris and Co.

Chris mentions using UV filters just to protect the front element of the lens from damage. Another slightly less expensive option is to use clear filters, which don't affect the image at all (assuming they're good quality and have an anti-reflective coating).

I would only use a UV filter if I was concerned about dust or salt water or something hitting the lens. Like if I was shooting a protest. Otherwise they are just another piece of glass in the light path. I feel they can interfere with AF.

Another example the wrong use for video. You don't need a video to review still images! This should a written illustrated article not an ego trip!

Sony had some nice apps in their older alpha-cams, especially a digital ND-filter that combines multiple exposures to a RAW-file or a similar app that substitutes a grad-filter.

As I moved on to a new A7iii I had to get all these filters in real life again because they abandoned the apps..

I use CPLs for water surface and sky, and its the only filter I've ever missed having on or properly adjusted when an image gets to post processing (for me the acid test.)

Here's another very important use case for ND filters. Well, at least for me.

Keeping exposure time long enough for portraits to shoot outside with flash and big aperture.

I use a polarizer mostly when on vacation in summer with my kids. It can help reduce highlights or even prevent clipping in harsh lighting. That's especially true for highlights on glossy faces with sun cream. :-) Sure a sunbounce and / or flash would do an even better job, but I only want to take very essential gear with me on vacation and a polarizer does virtually not take up any additional space.

I'm slightly surprised about the infrared filters not being mentioned. While you can create a similar'ish look in post processing, it will not be exactly the same as what the sensor captures when you filter out most or all of the visible light.

I'm not sure that I agree with your comments on UV filters. Personally, I use one of SIGMA's clear ceramic protecter filters on my lenses - especially the more expensive ones.
That said, I do have UVs on the cheaper lenses - for the same reason. As you yourself say, while they might be considered "unnecessary", they are a LOT cheaper than buying a new lens.
Ignoring all of that. though - I have found in some situations that a UV will enhance skies. I haven't logged it or studied it , so I can't give more detail of what sort of sky it works on. But it does seem to work on digital sensors, somehow, sometimes.
And while I like the idea of SOOC and "capturing what we SEE", not what we can create by photoshopping our images, there's nothing worse to deal with during printing than a weak sky!
(Of course we can also go to the "correct filter" and put the polariser on instead - LOL)

1- I bought some vintage beauty filters recently. B+W, hoya and tiffen ones. Nice and cheap nowadays. They produce physical effects, not digital. But I have to admit that with a program, I have adjustment options.
2- I have a "protector" (not UV) filter to protect the front element. I prefer not use the UV filter to let the UV ray cross the lens elements and prevent the growth of fungus.
Does this make sense?

I tested cheap vs expensive filters and I feel scammed I bought the expensive ones first. The ones I tested are UV and CPL filters, with the expensive being more than 10 times the price of the cheap one. Filters manufacturers have just done clever marketing convincing photographers to get an expensive filter with their brand on it.

ND and especially polarizers can't be done in post. Polarizing filters can remove reflections from water and windows.

ND filters are essential for video. Many higher-end video cameras have a selectable or variable ND filter built into the body.

A significant amount of motion blur is necessary to preserve the illusion of continuous motion. While the shutter speed can be as fast as 1/8000 second in a Sony A7xxx or FS5, much faster than 1/120 second results in an annoying stroboscopic effect. 80% of my video is shot with the lens wide open, to isolate the subject from the background. That's difficult outdoors without an ND filter.

Stacking exposures produces a similar effect on moving water for still photography. While a 1/8 second or longer exposure for a waterfall requires a tripod, you can use nearly any shutter speed, handheld, with exposure stacking.

Aurora HD software does an exceptional job stacking exposures for either motion or HDR effects. Remember to turn the motion reduction option off.

The best filter I 've ever used on all my cameras is a lens cap. The consistency is simply nonpareil.

I think many people's photography would greatly improve if they wore eyeglasses with ND30 filters built in.

of course ... especially if you survey the skies for ufos

Yes, maybe less than before, but they are still very much needed.

Worst thing Sony did was remove their apps. The Smooth Reflections and Grad ND apps were better than any filter. It was amazing.

Chris! You shine so bright I need an ND filter just to watch your videos! (Jordan - you're a grad ND - mostly because you're so tall ;-) )

I use a polarizer often, mainly to increase the saturated look of vegetation.

UV filters also serve the function to complete the weather resistance of many lenses. I generally suffer the two stops and just keep a polarizer on for this (since things are generally wet and reflective in that situation anyway).

NDs do a better job smoothing erratic behavior in long exposures. Stacking multiple shorter captures can make vegetation on the edge of a waterfall appear to jump around. YMMV.

IR, narrowband, and sky glow filters are also not replaceable with digital means, but are obviously niche.

Not everything can be faked ;)

Got f/1.2 lenses? You’ll “need” an ND2 or ND4 to shoot wide open outdoors in bright light with it. Without an ND your camera simply can’t set a fast enough shutter speed.

Thanks Chris, but for videos like this, publishing in such high resolution on YouTube is a pain in the neck.
Playback is extremely slow, bandwidth hogger, and very sluggish, especially nowadays with people working from home.
I would be happy to watch it in 720, or even in 480 resolution.
Please consider that.