Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Filters for lens protection
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Retro" data-source="post: 490074" data-attributes="member: 37517"><p>I suppose there is a direct correlation between experience and protective filters. Thom Hogan seems to be pretty critical of those of us who 'baby' our gear. Here's a quote:</p><p></p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><br /> [*=left]<span style="color: #ff0000"><strong><em>Treating your gear as priceless</em></strong>. You carefully take your camera out of the protective bag you carry it in, take a picture, make sure no spec of dirt, water vapor, or dust has landed on it and not been cleaned off, then put it back in your bag, and then maybe even put that bag in another protective bag. Photographs are moments in time. You missed nearly an infinite number of moments in time while you were coddling your gear. Cameras should be accessible. Heck, you've probably got a rubber protective coat over your camera and lens and a UV filter on the front of the lens, plus you've put another protective cover over the rear LCD. Yet you <em>still</em> coddle your camera. And you're adding visual artifacts to the light getting to the sensor and you can't evaluate what little color fidelity the rear LCD gives you properly. I know that everyone reading my articles cringes every time I mention this, but the true pros treat their gear as almost disposable. We're not afraid to risk it for a shot. The shot is more important than the gear for a very simple reason: we can replace the gear, we can't usually replace the shot. Even in a studio with controlled lighting. If you miss the sly smile, you aren't going to get it back by saying to the model "hey, do a sly smile." Shot first, gear second. (Source: </span><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><a href="http://www.bythom.com/sins.htm" target="_blank">Photographic Sins</a><span style="color: #ff0000">)</span></span></li> </ol> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="color: #ff0000"></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="color: #ff0000"></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">My dad told me to put a UV filter on my zoom lens way back in 1986, when I bought his OM-10, specifically to protect the lens. I bought a Marumi 'Lens Protect' lens from Photo Outfitters when I bought the 50mm 1.4, and I've never removed it. I guess I could say that my dad, a third rate amateur, taught me to coddle my gear, and as a third rate amateur I intend to continue to do so. Maybe if I got the chance at some real photography in 'the field' and learned how much abuse my F100 or F5 could take, I might change my tune, and I might even throw my gear into the back of my minivan and drive off. But for now I will be quite content to coddle my cameras.</span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">I will most likely also remove whatever filter is on the lens when a shot means that much to me, since I recognize the wisdom in Thom's view.</span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">That being said, I do cringe when I read Thom's words. If I buy a D750 next year, I can pretty much guarantee I'll be treating it like it's <span style="color: #333333"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Ming porcelain! And the first scratch or gouge will bother me for days afterward - until I learn to look at that damage as marks of experience and adventure, much like most of us men think about our own scars. Does that mean I'm willing to let an objective lens element get scratched? NO!</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Retro, post: 490074, member: 37517"] I suppose there is a direct correlation between experience and protective filters. Thom Hogan seems to be pretty critical of those of us who 'baby' our gear. Here's a quote: [LIST=1] [*=left][COLOR=#ff0000][B][I]Treating your gear as priceless[/I][/B]. You carefully take your camera out of the protective bag you carry it in, take a picture, make sure no spec of dirt, water vapor, or dust has landed on it and not been cleaned off, then put it back in your bag, and then maybe even put that bag in another protective bag. Photographs are moments in time. You missed nearly an infinite number of moments in time while you were coddling your gear. Cameras should be accessible. Heck, you've probably got a rubber protective coat over your camera and lens and a UV filter on the front of the lens, plus you've put another protective cover over the rear LCD. Yet you [I]still[/I] coddle your camera. And you're adding visual artifacts to the light getting to the sensor and you can't evaluate what little color fidelity the rear LCD gives you properly. I know that everyone reading my articles cringes every time I mention this, but the true pros treat their gear as almost disposable. We're not afraid to risk it for a shot. The shot is more important than the gear for a very simple reason: we can replace the gear, we can't usually replace the shot. Even in a studio with controlled lighting. If you miss the sly smile, you aren't going to get it back by saying to the model "hey, do a sly smile." Shot first, gear second. (Source: [/COLOR][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.bythom.com/sins.htm"]Photographic Sins[/URL][COLOR=#ff0000])[/COLOR][/FONT] [/LIST] [LEFT][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#ff0000] [/COLOR] My dad told me to put a UV filter on my zoom lens way back in 1986, when I bought his OM-10, specifically to protect the lens. I bought a Marumi 'Lens Protect' lens from Photo Outfitters when I bought the 50mm 1.4, and I've never removed it. I guess I could say that my dad, a third rate amateur, taught me to coddle my gear, and as a third rate amateur I intend to continue to do so. Maybe if I got the chance at some real photography in 'the field' and learned how much abuse my F100 or F5 could take, I might change my tune, and I might even throw my gear into the back of my minivan and drive off. But for now I will be quite content to coddle my cameras. I will most likely also remove whatever filter is on the lens when a shot means that much to me, since I recognize the wisdom in Thom's view. That being said, I do cringe when I read Thom's words. If I buy a D750 next year, I can pretty much guarantee I'll be treating it like it's [COLOR=#333333][FONT=Verdana]Ming porcelain! And the first scratch or gouge will bother me for days afterward - until I learn to look at that damage as marks of experience and adventure, much like most of us men think about our own scars. Does that mean I'm willing to let an objective lens element get scratched? NO![/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Filters for lens protection
Top
