Saw these filters and just thought id ask...

[Blitz55]

When I see something Like this I just wonder.

Amazon.com: Zeikos Filter set for Sony Alpha DSLR-A200, DSLR-A300, DSLR-A350 - 55mm High Resolution 3-piece Filter Set (UV, Fluorescent, Polarizer) - Black: Electronics

There is this set of lenses that are marked down from 50 dollars to 7 dollars.
But even at 50 dollars Im wondering are these just bad filters? Are they something a beginner should start out with.

Don't know much about filters so I wanted ask.
Just learning.

If your starting out is it better to just buy a kit like that or put in some money and buy a good one?

 

[Derrel]

At say, $2.00 each, plus $1.00 for the case, how could these things possibly be bad filters? I mean, this is a $7.00 set of filters we're talking about here!!! These have to be some of the best, highest-quality, most carefully quality controlled filters coming out of any Chinese sweatshop factory located anywhere in China.

(Just kidding! They are complete and utter crap.)

 

[SJGordon]

Junk with threads.

Get good filters. You don't have to go buy the filters that are $150 each right off the bat, but you can get decent filters for $30-40 each that will work much better than those $7 ones.

 

[enzodm]

And by the way a couple of them are not much useful. You may look for a polarizer, but better if a circular one (not declared in the linked product).

 

[Karri]

I have a set of this "junk" and as a beginner and someone low on discretionary funds, I have found them helpful. I am not debating they may not be the best but curious as to how the others are better. Clarity? Thickness of the filter? Difference between threaded and not? Thanks in advance! :thumbup:

 

[Blitz55]

Thanks for the replies,

I figured they were not up to snuff. I just was curious how bad it could be.

Id like to get a polarizing filter for sure. Just wasn't sure how much is to much or not enough for someone starting out. Ill look around.

 

[sobolik]

When I see something Like this I just wonder.

Amazon.com: Zeikos Filter set for Sony Alpha DSLR-A200, DSLR-A300, DSLR-A350 - 55mm High Resolution 3-piece Filter Set (UV, Fluorescent, Polarizer) - Black: Electronics

There is this set of lenses that are marked down from 50 dollars to 7 dollars.
But even at 50 dollars Im wondering are these just bad filters? Are they something a beginner should start out with.

Don't know much about filters so I wanted ask.
Just learning.

If your starting out is it better to just buy a kit like that or put in some money and buy a good one?

I assume these are being considered for a digital camera? If so the only one worth having is the polarizer.

Therefore I say it is not a good deal. They would most likely work just fine but they are not a good deal.

A good deal at a similar price would be a cheap polarizer off eBay at a much larger mm. The 55mm makes it a deal killer for me. I use an 82mm for all my lenses and step rings to fit them. The rings are likewise cheap on eBay.

I say no don't buy the 55mm "kit" just for the polarizer.

ps there are only three filters that can not be duplicated in software. UV, polarizer and ND filters.

AND FORGET THE FORUM ADVISE - BUY CHEAP UNLESS EXPERIENCE PROVES THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. PEOPLE MAKE WAY TO MUCH FUSS OVER WHAT IS ON THE END OF THE LENS = http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

 

[Josh66]

ps there are only three filters that can not be duplicated in software. UV, polarizer and ND filters

What does the UV filter do that can't be done in Photoshop?

And what about IR filters? As far as I know, that can only be done in camera. You can kinda-sorta fake it in PS, but it always looks fake.

There are a few other, special use filters, that can't be faked reliably in PS.
Star burst, and soft focus/haze are two that come to mind right off the bat...

 

[Blitz55]

When I see something Like this I just wonder.

Amazon.com: Zeikos Filter set for Sony Alpha DSLR-A200, DSLR-A300, DSLR-A350 - 55mm High Resolution 3-piece Filter Set (UV, Fluorescent, Polarizer) - Black: Electronics

There is this set of lenses that are marked down from 50 dollars to 7 dollars.
But even at 50 dollars Im wondering are these just bad filters? Are they something a beginner should start out with.

Don't know much about filters so I wanted ask.
Just learning.

If your starting out is it better to just buy a kit like that or put in some money and buy a good one?

I assume these are being considered for a digital camera? If so the only one worth having is the polarizer.

Therefore I say it is not a good deal. They would most likely work just fine but they are not a good deal.

A good deal at a similar price would be a cheap polarizer off eBay at a much larger mm. The 55mm makes it a deal killer for me. I use an 82mm for all my lenses and step rings to fit them. The rings are likewise cheap on eBay.

I say no don't buy the 55mm "kit" just for the polarizer.

ps there are only three filters that can not be duplicated in software. UV, polarizer and ND filters.

AND FORGET THE FORUM ADVISE - BUY CHEAP UNLESS EXPERIENCE PROVES THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. PEOPLE MAKE WAY TO MUCH FUSS OVER WHAT IS ON THE END OF THE LENS = Dirty lens article

That was an interesting read. (The link you left at the end.)
Ill have to take a look on Ebay sometime here.

 

[sobolik]

ps there are only three filters that can not be duplicated in software. UV, polarizer and ND filters

What does the UV filter do that can't be done in Photoshop?

And what about IR filters? As far as I know, that can only be done in camera. You can kinda-sorta fake it in PS, but it always looks fake.

There are a few other, special use filters, that can't be faked reliably in PS.
Star burst, and soft focus/haze are two that come to mind right off the bat...

Actually there is a rather interesting polarizer duplicating plan in Photoshop as well. This is a beginner forum and the hard and fast rules are adequate. For the advanced they may find that the software star bursts are not as good as the real thing etc. Likewise the real polarizer is vastly better than the fake one. However the fake one may be required if a 12mm lens was used. The masters all pioneered often breaking rules as they went. But for beginners the three mentioned are a good "rule" to start with.
Haze is similar to wash out. Haze from UV must be cleared up at the lens by a UV filter and wash out or overexposing of highlights prevented at the lens with ND filters. Software cannot restore the details that were never recorded.
Yes IR is a unique issue.
Soft focus is easy as can be in Photoshop.

 

[Overread36]

Haze is similar to wash out. Haze from UV must be cleared up at the lens by a UV filter and wash out or overexposing of highlights prevented at the lens with ND filters. Software cannot restore the details that were never recorded.

But modern DSLR lenses already have UV coatings and the camera sensor itself has a UV filter in front of it. So for general use the DSLR already has its UV filter attached all the time and has no need of an additional lens UV filter to cut out UV.
The exceptions are in strong hazy environments (typically most of the way up the side of a mountain ).

 

[sobolik]

Haze is similar to wash out. Haze from UV must be cleared up at the lens by a UV filter and wash out or overexposing of highlights prevented at the lens with ND filters. Software cannot restore the details that were never recorded.

But modern DSLR lenses already have UV coatings and the camera sensor itself has a UV filter in front of it. So for general use the DSLR already has its UV filter attached all the time and has no need of an additional lens UV filter to cut out UV.
The exceptions are in strong hazy environments (typically most of the way up the side of a mountain ).

I'm not fluent in UV filter and digital sensor but here is an interesting read concerning UV and IR

Another test for UV photography is using a sunscreening lotion to cover a face partially. You should get a clear-cut pattern, because a decent lotion effectively absorbs UV

Nikon D70, UV-Nikkor 105 mm f/4.5,

Hoya-U-360 filter

Photo © Bjørn Rørslett/NN

Why the Hoya Filter? On D70? To maximize UV passage



All You Ever Wanted to Know About Digital UV and IR Photography, But Could Not Afford to Ask

3. Capturing digital UV

All About Digital UV and IR. Page 3: Can Digital Capture UV images?

a tease:

"Exposures for digital UV photography are often handled well by the camera itself, just as we found for digital IR. However, take extreme care to ensure that no stray light can enter through the camera's ocular. Use the eye-piece shutter to guard against this, or if your camera lacks such feature, cover the ocular by your hand or black cloth. Since the UV levels are much lower than ordinary light, the metering system is guaranteed to be thrown out of whack unless you take these precautions. ​

Some cameras, in particular Nikon D100, needs a substantial +EV correction to be dialed in as well. Similar to the IR case, you should check that the LCD histogram displays really useful information. If the CCD records little in the green channel for the UV pictures, the histogram will indicate a severe underexposure, while in fact the image may be properly exposed for UV. You have to examine the entire RGB-histogram in a suitable computer program (Bibble, Nikon Capture, Adobe Photoshop etc.) to make sure your exposures are spot on.​

Compared with visual-light shooting, you can expect any kind of UV photography to give from 6 up to 15 stops longer exposures, so by necessity a tripod should be used. The apparent loss of film/digital sensitivity is largely caused by UV intensity itself being so much lower than visible light levels, but a further loss occur due to lens and the recording media (film or digital sensors). With my UV-Nikkor lens, I find the digital UV correction to range from +4 to +6.5 EV, which in fact is quite similar to that of film-based UV photography. However, for non-quartz lenses you would expect quite higher correction factors than this. Stacking the UV bandpass filter(s) with a hot-mirror filter also gives a penalty measured in a higher factor, thus typically 1- 2 EV should be added.​

One might end up with excessively long exposures, so digital noise is likely degrading the images. If your camera has a noise-reduction feature, ensure it is switched on before shooting UV.​

 

[Josh66]

The UV filter they're talking about in the post above is the opposite of what most people here think of when they see a 'UV filter'.

The filters they're talking about there blocks everything but UV, much like an IR filter.
Not the same as the UV filters commonly used for 'protection' (which block UV).
(EDIT - and the OP is definetely not buying one of those for $7... :lmao: )

If that's what you were talking about earlier, then yes - you are right and I apologize. UV photography cannot be faked in PS reliably. I have a feeling that most people here have no clue about that though...

Soft focus is easy as can be in Photoshop.

I do not believe that Photoshop can replicate what a soft focus lens or filter does.

Yes, you can get close, but it's not quite the same, and you can tell the difference.

Soft focus is not the same as out of focus.

 

[Josh66]

These are the UV filters sobolik is talking about:
B+W 77mm UV Black (403) Filter 65011796 B&H Photo Video

If you find one for $7, let me know.

 

[sobolik]

These are the UV filters sobolik is talking about:
B+W 77mm UV Black (403) Filter 65011796 B&H Photo Video

If you find one for $7, let me know.

No. Those are the one the author was talking about. I was talking about the standard ones used for lens protection and haze. I am unaware of the idiosyncrasies of the sensor vs the filter. It is possible that UV filter is entirely unneeded when it comes to haze on a DLR. I have read that it is needed on film but not on Digital. I have also read that it cannot be duplicated in software. Perhaps such a software comment was not in any way associated with the digital camera? I have not seen any definitive writings. The link I posted is a rather definitive discussion but from the standpoint of maximizing the UV impact. Still it can be applied to the knowledge of minimizing as well.

If anyone has a link to a definitive treatment on UV minimizing filter and the digital sensor I am all ears (eyes)