A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > FLD Filter

Featured Equipment Deals

5 Photo Accessories Under $50 You Can't (and Shouldn't) Live Without Read More

5 Photo Accessories Under $50 You Can't (and Shouldn't) Live Without

Whether an accessory saves you time or is simply a more convenient alternative to what you're using now, it's worth spending a few extra bucks. Here are five of our favorites.

Latest Equipment Articles

The Week in Photography News Read More

The Week in Photography News

March 28 - April 3, 2015: Hear the latest goings-on in the photography world, from product releases to event and campaign announcements and more.

Latest Learning Articles

Understanding RAW vs. JPEG File Types (Video Tutorial) Read More

Understanding RAW vs. JPEG File Types (Video Tutorial)

One of the advantages of your DSLR camera is its ability to shoot in multiple file types, such as JPEG and RAW. This video tutorial will demonstrate the differences and show you the benefits 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