What Filters Do I Need for My Digital Cameras?

I have thought much about this topic the past few weeks. I have heard countless digital photographers say there is not a need for filters anymore, because the desired effects can just be edited on the computer in post-processing. Some traditional folks take it too far the other way and say that filters must be applied to the original shot and cannot be created in a computer.

I land in the middle of that debate. Some filters cannot be replaced and change the photo in such a way that would take days in the computer, if even possible in the first place. Other filters are pretty much pointless.

There is no need, that I can see, for any color filters of any kind. In the film days, we needed color filters to correct for white balance issues. In these wonderful digital days, adding any one color or another is easily done in computer editing.

Color filters were also applied to film (black and white as well as color films) to enhance contrast or to bring out certain shades. And eys, the color makes a huge difference in black and white photography. Now, though, we are no longer stuck with the one color filter of the film days, but can work with different colors on any one photograph…impossible with black and white film.

So, what filters do we need? I go nowhere without a circ-polar (circular polarization) filter. It is great for bright days. You can control what surfaces have glare and reflections (moving the glare from one surface to another), bring out the greens in foliage, bring out a deeper blue from the sky, and much more. The control over color intensity and reflective surfaces with circ-polar filter cannot be manipulated in a computer. Period.

Honestly, that was my list of necessary filters up until a couple days ago, a list of one. This topic came up on the Tips from the Top Floor photography podcast. They suggested a circ-polar filter and graduated neutral density filters. Neutral density does not add any color (thus the name “neutral”), but simply controls the brightness of a photo.

A graduated neutral density means that the lens shifts from dark to clear, gray on one side and clear on the other, with a gradual shift from one side to the other. For example, this will cut back the brightness of the sky and bring it closer to equal with the non-sky portion of a photograph.

I see a problem with this, though. Sure, it is helpful, but it assumes one kind of photograph (as far as I can see): sky above and ground below. What if I took a vertical shot? With standard screw on filters, you are out of luck. Then, I found Cokin filters. They slide into a rotate-able filter mount on the end of your lens. Therefore, you can easily rotate the filter to any position you want, incredibly increasing creative possibilities. That makes sense to me. Plus, the Cokin system makes it easy for the photographer to use multiple filters or homemade filters (think vignettes).

I recently read an article on L7 Photo which mentioned neutral density filters as well, non-graduated, that is. Basically, if you want a slower shutter speed and the situation is too bright to do so, a neutral density filter will just darken things up for you. I guess I could go for that. It makes sense.

And now we come to the third filter suggestion: UV filter. I had a post not too long ago about using the UV filter as a protection for the lens. Basically, the story goes like this: it protects the lens in case of dropping the camera, people would rather clean a filter than a lens, and supposedly cutting the UV light cuts haze out of the photo.

Glass itself cuts some UV light. And for those who have not noticed, the lens is made up of several pieces of glass. So, you have quite a bit of protection there. If you want to know more about the technical aspects and what UV is really making it through and if it matters, read Bob Atkins’s article about it the affects of UV on photography. However, (it was the first time I heard this) the Tips from the Top Floor podcast said that digital camera sensors also have a UV cutting filter directly in front of the sensor. I do not know if those UV filters over the sensors cut the bandwidth which the glass misses, but it would be nice to know.

If you just want to protect your lens element, there is something to say for that. However, I would think a lens cap could do about the same thing. Maybe a lens hood? The hood would improve your photos anyway, cutting stray light from the sides and improving color and contrast, and give you a good gap of space to protect against bumps or drops.

And as for cleaning, not wanting to scratch the protective coating on the lens, well, the coating on the lens is very durable, chemically and physically, more so than a filter. Having worn glasses for most of my life, I realize that I do not scratch them if I just use the right materials to clean them. Same with that lens; use a proper cloth, lens paper, or a lens cleaning solution.

I still have a UV filter, but that is not because I am afraid of scratching the lens, trying to cut UV, or need to protect my lens from a fall. Basically, I find it a lot easier to clean that flat filter than digging down around the rounded lens element and all the grooves in there. It is all about ease of use. Though, the more I think about how silly that sounds, I want to take that filter off and just buy a little bulb blower. I already have the UV filters though. If I were starting from the beginning, I might not have bought them.

I would suggest a lens cap to protect against a fall or bump, a circ-polar filter for any situation that has sunlight, a neutral density filter if you need to darken shots without affecting the color, a graduated neutral density filter if you need to darken skies without darkening everything else, and UV filter if you cannot think of a better way to clean your lens.