| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2003 07:25:33 PM · #1 |
| In our 2nd day of photography class, our teacher (very experienced man, started first color photography program) suggested that by putting a skylight filter on your camera, you're mearly decreasing the quality of your photo... and earning the manufacturer lots of $. Is it true that they do more harm than good? Does this mean all filters, or just this one?? Thanks! |
|
|
|
08/28/2003 07:42:38 PM · #2 |
I'd rather trash an inexpensive filter than a high dollar lens! Scratches on filters are insignifanct compared to a scratch on your lens. In the past I have always bought a simple $10 to $15 dollar skylight filter (or UV filter). Since I just got a 10D and nice lenses, I bought Hoyo Super-Multi Coated filters to minimze any quality degradation. It was about $30.
JD Anderson
|
|
|
|
08/28/2003 07:45:45 PM · #3 |
| Yeah, protect is a big reason why I got mine as well. He was suggesting that unless we're in the rain or a sandstorm, that the lense cap should provide enough protection. Buying a higher quality filter, however, does make sense. |
|
|
|
08/28/2003 07:49:23 PM · #4 |
| You can always leave the filter on while composing, and remove it before the final shots (unless you're in the rain or a sandstorm). Of course, I my camera doesn't take filters. |
|
|
|
08/28/2003 07:55:02 PM · #5 |
I"ve always kept a UV/skylight filter on all my cameras... It's saved me from scratching my lenses many times...
If the lense cap is on..well,, it's black bear at midnight time..
sure you won't get a scratch but it's been when shooting that the scratches occured.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2003 07:56:39 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by irockstars:
In our 2nd day of photography class, our teacher (very experienced man, started first color photography program) suggested that by putting a skylight filter on your camera, you're mearly decreasing the quality of your photo... and earning the manufacturer lots of $. Is it true that they do more harm than good? Does this mean all filters, or just this one?? Thanks! |
Personally, I agree with this. I don't put filters on my cam without a reason to do so. Lots of people like to use skylight and UV filters as 'lens protection' though. Its an extra piece of glass to deal with and it doesn't do anything useful to your photo.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2003 08:04:19 PM · #7 |
Well try using the cap the next time you want to take a shot. I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think it'll work out too good.
It depends; when to use a filter or not. Indoors/studio I wouldn't it's a controlled situation, (for the most part), no chance of anything happening. In the field, at a sports game or something else. Yes, most of those situations it's about capturing the moment, action, emotion. The slight decrease in quality is negligible in those cases. Who knows what could go flying around outdoors.
But I've looked at photos of my own that I've taken with and without a filter, I couldn't see any difference, they both were not any good.
Message edited by author 2003-08-28 20:05:57. |
|
|
|
08/28/2003 08:06:55 PM · #8 |
| Lots of filters like the Skylight (Sky 1A) filters have a slightly rosy hue to get rid of the blue cast in haze. Film cameras can benefit from this, but on digital cameras we've got white balance, which essentially negates the need for them. I used to have a UV filter on at all times but have since stopped doing so. I may well put one on in dusty conditions, or when I'm near salt spray or something, but otherwise no filters other than polariser and neutral density. |
|
|
|
08/28/2003 08:34:07 PM · #9 |
| Thanks for the advice; I like the idea of keeping it on in uncontrolled situations, then removing it when I feel safe in doing so. |
|
|
|
08/28/2003 09:41:23 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by irockstars:
Thanks for the advice; I like the idea of keeping it on in uncontrolled situations, then removing it when I feel safe in doing so. |
That's a good approach if you can plan and predict when you are going to have an accident.
It depends on how well you treat your camera and how careful and deliberate you are when moving around, setting up a shot and so on.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2003 10:43:12 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I'd rather trash an inexpensive filter than a high dollar lens! Scratches on filters are insignifanct compared to a scratch on your lens. In the past I have always bought a simple $10 to $15 dollar skylight filter (or UV filter). Since I just got a 10D and nice lenses, I bought Hoyo Super-Multi Coated filters to minimze any quality degradation. It was about $30.
JD Anderson |
Oh, I forgot to say that indoors is where I have the most trouble. I have three boys, ages 1, 3, and 5. Even though they know not to touch the camera, I somehow always have fingerprints on the filter. If I am trying to get close for a shot, they seem to reach out and touch the lens, or run towards me. etc. Photographing small boys is very dangerous for a camera, and I even got a fat lip once. Seems like a safe activity, but with that many boys around, nothing is safe!
JD
|
|
|
|
08/29/2003 12:53:50 AM · #12 |
| When I was shooting a lot of film, I had close to $5K in Nikon lenses. I always, always had some kind of filter over my lens (skylight, UV, haze). The simple reason is that it's cheap insurance. I have broken a few of them, scratched several more, only about $10-15 to replace. Have you priced lens repairs lately? Do you really want the same scratch on every picture? I'm actually thinking about getting the adapter for my Canon G5 just so I can use a UV filter to protect the lens (other filters too). |
|
|
|
08/29/2003 01:38:02 AM · #13 |
| Such strong opinions on this subjuct. I'm torn! =P |
|
|
|
08/29/2003 02:42:52 AM · #14 |
| Why don't you set your camera up on a tripod then take the same photo with and without the filter. If you are okay with the slight degradation then use the filter. I did and couldn't see much difference so I keep the filter on. I've been known to clean a dirty filter with my shirttail but can barely bring myself to even touching the camera lens with lens tissue. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
09/03/2003 09:18:29 AM · #15 |
| I've always used UV filters on all my lenses when I shot 35mm and I am still using them on my Canon10D. I hate using a lens cap as it is a pain to keep putting it on and off. It is my theory that lens caps are for people who don't use their cameras. My UV filters have saved my butt quite a few times. Especially the time I fell down the rocks while photographing Portland Head Light. The UV filter got all mangled but the rest of the camera and lens were fine. I see no difference on my photos by using it. |
|
|
|
09/03/2003 09:24:53 AM · #16 |
I recently found out how valuable a 1A filter is when a relative bumped the end of my F717 hard and bent the filter. The lens was untouched but would have been trashed if it wasn't for the filter!
|
|
|
|
09/03/2003 09:57:11 AM · #17 |
| I would strongly suggest one. I droped my 35mm Nikon on a cement floor accidentally. It landed directly on the lens. Shattered the skylight, but didn't harm the main lens a bit. Van |
|
|
|
09/03/2003 10:11:04 AM · #18 |
I'll add a big ditto to many of the comments here. As I understand it, the skylight filters have practically no effect on the outcome of shots. I keep one on each of my lenses purely to protect the lens. If I scratch the filter, I'm out $15 or so; if I scratch the lens, I'll be doing this again: //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=33026
Or my wife will do this to me: //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=16954 |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 02:46:09 PM · #19 |
| I have had filters save my lenses a couple of times..one time, I dropped the my SRT201(actually the strap broke), it went landing on concrete..bent the filter pretty good, cracked the glass in the filter. It took some work to unscrew the filter, but the lens survived without any damage...Another time, I was shooting outside a turn at a local road course, again with the old reliable SRT, a couple of cars got together coming into the turn, one hit the wall about 8 feet in front of me, something flew of the car, and hit me and the camera...The filter was dead..but the lens was not damaged... |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 03:44:44 PM · #20 |
Looks like you and I are in the minority. I used to use a lens filter, but I've never scratched it or broken it. I don't carry it anymore.
It's really easy to remove fingerprints from a lens, so you shouldn't be using it to avoid them. And since I always have my camera strap around my kneck and all unmounted lenses have caps on, I don't see myself needing the cheap insurance. They are marketed to remove UV light. To my knowledge, UV light does not effect digital sensors, so it's pointless. Supposedly they help remove some reflections. I guess I'd prefer to compose differently and use a hat as a lens shield.
If you're in the sun, then a polarizer can be a good filter as there are no true photoshop techniques to redirect light. Sometimes a ND filter is useful if you aren't advanced enough to use digital blending (which I honestly am not).
All other filters are, to my knowledge, a waste of $$$ for a digital photog.
For me, I usually pack a polarizer and lens cap! You're professors' comments are true.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by irockstars:
In our 2nd day of photography class, our teacher (very experienced man, started first color photography program) suggested that by putting a skylight filter on your camera, you're mearly decreasing the quality of your photo... and earning the manufacturer lots of $. Is it true that they do more harm than good? Does this mean all filters, or just this one?? Thanks! |
Personally, I agree with this. I don't put filters on my cam without a reason to do so. Lots of people like to use skylight and UV filters as 'lens protection' though. Its an extra piece of glass to deal with and it doesn't do anything useful to your photo. |
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 04:12:20 PM · #21 |
I think when you mentioned NDs and blending, you really mean GNDs. The other reason I still use a graduated ND rather than taking multiple exposures and blending is that I value my time. Its just less hassle to get it right first, rather than work it out later - though when GNDs fail me, I can certainly do the blending which is a good fall back or more suitable for complex boundaries.
But essentially you are right - a polariser is about the only filter worth carrying. All the colour filters can be replaced by simple software adjustments or custom white balancing.
All the other fancy cokin filters are so twee as to not be worth owning or you can make your pictures look equally unoriginal using photoshop filters on their default settings. |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 04:22:14 PM · #22 |
If we all wanted to be particularly carful with our cameras, we could buy underwater rigs for them. Those casings are water tight and should help keep dust off your camera. You could also pad the inside of these to reduce any shock that may be experienced from dropping your camera also.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 04:44:16 PM · #23 |
I use Hoya Super HMC Pro 1 UV(0) filters on all my L glass. They go on as soon as I remove the lens from the box, meaning that my otherwise-exposed front element should be as clean today as it was when it left the factory.
I personally don't notice any difference with or without a high-quality UV filter, and I'd much rather clean dust/water spray/fingerprints off of an easily-replaced filter in the event "something bad happens" than pay to have the expensive front-element of an $1800 lens replaced.
I also always use the supplied lens hood and lens caps.
To each his own, as they say...
Message edited by author 2003-10-24 16:46:36. |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 04:50:54 PM · #24 |
I think a lens hood is a great source of protection.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 05:13:27 PM · #25 |
I think if people who can't handle scratches on their expensive lenses, probably shouldn't buy those lenses in the first place. If your lens is expensive, why pay $15 and put a filter on it htat will significantly degrade the image quality? YOu'll get the same image as a cheap lens. Don't put filters on unless you have to.
use a lens hood for protection against bumping other surfaces. BTW, any catastrophic event, your filter won't help (i.e. dropping the lens). The only lens protection I use is a lens hood and or, well, lens caps :) that's what they're for.
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I'd rather trash an inexpensive filter than a high dollar lens! Scratches on filters are insignifanct compared to a scratch on your lens. In the past I have always bought a simple $10 to $15 dollar skylight filter (or UV filter). Since I just got a 10D and nice lenses, I bought Hoyo Super-Multi Coated filters to minimze any quality degradation. It was about $30.
JD Anderson |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 05:38:38 PM EDT.
