Is anyone using Red filters on DSLR with lights (Macro)

Hello,

Is anyone using Red Filters on their DSLR for Macro Video while using Lights? I understand the lights negate the filters in most respects but is anyone using both? If so, what kind and Why?

-Scuba Hank

Why would you do this?

When shooting macro, you're close enough to your subject that there is not enough water column in between you and the subject to filter out the red light from the sun. The only time you need filter when working with Macro and light is when you use UV light for Fluorescence effect. You would use Yellow filter for that.

Lights allow you to photograph with the full spectrum. Using a filter with lights would then create a color cast. It's one or the other, not both.

When shooting macro, you're close enough to your subject that there is not enough water column in between you and the subject to filter out the red light from the sun. The only time you need filter when working with Macro and light is when you use UV light for Fluorescence effect. You would use Yellow filter for that.

Hmmm, either this issue is not understood, or is not explained well.

If shooting macro without a light at the camera, then the light that gets to the camera comes from the subject and already has the red filtered out by the distance from the subject to the surface. The camera-subject distance (because it is macro) adds little additional filtering. So a filter is helpful, because of the distance from the surface to the subject.

If shooting macro with a light at the camera, then the small amount of filtered light from the surface getting to the subject is irrelevant compared to the light you are inserting, so the distance to the surface is also irrelevant.

Conclusion: same as in the quoted post -- if working with macro and a light, a filter is not needed, and in fact tries to add color that is not missing so causes a colored image the same color as the filter.

Yes I left out a key information: Custom White Balance. When you custom white balance in front of your subject, there is not enough water column between you and the subject to interfere with the setting, so no need filter.

Yes I left out a key information: Custom White Balance. When you custom white balance in front of your subject, there is not enough water column between you and the subject to interfere with the setting, so no need filter.

Sorry, I'm still concerned about the understanding.

If you custom white balance, then use a light to insert light on the macro subject, the white balance is wrong, and will produce a red image.

With light being used, you are pretty close in color without any custom white balance for the depth.

For macro video, you can set your white balance to the colour temperature of the lights (e.g., 6500K). If your camera does not allow you to do this, you can also MWB on a neutral target with your lights already on the area you are targeting.

Sorry, I'm still concerned about the understanding.

If you custom white balance, then use a light to insert light on the macro subject, the white balance is wrong, and will produce a red image.

With light being used, you are pretty close in color without any custom white balance for the depth.

You don't custom white balance when using light, you should set the camera kelvin to the the light's kelvin. My comment about custom white balance is in respond to your comment about subject distance to surface, it's with ambient light.

No need for both. It will end up badly.

Under limited conditions a red filter can be used to compensate for the water column above you reducing red light from the sun.

Lights replace the sun as a light source and restore normal color balance.