Filters

[Cary]

Sense when does Cary carry pricks? You guys make no cents.

[wunaladreamin]

No since at all!

Btw I ****ing love you Cary. Lol

[gonzalu]

Hey Manny, I think this is just one of those subjects where there is no right or wrong answer. It really comes down to personal preference. I've shot commercial jobs using highly respected photographers that don't use filters and with those that do. With the latter, I wouldn't say they cared more about their gear than the product they deliver. The quality of work certainly didn't suggest that.

Don, trust me, I am right on this one and before you toss me into the ******* bucket, consider that I, too, have worked with some of the respected names in the industry. Those that care about their craft know that gear is to be sacrificed in order to achieve a goal if it needs to be.

I want you not to misinterpret me. Believe me RED cameras are well protected as they are very expensive and rare. So are unique cars and other props. How many times have you seen gear or props sacrificed for the shot? Plenty. My point being, we think we have to protect our gear because we spend so much money on it. It is understandable. I too used to think this way and I noticed it would limit me.

I take great care of my gear and if it has to suffer a horrible death to get [the] shot, it will be sacrificed just as soon as it needs to be. If indeed the shot is more important to you than the gear.

Even Peter Jackson himself would sacrifice one of his beloved REDs to get a shot

[gonzalu]

No since at all!

Btw I ****ing love you Cary. Lol

Nah, you're in love with the legend, the mystique that is, Cary. The [man] is quite normal and mundane (and a prick)

BTW, anyone who thinks we are joking, wait until you're at the other end of one of his dry insensitive snappy comebacks! Even the well respected Moose has been hurt... ROTFL

[jerslice]

For years I never used filters, period. After having a close call when shooting a news event I now use them, but sparingly.

I use filters under the following conditions:

-When letting someone borrow them.
-When I'm using the 24mm or 17-40mm in conditions in which the front element is likely to get dinged or scraped because the hood isn't big enough: protests, mosh-pits, etc...places where either I'm not paying attention and/or others are not going to be paying any attention to me. (you got it all wrong Manny - folks put a filter on the lens when they KNOW they aren't paying attention to the safety of the gear)
-Jobs near salt water, glitter (think parades), or other damaging substances.
-ND filters for daytime long exposures (I know, not totally in context here, but worth mentioning).

But for spotting, most sports, walk around shooting, lenses with large hoods, etc...never.

[wunaladreamin]

Nah, you're in love with the legend, the mystique that is, Cary. The [man] is quite normal and mundane (and a prick)

BTW, anyone who thinks we are joking, wait until you're at the other end of one of his dry insensitive snappy comebacks! Even the well respected Moose has been hurt... ROTFL

Lmao. I know Moose has kicked me off of the therapists couch more than once lol.

[gonzalu]

Jeremy,

Like it or not, protection or not, the lens [is] designed to take a hit on the nose. But filters NEVER will be.. unless they come with the lens as an OPTICAL component, they are only one more air to glass surface to distort light and potentially add unwanted reflections and / or reduce contrast by scattering light even more than it should be. I take care of my lenses in other ways.

Most of us here are talking about situations that do not require protection from Sand, Dirt, Mud, Oils, Sprays, etc. If indeed under conditions that will damage the gear, by all means protect it. But if I am in that situation, I bet I am protecting not just the lens but the rest of the gear as well.

I use a full rain cover with proper front lens filter when shooting Football under full rain. But the camera itself may get damaged during the event so I must finish the shoot :) Otherwise, I have had many waterlogged lenses and cameras when it is just a slight sprinkle.

Looks like there are some well entrenched positions on the use of the filters. I want to let everyone know I am not saying I am right or wrong but seriously trying to argue on a purely technical basis. Do think about the reasons and the tradeoffs you make when using filters all the time for protection that may never come to bear while perhaps reducing the quality of your images all the while they are on the lens!

:D

[jerslice]

Like it or not, protection or not, the lens [is] designed to take a hit on the nose. But filters NEVER will be.. unless they come with the lens as an OPTICAL component, they are only one more air to glass surface to distort light and potentially add unwanted reflections and / or reduce contrast by scattering light even more than it should be. I take care of my lenses in other ways.

I'm well aware of that, but there's no sense in needlessly sacrificing it either. Even you admit to that.

But if I am in that situation, I bet I am protecting not just the lens but the rest of the gear as well.

I also wrap mine in bubble wrap prior to certain events to avoid dings and scrapes along with always using a waterproof housing under a steady rain...do you? If you're not taking those common sense steps, I just don't know that you're caring for your gear enough.

Which is my sort of sarcastic way of saying you're not telling me anything I don't already know :-)

And also that, on the rare occassion that I'm using one it's because there's a high chance of damage and I don't have the $$ to replace (and often not even repair) it should it actually get damaged.

[Aviation.High.Guy]

Don, trust me, I am right on this one and before you toss me into the ******* bucket, consider that I, too, have worked with some of the respected names in the industry. Those that care about their craft know that gear is to be sacrificed in order to achieve a goal if it needs to be.

I want you not to misinterpret me. Believe me RED cameras are well protected as they are very expensive and rare. So are unique cars and other props. How many times have you seen gear or props sacrificed for the shot? Plenty. My point being, we think we have to protect our gear because we spend so much money on it. It is understandable. I too used to think this way and I noticed it would limit me.

I take great care of my gear and if it has to suffer a horrible death to get [the] shot, it will be sacrificed just as soon as it needs to be. If indeed the shot is more important to you than the gear.

Even Peter Jackson himself would sacrifice one of his beloved REDs to get a shot

I hear ya Manny. Believe me, I'm not advocating that putting a 100.00 piece of glass over a 2,400.00 lens is the only way to go. You have to consider your personal situation. And yeah, I realize feature films will account for trashing a half dozen 5Ds to get that shot of an exploding oil rig. However, until I have that kind of budget, I'll weigh the risks vs. benefits. I kid you not about my run down the hill at the mounds that cracked my filter (better my filter than my ankle ). If the front element didn't crack from the blow, I'm sure the coating would have been marred at the very least.

I feel it's up to the discretion of the photographer to make the choice that's right for him. For instance if you are shooting a model you may want a softer look, so the filter is really a non-issue. When shooting planes, I can see losing the filter at times- and I do. Although I can't ever recall taking a shot from the mounds that was worth sacrificing a lens for. Now, if I were shooting from a chopper over LAX with Sam Chui, I would probably go "filter-less". I like living dangerously that way. ;)

[gonzalu]

Don, Jeremy, I hear you both... I am on your side. I am also just as practical as the next guy and have to also weigh the budge [I] have vs. that of a pro. Why I am advocating for is the knowledge one should have and the desire and capacity for what is most important which is to get the shot. Every situation is different. I want those who have never considered the negative effects of an always-on filter and make that decision a bit more wisely. This discussion always ends up with me going nutso when I hear someone putting on a UV filter in front of their lens to protect it

I am just passionate about it. Same goes with the cheap tripods. If you care enough about sharpness, don't spend $1,000 on three cheap tripods only to end up spending $1,000 more on the right one in the end.

Folks, listen to me or not, do your own research, learn about glass and optical design and about optics in general and do some learning about the physics involved [if you care] about the science behind the pictures you take. Understanding this will make you a better photographer even if by so little, hopefully by a lot. Glass to air surfaces is a very interesting subject as is the related diffraction subject

[Aviation.High.Guy]

Thanks Manny I appreciate your passion for the craft and always trust your technical knowledge. You've piqued my interest now to read up on the science of light and optics. I've always found it fascinating and could use a "refresher course" on the subject.