Filter question

[250swb]

I still think it is sad that getting 'what you paid for' is higher up the list than creativity and expression when filters are mentioned.

The use of a protection filter may help with fast lens changes without the need to fumble with a lens cap, so this aids creativity and 'capturing the moment'. The use of a yellow filter on a film camera, or Monochrom, may help create the tonal contrast you want. Creative choices, not driven by how much is paid for a lens, but by the photographer who owns the lens, not the lens owning him. Maximising the way of working, being comfortable, getting what you want in other words.

Presumably it is on a sliding scale then, the less you pay the more creative you can be, because there is less pressure to exhibit the pure unadulterated justification for the price of the lens? I'd say this was true because there are many more interesting photographs from technically inferior lenses on show on the internet than from fantastically priced examples of perfection (present company excepted). I'm thinking Holga and Noctilux maybe, where the ratio would be 30,000 to 1, and even at that ratio it compensates for the people who simply can't afford the Nocti.

I think even mentioning the price of a lens means we are usually listening to a photographer with one arm tied behind their back (present company excepted). It is like a creative full stop, with the rules on how it can be used being made by the amount Leica charge. People apologise for using a modern Summarit as much as people tell them they need a modern Summicron. They are both better than the lenses Robert Frank, or Bresson, used, so where are the results? And that is why filters should be acceptable on either a cheap lens or a mega expensive lens, creativity should be paramount, results being priceless.

And no, I'm not being facetious in saying 'present company excepted', because internet forums do tend to attract some of the better photographers. I really am referring to all the people who just read the forum's and actually believe the rules we make in our pontification's are based on guaranteed results rather than 'its just the way I work'. But expense is not a rule, it is an attitude, a justification, the solution for which would be to burn all EXIF files and go back to when we simply trusted the photographer to do as well as he could in the most creative way possible with whatever imaging box and lens was available.

Steve

 

[jonoslack]

Nothing wrong with laziness. Clear protection filters - outside of shooting in bad conditions - are all about laziness. With a protection filter you can clean the kids' fingerprints off the front after blowing off the debris with your mouth and then wiping it with the shirt you've been wearing all day.

Sounds good to me!


I don't use clear filters - period. I paid for Leica coating, and I don't want to stick someone else's coating in front - simple as that.

I've not scratched the front element of any of my Leica lenses yet, and when I do, I'll pay for a new front element - I've saved far more than that by not buying filters.

The only time I have scratched the front element of a lens is when I WAS using a clear filter - I dropped it - the skylight filter shattered and some of the glass scratched the front element.

Go Naked I say!

all the best

 

[JohnBrew]

Not to get too far from the subject, but back in my short-lived R days I had a 28 Elmarit with a gigantic scratch across the middle of the lens. It never showed up on negatives or prints.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't believe much in rules and pontificating, Steve. I stopped using haze, UV and other "protection" filters except when necessary because I saw how much nicer my negatives looked without them. I use filters to adjust spectral balance when appropriate too. Stacking filters will always degrade image quality by ome amount, but I've done that too when needed or lazy.

Quick lens change? Keep the rigid lens hood on all lenses, they won't get hurt when you drop them hood down into their pocket in your bag unless you do something dumb. Do protect the back of the lens more as that will degrade performance more than a scratch or dust on the front element.

Moreover, do whatever makes ou happy with your gear and use it. Yes, there are some cameras I always have a filter on, and others I never do.

G

I still think it is sad that getting 'what you paid for' is higher up the list than creativity and expression when filters are mentioned.

The use of a protection filter may help with fast lens changes without the need to fumble with a lens cap, so this aids creativity and 'capturing the moment'. The use of a yellow filter on a film camera, or Monochrom, may help create the tonal contrast you want. Creative choices, not driven by how much is paid for a lens, but by the photographer who owns the lens, not the lens owning him. Maximising the way of working, being comfortable, getting what you want in other words.

Presumably it is on a sliding scale then, the less you pay the more creative you can be, because there is less pressure to exhibit the pure unadulterated justification for the price of the lens? I'd say this was true because there are many more interesting photographs from technically inferior lenses on show on the internet than from fantastically priced examples of perfection (present company excepted). I'm thinking Holga and Noctilux maybe, where the ratio would be 30,000 to 1, and even at that ratio it compensates for the people who simply can't afford the Nocti.

I think even mentioning the price of a lens means we are usually listening to a photographer with one arm tied behind their back (present company excepted). It is like a creative full stop, with the rules on how it can be used being made by the amount Leica charge. People apologise for using a modern Summarit as much as people tell them they need a modern Summicron. They are both better than the lenses Robert Frank, or Bresson, used, so where are the results? And that is why filters should be acceptable on either a cheap lens or a mega expensive lens, creativity should be paramount, results being priceless.

And no, I'm not being facetious in saying 'present company excepted', because internet forums do tend to attract some of the better photographers. I really am referring to all the people who just read the forum's and actually believe the rules we make in our pontification's are based on guaranteed results rather than 'its just the way I work'. But expense is not a rule, it is an attitude, a justification, the solution for which would be to burn all EXIF files and go back to when we simply trusted the photographer to do as well as he could in the most creative way possible with whatever imaging box and lens was available.

Steve

 

[Shashin]

I have thrown filters out because they become to dirty to clean. I have never shattered a filter, even when I a threw the camera into a ground. I have cracked filter, but none have ever shattered. BTW, putting a filter in front of your lens does not actually mean that the lens coatings stop working. The best coatings today are Nikon's Nano Crystal Coat--I do not think Leica is using the technology. And the technology is being used in filters now.

Do UV filters make an impact, sure. There has been a test done on UV filters (but none with nano tech):

UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

I have never seen proof from photographers that claim that a clear filter impact image quality. It is one of those arguments that simply go round and round. Most people throw rather dubious claims like why would you put a $50 piece of glass in front of a $5000 lens like the cost of making an optical blank with two parallel surfaces are as difficult to make an aspheric element whose surfaces are not the same. What they are really saying is that you should subscribe to their point of view. Same with the pro-filter folks with claims of dust storms in Central Park.

Personally, I doubt in any practical sense, unless you buy a really cheap filter, there will be any impact on your images. The chances are if you don't use a filter, you will still never damage your lens--lenses are actually quite tough. For me, I have found that every few years I need to replace my filters because of wear and tear--they are just too dirty from the environments I work in. But this is a single data point--I don't have a comparable situation except my Widelux, but the lens is pretty much protected anyway. So I really have counterpoint to say the lens can always be cleaned. And if you clean your glass as much as I can, well, you can scratch a lens just as easily, or with as much difficulty, if you don't realize you have a grit of sand in your lens cleaning cloth. All in all, I can confirm that there are still no guarantees in life--whatever you do, things can still get screwed up.

The only answer is do what make you feel happy or relieves anxiety. It is your camera and your work, do whatever blows your hair back--no one will be able to see it in your photographs anyway. Using filters makes me happy.

BTW, if resale value is important, some buyers reject lenses for "cleaning" marks. Just saying...

 

[MirekE]

I have never seen proof from photographers that claim that a clear filter impact image quality. It is one of those arguments that simply go round and round.

There is evidence in the article linked in your previous post. I did not look at all samples there, but all I looked at had some flare.

My filters are usually not as perfectly clean as new ones, which further increases the chance of getting some flare. I usually get the veiling type, not the colorful localized one.