Why you do not need filters

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Putting aside aesthetic decisions about things like how awesomely attractive huge reflections look on classic cars, I'd like to see Tony take a silky waterfall shot or shoot under full sun at the beach/desert using f/1.4 for creative control of the background while maintaining reasonable shutter speeds, without using an ND filter. Sometimes, at least in my experience, "losing" a stop or two, while at the same time cutting glare, is actually a GOOD thing. Tony also needs to get with the, oh, I dunno... Say the 19th century or thereabouts in that even moderately priced filters are not made of plastic any more but rather an amazing, space-age material called... GLASS (oooooo... ahhhhhh!) Even more shocking is that some manufacturers actually strive to create a quality product and know a little something about optics to begin with.

Further, While I don't use a UV filter to protect the lens, and agree you don't need UV filtration for digital photography, I do use Hoya HD Protectors frequently because I much prefer getting crap on a filter instead of the lens to begin with. This is mainly because the filter is removable and I can very conveniently clean a filter at the kitchen sink without risk to my $1,000+ lens but hey... To each their own.

.....
 
Last edited:

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I put Tony Northrup in the same category as Ken Rockwell. They both think they know everything about everything in photography (and probably everything else as well). However, they sometimes have it right (sorry, not in this case Tony), however you have to take everything they write or say on the internet with a grain of salt.
 

Samo

Senior Member
Great. Another internet specialist talking to camera folks in absolutes.

No filters for you! said the filter Nazi. While you are at it No wide open! :rolleyes:
 

robbins.photo

Senior Member
Putting aside aesthetic decisions about things like how awesomely attractive huge reflections look on classic cars, I'd like to see Tony take a silky waterfall shot or shoot under full sun at the beach/desert using f/1.4 for creative control of the background while maintaining reasonable shutter speeds, without using an ND filter. Sometimes, at least in my experience, "losing" a stop or two, while at the same time cutting glare, is actually a GOOD thing. Tony also needs to get with the, oh, I dunno... Say the 19th century or thereabouts in that even moderately priced filters are not made of plastic any more but rather an amazing, space-age material called... GLASS (oooooo... ahhhhhh!) Even more shocking is that some manufacturers actually strive to create a quality product and know a little something about optics to begin with.

Further, While I don't use a UV filter to protect the lens, and agree you don't need UV filtration for digital photography, I do use Hoya HD Protectors frequently because I much prefer getting crap on a filter instead of the lens to begin with. This is mainly because the filter is removable and I can very conveniently clean a filter at the kitchen sink without risk to my $1,000+ lens but hey... To each their own.

.....

What is this space aged material called "glass" of which you speak?

Ok, so in the interest of fullest disclosure. 99.9% of the time, no, I don't have a UV filter on the end of the lens. I do have one in the bag. Only reason I'd consider putting it on is if I were shooting say on a beach during a hurricane. Living in Nebraska, granted, it hasn't been an issue. But unless I was in a situation with a ton of flying debris whisking about, no, I wouldn't use a UV filter personally. So why do I have one in the bag? Because the guy I bought the lens from swore by them and included it with the lens. At least it's a B&W so it's a halfway decent brand. If it were something like promaster I'd be using it as a coaster.

As for the rest, yes I do have a CPL and a couple of ND filters. They don't see a ton of use but there are several shooting situations I've run across where they are very good things to have in the bag.
 

Nero

Senior Member
I put Tony Northrup in the same category as Ken Rockwell. They both think they know everything about everything in photography (and probably everything else as well). However, they sometimes have it right (sorry, not in this case Tony), however you have to take everything they write or say on the internet with a grain of salt.
Pretty much this. Also, I would add that they pretty much pander to amateurs that don't yet know what they're doing.
 
Last edited:

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
... I don't have a UV filter on the end of the lens. I do have one in the bag. Only reason I'd consider putting it on is if I were shooting say on a beach during a hurricane. Living in Nebraska, granted, it hasn't been an issue.

Baby's first birthday complete with the cake smash. That and a paintball team building contest are the two best reasons I've found for a UV filter while living up in North Texas. Well, those, and dust storms up in Amarillo can be pretty ugly on a lens too.
 

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I put my UV filters back on after I accidentally picked my camera up by the strap with my long lens on it. The camera flipped from the weight and dented the rim of my most expensive lens. No, it didn't disable the lens, but it sure hurt my feelings. Now, if I bump, I only dent the filter.

As far as ND and CP go, I haven't had much experience with them. I saw that video a long time ago, and I wasn't sure what to take away from it. I did think it was a little silly to act like putting a filter on was such a hassle. He did make a good point about the color shift from cheap filters. The one cheap ND I have did throw the color way off.
.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Yeah, Tony took a LOT of heat for that video. :)

Tony is WAY better than Ken Rockwell. His Lightroom book and vids are quite good, for instance. Unlike Ken, Tony actually tests all the products he reviews, and he gives honest reviews even when the manufacturer may not care much for his assesment.

I agree that this video, though, was not well done. I think his intention was good with this video. I'm sure he corresponds with a lot of people who spend a good deal of money on things like polarizing filters and ND filters without understanding their use, advantages and limitations. In this video, though, he was too anti-filter without explaining when these filters really are needed. Getting a nice blue sky usually works better in post processing than a polarizing filter, for instance, but reducing reflections can ONLY be done with a polarizing filter on the camera.

Anyway, yeah, it would be best if he tossed this vid, and did a new one explaining pros and cons instead of just cons.
 

crashton

Senior Member
Hate is a pretty strong reaction. Me I take the internet sooth sayers with a grain of salt. I suggest you do the same with my post. :witless:
 

Jr1

Banned
I do agree with him that UV filters are a waste of money but the rest is interesting to say the least......



Hmmmmmm...........so NO to UV or Protectors
 

Attachments

  • Image1.jpg
    Image1.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 43

Jr1

Banned
Then you are, no dis respect, missing the point or have not bothered to understand, I did not brake the lens either, it does happen, here I was shooting motorcross and stones flew up, I am a sports photo journalist, accidents happen that are NOT the fault of the photographer.

Just because a landscape photographer may not have an accident does not mean others will not

Another reason for filters, I would rather wash sticks champagne off my filter than a front element
 

Attachments

  • Dsc_0110.jpg
    Dsc_0110.jpg
    211.8 KB · Views: 72
Top