To filter or not to filter

[Derrel]

View attachment 118083

Okay,okay, time for a little user-directed mediation on this issue. And remember, it is now, and always shall be---LADIES first, Pixmedic!!!

 

[Derrel]

You needed to put a plastic UV filter over the glass UV filter in order to protect it.

What kind of UV filter will I need to protect the plastic UV filter?

The UV filter brand or type of coating system is not all that important--what's important is the cleaning system used to keep the precision coated optical surfaces immaculate. Whatever one thinks of the brand wars, realize that NIKON is the leader in helping Canon users keep their optics clean. Check out Nikon's high tech cleaning system for non-Nikon users, here, on one of my favorite sites, Camera Quest: Nikon Prototype Lens Cleaner for Canon Lenses

 

[480sparky]

The UV filter brand or type of coating system is not all that important--what's important is the cleaning system used to keep the precision coated optical surfaces immaculate. Whatever one thinks of the brand wars, realize that NIKON is the leader in helping Canon users keep their optics clean. Check out Nikon's high tech cleaning system for non-Nikon users, here, on one of my favorite sites, Camera Quest: Nikon Prototype Lens Cleaner for Canon Lenses

Those are for Canon lenses. What kind do I need for Nikkors? A Minolta cleaner? Pentax? Zeiss?

 

[Derrel]

I like the Pentax microfiber cleaning cloths for my Nikkors. The gray ones. No longer available unfortunately, having been supplanted by the SupaClean line.

I've had good luck with the Hanes brand cleaning system. Hanes Men's Classic Crew (Pack of 3) at Amazon Men’s Clothing store: Undershirts

 

[xenskhe]

The gray ones.

The gray ones are known to seriously reduce image quality; the crimson ones in the clear plastic wallets are highly regarded but nowadays very scarce.

And i only use Cokin filters, found in the pockets of old camera bags.

 

[Dave442]

I like filters, nothing like screwing a filter onto the front of a lens.

Actually, I wish I had used a filter at a waterfall a couple days ago. It was with the macro lens and last night when I pulled it out to take a product shot I noticed some spots on the front element left by the water drops from the waterfall. First I grabbed a handy microfiber cloth to attack the spots, did nothing, tried a lens pen, nothing, finally went through more than a few sheets of lens tissue and drops of eclipse along with much harder than usual pressure to remove the spots.

Anyway, I think it was just having to take the time to clean the lens when I could have just taken off a dirty filter to get the quick product shot. And reminder to self to clean the lenses at the end of the day.

 

[nerwin]

Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+.

But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter.

The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect.



Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.

 

[thereyougo!]

Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+.

But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter.

The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect.



Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.

(My bolding) Wash your mouth out. Fake 'long' exposures are an aberration on photography (IMO of course).

 

[nerwin]

Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+.

But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter.

The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect.



Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.

(My bolding) Wash your mouth out. Fake 'long' exposures are an aberration on photography (IMO of course).

Hey to each their own.

But its not like you are taking a single frame and manipulating it in photoshop to "look" like a long exposure. It's still multiple exposures taken at an interval and then blended together to simulate a single long exposure frame without having a darkened piece of glass in front of your lens where you require a tripod. Its just another way of getting this kind of shot. I forgot to mention that you don't need a tripod to do it this way, hand holding is fine as long as you don't move too much. No idea why I said you need a tripod.

Is it ideal in all situations? Absolutely not. But it could work in a pinch if you don't have a tripod with you and or invested in good quality set of ND filters.

But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.

 

[thereyougo!]

Nothing better than putting a 8$ UV filter on a $2,000 lens. Okay...I suppose to could get ProMaster's UV filters, they are like $100+.

But seriously, I don't use them and I stopped using them years ago. I had a decent Nikon NC filter and I did a test with and without and I noticed a huge difference. The shot without the filter was clearly sharper and more contrasty than the one with Nikon's NC filter.

The only filter I would use are ND and polarizers. I had a very expensive B+W multicoated polarizer but ended up returning it because I didn't care for the effect as much as I thought. Honestly you don't even need a ND filter, you could easily do the same effect by shooting multiple frames at a slow enough shutter speed, on tripod of course, and stack them in photoshop and you will get the same effect.



Now variable ND filters are very handy for recording video and want to be able to achieve that shallow depth of field during a sunny day. I need to pick on up, but they are not cheap.

(My bolding) Wash your mouth out. Fake 'long' exposures are an aberration on photography (IMO of course).

Hey to each their own.

But its not like you are taking a single frame and manipulating it in photoshop to "look" like a long exposure. It's still multiple exposures taken at an interval and then blended together to simulate a single long exposure frame without having a darkened piece of glass in front of your lens where you require a tripod. Its just another way of getting this kind of shot. I forgot to mention that you don't need a tripod to do it this way, hand holding is fine as long as you don't move too much. No idea why I said you need a tripod.

Is it ideal in all situations? Absolutely not. But it could work in a pinch if you don't have a tripod with you and or invested in good quality set of ND filters.

But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.

No offence taken at all. Just different horses etc...

 

[robbins.photo]

But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.

You never seem sorry when you offend me. Come to think of it, you never ask for a second cup of my coffee either... hmmm..

Lol

 

[480sparky]

......... Come to think of it, you never ask for a second cup of my coffee either... hmmm..

Lol

 

[nerwin]

But I'm sorry I offended you. Didn't mean it, just giving my opinion.

You never seem sorry when you offend me. Come to think of it, you never ask for a second cup of my coffee either... hmmm..

Lol

Then I'm sorry I offended you. If I always offend people, I guess there isn't any reason for me to stick around haha.

 

[robbins.photo]

Then I'm sorry I offended you. If I always offend people, I guess there isn't any reason for me to stick around haha.

Actually I would think that would be the best reason to stick around. If not then what are all these poor souls going to be able to vent that righteous outrage on? Come on man, it's a public service. Lol

 

[astroNikon]

Then I'm sorry I offended you. If I always offend people, I guess there isn't any reason for me to stick around haha.

Actually I would think that would be the best reason to stick around. If not then what are all these poor souls going to be able to vent that righteous outrage on? Come on man, it's a public service. Lol

It's like a Banana with no appeel. A-Peel .. banana .. get it ... never mind