Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 1, 2004, 4:45 PM   #1
Senior Member
amytude's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 181
Default dSLR users, do you use filters on your camera?

Just wondering if this is pointless with the filters in photoshop. I feel like I have asked a million questions in the last week. Thanks!

amytude is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 1, 2004, 5:40 PM   #2
Senior Member
ohenry's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676

Amy, this is a question that is going to get two very distinct answers. There are basically two camps out there. One that claims you should protect your lens by putting a UV filter on every lens and the other camp that argues that a UV filter on your lens degrades the image and therefore you should not use one.

Personally, I do NOT use filters on my lenses unless the situation calls for a filter. I use polarizer filters for reflections and to strengthen the blue skies when necessary. If I am in an area that causes concern, such as salt spray or extreme dust, I will place a UV filter on my lens. Normally, I rely on lens hoods, lens covers, and careful handling of my equipment to protect my lenses. I've been using SLR lenses for well over 20 years without protective filters and have never scratched a lens or damaged the front element in any way. But, there are many that feel the added piece of mind is worth putting a protective filter on your lens. Basically, there is no right or wrong answer here. It's a matter of personal opinion. I will add, if you do decide to go the protective filter route, use a quality filter and not just a cheap piece of glass.

The other filters such as warming, cooling, ND, colors, etc. aren't really necessary with digital, but you can use them if you don't want to mess with it in Photoshop.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 6:53 PM   #3
Senior Member
cowboy43's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 923

I have a UV on everything!!! and lens hood . Henry has the option of removal because he is a MASTER PRO :P at PS. On the 2nd horse show I shot, shooting the 80-200 nikkor A horse came up stopping fast in front of me and I heard Ping!!! My heart Stopped Looking down the barrel the UV ( A Nikon) was cracked $60 bucks Gone but alot better than $1600 Lens. Whew!! I think it is good Insurance when you are in situations where your lens is in Danger Like henry said.
cowboy43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 7:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
UrbanPhotos's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 382

I use an SLR-like camera, and I've used film SLRs in the past. I'm one of those people who likes to leave a UV on all the time.

The two main problems I've encountered with this are

1) the filter can sometimes make it hard to put on the lens cap
2) putting a polarizer on top of a UV filter can cause vingetting (darkening of the image corners) if the lens has a wide enough field of view.
UrbanPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 7:37 PM   #5
Senior Member
CastleDude's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 321

In addition to protection (which I do believe in) there are a few filters that you cannot do in Photoshop.

Circular polarizer... Controlling reflections and glare.

ND ... Sometimes you just need them and 1/2 NDs (half glass half ND) are probably more usefull in digital than in film for dropping the sunlight. This can be really useful on the Nikon with ASA 200 bottom end and on P/S with f8.0 max.

IR ... Not required but can be fun. A Photoshop filter can fake this but it is a fake effect and the real one is often more interesting.

I keep all the above in my kit...

Sometimes it is just fun to play and then I break out the Cokin set and have fun with different color filters. I know I can do that in Photoshop but being able to preview the results real time is easier with the filter. I usually shoot in two shot sets one with filter on and one with filter off. I can then Photoshop the filter off one in finer resolution to get the effect I saw with the filter on.

Most of the magic effects like star filters are now retired and done entirely in Photoshop where I can do it a lot better.
CastleDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 11:08 PM   #6
Senior Member
eric s's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

I use really good UV multi-coated filter on my expensive lens (100-400L @ $1,400) but I don't on my other glass. I probably should on my $800 lens.

As ohenry says, I don't buy "cheap glass" UV filters, but buy expensive ones that should have the least effect possible (for an acceptable price) on the picture. The light is passing through something. I don't believe science has found a way to cancel the effect that filter will have on the light (at least not at a price the market is willing to accept.) But if you buy a good filter, the effect is minimal.

I also own a circular polarizer for my wide angle. I don't own any others.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2004, 1:09 AM   #7
Senior Member
marokero's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769

I put B+W 010 UV/Haze clear filter on all my lenses, regardless of how cheap they may be ($90 50mm f/1.8) or how expensive ($$$$ 70-200mm /2.8 AF-S VR). To me it's just good sense to protect my investment at all times. Circular polarizer and neltral grads I believe are irreplaceable by Photoshop. You may take multiple exposures and later combine them, but why go through that process if you can get the shot right at the time of capture, and in a single shot?
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2004, 6:22 AM   #8
Senior Member
checklg's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 659

I'm considering something protective for any realy close-up work this summer. Annoyed ants have a habit of spraying formic acid....

checklg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2004, 9:59 AM   #9
Senior Member
mdparker's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 365

For those of you stating, get a good UV filter, what do you consider good? What should I look for ... brand, price, etc ?

Is there a noticable difference between a shot with a UV and one without?

mdparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2004, 10:32 AM   #10
Senior Member
PeterP's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,397

I both use them and don't depending on the situation.
For glass filters I do prefer the B&W's they run around 150$cnd for a 72mm UV filter.

With the very wide lenses <28mm you may find the filters especially if you use more that one intrude (cause vignetting) in the image.

I do carry a fairly large pile of Cokin P series filters and lens shades around with me, I have a cokin adapter bolted to each lense.

The UV filter at low altitudes does not alter the image much. It is supposed to cut out a bit of the higher blue end of the spectrum.
So it serves as a good front element protector if needed.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:42 AM.