Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: David Taylor
Page: <<prev 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 next>>
Feb 14, 2014 01:40:03   #
CHOLLY wrote:
I agree... UV filters really ARE rubbish.

A total waste of money.

They are unnecessary for digital photography and they don't provide ANY protection good stewardship won't provide to a much higher degree... but they DO degrade image quality.

Oh yeah... and they REALLY pad the profit margins of filter makers and camera supply retailers.

So I guess UV filters ARE good for something... :roll:


Your head's full of sweetie mice wee lad.
Go to
Feb 13, 2014 11:53:31   #
Rubbish.
CHOLLY wrote:
When you get that filter off, don't replace it. UV filters serve NO useful purpose and they degrade image quality. Additionally, they don't provide any protection to your lens front element and there is ALWAYS the possibility of the ring getting stuck.

Good luck!
Go to
Jan 30, 2014 10:32:13   #
Weston Euromaster.
Go to
Jan 13, 2014 18:27:38   #
1959 F. No batteries required. Built to last, pin sharp lenses. Pick them up for £100 or less.
Go to
Dec 31, 2013 13:17:17   #
:thumbup:
Go to
Dec 24, 2013 03:09:04   #
Never in 10 years.
Go to
Dec 1, 2013 18:57:24   #
wolfd wrote:
It is not a matter if IF a filter will save your front lens element but WHEN.

I too have been shooting for over 50 years and am happy to say filters have saved my lens on several occasions. Unless you're pixel peeping, there is no significant difference between an image shot with a UV filter and one shot without UV filter.


:thumbup:
Go to
Dec 1, 2013 18:55:10   #
CaptainC wrote:
That's great. But since you never had the issue - your fact has no validity. I have two cases in which the lack of a filter would have resulted in a damaged lens. You have been lucky - or maybe really careful - but you never had a situation in which the filter would have helped. So you have proven.......nothing.


:thumbup:
Go to
Dec 1, 2013 18:54:25   #
nekon wrote:
Well, I also have a proven fact-50 plus years a pro photographer, never used a uv filter, never damaged a lens, over all kinds of terrain.


Filters don't materially degrade images. You are mistaken.
Go to
Dec 1, 2013 13:08:25   #
bobmcculloch wrote:
Hmm, it would be a pain in the butt to remove doggie slobber off the front element, kids fingerprints, cake at a wedding, my UVs over the years have stopped all of that and more,
Bob.


:thumbup: couldn't agree more.
Go to
Nov 18, 2013 18:21:07   #
charles brown wrote:
Just read a thread whereas someone wanted a camera whose functions were controlled by dials and buttons, not menus. Had a budget of $500. As you can guess there really wasn't much of a choice. This, however, got me to thinking. It wasn't that long ago that SLR cameras had three basic controls, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. In some cases there was a dial that could be used to change exposure + or -. Absolutely amazing photos were made with these cameras. Today we have digital SLRs with dozens of settings to chose from and change. These cameras are also being used to produce amazing photographs. But, IMHO, I contend that while they are equal to they are not any better than what was done before. The real difference and game changer is in PP, not in the product produced by the camera. Then why do we need cameras with so many adjustable functions that for most people are never used let alone understood? Do we really need to have the ability to change dozens upon dozens of camera settings or is this just one more example of manufacturers marketing strategies to keep us buying more and more cameras? A manual only digital SLR camera with four adjustable settings, ISO, shutter speed, aperture and file type (raw or JPEG). Everything else done in PP. What do you think?
Just read a thread whereas someone wanted a camera... (show quote)

Nikon DF.
Go to
Nov 17, 2013 18:41:14   #
Love them. But I couldn't eat a whole one.
Go to
Nov 17, 2013 18:38:05   #
Battery life is the big problem. keep a spare in your pocket, rotate frequently.
Go to
Nov 17, 2013 06:32:08   #
Remus wrote:
Must remember the chlorophyll trick. I was out with a girl once and I thought I'd try Rohipnol. When I came round she'd gone home. I mean she hadn't interfered with me or anything. Imagine my disappointment.


:thumbup:
Go to
Nov 17, 2013 06:31:48   #
Nice collection, made me laugh.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.