Author Topic: Filters - Better or Worse?  (Read 1082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DaveH

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Gender: Male
    • Gsxbarmy
Filters - Better or Worse?
« on: December 04, 2011, 10:04:45 AM »
In discussions the other day, it was suggested to me that ones' pictures come out better without a filter on the lens rather than on. Now I have Hoya UV(C) filters on most of my lenses, but decided to try out the other day with the filter off and......yep the colours are just that little better and the picture a touch sharper.

Wonder whether others are of this view?

I know all about filters protecting the lens itself - and quite rightly so - but the argument was that with the lens hood screwed on, your chances of actually damaging or touching the lens face itself were quite remote. So I'm still keeping the filter on when packing the lens away and/or using without the lens hood, apart from that - no filter = better results IMO.

Offline Rob aka [minolta mad]

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 10061
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1260183143#!/profile.php?id=1494244129
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/robkendall/
    • http://www.redbubble.com/people/minoltamad
    • Westcountry Photographic
Re: Filters - Better or Worse?
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2011, 10:26:55 AM »
It is true that any extra piece of glass (or resin) that is in front of the lens has to degrade the picture quality to a certain amount.
Having said that i have (nearly always) have at least 3 filters on when taking images and sometimes 4. This usually consists of at least a couple of ND Grads, an ND filter and either a warm up filter or a polariser. Depending which lens im using the lens will sometimes have a UV or skylight filter on it, so i could end up with 5.

I normally try not to go above 3 if i can and to be perfectly honest the differences are minimal, Providing that quality filters are used and not cheap ones.
I have tried the same image with and without filters and as you say there is a difference in quality, but in my opinion its minimal and easily rectified in PS with a little sharpening.
The main benefit is that im able to get an image with one shot that without resorting to HDR or manually blending images isnt possible.

Having scratched at least 2 protection filters over the years i will always have some form of filter on the front of the lens.


Rob

Offline subbu68

  • From India but living in Abu Dhabi
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Gender: Male
    • Subramoniam Sivaramakrishnan
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/64618899@N04/
    • www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=62300196&trk=tab_pro
Re: Filters - Better or Worse?
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2011, 11:52:28 AM »
In my experience, SONY MC Protectors on my lenses gave me better results than without them. It cut the haze I had w/o filters and resulted it better contrast. I had posted a thread on this. http://www.dynaxdigital.com/other-photography-equipment/softer-pictures/msg162869/#new
Subbu (Subramoniam)

SONY A580 /  SAL16-80Z / SAL70300G / SIGMA 105mm HSM Macro / HVL-43AM flash / Benro Tripods - A500EX+BH2 head, A0681T+B00 head, Gorillapod SLR-ZOOM, ManFrotto 293 Tele Lens Bracket
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64618899@N04/

Offline chappo1

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 9350
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: Filters - Better or Worse?
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2011, 10:07:06 PM »
I know all the arguements for but I get enough unsharp images without additional help.. I never use them as a personal preference...john
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."

Hector Berlioz