Does it make sense to use color filters on a camera nowadays?

[Petr Kvapil]

Does using filters like Antique Suede filter or Tobacco filter on the camera have any advantage over color grading in post-production?

[Dan Quigley]

I would say yes. If you are committing to a look, I would do it in camera as opposed to relying on post production. However, I'd be doing tests to see if it was something I liked. There are advantages to doing the look in post. For instance, you can dial in the intensity for the image as a whole and also for secondary corrections like skin tones or a prop.

If you are shooting for black and white, colored filters still have a practical use. An example would be a red filter that could be used to drop the luminance of the sky.

[Peter Pinter]

Quote

 red filter that could be used to drop the luminance of the sky

Wow thats so smart! 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Even back before digital cameras and cheap post production, some DPs would use partial strength filters. They would then increase the strength in post. But, if for some reason they changed their minds, they could reverse the filtration if necessary. It was more for insurance than anything.

It's much easier to use a filter IMHO. You can then view your dailies without having to pass them to a colorist. A bit of effort on set can save a lot of time in post.

[David Mullen ASC]

I stopped using the lighter warming filters back in the days before digital intermediates. I discovered when I got to the answer printing stage that the first pass made by the timer on the Hazeltine neutralized any warming filters I had used so the second answer print was about picking printer light points to add it back in. At this point I realized that if I could just time the effect into the print, the only reason to use filters was to get the effect into dailies. So I started shooting my grey scales with a pale blue filter (or a white light with a pale blue gel) and then shooting the scene clean, so once the dailies were timed for the grey scales, taking out the blue tint, the scene came out warm. Glass filters can create problems, especially when stacking them, and often you had to use ND filters and sometimes diffusion filters, so it was safer to eliminate a warming filter as well.

With digital cameras, you can get a warm effect by playing with the white balance.

Warming filters vary in the degree of orange plus may have a shift along the green-magenta (tint) axis, creating a warmth that is either on the yellow side or the pink side. That can be created in most digital cameras without a filter.

An argument can be made however for very heavy warming filters like a Chocolate, Sepia, or Tobacco — assuming you want to commit yourself to that look and rob the recording of a lot of blue information. The reason is that if you really have to push a color channel to create a color cast, it might be better to do it optically instead and get less noise. Assuming you have the light level for a heavy warming filter.

 

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I don't know if it has an advantage or not, but personally, I really like to get it in camera as much as possible, especially so everyone on set can see and adjust things as necessary. This isn't true for color balancing filters (85 for example) which I haven't touched in ages-- and even then, I tended to stick to an 81EF-- that I just do with white balance or lighting.