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
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