junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

I watched a video on how to take sharper photos. The presenter said do not use a ND Filter on your lens. I had been using one as I thought it would protect my lens?
Any opinions?
Thanks,
Jim

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

You have to be awfully picky and the filter has to be poor to see a loss of sharpness. However, a UV filter would be a better choice. It wouldn't force a longer exposure which would emphasize any hand shake.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Many people use a UV filter to protect their lens. Not everyone agrees that this is a good idea. While an ND filter would also protect the lens, it isn't a good choice for the task, as it would often result in requiring a slower shutter to offset the light loss.

kmielen Loc: Eastern NC

Why would you use a ND filter unless you were purposefully needing a longer shutter opening for artistic effect?

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

A ND filter is like sunglasses for your camera. They reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor, and are good when you want to slow down the shutter speed and/or use a wider aperture.
I use clear filters for protection.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thank you phrubin.
I appreciate your input

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Understand, thanks DWU3

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Definitely.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There's a lot more you -- the photographer -- can do to obtain sharply focused images beyond blaming the equipment ...

How to obtain sharp images in digital photography

Anyone walking around with a ND filter on their lens by default should rethink their approach to photography.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, NO protective filter except in circumstances when things might be airborn and blowing against the front element - otherwise keep your lens hood ON and in the taking position 24/7 and cap the hood when not in use.
.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Great post and very valuable info.
Thanks Paul

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

There are strong opinions on whether or not to use a filter as a matter of course. I don't personally, but I recognize that there are conditions under which a filter WILL protect your lens from things like salt spray, blowing sand, flying mud, inquisitive jelly-covered kids' fingers or dog noses. I feel those situations are rare, but your shooting conditions may well differ.

On the other hand, everyone talks about using a UV filter. That is not necessary. UV is blocked by the various filters built into the camera, e.g. the Bayer filter. And the amount of UV you will encounter at ordinary altitudes is small. You may encounter some hiking in the 14s or above, but generally it's not something to worry about. A simple glass filter will provide whatever protection you need. The primary consideration is the quality of the filter, not whether it blocks UV or not.

I started to do a study on sharpness by shooting a target with a lot of edges and analyzing the edges. I ran out of time to do the full study and did not get enough results to publish but I tried it with and without a filter and saw no measurable difference. I even tried a sheet of window glass and saw no effect (modern window glass made by the float process is pretty good. Some of the windows in my house built around 1960 show striations that I believe would affect an image, but I didn't want to remove a window just for the study).

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Without watching, was ND a typo or the actual subject?