Filters?

May seem like a silly question, given the editing software out there, but... is there any real benefit to using a circular polarizer with a digital camera? I'm getting a Panasonic DMC-FZ20K that will accept 72mm screw-on filters, and wondered if a polarizer will have the same effect with a digicam that it does with film (i.e. improved color saturation and contrast between sky and clouds, and reduced reflection from water, etc.). I do not have Photoshop, and for the time being, at least, don't plan to buy it... Thanks for any advice y'all can offer!
Rocky

Yes a polarizer has the same effects, digital or film. If I could have only one filter in my bag it would be the polarizer!

Yeah, I would highly recommend a polarizer as well... even with PS and whatnot, it would be hard to give your photos the same look afterwards, rather than just slapping on a polarizer.

Eery lens should have a filter, skylight, UV, haze, etc. An inexpensive filter is cheap insurance to prevent a scratched lens.

Eery lens should have a filter, skylight, UV, haze, etc. An inexpensive filter is cheap insurance to prevent a scratched lens.

pfffffffffffffffffffffft

first... absolutly get a polarizor. You will be hard pressed to get the same results without one.

I only put a filter on my lense if I want the effect of the filter.

thanks to all. I sorta figured it'd work the same, but wanted to be sure. I definitely plan on putting a skylight filter on as protection... did that with all my 35mm lenses, and see no reason not to do the same with a digicam.

I personally would recommend you consider the following brands: Hoya S-HMC or B+W MRC filters. (Why spend $1000 on a lens and then put a $25 filter that may degrade the image).

why edit in Photoshop if you can achieve it when you take the picture. I have number of filters that i enjoy using.

How much money are these filters and polarizers?

How much money are these filters and polarizers?

Depends on the brand, size, coating, and quality. They can be had for 20 bucks or you can pay upwards of $200.

I bought the Cokin UV and CPOL set for $35 cdn. They're pretty cheap glass (maybe the UV filter is plastic LOL) but do the job.

Filters can cost anywhere from $15 to $100's of dollars.


* dammit ohenry beat me to it twice :? *

you snooze, you lose....LOL

Haha. Wow, that seems like they can be quite a lot of money. Are they truly worth it?

Absolutely.

Its not really something you can add in post, at least not with the same amount of effort it takes to turn the filter.

Nothing in photoshop will remove glare on water surfaces like a polarizer will.

That's exactly right. And, especially with polarizers, you get what you pay for. Many of the cheaper ones are no better than a neutral density filter.

Yeah...I want a Singh Ray Blue/gold polarizer just for fun! Not to mention their variable ND filter. I have a B+W polarizer.

I'd love to play around with one of those blue/gold's as well.

I have a buddy that has one and he's shown a few shots he's taken with it. It's pretty cool. But spendy!

Yeah, and I always have something I'd rather spend the money on, like a new lens.

I personally would recommend you consider the following brands: Hoya S-HMC or B+W MRC filters. (Why spend $1000 on a lens and then put a $25 filter that may degrade the image).

Actually, it's not a detachable lens... it's a panasonic DMC-FZ20, but I have an adapter that will let me mount filters just ahead of the lens. Since the lens doesn't move once the camera's powered on, the filter location can be fixed pretty easily. The whole camera cost me well under $500, but I'd still prefer to protect the lens...

In my humble opion,a Circ.Polarizer is a MUST!! Film or Digital.
Monte

I personally would recommend you consider the following brands: Hoya S-HMC or B+W MRC filters. (Why spend $1000 on a lens and then put a $25 filter that may degrade the image).

Actually, it's not a detachable lens... it's a panasonic DMC-FZ20, but I have an adapter that will let me mount filters just ahead of the lens. Since the lens doesn't move once the camera's powered on, the filter location can be fixed pretty easily. The whole camera cost me well under $500, but I'd still prefer to protect the lens...

In the digital world, you need to be MORE careful about the quality of your filters.

Digital image sensors are very susceptible to "ghosting" and flare, increasing the need for multi-coated filters. You need to make sure the filter is coated on both sides, also. If a filter is only coated on the front surface, you can still have a problem. Here's why:

Digital image sensors have a tendency to reflect part of the light that strikes them back into the lens. They are much more shiny and reflective than film emulsion. Most of the lens optics in modern lenses are multi-coated to reduce the glare from these reflections, allowing the reflected light to pass back through the lens instead of bouncing back onto the sensor.

But if you put a cheap, non-coated filter (or one that only has the front surface coated), the filter can reflect this reflection back onto the sensor, causing flare or a "ghost image" to be visible.

Filters, although pricey, can only add to your 'vision'. To me it is worth it for a good filter. I have to admit that I do take off the filters and just shoot every now & then, it sort of feels like I am being bad :wink: