A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > FLD Filter

Featured Equipment Deals

Photokina 2014 Notable Product Releases Read More

Photokina 2014 Notable Product Releases

It's at Photokina that photo industry manufacturers make some of their biggest announcements. Here is our list of the top 10 product releases that stood out to us following the trade show this year.

Latest Equipment Articles

From Light to Ink: An Exhibit Using Canon's imagePROGRAF printers Read More

From Light to Ink: An Exhibit Using Canon's imagePROGRAF printers

"From Light to Ink" featured the work of Canon Inspirers and contest winners, all printed using Canon's imagePROGRAF printers. The gallery show revolved around the discussion of printing photographs...

Latest Learning Articles

Getting It Right in the Camera: The Imagination Game, Part 3 Read More

Getting It Right in the Camera: The Imagination Game, Part 3

Getting photographs right in the camera is a combination of using your imagination, creativity, art, and technique. In Part 3 of this three part series, we focus on shooting strategy and the role of...


FLD Filter

Henry L , Jan 04, 2010; 03:55 p.m.

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.

Responses

Joe Fikes , Jan 04, 2010; 05:40 p.m.

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.

Joe

JDM von Weinberg , Jan 04, 2010; 11:18 p.m.

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".

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.
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.

Tommy Lee , Jan 05, 2010; 12:13 a.m.

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 :-)

Back to top

Notify me of Responses