Filter necessary?

I read recently (Hogan? - can't recall) proposing that one doesn't need a "standard" (UV) filter. Waste of money, affects contrast, and only sold as high margin. Anyone agree with this position? Should I drop carting my UV's around?

I still shoot film with a Nikon F2AS. I only have 3 filters:
A polarizer to bring out the clouds;
A L1bc skylight for in the mountains to cut the haze and give
a little "warmth";
A L37 UV just to put on when it is raining hard and keep the
water drops off of the front lens element. I do not use
filters to "protect" the lens, the lens shade does that for
me. Just my opinion after 50 years.
Best regards,

/Clay

When I shot film I used 81A filters, basically to warm up the image.

Now I shoot digital I can warm the image in the white balance settings, so I no longer use a filter routinely. Any piece of glass put in front of a lens must degrade the image slightly, so why do it unless there is a reason?

The only filters I use these days will be polarisers. Every other effect can be done in Photoshop.

However, I do always use a lens hood and lens hoods protect the front of the lens from knocks very effectively.

John

Thanks Clay and John for confirming my "suspicions". I am referring to a DSLR - a D70 which has faithfully served me for a while now.

I use a UV merely for the protection of those costly lenses. I found no difference to mount a UV that will get worst result of the pictures.