UV or skylight filters for digital

"Kevin McMurtrie" wrote in message
...


If you're looking for protection when a polarizer isn't on, a better
option might be a lens hood. It offers some physical protection and it
improves, rather than harms, the image clarity.

A well-made UV filter will not harm the image and may improve it. It should
be multicoated like the lens -- not just window glass. It needs to be equal
in quality to the other lens elements. Hoya makes very good multicoated UV
filters.

"Phil Stripling" wrote in message
...
"Mr Jessop" writes:

Anyone who says "won't need to worry you probably won't damage anything
anyway" is a fool. The only way to avoid getting the front of the lens
dirty is to not use it at all.

An insightful analysis capped by your own example of your clumsiness.

I get the distinct feeling that is by no way a compliment of any kind.


My
suggestion for you is leaving the lens cap on at all times. And get the
screw in kind, not the snap on kind.

i cannot begin to explain how inconvenient that would be.

Or is this sarcasm?



Of course the lens gets dirty; hence, lens cleaning supplies.

I'd rather clean a robust and cheap filter rather than the front of some of
my precious glass.

For most
people, a "protective" filter offers no protection

Those people who live in a dust fee vacuum.

and a lens hood would do
more good.

most lens hoods are made from rubber. They are the best and cheapest
defence against lens flare. Considering how muddy this field was the lens
hood would have to have been metal, 5mm thick with a lip and bean at least a
foot long.

For the sake of £10 on a £799 camera with a £100 lens a uv filter is an
incredibly cheap investment.

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.

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.

In article ,
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.

UV and skylight filters should be the same price. Skylight (or KR1.5 to
KR 6) filters are warming filters that will also cut UV. They have been
commonly used by professional wedding and portrait photographers
shooting negative film for decades to add a slight warmth to the image.

UV filters are made from a yellow toned glass and were not as pleasing
for use with portraits and weddings and can be used for both B and W as
well as color imaging. Skylight (KR) filters are not useful for B and W
and are primarily used with color.

With digital this has changed as the UV has less of an effect on white
balance then the Skylight.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

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.

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.

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.

Filters also keep you from accidently or someone else putting
fingerprints on your lens.

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.

Filters also keep you from accidently or someone else putting
fingerprints on your lens.

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.