Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Art/Music  > Photographer chat      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Leicaflex
Joined: 1/22/2013
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Photographer chatPage 1 of 1    
My name is Shane, the point of this thread is not to draw attention to myself. The point is to talk about photography, composition, gear (if we must), shooting techniques, filters, et cetera.

I would also like to discuss genres. Landscape, industrial, urban decay, whatever.

Fire away!
 Leicaflex
Joined: 1/22/2013
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Photographer chat
Posted: 1/25/2013 9:38:39 AM
I will open with a discussion about filters.

UV filters are bogus. Back in the day, some films were susceptible to UV light. But that was FILM. I presume most of you shoot digital. So, UV filter = BS. Even upon modern film, they are BS.

There is only one real reason to buy a UV filter: if you're trudging through the woods to shoot landscapes, it will save that front element on your expensive lens. But you have a lens cap and lens hood, right?

So... frick the UV filter.

But... and this is a very big but... if you buy a polarizing filter, that is a whole other ball game. My advice is to spend the money. DO NOT buy a cheap one. You will hate it and your images will look like crap.

B+W filters are very good. My 58mm was $175. So yeah, it ain't a cheap toy. Expect to spend that.
 Leicaflex
Joined: 1/22/2013
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Photographer chat
Posted: 1/25/2013 9:42:16 AM
But, if you insist upon a UV filter, then please take my advice: spend the money, cry later.

A B+W filter, or better.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 4
Photographer chat
Posted: 1/25/2013 12:04:15 PM

There is only one real reason to buy a UV filter: if you're trudging through the woods to shoot landscapes, it will save that front element on your expensive lens. But you have a lens cap and lens hood, right?

I use a clear filters for one reason.

It is cheaper to replace a filter than it is a lens and I have a chipped 77mm from my sigma 70-200 2.8 that proves my theory quite well.
 Leicaflex
Joined: 1/22/2013
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Photographer chat
Posted: 1/25/2013 12:49:06 PM
Certainly. But that's what I was saying earlier. That's what lens caps and hoods are for. I supposed it depends upon the seriousness of the shot. If it really means something (really serious shooting), then, of course, you can take the UV off on the tripod.

For me -especially for landscapes, urban decay and abstract industrial- a lot of my stuff is one shot only imperative. I spend a lot of money on traveling. In fact, I spend almost ALL of my money of travel :) So, I get one shot at it.

And yes, I also get the price of lenses. I shoot with Leica and Angenieux. I've been using the Angenieux 35-70 a lot lately. Well, the Leica 28mm Elmarit too.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 6
Photographer chat
Posted: 1/25/2013 12:53:01 PM

Certainly. But that's what I was saying earlier. That's what lens caps and hoods are for. I supposed it depends upon the seriousness of the shot.

It also depends on what someone is shooting, for me:

When I am shooting landscapes with a bright sky I will use combinations of my ND filters.

When I am shooting "Street" I would rather have my camera ready to go at a moments notice, so no cap and just a protection filter.
 Leicaflex
Joined: 1/22/2013
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Photographer chat
Posted: 1/25/2013 3:05:28 PM
I'm not using ND that much. I am pretty pleased with the BW Pfilter. I have various step-up rings for the Leicas, Angenieux and Rollei QBM mount lenses. I don't know if the moderator will allow this but I shot this today with the Angenieux 35-70. The Angenieux is a "weird duck". As one focuses, the lens moves forward and back inside of a barreled body. Therefore, in this case, it is unwise to use this lens without a UV filter. If dust gets in there, it's off to Paris she goes :(

Anyway, a lot of people are of the opinion that the Angenieux is a "soft" lens. I really beg to differ. It seems plenty sharp to me. Here it is a full res on flickr. You can blow it up or down in size.

 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Photographer chat
Posted: 1/25/2013 9:16:57 PM


No off site information, no personal information - read the posted rules. Personal info and off site info removed.

the other
Any site related question not answered via the HELP link, then email href="mailto:csr@pof.com">CSR@POF here || Site Rules Here || Posting Clarifications Here ||
Show ALL Forums  > Art/Music  > Photographer chat