FLD Filter

<p>Some time ago, I purchased a set of filters from Tiffen. Comes with Circular Polarizer, UV, and FL-D. I know that the FL-D is for eliminating the greenish tint from daylight fluorescent lights. But was this more the case for film? I'm shooting with a Canon T1i, and often shoot RAW, but for no-frills web content, I use jpegs, which I can adjust my WB to what works best. Any reason I need to carry around the FL-D filter? I only carry it around cuz it's already in the filter pouch that came with the set, and having a lack of a better place to store it.</p>

<p> You should not use the FL-D filter with a digital camera. You can easily compensate the white balance, either by setting "fluorescent" or (better) by shooting a custom white balance. The FL-D filter will do the same thing on a digital camera that it did with film. But it'll cost you a stop or two (don't remember) in light loss.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>There are enough different varieties of fluorescent light anyway, that back in film days even the filter makers acknowledged that this was just "improving a little" rather than really "correcting".</p>

<p>Digital really doesn't need this at all. At worst, you can just use AWB and fix it in post processing, and if the results are critical, you can always set the WB on the spot for the particular existing lighting.<br>

However, as I understand it, a main problem with fluorescent is not that it has a "green" bias, so much as certain parts of the spectrum may be just plain missing altogether.</p>

<p>FWIW, You can subtract part of the light spectrum (aka: color filter) before the sensor. That will cost you f-stop. You can subtract color post process. That will cost you bits (aka: color resolution). If you shoot RAW or use custom WB, you have some bit to spare. If you shoot JPEG, you already start out with barely enough bits. Go ahead, subtract more, your call :-)</p>