Can I use a Nikon A2 warming filter with digital?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>What happens when a lens is used with this filter on a digital slr? I want to get one for my film camera. I also want to try it out on digital but I'd like to find out if it is compatible and what the results might be.</p>

[peter_doucette]

<p>There is no reason that it would not be compatible, but it would not have any effect unless you set your white balance, and did not change it in post processing. If used with Auto White Balance, you would probably see no effect at all.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>You can use it. But along the lines of what Peter said, don't use AWB and don't do any custom white balance after putting the filter on or the camera will see the warmness of the filter as a mistake and "correct" it back to neutral.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>It's likely you can achieve the same or "better" results using any of the common post processing programs and will also have the flexibility of adjusting or eliminating the effect should you choose. I won't get into the "protective" filter debate but using any colored filter on a digital camera is more limiting than anything else. Also, I agree with Craig about AWB. Good luck.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just for completeness, I'll point out that it's possible to get specific effects with external colour filters on a DSLR. The colour filters built into the sensor are each a specific colour, and let through a specific range of light. This means that that the camera has a specific interpretation of what constitutes "red", "blue" and "green" from which to generate all its other colours. There are times when this interpretation isn't quite what you want, which is one reason that bluebells usually come out of a digital camera "not looking right". (It's also why some lighting comes out green if you're not careful.)<br />

<br />

With very specific colour filtering, you can adjust this effect a bit. But the previous posts are quite correct - it's not normally worth the trouble, since you can adjust the colours digitally. The same applies to film, if you're scanning the results, though you can sometimes be more limited by the dynamic range of the film than a modern digital sensor (depending on the film and the scanner).<br />

<br />

An exception is when there is a really strong colour cast in the scene. For example, if you're under candle light, chances are that everything in the scene is very orange. You can adjust this after the fact, but it's likely that the blue channel (which wasn't getting much light) will be very noisy from being underexposed. If you increase the exposure to stop blue being noisy, you're likely to saturate the red channel (which is getting much more light). Therefore one could argue for doing at least coarse colour correction using a filter - in this case, a blue filter (such as a strong tungsten filter) would stop the red channels from clipping and let you have a more balanced exposure.<br />

<br />

However, the dynamic range of modern cameras is such that it's relatively rare that it's worth bothering with this. Though I've shot under candles enough that I sometimes wish I'd remembered.<br />

<br />

One other case: there are times when what you might want to look at is not handled by the standard filters. One example is infrared photography. Most cameras are slightly sensitive to infrared light (even though they have a filter to block it). You can put an external filter on the camera to block the visible light, letting only infrared through; you're fighting the internal infrared filter with this, so the result is usually not very sensitive (you can modify the camera to remove the internal filter, which helps), but it does allow you to shoot infrared light. The same can apply to ultraviolet photography.<br />

<br />

I hope my pedantry hasn't caused confusion... Summary: Colour filters <i>can</i> have an effect, but a mild filter is generally not worth the effort.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you haven't already got a polarising filter Mark, then get one of those before an A2. The effect of the A2 can easily be reproduced digitally - in fact some of Nikon's DSLRs have a WB shift in the blue or amber direction built in. Whereas the effect of a polariser is difficult or impossible to reproduce in post.</p>

<p>As others have already said. If you use AWB, then the effect of a filter like an A2 will be pretty much cancelled out by the camera. And using a WB setting like "Cloudy", "Shade" or "Flash" will often warm the colour balance nicely without use of a filter. While shooting RAW lets you choose almost any colour balance you like within reason.</p>

<p>FWIW; I see many (dull looking) sunsets that appear to have been taken on AWB. Aaaaargh! What a mistake to make. AWB tends to integrate all colours in the image to a neutral grey, and that's the last thing you want with a sunset scene. Sunsets should nearly always be taken with the "Daylight" WB setting, or of course using the "Sunset" scene mode.</p>

<p>Edit. Re the merits of using filters with a digital camera: Most cameras have a lower limit to their WB in that they can't cope with very cool colour temperatures (< 2500K) - candlelight for example. In this case a blue CT filter can help a lot, although the loss of ISO speed may well be the deciding factor as to its worth.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>In addition to all of the above great comments, which I agree with, I often use a warming filter for landscape shooting with wide angle lenses to make the sky a richer or darker blue. The WB setting is set to Daylight or Cloudy depending on the situation. With a warming filter, the enhancement to the sky is even across the whole sky. I prefer to do things like this in the camera instead of in post processing. I do not use a polarizer for this effect in that with wide angle lenses, the effect can be uneven across the whole sky. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>WRT the merits of a polarising filter: Personally, I think the effect on a blue sky is one of the least interesting uses of a polariser. Its ability to take the surface shine off foliage can be much more dramatic, and can really "pop" the colour of grass, flowers, fruits and trees when set to the appropriate angle. The same goes for glossy painted surfaces. You can also control the reflections from water to make it darker, more transparent etc. All of these things just cannot be done with any other filter or in post-processing.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>White Balance replaces any and all color correction filters.</p>

<p>Polarizers - I rarely use them anymore, probably only a few times per year. I did an exercise where I look at a couple hundred of my favorite photos, and I counted the number that had been shot with a polarize. The total was ZERO. That convinced me.</p>

<p>Occasionally, it's worth using a polarizer, but you aren't going to miss many opportunities if you don't have one. I found that I used it as a way of trying to make bad light look like better light. Now, I'd rather just look around until I find some better light. My two cents. Your mileage may vary.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>White balance lets you adjust exposure in the same way that adjusting ISO lets you adjust exposure (or more specifically, how adjusting exposure in raw editing adjusts exposure - there's no amplifier involvement, AFAIK). With modern cameras, that's very good. But you're still getting noise when you amplify a channel, and risking clipping if you have to underexpose a channel. This doesn't stop it being good enough for almost every purpose, but it would be wrong to say the result is completely equivalent - just as a good dynamic range and Photoshop are not quite a perfect replacement for an ND grad.<br />

<br />

If you're after an interesting effect, you might like to consider something like a yellow/blue polarizer. I've used them on rare occasions to make a dull day look more interesting. The bright colours tend to burn the eyes out a bit if you're using Velvia, though. I concede that I don't use polarizers ofter (probably not as often as I should), but they're certainly something that digital doesn't replicate easily in software.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>White balance lets you adjust exposure in the same way that adjusting ISO lets you adjust exposure (or more specifically, how adjusting exposure in raw editing adjusts exposure - there's no amplifier involvement, AFAIK).</blockquote>

 

<p>Predictably, the moment I write that in public I discover it's untrue. I've just been reading Thom Hogan's D2x review (I was bored) and there's specific mention that the white balance is corrected in the per-channel amplifiers to limit noise. Presumably that means the white balance affects the raw file (more than just influencing the meter). As far as I know, this isn't common in other cameras, but I'm prepared to be wrong again.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Film lenses used with digital will not have the same effect as they do with film. Sensitivities of digital sensors are a lot different that those of film, and you can change the color temperature (white balance) at will. Your warming or cooling filters are used with film to adapt the color temperature of the scene to the film's sensitivities.</p>

<p>For the same reason, filters used in black and white photography (25A, K2, G0, etc.) <em>cannot</em> be used with digital to get the same effects they do with black and white film, even if you have the camera in the "monochrome" mode. The sensor will <em>still</em> see everything in color and the internal software will convert it to black and white.</p>