"Leave on" UV filter (Page 5): I've never seen even a piece of window glass flare like that. It looks like a dirty windshield in headlights. Overr-exposure alone can't explain it: look...

Bipod

I've never seen even a piece of window glass flare like that.
It looks like a dirty windshield in headlights.

Overr-exposure alone can't explain it: look at the darker
shadow in the upper left-hand corner.

Since we don't know a single verifiable fact about this image
(even Exif data can be edited), it has all the evidentiary value
of an Elvis sighting.

Angmo

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

The data:

Regarding the OP's Images

The "bad" one was exposed at f/6.3 @ 1/640 sec. ISO 5600

The better image shows at f 6.3 @ 1/320 sec. ISO 4500

That's a one stop difference as per the shutter speed but the ISO is elevated in the bad image. There is still some underexposure. If the image appears as shown in the viewfinder, the introduction of flare could have accounted for the muddy image and was exacerbated by the underexposure. Perhaps that much flare could have affected the lens without the filter- sometimes moving the camera very slightly into the shade will eliminate the glare. Shooting at those high IOS settings probably ain't doing the quality any good either.

The only way to tell if the filter is at fault due to poor quality, lack of coating, or a defect of some kind is to make some tests under controlled conditions. Shoot something with back or side light and allow some light to strike the lens- with and without the filter. Make certain that your lens shade is doing its job.

Many years ago, I attended an Ansel Adams workshop. Mr. Adams was making his own lens shades- he recommended creating a very deep shade and testing it at infinity, at a landscape working distance, at your working aperture- making it deep enough where it starts to vignette the image and then cut it back. That was a long time ago, but that concept always stuck with me. In lighting conditions that may cause flare, I always use a bellows lens shade and follow that rule. I can rack it out until it shows up in the frame and then racks in back a touch. Obviously, that can not be done quickly but I will do that for architectural exteriors and landscape work.

Mr. Adams must have thought that minimizing flare was very important. Also- he did use filters when required.

I do quite a bit of aerial photography where filters are oftentimes required for haze reduction, polarization, and infrared applications. I still use some of my aerial camera filters from the 1960s and I don't have issues with flare. These are very large filters- talk about " big chunks of glass" I'll attach a shot of them- the little one in the shot is an 82mm- just to give y'all some scale. The big ones were made by Zeiss and they are uncoated. I never take off without them

Also, see a shot of my beaten up compendium lens shades.

As far as lens protection, I ain't preaching to anyone. If some folks are affluent enough to risk messing up a multi-thousand dollar lens in rough conditions - that's up to them. Some folks will handle dangerous materials without eye protection, run into a combat situation without a flak vest, and go sailing without a flotation device. Maybe it's a "Macho thing" "I don't need no damn..." whatever" are oftentimes those famous last words. Well- my gear is well insured against accidental damage but I worry that if I mess up a vital lens real bad, out on a location or while airborne, I won't be able to finish the job and deliver on time. So... that might increase my insurance premiums and put a dent in my accounts receivable.

OK- any photo retailer will tell you that add on sales really help that bottom line. So... they gotta make a living too and I don't think they are out to fool anyone. My dealer says, "hey- how about a $10,000 lighting system to go with that new camera"! It's up to me! It's up to you!

The data: br br Regarding the OP's Images br br ... (show quote)

I’ve not known of a situation a filter saved a lens. A drop is a drop - Gravity damages most lenses. But that’s my 30 years with photography. Everyone’s mileage varies. That was just my .02

Image quality matters to me more than a defective money shot.

I avoid fries. Of no value for my requirements.

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

aflundi wrote:

Are you not telling us which B+W filter model for a reason? Without that information, it's hard to come to any useful conclusion.

I'm not at home, so I don't have that info.

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

Bipod wrote:

This thread was a set up. The OP deliberately omitted all the pertinent facts---filter, lens, and camera models--
even the fact that he was continuing a discussion from another thread.

Is deception OK these days? I thought that was only true in politics.

For all we know, he may have used PhotoShop to reduce the contrast of
that image. Image files prove nothing---it's just provocation.

Thanks for the insults, but that isn't true.

HarryBinNC Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns, No.Carolina, USA

I had a similar experience long ago (on an early Minolta digital) - haven't used a filter since! And I'm another old f**t that has never damaged a lense or camera over 50+ years of heavy usage. However, I usually had a UV filter on my film cameras when outdoors - they actually cleaned up the atmospheric haze on a lot of occasions. Not needed with digital cameras - AFAIK every one I have owned has a built-in filter on the sensor.

Bipod

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

The data:

Regarding the OP's Images

The "bad" one was exposed at f/6.3 @ 1/640 sec. ISO 5600

The better image shows at f 6.3 @ 1/320 sec. ISO 4500

That's a one stop difference as per the shutter speed but the ISO is elevated in the bad image. There is still some underexposure. If the image appears as shown in the viewfinder, the introduction of flare could have accounted for the muddy image and was exacerbated by the underexposure. Perhaps that much flare could have affected the lens without the filter- sometimes moving the camera very slightly into the shade will eliminate the glare. Shooting at those high IOS settings probably ain't doing the quality any good either.

The only way to tell if the filter is at fault due to poor quality, lack of coating, or a defect of some kind is to make some tests under controlled conditions. Shoot something with back or side light and allow some light to strike the lens- with and without the filter. Make certain that your lens shade is doing its job.

Many years ago, I attended an Ansel Adams workshop. Mr. Adams was making his own lens shades- he recommended creating a very deep shade and testing it at infinity, at a landscape working distance, at your working aperture- making it deep enough where it starts to vignette the image and then cut it back. That was a long time ago, but that concept always stuck with me. In lighting conditions that may cause flare, I always use a bellows lens shade and follow that rule. I can rack it out until it shows up in the frame and then racks in back a touch. Obviously, that can not be done quickly but I will do that for architectural exteriors and landscape work.

Mr. Adams must have thought that minimizing flare was very important. Also- he did use filters when required.

I do quite a bit of aerial photography where filters are oftentimes required for haze reduction, polarization, and infrared applications. I still use some of my aerial camera filters from the 1960s and I don't have issues with flare. These are very large filters- talk about " big chunks of glass" I'll attach a shot of them- the little one in the shot is an 82mm- just to give y'all some scale. The big ones were made by Zeiss and they are uncoated. I never take off without them

Also, see a shot of my beaten up compendium lens shades.

As far as lens protection, I ain't preaching to anyone. If some folks are affluent enough to risk messing up a multi-thousand dollar lens in rough conditions - that's up to them. Some folks will handle dangerous materials without eye protection, run into a combat situation without a flak vest, and go sailing without a flotation device. Maybe it's a "Macho thing" "I don't need no damn..." whatever" are oftentimes those famous last words. Well- my gear is well insured against accidental damage but I worry that if I mess up a vital lens real bad, out on a location or while airborne, I won't be able to finish the job and deliver on time. So... that might increase my insurance premiums and put a dent in my accounts receivable.

OK- any photo retailer will tell you that add on sales really help that bottom line. So... they gotta make a living too and I don't think they are out to fool anyone. My dealer says, "hey- how about a $10,000 lighting system to go with that new camera"! It's up to me! It's up to you!

The data: br br Regarding the OP's Images br br ... (show quote)

Ansel Adams with Hasselblad and humongous bellows hood:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/6c/82/8c6c8213f9881122d2d39778a7dd9d56.jpg

Bipod

splatbass wrote:

Thanks for the insults, but that isn't true.

Which part?
Did you say in the original post that you were continuing the discussion
from another thread, not asking a real question?
Did you say what make and model of filter?
Did you say what make and model of lens?
Did you say that you weren't using a lens hood?

Looking at your original post, all four relevant facts were omitted.
The conclusion that it was done deliberately and not a typo or an
oversight is justified.

How are we to know---since you have already misled us once---
whether or not you PhotoShopped the image? I didn't say that
you did-- I said we can't know for sure whether or not you did.
Which is perfectly true.

Angmo

Bipod wrote:

Ansel Adams with Hasselblad and humongous bellows hood:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/6c/82/8c6c8213f9881122d2d39778a7dd9d56.jpg

I have a custom one for my Rolleiflex 180 2.8 MF lens.

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

I apologize. I thought I had info that people would be interested in when I posted this. Obviously I was wrong.

I was trying to be helpful and I've been called a troll and a liar. This is the problem with this otherwise great forum. Have a good day everyone, I'm done with this thread.

Angmo

splatbass wrote:

I apologize. I thought I had info that people would be interested in when I posted this. Obviously I was wrong.

I was trying to be helpful and I've been called a troll and a liar. This is the problem with this otherwise great forum. Have a good day everyone, I'm done with this thread.

Head into the attic if you want to see bullets fly. Out here is pretty nice & collaborative.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

splatbass wrote:

I'm not at home, so I don't have that info.

Ok, that makes sense. Are you planning on getting home soon?

carrocky

I have had a similar problem. I removed and cleaned the filter and lens and that took care of it.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

My goodness! With all this commotion, I forgot to post the pictures of my giant filters and my lens hoods.

By the way, just for the record- for this conversation. I do lots of industrial photography and quite a bit if it is in the food processing, manufacturing, and service businesses. I am oftentimes working in atmospheres with airborne dust, particles, splatter, and stuff that you don't ever want to get on a lens. Sometimes I am shooting in close to some of these things- boiling or frying foodstuffs etc. One of my cleits makes stainless steel food processing equipment so there is welding, cutting metals, polishing, and spraying of all kinds of lubricants and coatings in the plant. I'm in there 3 times each year for their annual report and trade show display images. Messy!

I don't worry about dropping any gear except when shooting from an aircraft. If that ever happened, no filter or shade would save the lens nor anyone or anything that it hit.

I do not produce "defective money shots" but when you are in business you need to protect the client's interests, respect their time and deadlines, and your own integrity and reputation. It's really too bad that we can't carry on an intelligent technical conversation without snide remarks, insults, and accusations of dishonesty. Listen to yourselves- how would some of y'all like to treated this way.

Trying to encourage decorum, decency, and kindness on this site is an unmitigated waste of time and energy. Grow UP!

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

I never use one myself. I used one at an airshow once and was sorely disappointed, no ones fault but mine. I'm not too much of a pixel peeper so many pics left a lot to be desired. Again, no ones fault but mine.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I was told that there should not be anything between the lens and the subject, because of the risk that the images might be distorted. I then started really noticing that there was a lot of dust in the air, and it was just about everywhere! So after that I tried to shoot only on very, very calm days, but still there was airborne dust between the lens and the subject. So I decided to move to San Francisco, where the prevailing winds came from the west across the Pacific ocean, which kept the air very clean. I would do anything for my art! Still, it was dry all summer and cars and trucks would kick up dust. Worse yet, I started noticing wavy sort of effects in the air, and was told I was seeing thermoclines, areas where there was a temperature differential and the optical properties of the air were distorted. On hot days this was especially bad. Even when I could avoid these, I ran into another problem. When shooting landscapes sometimes distant objects were fuzzy and had a blue cast. I asked other photographers about that, and they told me that there was water vapor - right in the air! - and that this caused the problem I was having.

Now I live in a nice small room with no windows. I am hoping that if I stay very, very still for a few hours, and wait for just the right time of day when the temperature has equalized through the room, that I might be able to overcome these problems. I was making plans for building a vacuum chamber in the basement when my family called the authorities and then a nice man came and he suggested moving to the small room where I now live.

Mike