You probably understood this, but the color cast was actually part of the goal of the photo. I suspect an image from just 5-10 mins earlier would have been even better (more of the golden glow that you get at dawn and dusk, that's why they call it the "golden hour")
I see it.

I was a bit confused by this thread. When I read the title and post, I was thinking filters, like the sort that get screwed to lenses, but most of the folks have been talking about post processing, but then I guess these days, it's easier to get exactly the affect that you're looking for that way than being stuck with a few bits of hardware.

I know my dad always had the straight UV filters or whatever they were called screwed to the front of his lenses with the goal being to protect the optics from dust, scratches, etc.... I have read that the problem with that is that most folks will buy cheap versions of those, and screwing a cheap filter to the front of an expensive lens is more likely to hurt the quality of the photo than protect the lens.

I also have a circular polarizing filter, it's good for glass and water and certain reflective surfaces. I have had, and my dad had some star filters 4 and 6 point, I think the 4 point was adjustable. Then there are the filters for making the sky darker or for using with infrared photography to enhance the sky color. I once had a soft focus filter, but didn't much care for the results that I got with it and didn't really know what I was doing with it anyway.

On camera, get a circular polarizer. It'll cancel out reflections and saturate the colors.

Some examples that utilized a circular polarizer.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...0b&oe=5C53AF1C

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...19&oe=5C590B40

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...4c&oe=5C26604D

Yep, just illustrating that removing (or adding) color cast when applicable/desired is done much easier/faster via post-processing these days, as opposed to attaching/detaching physical lens filters. I exaggerated the pic a bit as monitors vary. Also, as you mention, the quality of filter optics is another consideration, which usually aligns with cost. A myriad of quality lens filters can add up to a pretty penny. I remember a single B+W circular polarizer I purchased many moons ago being well over $200.
Exactly.
Totally. It makes no sense to put a cheapo UV filter on any quality lens. When I was more "in the game" eons ago, I only used B+W UV filters on all my lenses, and noticed zero differences in sharpness/distortion/aberration on enlargements. The only vignetting issue I ever had was from using filters on zoom lenses at their max wide setting. However, that is more a function of the lens design than any quality issue with a filter. It's the same phenomenon you get with a lens hood.
Yup, BTDT (back in the 35mm days). I had all sorts of filters, most of which were rarely used. These days, PS basically replaces your filter pouch.

SmileWavy

Eric H., if you don't mind me asking, what kind of post processing steps (if any) went into those pics? Is that all from the circular polarizer?

Well, these are pretty old shots. at that time I would have tried to do everything in the camera. My photoshop skills at the time were limited.
So mostly the CP filter helped add pizazz. Photoshop just enhanced it a little more.

Cool thing about the CP filter is you can see the change in reflections and saturation as you turn the filter.

Thanks! I can't wait to get home to see what filters I have- either the linear or the CP filters- and if so playing with them. I've got some polarizing filters on my lenses, but they are either linear, or circular, and if they are circular, I forgot you could spin the circular ones! Doh!

(great pics btw!)

Great shots E. Just wanted to reiterate/clarify that the above is only true for DSLR cams with an optical viewfinder.
If your cam is not an SLR and/or only has an LCD viewfinder (or rear LCD screen only), it will not be very usable.
They still function obviously, but it's more "trial-and-error" method.

I've had a couple quality rear-LCD-only P&S digi-cams and trying to "tune" a CP with them for max effectiveness was an exercise in frustration. ;)

Nuetral Density filters can be fun when shooting moving water. It allows a slower shutter speed to get the motion blurred water effect. They make adjustable nuetral density filter too. They are kind of like two polorizing filters mounted in one frame. They can be fun to play with too. for effects.
A good quality graduated nuetral density filter is nice for some landscapes. I like them better than screwing around in Photoshop.

Thanks Eric H. Those are the sort of improvements I'd like to make without getting too immersed in photoshop. I've got too many hobbies already, I just want better pics.

I have many times had to bracket my polarizer shots. If I was shooting a car and wanted the windshield and side windows to be free of reflection and wanted to get rid of some sky reflection on the hood as well I would take three shots, one to eliminate each of the glare situations, and combine them in photoshop.

I think you will find there is no magic bullet.
Your images will improve as you shoot more.
Filters can help, or they can make things worse. There is a learning curve.
Software can help, or it can make things worse as well- big learning curve.
Equipment can help- lenses make a huge difference. Camera bodies make a smaller difference.
Shoot lowest iso you can. Helps with noise, but really can help with color and dynamic range.
Read. Study. There is no quick fix.
I have been shooting for 40yrs. I think my images are still getting better as I learn.
Gary