Another stupid filter question

[airforceguy]

Santa will be adding me to his DVX list on Friday. I have a question about filters (UV etc) for protection.

If you add a UV filter for protection, doesn't it become null and void when you white balance with it on? I mean after you white balance doesn't it no longer perform as advertised (the camera adjusts etc)?

I shot a project on my beta cam a couple of years ago and each time I white balanced, which was often, I removed my filter, white balanced, put it back on, then shot. Was that the correct way to do it or was I just wasting time?

If I'm right, should I buy 2, one fto leave on at all times for protection and one when I need it to protect from UV rays etc?

Thanks...Paul

 

[J.R. Hudson]

No

The UV protects your lens and the coating from the gnarly UV Rays; why would a WB change that ?

Why remove the filter when WB'ing ? Put it on, leave it on.

 

[Jim Brennan]

It also protects it from smudgy fingers, spit, mustard and gnomes.

All of which have been too close to my lens.

 

[Drew Ott]

It also protects it from smudgy fingers, spit, mustard and gnomes.

All of which have been too close to my lens.

...and dogs

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

It also keeps fake blood from hitting the lens... and I guess real blood if you're making that kind of a movie.

 

[dory_breaux]

It also protects it from smudgy fingers, spit, mustard and gnomes.

All of which have been too close to my lens.

Oh you've had those little bastards too then? Damn annoying what?