Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which filter? polarising, protection or UV

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 24, 2005 12:39:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry if I a being thick but which can I use all the time to protect the
lens.

Which may improve my shots. Half inside rooms, half outside - buildings or
scenery. None of people.

Ken with Olympus 5060 wide angle
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A UV filter would work fine and cuts glare and Ultra violet light when
outside.

Art
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I actually don't use filters any more on any of my lens. I use the lens
hood for protection and do without the added layer of glass. I carry a
polarizing filter for some rare special shots.

Art
Related resources
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken" <noone@nowhere> wrote:

> Sorry if I a being thick but which can I use all the time to protect the
> lens.
>
> Which may improve my shots. Half inside rooms, half outside - buildings or
> scenery. None of people.
>
> Ken with Olympus 5060 wide angle

If your goal is to protect the lens, then the filter labeled
'protection' might do you well. :-)

It's nice to have the others, too. 'Protection' and 'UV' usually come
together in the same filter, while polarizers allow you to do all the
neat things you can do with polarizers.

You'll need a lens tube for your 5060. Here's a site with more info that
you ever wanted to know about cool stuff you can do with your 5060:
<http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/c5050/&gt;, including a comparison of
various lens tube adaptors:
<http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/c5050/c5060-lens-adapt.ht...;
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 12:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <421cf7fc$0$8751$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Ken
<noone@nowhere> wrote:

> Sorry if I a being thick but which can I use all the time to protect the
> lens.
>
> Which may improve my shots. Half inside rooms, half outside - buildings or
> scenery. None of people.
>
> Ken with Olympus 5060 wide angle

A piece of glass in front of your lens will not improve any photograph.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 1:35:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> Sorry if I a being thick but which can I use all the time to protect
> the lens.
>
> Which may improve my shots. Half inside rooms, half outside -
> buildings or scenery. None of people.
>
> Ken with Olympus 5060 wide angle

Maybe non. Each lens has a use, if you need that function great, if you
don't it is better not to have the filter.

I suggest you don't go looking for solutions until you define the
problem.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 1:36:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:
> A UV filter would work fine and cuts glare and Ultra violet light when
> outside.
>
> Art

UV cuts glare????

Since this is a digital NG I doubt it it is going to have any effect on
the usually UV dead digital camera.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:19:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:
> I actually don't use filters any more on any of my lens. I use the
lens
> hood for protection and do without the added layer of glass. I carry
a
> polarizing filter for some rare special shots.

Cool ... can we now have the filter vs hood flame war? ;) 

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 6:37:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <230220051823507116%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>A piece of glass in front of your lens will not improve any photograph.

I suppose you prefer glare over what a polarizer does?

A weak blue channel under incandescent, instead of a full one with a
blue filter?

The intelligent thing to say might be, "think twice before using
unnecessary filters, and remember that extremely high contrast scenes
may reflect more visibly with extra glass surfaces".

Like just about everything else in this world, some choices are better
for some things, and some are better for other things. No
black-and-white.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 6:37:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <tmiq11dviojuakhs3shsfe2tqiefq1nchh@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm>
wrote:

> In message <230220051823507116%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> >A piece of glass in front of your lens will not improve any photograph.
>
> I suppose you prefer glare over what a polarizer does?

A polarizer is a special purpose filter. You certainly wouldn't want to
leave one on all the time, unless you're always shooting at a 30-degree
angle to non-metallic glare or 90-degrees to the sun.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 8:03:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <230220052030547782%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <tmiq11dviojuakhs3shsfe2tqiefq1nchh@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm>
>wrote:
>
>> In message <230220051823507116%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
>> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A piece of glass in front of your lens will not improve any photograph.
>>
>> I suppose you prefer glare over what a polarizer does?
>
>A polarizer is a special purpose filter. You certainly wouldn't want to
>leave one on all the time, unless you're always shooting at a 30-degree
>angle to non-metallic glare or 90-degrees to the sun.

So, IOW, you are saying that putting a piece of glass in front of your
lens will sometimes improve a photograph.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:56:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 23 Feb 2005 23:19:48 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Fyimo wrote:
>> I actually don't use filters any more on any of my lens. I use the
>lens
>> hood for protection and do without the added layer of glass. I carry
>a
>> polarizing filter for some rare special shots.
>
>Cool ... can we now have the filter vs hood flame war? ;) 
>
>- Siddhartha

We could make it three-way: rubber vs. plastic hoods vs. filters!

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:01:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:37:36 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>A weak blue channel under incandescent, instead of a full one with a
>blue filter?

But won't a blue filter just pull the red and green channels down to the
same range as the weak blue one?

>Like just about everything else in this world, some choices are better
>for some things, and some are better for other things. No
>black-and-white.

Totally agree. Too often forgotten on usenet.


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:21:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 23 Feb 2005 23:19:48 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
<losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Fyimo wrote:
>> I actually don't use filters any more on any of my lens. I use the
>lens
>> hood for protection and do without the added layer of glass. I carry
>a
>> polarizing filter for some rare special shots.
>
>Cool ... can we now have the filter vs hood flame war? ;) 

Belt & Braces - Use both. And the lens cap just to make sure. It'll
make a good sequence called 'The Study of Noise'.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 1:16:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <8anr115et93o549srp0nngit5pkrp2jdqa@4ax.com>,
Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:37:36 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>A weak blue channel under incandescent, instead of a full one with a
>>blue filter?
>
>But won't a blue filter just pull the red and green channels down to the
>same range as the weak blue one?

That could be a problem, but fortunately, most cameras have a range of
shutter speeds, apertures, and ISOs.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 2:17:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:16:16 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <8anr115et93o549srp0nngit5pkrp2jdqa@4ax.com>,
>Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:37:36 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>>A weak blue channel under incandescent, instead of a full one with a
>>>blue filter?
>>
>>But won't a blue filter just pull the red and green channels down to the
>>same range as the weak blue one?
>

>That could be a problem, but fortunately, most cameras have a range of
>shutter speeds, apertures, and ISOs.

<tongue-in-cheek>

Gosh! Do they!

THAT must be what all those pesky buttons and dials on my camera are for!

</tongue-in-cheek>

Seriously, the way you phrased the original made it sound like the filter
boosted the weak blue channel rather than cutting the red and green.

Once you have all three "in balance" at the lower level, then yes you can
open up the aperture (if the lens will let you), or slow the shutter (if
that won't cause camera shake for a hand-held shot, or will no longer
freeze the action), or up the ISO (if there's some left, and the extra
noise is not a problem). But if you can't do one of these for some reason,
then it may be better to shoot without the filter and just boost a weak
blue channel than having to boost all three week channels.

(I probably should have added something like that to my original reply).


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 1:19:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <501u111kje1nmhipcad6aj2uda2rf092ui@4ax.com>,
Graham Holden <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:

><tongue-in-cheek>
>
>Gosh! Do they!
>
>THAT must be what all those pesky buttons and dials on my camera are for!
>
></tongue-in-cheek>
>
>Seriously, the way you phrased the original made it sound like the filter
>boosted the weak blue channel rather than cutting the red and green.

Well, most people do not use fixed exposure; they reference a meter
reading, or use automated metering.

>Once you have all three "in balance" at the lower level, then yes you can
>open up the aperture (if the lens will let you), or slow the shutter (if
>that won't cause camera shake for a hand-held shot, or will no longer
>freeze the action), or up the ISO (if there's some left, and the extra
>noise is not a problem).

Noise generally isn't much more of a problem going to a higher ISO with
the same *absolute* exposure, as the noise, for the most part, exists as
a signal-to-noise deficiency, not a blanket curse. Posterization makes
images noisy, too; not just sensor and readout noise.

>But if you can't do one of these for some reason,
>then it may be better to shoot without the filter and just boost a weak
>blue channel than having to boost all three week channels.
>
>(I probably should have added something like that to my original reply).

Yes, that's a consideration; you may already be out of room to expose
better in all three parameters. The context of my reply was to someone
who said that putting glass in front of a lens never gives a better
image, and I was merely providing examples of how a filter can improve
an image; this does not mean that it is always possible to do so. A big
part of knowing your equipment is knowing when this point is reached. I
will use an 80B filter in my home, with more freedom of parameters than
I have shooting street scenes at night, where I might set my camera to
Tv mode based on the longest exposure I can do without blur, and an EC
of +1, at ISO 1600, as a default.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!