UV or skylight filters for digital

In article , Crownfield
wrote:

all you need is just one accident.
a flying piece of debris or bump of the camera,
and either you replace the $75 uv filter,
or you have the front glass in the lens replaced.

In 37 years of doing all kinds of photography both professionally and
non, I have never had the above happen to me.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article , Crownfield
wrote:

all you need is just one accident.
a flying piece of debris or bump of the camera,
and either you replace the $75 uv filter,
or you have the front glass in the lens replaced.

In 37 years of doing all kinds of photography both professionally and
non, I have never had the above happen to me.

last week someone showed a race picture here.
flying gravel from the road hit his filter.

if that gravel hits the front element of a Zeis lens for the blad,
it will cost you 10-20 dollars per year for each of the 37 years.
and the camera will be gone for several weeks.

I also have not had a problem in about the same time,
but insurance / filter is cheap.

Crownfield wrote:

last week someone showed a race picture here.
flying gravel from the road hit his filter.

if that gravel hits the front element of a Zeis lens for the blad,
it will cost you 10-20 dollars per year for each of the 37 years.
and the camera will be gone for several weeks.

Having had a number of lenses "damaged" by like events, I can tell you
that a chip or scratch caused by such things does not destroy a lens and
most of the time a felt tip marking pen will repair the damage and the lens
will function like new. In fact it will likely function better than a new
lens with a filter added.

Randall, I have over 40 years of professional and non-professional
photography experience.

If it makes you feel good to use a filter to "protect" your lens or to
buy the extended warrantee offered at an ridiculous price when you buy your
camera, feel free to do so. You money spent will make you feel better and
the filter will do little or nothing to damage your images.


I also have not had a problem in about the same time,
but insurance / filter is cheap.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:28:41 -0700, Crownfield wrote:

pet wrote:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:33:21 +0100, Graham Archer wrote:

Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?
Regards
Graham

UV/Skylight filters work best with transparency films. They reduce the
bluish cast particularly for aerials.

They are basically ineffective for negative films and digital.

Some photographers believe in "protecting" lenses with these filters.
Most pros don't bother since they are but one more piece of glass to keep
dust-free and one more layer of glass to shoot through.

back up and think for a minute.

uv filters change the uv / visible ratio.

only one layer needs to be cleaned:
the outside layer, which will be the UV filter.

one way, you keep cleaning the cheap filter,
the other way you keep cleaning the expensive lens.

all you need is just one accident.
a flying piece of debris or bump of the camera,
and either you replace the $75 uv filter,
or you have the front glass in the lens replaced.

one choice is cheaper and faster.



30+ yrs experience as a professional photographer here. When I started,
every lense had a UV or Skylight filter to "protect" and because I was
initially led to believe that I needed that filter. I stopped using them
years ago. I shoot primarily color neg and b/w. They have little
if any effect on the color or tones of either. As for "protecting", the
filters proved to be one more piece of glass to clean and to shoot
through. With a lens you clean one surface. With filters, you now have 3
surfaces to keep clean: the lens as well as both sides of the filter.

As for damage to a lens, quit pampering the equipment so much. Cameras
and accessories are tools to be used and sometimes abused to get the
picture you want. The smart photographer will have camera insurance which
covers all damage to equipment.

I always carry lens cleaning materials with each camera system.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:28:41 -0700, Crownfield wrote:

pet wrote:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:33:21 +0100, Graham Archer wrote:

Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?
Regards
Graham

UV/Skylight filters work best with transparency films. They reduce the
bluish cast particularly for aerials.

They are basically ineffective for negative films and digital.

Some photographers believe in "protecting" lenses with these filters.
Most pros don't bother since they are but one more piece of glass to keep
dust-free and one more layer of glass to shoot through.

back up and think for a minute.

uv filters change the uv / visible ratio.

only one layer needs to be cleaned:
the outside layer, which will be the UV filter.

one way, you keep cleaning the cheap filter,
the other way you keep cleaning the expensive lens.

all you need is just one accident.
a flying piece of debris or bump of the camera,
and either you replace the $75 uv filter,
or you have the front glass in the lens replaced.

one choice is cheaper and faster.



30+ yrs experience as a professional photographer here. When I started,
every lense had a UV or Skylight filter to "protect" and because I was
initially led to believe that I needed that filter. I stopped using them
years ago. I shoot primarily color neg and b/w. They have little
if any effect on the color or tones of either. As for "protecting", the
filters proved to be one more piece of glass to clean and to shoot
through. With a lens you clean one surface. With filters, you now have 3
surfaces to keep clean: the lens as well as both sides of the filter.

As for damage to a lens, quit pampering the equipment so much. Cameras
and accessories are tools to be used and sometimes abused to get the
picture you want. The smart photographer will have camera insurance which
covers all damage to equipment.

I always carry lens cleaning materials with each camera system.

In article ,
pet wrote:

The smart photographer will have camera insurance which
covers all damage to equipment.

A filter is a hell of a lot cheaper insurance. Also, when you do need
the filter for protection, it is there.

If, by chance, you don't have the filter and need the protection your
insurance policy won't help you make the shot.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article ,
pet wrote:

The smart photographer will have camera insurance which
covers all damage to equipment.

A filter is a hell of a lot cheaper insurance. Also, when you do need
the filter for protection, it is there.

If, by chance, you don't have the filter and need the protection your
insurance policy won't help you make the shot.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

pet wrote:
....

30+ yrs experience as a professional photographer here. When I started,
every lense had a UV or Skylight filter to "protect" and because I was
initially led to believe that I needed that filter.

And that belief was started by or at the very least used by the retail
photo industry to sell those very high profit filters.

I worked in the retail photo industry for about 15 years. Lucky for me
I never worked for someone who pushed the sale of those filters as most did.
In the later years I was the boss and I taught my people not to push them.
However most did. They used the fear factor. The camera itself was a low
profit item. The money was made on the rest of the stuff. Most sales, even
mine, netted more profit on the 30% of the cost for accessories than the
cost of the camera. Today many of those people who were told they needed
skylight filters to protect their lens (the salesman seldom bothered to
explain the real use of the lens or that it could increase flare etc.) are
now telling others that they need the same. Today with better coatings and
equipment cost etc. the insurance logic does not have as much truth to it as
it did in the 60's.

I stopped using them
years ago. I shoot primarily color neg and b/w. They have little
if any effect on the color or tones of either. As for "protecting", the
filters proved to be one more piece of glass to clean and to shoot
through. With a lens you clean one surface. With filters, you now have 3
surfaces to keep clean: the lens as well as both sides of the filter.

As for damage to a lens, quit pampering the equipment so much. Cameras
and accessories are tools to be used and sometimes abused to get the
picture you want.

You are so right. It seems many photographers praise the camera more
than the image.

The smart photographer will have camera insurance which
covers all damage to equipment.

I always carry lens cleaning materials with each camera system.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
pet wrote:

The smart photographer will have camera insurance which
covers all damage to equipment.

A filter is a hell of a lot cheaper insurance. Also, when you do need
the filter for protection, it is there.

If, by chance, you don't have the filter and need the protection your
insurance policy won't help you make the shot.


Funny this response appears to come from a marketing person.

In all my years of photography I have never had a lens damaged in such a
way that it would not function properly. I have never seen a lens that was
damaged from anyone that would have prevented them from capturing an image.

The worse damage I even had was to a rangefinder camera that a young
lady friend threw at me in a fit of passion. The filter (a colour
correction filter) that was on at the time was broken and the filter ring
bent. Making up later made up for the damage.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
pet wrote:

The smart photographer will have camera insurance which
covers all damage to equipment.

A filter is a hell of a lot cheaper insurance. Also, when you do need
the filter for protection, it is there.

If, by chance, you don't have the filter and need the protection your
insurance policy won't help you make the shot.


Funny this response appears to come from a marketing person.

In all my years of photography I have never had a lens damaged in such a
way that it would not function properly. I have never seen a lens that was
damaged from anyone that would have prevented them from capturing an image.

The worse damage I even had was to a rangefinder camera that a young
lady friend threw at me in a fit of passion. The filter (a colour
correction filter) that was on at the time was broken and the filter ring
bent. Making up later made up for the damage.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math