L.E.D. Light effects on pipe stems?

[jpmcwjr]

I've long been of the theory that most photo filters are simply profit return-enhancers for sellers of photo equipment, except for polarizers. ("You need one to protect the lens!!") Especially in the digital age where RAW formats are available.
I find a lens hood provides more and better protection than a filter, except for straight on blows to the lens.

 

[woodsroad]

John, I do put clear glass "filters" on my lenses. Although I always have lens hoods on my lenses for the very reason that you state, excrement does happen, and front elements do get damaged. I've walked into all manner of things while looking through a camera, including parking meters and traffic barriers. Also, with time, front elements can get scratched just from cleaning. So it's a lot cheaper to replace a filter than to replace a front element.
As for filters reducing the quality of the image, I've never had a client tell me that my photos weren't sharp enough, no matter how soft they might be.

 

[warren]

I differ from "woodsroad" on this a bit. I usually shoot from a "set-up" and infrequently shoot while moving. I depend on the lens hood for protection and the manufacturer for repairing and replacing elements which suffer damage. I simply do not like the loss of "snap" filters often cause, real or imagined.
I do use filters when required by conditions such as blowing sand/water, atmospheric, or when a special effect is called for. Post-shooting improvements? That will fix a myriad of problems but, I hate sitting in front of a computer when I could be doing otherwise.
My belief is that Nikon or, other manufacturers, spend millions of dollars developing a lens. Expect for lenses with "drop-ins" they are not designed for additional glass to be placed in front of the elements.