User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: lens filters and outdoor portraits

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    11 Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    lens filters and outdoor portraits

    Just a purely out of curiosity question.

    Do you? and is it necessary? say a UV, Skylight or Polariser.

    I haven't really used filters before, but ive seen polarisers work their wonders on general landscape shots.

    Thoughts?
    My Current Kit
    Canon 40D + Grip | Canon 10-22 | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | 135mm f/2L | 430EX speedlite | Bibble Pro | Building my stable of primes...

  2. #2
    Member Deckham's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 2009
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Circular polarisers certainly have their uses. UV filters are more often used as 'protection' to expensive glass, and I haven't had need of one otherwise. Whether to use one or not is an age-old debate.

    If you shoot landscapes of any sort, a CPF is almost essential.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Apr 2008
    Location
    Bathurst
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have UV's on both my lenses for protection sake, and have beaning meaning to by a CPL for ages, as my current one doesn't fit my lenses after switching from Pentax.. CPL's are one of the most useful peices of equipment, and i would reccommend grabbing one, esp for landscape shoots

    For an outdoor portrait I can only assume they would help, as i have never used them for portraits, but in theory i don't see why they wouldn't be good
    Last edited by mercho; 02-02-2009 at 9:29am.
    Cheers, Brad




  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    UV "protection" filters are the biggest con inflicted on photographers ever.
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Apr 2008
    Location
    Bathurst
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi View Post
    UV "protection" filters are the biggest con inflicted on photographers ever.
    Hmm i dunno about that, we had one at work on a pretty expensive nikon zoom lens. The lens was dropped and the filter took the full force.. $60 ish for a new filter as oposed to a new lens...

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You are assuming that if the filter wasn't there the lens would have been damaged though.

    There would have been more chance of the UV filter's glass shattering actually either jamming the filter on the thread or scratching the front element.

  7. #7
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,367
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mercho View Post
    Hmm i dunno about that, we had one at work on a pretty expensive nikon zoom lens. The lens was dropped and the filter took the full force.. $60 ish for a new filter as oposed to a new lens...
    But would the lens have broken without the filter..probably not. More lenses have been damaged from filters scratching the front element when dropped. It has also been shown that UV filters degrade IQ, repeatedly.

    Good lenses are built solid. The dropped and filter broke scenario is often quoted to 'prove' the worth of the filter, but its not a good scientific test.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Apr 2008
    Location
    Bathurst
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very true and good points, but i think im still too paranoid tonot have them on

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm too paranoid about getting the most out of my lens to have them on, lol

    I've followed this a lot of last couple of years on a few forums and no-one has yet proven that they offer any protection whatsoever (apart from possibly salt/sand at a beach) and everyone admits that to plonk a $50 piece of crappola on a $2500 lens and suffer image degradation is nutso.

    6 months ago I took my last UV filter off with trepidation, now I don't think twice about it.

    I am thinking about taking sandpaper to one and making it into an expodisc though.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    01 Feb 2009
    Location
    Vic
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i have read the difference a UV filter could make so I took it off and took a couple of snaps.

    have to say I was surprised at the result. definitely softer with the UV filter on.

    without filter



    with filter


  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One would think you'd take that filter off right?
    What brand filter and model are you using?

    If its noticeably softer then throw away that filter. I threw away my Hoya "green" made in Philippines junk and got SHMC Pro1Ds. No IQ degradation and sharpness as every one seems to claim?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Back to the original question.

    Filters when taking portraits? well if you dont do any PP then i guess warming or sky light filters will do good. But if you have AWB on they will just cancel it out by adjusting.

    If you was a CPL filter yes its good for landscapes and canceling reflections. However your subjects till be very saturated and the shadows will see "flat" and harsh.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    01 Feb 2009
    Location
    Vic
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by trigger View Post
    One would think you'd take that filter off right?
    What brand filter and model are you using?

    If its noticeably softer then throw away that filter. I threw away my Hoya "green" made in Philippines junk and got SHMC Pro1Ds. No IQ degradation and sharpness as every one seems to claim?
    the filter no longer adorns the front of the lens - only got it for "protection". it was a cokin hv0

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    oh, yes, OP

    I thnink the use of ND filters for outdoor portraits in the sun where you might want F/2.8 to get DOF control is quite useful

    Polarisers to cut glare on if there's lots of reflections

    Reckon most other uses can be photochopped in.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i have shot a Canon 300mm lens (monster) with a crack and hole in the front element that you could pike a nail file through and the images were stunning (as far as Canon glass goes). A lens cap is a far better and cheaper protector for your lense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •