Filters debate - should I have fought my corner?

crofter said:
I don't argue with people, they know best obviously, just let them get on with it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, the filter no filter argument has been going on for as long as I can remember it is one you can never win which ever side your on.
Personally I try to ignore people like this if that does'nt work lots of bad language usually doe's the trick.:runaway::runaway::runaway:
 
Surely one should be thinking about a skylight (clear glass) filter for lens protection not a UV filter which is designed for cutting out Ultra Violet sun rays.

All to often people think a UV filter has the sole purpose of lens protection and this is entirely wrong.

So back to the arguement of protection the front of an expensive camera lens. Definately use one but make sure you are using the correct one. This is where people make a huge mistake and say they would never use a filter. Get a good skylight filter and it will make no difference to the photo.

Get to know which filters should be used for what and there is no problem
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Surely one should be thinking about a skylight (clear glass) filter for lens protection not a UV filter which is designed for cutting out Ultra Violet sun rays.
Click to expand...

Both types filter out UV light to some degree. A skylight filter also has a slight pink colour to it.


Steve.
 
realspeed said:
Get to know which filters should be used for what and there is no problem
Click to expand...

Excellent advice.

Here are some of the things it's good to know- LINK

Skylight filters are not clear glass, they have a slight pink colour.

There is virtually zero difference between clear 'protective' filters and UV filters.
 
Stand corrected on Skylight filters, but have less effect on pictures than a UV filter which everyone refers to
 
Eddzz!! said:
Should I mention that he shoots with Olympus cameras? :p
Click to expand...

I use an Olympus !!! I love my Olympus and will defend it till the end :thumbs:

I tried filters and have UV filters but I spent years just using a lens hood that I probably didn't need to waste my money and now they sit in my bag unused :shake:
 
realspeed said:
Stand corrected on Skylight filters, but have less effect on pictures than a UV filter which everyone refers to
Click to expand...

Skylight filter is very light pink, sometimes with UV filtering as well, for film use that can have some UV sensitivity (eg at altitude) and the pink bit is supposed to enhance blue skies.

The detrimental effects of a UV or other protection filters are common to all filters, polarisers and grads etc too, mainly relating to reflections off the extra glass surface that is plane-parallel to the sensor.

All digital sensors have UV filters fitted, and coatings to combat infrared.
 
In the short time I have been on this forum I have seen quite a few photos submitted for critique and not once can I remember anyone commenting "Nice photo, ruined by a UV filter".
 
realspeed said:
Sorry to disagree but I purchased a UV filter for my camcorder and the results were terrible.
Click to expand...

Like I said, no different from any clear 'protective' filter of similar quality. Just because you bough a cheap and nasty filter it doesn't mean it was horrible because it was a UV filter.

There will be zero difference between a UV filter and a clear glass filter of equal quality as far as the camera is concerned. Firstly - clear glass will also filter out a lot of the UV light. Secondly - your camera has a UV filter in front of the sensor, so any UV light that does get past the filter will get absorbed before the sensor can detect it.
 
DrGed said:
In the short time I have been on this forum I have seen quite a few photos submitted for critique and not once can I remember anyone commenting "Nice photo, ruined by a UV filter".
Click to expand...

I've seen quite a few photos "ruined" by a filter...not necessarily UV specific, but that is the most common one people use for protection.
 
DrGed said:
In the short time I have been on this forum I have seen quite a few photos submitted for critique and not once can I remember anyone commenting "Nice photo, ruined by a UV filter".
Click to expand...

I've seen quite a few posts on the subject of 'What's wrong with my lens' with the answer - 'Try removing the filter'.

Try pasting this into Google -

"what's wrong" uv filter site:Photography-on-the.net
 
I tried Googling that phrase : interesting results!
 
DrGed said:
In the short time I have been on this forum I have seen quite a few photos submitted for critique and not once can I remember anyone commenting "Nice photo, ruined by a UV filter".
Click to expand...

Common enough in the equipment basics sections, lens flare, soft images, etc. often down to cheap filters.
 
Thanks, Phil.

I can't help noticing the word "cheap". Do you think you could recommend a reputable manufacturer of decent filters?
 
DrGed said:
Thanks, Phil.

I can't help noticing the word "cheap". Do you think you could recommend a reputable manufacturer of decent filters?
Click to expand...

Hoya and B&W
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
 
DrGed said:
Thanks, Phil.

I can't help noticing the word "cheap". Do you think you could recommend a reputable manufacturer of decent filters?
Click to expand...

B&W but tbh the point still mostly stands, a filter adds extra reflective surfaces, and even when they're multi coated they are never going to 'improve' anything they'll only add to flare.

Like most others here I only ever use them in 'hazardous' conditions, (beach or similar) otherwise they're not paying their way.
 
Having given some thought about UV filters I have just ordered a

Hoya 77mm Pro-1 Digital UV Screw in Filter

Which is a step up from my

Hoya 77mm HMC UV (N) filter I hope.

Comments welcomed
 
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience
 
Thanks for the filter info. I must say this thread has given me quite a bit to think about!
 
I tend to use em, guess its a safety thing, I have had stuff go in the hood and leave a mark, and I don't have pro level insurance, and I can be clumsy.

its no big deal either way tbh
 
cant find the link to an article by some equipment hire company who stacked like 20 UV filters in front of a 70-200L as proof that UV filters will, to some extent, degrade image quality. the lens looked ridiculous! :lol:

personally i have only just started as a student, photography is only a hobby/part time job and i have 4 lenses. i have filters on my two most expensive lenses (tamron and canon) and none for my 50mm f1.8 and kit lens, because the kit lens is cheap and the front element is so recessed on the nifty fifty its almost like a built in hood! but i have put filters on the other two because i treasure them, to me they costed a lot and i like to take care of them. but in general i think it depends on the environment you are shooting in

EDIT: found it! http://petapixel.com/2011/06/16/experimenting-with-stacks-of-uv-filters/
 
Last edited:
I used to swear by UV Filters, had them on every lens, then someone pointed out that I should try it without them, and I noticed a difference in quality. Since then I haven't used them.

I can't comment on the really expensive ones though :)

Matt
 
Garry Edwards said:
And when it comes to non UV filters, the only filter that hasn't been made redundant by PS is a polarising filter - which isn't even strictly a filter.
Click to expand...

Long exposure filters such as the Big Stopper? I think you'd struggle to replicate the effect in post without just blurring the hell out of everything.
 
Could someone post an un-altered pair of photos with and without UV or similar 'clear' filter taken moments apart?
 
4wd said:
Could someone post an un-altered pair of photos with and without UV or similar 'clear' filter taken moments apart?
Click to expand...

what quality of filter and in what scenario, with reflections on it for example or in ideal conditions. What are you trying to achieve here?
 
4wd said:
Could someone post an un-altered pair of photos with and without UV or similar 'clear' filter taken moments apart?
Click to expand...

Type something like flare with UV filter into google images and see what comes up.
 
4wd said:
Could someone post an un-altered pair of photos with and without UV or similar 'clear' filter taken moments apart?
Click to expand...

No filter - Expensive filter - Cheap filter

Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg
 
Should have said jog on mate if you knew half as much as you think you do you might have got this gig not me.
 
You were right not to push the argument. He's got his opinion, you've got your (correct) opinion. ;)
 
The differences are quite striking when you see them side by side! Cheers Frank for that image!
 
random togger said:
A UV filter will improve your images as well.
Click to expand...
Up until this bit, it was simply a difference in opinion about what is more important - protection or IQ.
At this point, though, the debate has entered la-la land and you did the right thing in walking away. You can't have a rational conversation with the delusional. :cuckoo:


(I'm assuming you both aren't film shooters, in which case he may have been right)
 
Last edited:
he was probably a film shooter who hasn't quite caught up with how digital cameras work?
 
I'm guessing you may be right on the money their Chris. He started out in photography back during the film era and has since moved to digital.
 
Why is everyone being so harsh on the filter guy.. I dont agree wiht him... but some people seems to be going a bit OTT . just seemed like a healthy enough debate to me....

or in other words


clam down calm down :)
 
I'm not particularly convinced that there was a 'right' or 'wrong' outcome to the debate, but there comes a time when it is best to 'agree to disagree'... Anyway, this thread has probably run its course now. :lock:
 
Eddzz!! said:
I'm guessing you may be right on the money their Chris. He started out in photography back during the film era and has since moved to digital.
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with clinging to traditions mired in prior technology.

I was deeply moved when the lad who waved the flag in front of my car got run over. It Makes one wonder. Why? WHY?

Why didn't I brake?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top