Photo's by a Nit Wit with a Nikon

[The Vinyl Adventure]

some of the hoya pro filters are ok although they seem to have fragile coatings and once smudged are impossible to clean. when i do a job where the camera might get wet or knocked (at a gig for eg) i will use a filter. for weddings or studio stuff i take them off and am carefull.
shaun is fundamentally very correct.another point to add is its not just quality of filter its also down to the fact that all leses are designed using x amount of pieces of glass all with different coatings etc adding an extra one made by a third party company is going against that design.
but that said it is situation dependant i wouldnt rule them out if using the camera where anything may come into contactwith the front element of the lens

[Barry]

Hey there...! Just one point. Why use a 150 quid lens and put a 20 quid filter in front of it...??? For me, it makes no sense. Better still... DO NOT touch the lens with anything other than a good microfibre cloth.

All the best.

When in a controlled enviroment putting anything between the subject and the lens is of course less than ideal. However when out and about in the real world that £20 filter could well save the £150 lens from damage.

Almost all of my photography is done outdoors. All of my lenses are thus fitted with UV(A) filters. This is not just to filter out the UV, but to protect the lens. I agree that using cheap filters is a false economy, it is better to spend more on good quality filters (B+W, Lee, not so sure about Hoya or Kood). I would rather spend £30 on a UV filter knowing that it did not produce even the faintest colour cast. If the filter saved a £300 lens from being damaged but was sacrificed in the process, it would be money well spent!

Barry

[Haselsh1]

UV light cannot travel through glass. Glass, any glass, filters out UV light and what is a lens made of...??? I suspect if memory serves me correct, it's glass. Not only that but your lens has some very expensive rare element coatings on it to enhance this operation even more. This brings me back to what I've already stated. Why put a 20 quid filter in front of a 150 quid lens...??? If it's to protect it then why not do as I do... be careful...! I have never used a UV or Skylight filter in forty years of photography, there is no need.

What is important is a lens hood. A lens hood will protect the lens to a degree and stop all sorts of stray light from striking the front glass at acute angles and creating weak points in the image. The most obvious here is flare or light splash from the front element. Again, that lens will have some gorgeous coatings on it to minimise flare but if you ever shoot directly into the light you're gonna get problems. There are way to minimise the effect but it's a fact of photographic life I'm afraid.

The best way to improve your photography... practice... endlessly. At least these days you don't have to waste expensive film.

[Barry]

UV light cannot travel through glass. Glass, any glass, filters out UV light and what is a lens made of...??? I suspect if memory serves me correct, it's glass. Not only that but your lens has some very expensive rare element coatings on it to enhance this operation even more. This brings me back to what I've already stated. Why put a 20 quid filter in front of a 150 quid lens...??? If it's to protect it then why not do as I do... be careful...! I have never used a UV or Skylight filter in forty years of photography, there is no need.

Glass does not absorb all UV light. If it did then UV photography would not be possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_photography.

Most glass absorbs 97% of UV(B), 280-320nm but only 37% of UV(A), 320-400nm. My B+W filters absorb 95% UV(A).

I assume that your photography is done in a studio or, if outdoors, under benign conditions. If so, then I can accept your argument that filters are uneccessary. Most of my photography is done under more adverse conditions and I would still prefer to know that the filter will protect the lens. Agree with you about the use of a lens hood.

However as this thread is about the best way of photographing equipment, indoors, I would agree that filters are uneccessary.

Barry

[REM]

Hi Rem

The table is a Feickert Twin and has an Audiocraft AC3000 Uni-Pivot mounted on it.

Well pleased with the sound it produces, once I get it spinning I can be there for hours and hours. I was once late for a night shift as I lost track of time. No one believed my lame excuse .

Andy - SDDW

He he

Been there, done that etc. etc.

Cheers

[Haselsh1]

Glass does not absorb all UV light. If it did then UV photography would not be possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_photography.

Most glass absorbs 97% of UV(B), 280-320nm but only 37% of UV(A), 320-400nm. My B+W filters absorb 95% UV(A).

I assume that your photography is done in a studio or, if outdoors, under benign conditions. If so, then I can accept your argument that filters are uneccessary. Most of my photography is done under more adverse conditions and I would still prefer to know that the filter will protect the lens. Agree with you about the use of a lens hood.

However as this thread is about the best way of photographing equipment, indoors, I would agree that filters are uneccessary.

Barry

I needed to be more specific.

Modern lenses contain hybrid elements made from glass and CR39 resin. This resin blocks nearly all UV upto 360nm and quite a bit beyond. Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron use this substance in their lenses.

The reason they use this plastic is not out of cheapness. This resin can be 'drop moulded' into highly complex lens shapes that cannot be made when using glass. To find out if your lens contains it just look for the term 'HYBRID'

[Barry]

I needed to be more specific.

Modern lenses contain hybrid elements made from glass and CR39 resin. This resin blocks nearly all UV upto 360nm and quite a bit beyond. Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron use this substance in their lenses.

The reason they use this plastic is not out of cheapness. This resin can be 'drop moulded' into highly complex lens shapes that cannot be made when using glass. To find out if your lens contains it just look for the term 'HYBRID'

Hello Shaun,

Thanks for the information; I was completely unaware of glass/CR39 hybrid optics. Clearly our involvement in photography is completely different. For me it is a only a hobby, predominantly travel photography, whereas for you it is a profession and your livelihood.

Reading your latest posts, it is now clear to me that you do do a lot of outdoor photography and by taking reasonable precautions you are able to dispense with filters (although you do mention the use of graduated tobacco filters).

I think we will have to agree to differ on the use of filters as a form of lens protection. All I will say is that I can cite a couple of occasions where the presence of a UV filter has saved my camera lens from damage or that of the lens of a fellow photographer, and because of this, I am prepared to 'suffer' the slight optical imposition that a filter imposes.

Regards
Barry

[Haselsh1]

I think we will have to agree to differ on the use of filters as a form of lens protection. All I will say is that I can cite a couple of occasions where the presence of a UV filter has saved my camera lens from damage or that of the lens of a fellow photographer, and because of this, I am prepared to 'suffer' the slight optical imposition that a filter imposes.

Regards
Barry

Barry, I really don't think we need to differ on this one. If one is prepared to spend a small fortune on a Hoya HMC type filter then optically it is clearly (geddit) up there with the very best. It is optically perfect and multi coated. What I find amazing is that folk will complain about the cost of film and processing (around £8) but then spend a fortune on a relatively useless filter. For me, it makes no sense.

Of course with digital users one cannot include film anymore and the overheads that inevitably incurs. It really is personal preference but I have never needed a clear piece of cheap glass in front of my 400 quid optics. Hmmm... thinking about it, I guess it's just as well. My lens has an 82mm filter thread.

[Barry]

....My lens has an 82mm filter thread.

Wow Shaun,

that must be one hell of a fast lens! The largest thread size in my lens collection is 77mm for the 20mm and 25mm f/4 Zeiss Flektogons.

Regards

Barry

[Spod]

Been taking photos for over 30 years. How many times have I thought "ooh, if only I'd spent a few quid more on the filter or not had a filter on at all it would have been sharper" ?

That's right. NEVER. EVER. AT ALL. WHATSOEVER.

How many times have I grateful for the filter protecting the lens from a smash? Twice.

2-0.

Unless you're expecting your pics to be put on billboards, stick a filter on. Without fail I get the cheapest (UV or skylight) filter I can buy. The only difference I've ever seen is in the colour, but that's where the computer comes in, easily tweaked. The price of the filter doesn't make a wideangle lens less wide, or a long lens any shorter.

Skylight 1B I've found to be the best, but its personal preference.

Creatively, obey the "rule of thirds" until you have the confidence to break it.

If you've got an entire factory to run around (I WISH!!!), when taking photos think about leading lines (google it) and make sure you allow for the low light (up the ISO, widen the aperture, expose for the dull not the bright - despite what some "experts" might say, and brace youself before shooting).

Love the second photo by the way, makes me think Beatles and 60s.