1. This technique is not "white balancing"; in fact it is a "white unbalancing". It is "optimizing the raw channel exposure".
The point is, that in most cases one raw channel determines the dynamic range, as pixels of that channel will clip far ahead of the other channels. Thus, if you want to prevent clipping, you have to keep the exposure low enough relative to that channel, which means the exposure of the other channels suffers.
In landscaping, the green channel is typically ahead of the others.
See following *raw* histograms:
- the first one is w/o filter; the green-red proportion is 13900:6100 ~2.28, i.e. the green is more than a stop ahead of the red;
- the second one is with a Tiffany CC30M; the green-red proportion is 11500:6200 ~1.85.
The difference in the proportions is ~0.43, close to one half of a stop.
The situation is very different for example under non-halogene incandescent lighting: the red will be dominant and the blue very low, so youl would need a cyan filter.
2. The downsides:
a. The white balance will be off. You have to preset it or have something in the image to pick WB on.
b. Filter quality: we usually give lots of money for high-quality filters for high-resolution sensors to prevent image degradation. The color correction filters are not available in the same quality; there is no multi-coating to prevent flare etc. B+W even discontinued the magenta filters.
c. Exposure: the filters block some of all wavelengths, but to different degree. The effect is, that the exposure needs to be increased more than the gain will be between teh channels. In the above example, the exposure increase was 2/3 EV, in exchange for less than half stop gain.