digital filters?

[holga girl]

so for digital cameras, they now have digital filters. i only ever use a uv and a CP, but i am wondering if it is worth the extra money to buy the digital ones over the standard. is there actually a benefit or is it a marketing ploy?

 

[Garbz]

Well the filters haven't changed. There are some things you simply can't do in photoshop like a Y-B Polariser, normal CIR Polariser, a Hoyra R72 Infrared or any Neutral Density filter.

Other filters you can imitate in photoshop like a NDGrad filter can be made by gradient mapping multiple exposures, if nothing in the scene has changed that is. Colour filters can be imitated for black and white conversion using the channel mixer. In the end it all comes down what you want. I know people who chase lightning storms often need ND filters, I personally want to get an IR filter for my camera.

 

[holga girl]

thanks for the reply, although i am not sure i stated my question properly. i use 2 filters, a CP and a UV. every now and then a ND.

my question is, a new line of filters has been introduced (in UV and CP) that are supposed to be designed for the make up of a digital sensor. these filters, however, are very expensive.

is there an actual benefit or is it marketing?

 

[Don Simon]

If some are much more expensive, it may not only be that they are designed for digital. Filter manufacturers tend to offer lower and higher-end filters with prices to match. The more expensive ones are generally made of better materials, better coated and finished.

Now if you were to compare a certain filter by a certain company with a new "digital" version of the same filter, most likely the only difference is in the coating... digital sensors being less tolerant of reflections. That said, I use "non-digital" filters and I don't think I've ever experienced a problem with flare or aberrations that could be attributed to the filter.

In other words there is a benefit but it may not be one that you ever notice in practice.

 

[holga girl]

i am comparing a UV and CP multi-coated filter make by the same company. one is for digital, one is not. taking in that you have not noticed any flare or aberrations with the standard, it seems pointless to spend the extra money. thanks.

any other thoughts?

 

[Garbz]

Oh sorry, I completely missunderstood.

I see this as a marketing gimmick only. The only way film and digital sensors differ is their size, and not even that for the Canon 5D or 1Ds series, and the only thing that affects this size is the projected image circle which filters do not change.

I see no reason why their "designed for digital" advantages should not also be applied to film. I assume they know this and use it as an excuse to ramp up the price.

High quality filters are a good idea, but I have always been on a tight budget so I use the cheapest possible. It doesn't worry me too much though since the only quality problem I have ever had with filters was flare, and I have not yet been in a situation where that couldn't be fixed simply by temporarily removing the filter or positioning my hand to block the light source.

 

[Don Simon]

Absolutely. A good lens hood costs a lot less than a high-end filter.

I try to buy good filters, but for me that just means buying quality glass filters, rather than ones with any "optimised for digital" coating. The fact that companies are now pushing "for digital" filters means that the older ones can often be found much cheaper on e-Bay or stock clearance.