There are some standard filters like a polarizer which provide some significant and advantageous results. I think though you will find most photographers who have purchased "enhancing" filters after a short while put them in a shoebox where they remain in a closet forever.

The best advise after 50 some years of photography is to only buy a specific filter if you have a definite need for its specific function. There is no filter that will make all your photographs any better, "enhanced"!

Thanks for responding: you're right, if it isn't good to begin with, "gilding it" won't make it any better. Some of the examples I've seen (in books of landscape photography) border on the garish -especially some snow scenes using an enhancing filter, resulting in toffee apple pink snow! One or two such examples have the "novelty factor", but the effect wears off [a bit like fish-eye lenses].

In addition to Mr. Brook's comment, I find as the owner of a large number of filters of various types that while I lug them along, I rarely use them. This includes polarizers which I find to be among the most useful. The problem is that I can do most any adjustment which a filter will do in Photoshop. (Let me add that I am not an expert in Photoshop) That may be laziness on my part, but it certainly works.

Dave

I have to disagree. Getting the shot right in the camera is essential to a good final image. The amount of work you have to do in Photoshop should be minimized as much as possible. I routinely use filters if the scene requires it, primarily polarizers and ND grads. It does make a difference.

if you use alot of black and white film. i highly recommend owning a red filter. this filter is indespensible if you ever use black and white infared film. it's not a necessity for every roll of regular b&w film. it just adds contrast. on ocassion i've found that some film that i shot without the red filter, i ended up have to use a red filter in the darkroom to get the contrast i didn't have to begin with.