malkav
Lifetime Member
Posts: 132
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 0:32:33 GMT -5
Post by malkav on Jun 29, 2008 0:32:33 GMT -5
Howdy, I wanted to ask if there is a differerence in filters for digital and film cameras? I would think that there wouldn't be, but nowadays you can't tell anymore.
Thanks,
Ed
|
|
Andrew
Lifetime Member
Posts: 243
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 9:55:40 GMT -5
Post by Andrew on Jun 29, 2008 9:55:40 GMT -5
I dont really shoot digital Ed but i would of thought there is little need for filters on a digital camera. with a few exception such as the Leica M8 requires and infared filter to get the best out of it because they forgot to factor that in to the system in the design stage as every other manufacturure already has (even cheap point and shoot cameras mind you!)...the results with those is the blacks in some pictures renders as purple without the use of the filter.
however because the filter of whatever colour affects the spectrum of light hitting the film (whether b/w or colour) in a different way it gives you the different results you are aware of with the particular film you are using.
i would think this is unessary with a digital camera as these filter effects can be applied in/on the computer screen.
the over simplified way I look at film v digital is with film one works out what effect one wants before taking the shot; thus the bulk of the work is done before, but with digital most of the work is done later on the computer
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 14:08:57 GMT -5
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 29, 2008 14:08:57 GMT -5
Ed,
I really don't know but you have made me curious. Off the top of my shiny head though I should think that colour filters would lend their colour to the image and neutral density filters would lengthen the exposure as they do with film. I am really curious about polarizing filters and infrared filters. I don't have any infrared but I shall report on polarizers' affects as soon as I can find the right size adapters.
Mickey
|
|
malkav
Lifetime Member
Posts: 132
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 14:34:18 GMT -5
Post by malkav on Jun 29, 2008 14:34:18 GMT -5
Reason I'm asking is, I found some filters that said digital camera filter on the package. I was wanting to use them on my film cameras, but if there is a difference then I'll save my money.
Ed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 17:44:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2008 17:44:17 GMT -5
UV filers have little effect on digital cameras because they already have UV filters on their sensors. But it won't hurt to use a UV on a digital to protect the lens. front element.
|
|
jack
Senior Member
Posts: 76
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 17:54:28 GMT -5
Post by jack on Jun 29, 2008 17:54:28 GMT -5
ED The polarizer, UV and Nuetral Density filters are used on digital cameras because thier effects can not be dulicated on a computer. The UV filters remove eccessive haze or blue from photo taken over water or at higher elevations, and the polarizer reduces reflection and darken skies, ND filter behave the same and mainly allow you to use larger f-stop to decrease depth of field. These effects can not be done on a computer after the fact for the UV and polarizer and with allot of work for the ND filter espicialy the grad nd which is used to shorten the brightness range between horizons and foreground. The digital filter are suppose to be a better filter because digital cameras are more prone to ghosting due to reflection from the filter or lens surfaces, these filter are supposed to have better coatings to reduce this.
These filters will be fine for film, if the price is cheap enough. Good Digital filter are usually are more expensive the film filters.
Jack
|
|
jack
Senior Member
Posts: 76
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 18:06:32 GMT -5
Post by jack on Jun 29, 2008 18:06:32 GMT -5
Wayne, if I am not mistaken the filter is a infrared filter not a UV filter in front of the sensor. This is required because the sensor are highly sensitive to IR. Some companies are offering conversation to IR by removing the manufactures filter and replacing it with a filter to block the normal light range.
Jack
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Filters
Jun 29, 2008 22:51:36 GMT -5
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 29, 2008 22:51:36 GMT -5
" Good Digital filter are usually are more expensive the film filters."
Why?
How do they differ?
Mickey
|
|
Andrew
Lifetime Member
Posts: 243
|
Filters
Jun 30, 2008 1:32:39 GMT -5
Post by Andrew on Jun 30, 2008 1:32:39 GMT -5
ah yes i forgot about the polarizer..that one may be of use for reflections of course, there are prob a couple of others that may not be able to replicated on the computer but i cant think of them at the moment i cant see a ND being really needed as such with a modern digital camera as they would all most likely have very high shutter speeds....i use the ND often with todays high film speeds and yesterdays slow shutters to acheive a fast aperature but is there really any need for them now with 1/8000.
every time we add a filter it introduces more chance of mis-directed light (flare) but sometimes our lenses are so expensive we like to place a UV filter on for protection with the very slight risk (with todays multi coated lenes) of it having a negative affect on the image (todays coating and glass i beleive are meant to do the job of a UV filter that helped more with older lenses). a good filter is more costly because of its glass/quality and possible coating to overcome any wondering light...maybe a filter for 'digital' is of this higher quality ..or could it be a marketing tool!
|
|
|
Filters
Jun 30, 2008 4:50:30 GMT -5
Post by davesworld on Jun 30, 2008 4:50:30 GMT -5
I'm afraid I can't add anything but to say this a great thread Dave
|
|
|
Filters
Jun 30, 2008 8:46:35 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Jun 30, 2008 8:46:35 GMT -5
I have even seen tripods marked as being for digital. I don't think it makes a difference for tripods or filters and is just a marketing ploy. Just my 2 cents worth.
Bob
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Filters
Jun 30, 2008 9:32:39 GMT -5
Post by PeterW on Jun 30, 2008 9:32:39 GMT -5
I agree that this is a very interesting thread. Using filters with digital cameras is a far more complicated subject than using them with film. If you Google for 'filters digital cameras' you find some very erudite websites about the subject, and the effect of filters on the sensor, much of it way beyond my knowledge of filters.
I used to experiment with filters a lot when I was using mainly black and white film, and with a panchromatic film the principle was quite simple: a filter lightens its own colour and darkens its complimentary colour. For example, a yellow filter lightens yellows and darkens blues, which made a yellow filter probably the most popular, usually for bringing out clouds by darkening the blue sky. If you want to know which colour is complimentary to which, ask a search engine for 'colour wheel'. Colours opposite each other on the wheel are complimentary.
When I changed to mainly colour film I stopped using coloured filters because I found they tended to give an overall colour cast. The only filter I used most of the time was a UV, partly because it protected the lens and made little or no difference to most pictures except beach and other scenes by the coast where it helped to cut down the extra blue light. I also used a polarising filter at times, the type where you rotate it and see what's happening in the viewfinder, mostly to reduce unwanted reflections, though I also found it acted a little like a variable yellow filter in some scenes.
I haven't got a high megapixel digital SLR yet, my little Epson is only 2.1 megapixels, and the only filter I've used with that is a UV, for much the same reasons I used one with colour film.
Yes, I find I can reproduce quite a few filter effects, except polarising, in colour pictures, either film or digital, using PS, and playing with saturation, hue and lightness in the various channels using RGB, and using CMY for colour balance. This is much easier than using lens filters in colour pictures, either film or digital, because I can see the result immediately and don't have to learn all the theory. You can't reproduce filter effects with black and white film in PS because you haven't got any colour to play with.
PeterW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Filters
Jun 30, 2008 9:39:21 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2008 9:39:21 GMT -5
Yes, Digital cameras have IR filters built into the sensors but it is my understanding the UV also is filtered-- to a degree at least. See the fifth post on this thread. photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00PtJP
|
|
Andrew
Lifetime Member
Posts: 243
|
Filters
Jun 30, 2008 11:59:34 GMT -5
Post by Andrew on Jun 30, 2008 11:59:34 GMT -5
hehe Bob that is an incredible example, what would possibly be the advantage (though i leave myself open to any information). if one sat their digital camera on a rock or kitchen table (or tripod) how does that differ in support of the camera to a film camera; unles the digitals nowadays all have different threads to mount the camera. surely they cant be pretentending to factor in the crop factor.
as i say i dont shoot digital yet (hey i like film and the cameras still, not to say i wouldnt like a digital, but just havent found ine i liked yet) but i have always kept myself resonably up to par with how they work (in the hope that one day soon they will shoot like a film camera, not an argument, just my comfy way of shooting) but i cant say that day is arriving for me soon, tho i have been tempted.
however getting back to the OP Topic on filters, i am still at a loss to know why one would need them (in general terms---) with using a digital camera unless a particular brand of camera ergo CCd had a problem with rendering colours correctly; which means in colour or black and white ..as digital works out colours/shades of b/w simulary as C41 b/w film does and simply needs those same adjustments which are easily manipulated in PS
i try and keep things basic...famous last words...but the way i see it from my experiance which i am certain many have more is ..:simply with b/w film its easy to stick with yellows through to the reds including oranges as they have the effects you are aftter with black and white....the greens and blues are of not much use from my experiance and i 'think' are more designed for some of the old colour films that i am not familiar with, (PeterW here i bet is a good source) apart from the the fact they and orange type filters became usefull with the different types of lighting, whether incandecent or flouro is an plus and a coincidence....the point is...or rather my point is, filters are not that hard to work out i feel, but there have been many blues and green filters which ar near useless by todays standards becuse they were designed for a type of film that i have never used or is/has been avalible now for some time. sure there may be a digital with a drawback out there that requiees a filter in some instances, but i would suggest that is a shortcomming of the camera in mention
any simple colour filter can be easily added to a digital output within the computer stage (thats the benifit i think), and i am sure becuase i studied long and hard as well as spent time on the pros and cons of B/W digital v wet printing one method has pluses on the before stage and the other afterwards..just my opinion......
colour film is slightly more complicated but not enough to make it confusing i feel....the ensence here i would like to give is that digital can not be easier! in most respects unless a maker has a poor CCD or systen then adjusting for filtration is very simple either in camera or afterwards....if a digtial user was to revert to using filtrers to adjust for a poor black and white rendition then that would be contary to the whole system and most likely bring more problems than first thought. and if adjusting for colour using filters unless the system had faults is a waste of time also...to me the whole (or part) advantage to digatl
|
|