Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 8, 2007, 11:35 PM   #31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chill out.....there are thousands of ways to learn. I should know...I taught myself everything using the Internet!
  Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2007, 1:36 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

well I will tell you what i did, put it on auto Jpeg for a couple of months, shot anything and everything inside and outdoors, got the feel of the camera. Used a UV filter on all my lenses with no degredation EVER. looked though a lot of photos online, checked out their EXIF data and had fun while learning from different sites and books and learned the process of editing with help from people on line that were kind enough to lend a hand. I now shoot with a 30D and RAW all the time and I think i produce reasonable shots.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2007, 4:36 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
nickphoto123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,356
Default

Andrew Waters wrote:
Quote:

First Nick says this to WilliamG:

You have been tossed the Rule of Thirds. IGNORE IT.


How hard is it to learn the rule of thirds Nick? There is no mystery in that.


then...

''My suggestionscause you to foucus on Composition and Light.''


...and suddenly he's required to do the very same thing you told him not to initially?
Hi Andrew Waters,

Who said the Rule of Thirds is hard to learn?

I suggested it is to limiting on a new photographer's outlook.

He or She should capture a subject as he or she sees it first. Having a Newbie apply such a rule constrains the newbie's outlook through the newbie's viewfinder, IMHO.

Composition is notadhering to the Rule of Thirds.

It is filling your viewfinder, or not. holding your subject straight or not, etc. The newbie may have an entirely new way of perceiving the world, why limit it before it is expressed?

Composition at only 50mm is not easy to do when most people are content to remain static in one place and zoom in on a subject. Zooming in does not teach one Composition as well as having to move one's self and camera around to get a good Composition because all you can use is 50mm as a field of view.

Thanks for your comments and opinions, they make this forum a great place to share ideas about photography.

Nicholas
nickphoto123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2007, 5:20 AM   #34
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The whole UV protective flter thing is an endless debate.

With some lenses and filters it does seriously affect image quality. I don't use them at all any more because I don't feel I ever need to "protect" my lenses. For instance don't use one at all on the 70-300 DO under any circumstances no matter how expensive the filter. On the 17-85 I found even a very expensive Hoya "Pro" filter caused very noticable vignetting at the wide angles.

With a good quality filter on your 28-135 I don't imagine you would have any adverse effects.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2007, 7:32 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Iveheard all the pros and cons before about UV filters.I have tested all my lenses with and without the filters and cant see a difference at all. Problem is I get sick of cleaning the lenses from salt, living on the coast. And also have had tree branches come back into the lenses while out getting bird shots, the hood did nothing.I would rather a scratch on the UV than on an expensive lens. That said if I was shooting inside most of the time, I would not bother with them. The decision is up to each person. whenI started off with a DSLR I remember clearly people telling me thatI would have serious degradation if I used a filter. This has never eventuated and I doubt if anyone went through my flicker site they could pick which photo had a UV on or off as there are some of each type. Bottom line is the print outs are tack sharp which is all I care about really.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2007, 10:59 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
nickphoto123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,356
Default

Aladyforty stated it best about UV filters.

I never had any negativeaffect on my images. I always use a UV filter.

I never have to worry about the coating on my lens. This is the bottom line.

Regards,

Nicholas
nickphoto123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2007, 1:55 AM   #37
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I don't use filters and I don't have to worry about the coatings on my lenses OR image quality. :blah: The coatings on lenses are really not all that fragile, nor is the lens surface itself.

I always used to use them in my film days, then happened to buy a couple of lenses that really had problems with filters when I got my DSLR.

Whatever you do there's no point in spending lots of money on a lens then putting a cheap filter in front of it.

I have another reason not to use them; I use DXO optics correction software. All the camera and lens profiles are done without filters. Adding a filter (subtly or not-so-subtly) will change the optical characteristics so that the profiles are no longer a perfect match.

Seriously though, sometimes it degrades image quality and sometimes it doesn't. And in hostile environments it makes good sense to use one. If you are prone to bumping and scratching the front of your lenses it makes sense to use one too.

But you don't HAVE to use them, a lot of us don't.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2007, 6:04 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
nickphoto123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,356
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
"I don't use filters and I don't have to worry about the coatings on my lenses OR image quality. :blah: The coatings on lenses are really not all that fragile, nor is the lens surface itself."
Quote:
-----Yours is mis-information that may lead newbies astray. EVERYONE has to 'worry about the coatings' on their lens.
Quote:
"I have another reason not to use them; I use DXO optics correction software. All the camera and lens profiles are done without filters. Adding a filter (subtly or not-so-subtly) will change the optical characteristics so that the profiles are no longer a perfect match."
Quote:
------No one would see any difference in adjustments by any Optics correction software applied to an image with a UV filter or one without a filter. Your suggestion is like suggesting you can visually differentiate between neighboring pixels.
Quote:
" But you don't HAVE to use them, a lot of us don't".
Quote:
-----No one 'Has' to use UV filters. But if you want to use your Camera without any underlying worry about damaging your lens, use a good UV filter. In the back of the minds of all photogs who don't use a UV filter is a little bit of worry about damaging their lens. Why dissapate your nervous energy when you can put a UV filter on your lens and use that energy toward capturing images?
Quote:
Regards,
Quote:
Nicholas
nickphoto123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2007, 6:47 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

nickphoto123 wrote:
Quote:
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
"I don't use filters and I don't have to worry about the coatings on my lenses OR image quality. :blah: The coatings on lenses are really not all that fragile, nor is the lens surface itself."
Quote:
-----Yours is mis-information that may lead newbies astray. EVERYONE has to 'worry about the coatings' on their lens.
Quote:
"I have another reason not to use them; I use DXO optics correction software. All the camera and lens profiles are done without filters. Adding a filter (subtly or not-so-subtly) will change the optical characteristics so that the profiles are no longer a perfect match."
Quote:
------No one would see any difference in adjustments by any Optics correction software applied to an image with a UV filter or one without a filter. Your suggestion is like suggesting you can visually differentiate between neighboring pixels.
Quote:
" But you don't HAVE to use them, a lot of us don't".
Quote:
-----No one 'Has' to use UV filters. But if you want to use your Camera without any underlying worry about damaging your lens, use a good UV filter. In the back of the minds of all photogs who don't use a UV filter is a little bit of worry about damaging their lens. Why dissapate your nervous energy when you can put a UV filter on your lens and use that energy toward capturing images?
Quote:
Regards,
Quote:
Nicholas
Nick, you have to worry if you are putting your lenses in situations where they can get damaged, however say you have a lens set up in a studio for indoor portraits, you would hardly need a filter.I believe there are times when you use them and times when you don't bother. For me it is mainly a filter ON situation as I spend a lot of time walking through bushland and on beaches. But If I'm doing indoor macro I take the filter off.I don't think he was trying to give newbies the wrong info. I only use good hoya filters on my lenses and would advise people using filters to buy the best.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2007, 7:34 AM   #40
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

nickphoto123 wrote:
Quote:
-----Yours is mis-information that may lead newbies astray. EVERYONE has to 'worry about the coatings' on their lens.
*Sigh* - I don't - maybe I'm just crazy. On the other hand in 20 years I've never damaged the surface of my lenses (or filters) so maybe I'm not.



Quote:
------No one would see any difference in adjustments by any Optics correction software applied to an image with a UV filter or one without a filter. Your suggestion is like suggesting you can visually differentiate between neighboring pixels.
This is just rubbish.

To give you two examples from my personal experience - a UV filter on some lenses can cause extra vignetting. I believe about 0.5 stops extra on my 17-85 with the filter I was using at 17mm. My correction software corrects for vignetting automatically, but won't take that extra 0.5 stops into account. On the 70-300 DO lens it dramatically affects micro-contrast and so the perception of sharpness, the optimal sharpening for that lens is automatically corrected for in DXO and putting a UV filter on messes that up.

Sometimes (some lenses and some filters) it will make no difference sometimes it does.



Quote:
In the back of the minds of all photogs who don't use a UV filter is a little bit of worry about damaging their lens. Why dissapate your nervous energy when you can put a UV filter on your lens and use that energy toward capturing images
Once again the silly hype. I can assure you that I don't spend a single moment when I'm out shooting worrying about the lack of UV filter.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:34 PM.