First time I bought a decent SLR & lens, they sold me a UV filter. And for a time I used a warming filter (Tiffen 812?) because it seemed to make both my slides and prints (prints were really dependent on the eye of the print machine operator) more attractive. Eventually I took a part time job in a camera store where there was a bonus system for making sales and the highest "bonus" was attached to cheap UV filters. I made more money selling that filter than an SLR and lens! So, yes, the UV filter had the highest profit margin of anything in the store.

Today, with sensors less sensitive to UV light, white balance, and post processing color correction, there are few pictorial reasons for using any filter other than a polarizer or neutral density filter. UV filters in particular. But will a filter provide protection for the front lens element? Yes, but the lens hood will almost certainly provide better protection, and the lens cap will certainly provide much better protection (when not actually taking a picture, such as in 10MPlayer's graphic example, above). The exception is where the front element is exposed to spray, blowing sand, etc.

And will a filter degrade the photo? Yes, under many conditions it will, though it often isn't enough to be of importance. But when light directly strikes the filter, the image degradation can make the difference between a good photograph, and a waste of your time. The bottom line is yes, use a filter for protection if you feel the need, but use it judiciously. And always use the lens hood and replace the cap when not viewing through the lens.

Perfect advice. The humidity is very high poolside, and condensation could be problematical if the camera is cold. I shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 wide open, and that got great shots. Sometimes, you can access right next to the lane during warm ups, and get your best shots there. Not all the shots need have a clear view of the face - there are times when the splash is the shot.

No, I don't feel we should be posting pictures of minors where we have no control over who sees them! Personally, I do take a lot of pictures of grand/great grand kids and I use a smugmug account to distribute them to family members. The "folders" are password protected allowing family members, only, or those they specifically trust, to access them.

I don't know about publicly posting pictures for their artistic value, if they of are or include children. It's legally OK, but the families might object. As to the "creep factor", I really think that's overblown. But I would certainly not advise including any information identifying the children with such a posting.

About 20 years ago, I decided to go for a walk along the Delaware Canal in Pennsylvania. Temperature was probably in the 0̊ to 10̊ F range. I thought that might affect my battery driven Nikon, so I opted to get out my all mechanical Olympus SLR, from years before.

It was a great walk, I was invigorated. As I neared home after carrying my camera on a strap, bouncing on my chest, an hour plus later, I decided to stop and take some photos in the late afternoon sunlight. “Gee,” I thought, “shutter sounds strange,” as I fired off a half dozen shots. When I developed the film, it was apparent why the shutter sound had seemed odd, the shots were badly over-exposed – the shutter had been severely slowed, the lubricants had stiffened in the cold.

I haven’t had a similar situation with any of my more modern gear, where the camera was exposed to the cold without protection for a similar period.

As I was shooting for publication but not newspapers, quality was of concern. But, as noted above, I did consider the athletes as best I could. I started shooting from under the basket, but moved to the corners in large measure to ameliorate my impact on play.

Your responses tend to indicate an anger towards those who followed any path but yours. There is no need for you to be angry. I tried to work with the coaches, refs, and, most of all the athletes that I photographed. I was available for their input but all I was ever asked is how they could get pictures. I never had any negative feedback. And I really made an effort not to have any affect on play!

In the region I was shooting in, Northern half of New Jersey, far eastern Pennsylvania, and the area around and immediately north of New York City, in the mid-nineties through 2007, flash was used and accepted for high school basketball. (I shot very little college BB, so won't comment there.) I witnessed any number of other shooters for newspapers, et al, all using flash. About the time I left the industry, a few were beginning to use the gym available light, but most venues were not well enough lit.

As my equipment and technique got better, I learned to use my 70 - 200 and shoot mostly from the corners of the gym, which reduced the impact of the flash on the players. (And, I saw an improvement in the resultant images, still able to shoot close-ups on the action at the net, albeit from a different angle.) Also, shooting wide open at f/2.8 helps lower the flash power, which reduces the affect on the players.

Of the indoor sports, only basketball, swimming, cheer leading, and wrestling were shot during competition with flash. And with both basketball and wrestling, I made the effort to work from the corners and use off camera flash which helped mitigate the affect on the competitors. Most of the action for the remaining indoor sports (diving, gymnastics, fencing, volleyball, etc.) was shot with flash during warm-ups, so as to not affect the athletes during competition! (Shooting volleyball sets and spikes during warm-ups from the umpires tower gives spectacular results! And you can get an angle on the fencer unobtainable during competition.)

Throughout my photographic life, I never used an ASA/ISO designation above 1600, and hated that due to the awful results! I cannot conceive of turning over photos from HP5 shot at a reference speed of 10,000 for publication, so more power to you, Whitewolfowner.

When I began professionally shooting basketball (primarily high school) two decades back, it was ISO 400 B&W film (mostly HP5) and flash was the only way you got the shot. Fifteen years ago, I started experimenting with digital, and when I bought a D100, that became my tool of choice. With my 70 - 200 mm lens, I had an efficient system, but, high ISOs were not very usable and flash was still de rigueur! It wasn't until 2007 that I had a gym where the light (and my camera) were good enough to photograph sans flash, and that was just one out of many.

With my 70 - 200, I took to shooting primarily from the corners of the gym. I liked the zoom and was able to get good action around the periphery and near the rim. I experimented with dual flash, one on a light stand, and fill flash on camera, which worked well enough, but I had to be in the right gym for the light stand, etc., to not be a hazard. Today's cameras with high ISO capability happily make flash obsolete, but having retired before that became the norm, I didn't experience many problems from light flicker.

I am not sure what you intend to accomplish. However, I have used a monopod successfully for many years. Finally wore out an adjusting lever (wore out and replaced a couple of the rubber feet) and replaced one aluminum Bogen monopod (don't know model) with an aluminum Manfroto (which is the parent company name for Bogen - so no change) Model 680B. The original was pretty stout, the new one stouter. I use mine for a hiking staff and support in the field, and feel much more secure with a strong support. This one is 4 sections to better fit in my backpack for hiking and boarding planes. For photography, it is used for stabilization in some situations, but as much for supporting heavy equipment on long days shooting sports or weddings.

I use a small ball head which I keep fairly loose while shooting with my left holding the ball head, supporting & aiming the lens. Works well in most situations! One of the tilting monopod heads would work as well or better, I just got used to this rig shooting weddings with a Mamiya RB fitted with a Quantum flash on a bracket because the combination was too heavy to carry around and shoot all day without the support! I only learned of the tilting heads much later.

I do question the use of one of those monopods with the three little legs that stick out. They just aren't stable enough to replace a tripod, liable to fall over if you don't hang on, or trip you with those little legs sticking out if you change position. I see no use for them, other than supporting a small off camera flash (still liable to fall over in a breeze, etc.)!

For most shooting situations where instant mobility isn't important, a tripod will be more appropriate, but often they are not allowed inside a public floral garden - danger of tripping or interfering with the other patrons. But there are other options (flash on a modified bracket, etc.) for shooting closeups. I have enjoyed using a monopod, and recommend them for many conditions.

Thank you, BurkPhoto!

Many years ago, I would set out with my camera loaded with Kodachrome 64, my aperture at f/8, shutter speed at 1/250, and lens focus at the hyperfocal distance, and I'd be ready - as long as a cloud didn't come along, or my intended target be in the shade, or too close. But that was a very long time ago! Today, I depend on auto exposure and auto focus, particularly for that first quick shot, then if time permits I refine all my settings. You will get many more usable images with today's electronic cameras shooting automatic than with yesterday's "Sunny 16" rule! But learn to shoot manual, then making the necessary adjustments will come easily.

Yes, a Looney 11 exposure!

I think more being too big to get out of their own way when the technology changed! They had all that infrastructure dedicated to film and chemistry that just isn't needed for digital.

The Instamatics were big money makers for the camera makers! They only wish they could cash in on the Cell Phone mania!

The correct exposure is a sunny 16. However, the moon is a grey rock and that's what a sunny 16 exposure gives you. Because we are accustomed to see the moon against a very dark background, the gray rock appears underexposed, so we increase the exposure one stop (looney 11) and it appears normal to us.

I am surprised to hear you were required to check your carry-on on a ORD-JFK flight. But baggage handlers on both ends have been notorious for their sticky fingered baggage handling for over a half century. The TSA is a government agency and therefor, theoretically, subject to more stringent rules and prosecution if caught pilfering. None-the-less, the only way to travel with valuables is to keep them with you at all times. A softsided backpack or briefcase to carry a few personal items, and your camera gear, laptops, medicines, eye glasses, et al, is pro forma. And don't let it out of your sight.

That said, in another era, I lost such a back pack returning from Jacksonville, FL in O'Hare. A long day, long flight (maybe a drink to help unwind), and somewhere at O'Hare, after I had collected my checked luggage, and there I was looking for my backpack. Gone. I still mourn that Olympus OMn2 (told you it was another era). The moral is Stay Alert!