I'm surprised.. 525 votes on the RAW vs. JPEG Poll and only 91 votes on the Lens Protective Filter Poll There has to be more people out there with an opinion on use of filters for...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

525 votes on the RAW vs. JPEG Poll
and only 91 votes on the Lens Protective Filter Poll

There has to be more people out there with an opinion on use of filters for protecting lenses.
At least they show up in droves on threads when someone asks the question.

BebuLamar

Longshadow wrote:

525 votes on the RAW vs. JPEG Poll
and only 91 votes on the Lens Protective Filter Poll

There has to be more people out there with an opinion on use of filters for protecting lenses.
At least they show up in droves on threads when someone asks the question.

I think something with your thread that caused it. I thought the thread wasn't clear on how to vote. Some others think because you called it a dumb thread.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Perception.....

I did supply the link to vote, albeit in the subsequent post to hopefully keep the thread from being moved.

But I probably didn't say "vote here", erroneously thinking that people could figure that out....

srt101fan

Longshadow wrote:

525 votes on the RAW vs. JPEG Poll
and only 91 votes on the Lens Protective Filter Poll

There has to be more people out there with an opinion on use of filters for protecting lenses.

That's because all the folks that use Saran Wrap to protect their lenses weren't sure how to vote 🙄

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

srt101fan wrote:

That's because all the folks that use Saran Wrap to protect their lenses weren't sure how to vote 🙄

KillroyII Loc: Middle Georgia

Longshadow wrote:

525 votes on the RAW vs. JPEG Poll
and only 91 votes on the Lens Protective Filter Poll

There has to be more people out there with an opinion on use of filters for protecting lenses.
At least they show up in droves on threads when someone asks the question.

Maybe it’s not about an individual’s opinion but rather their interest in the opinions of others on a subject.

I answered a simple “BOTH” on the 1st but ignored the filter question… then watched the replies. Mainly, I wanted to see the trend on file type and possibly comments (knowing there would be some)… but didn’t care what others do on filters.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

KillroyII wrote:

Maybe it’s not about an individual’s opinion but rather their interest in the opinions of others on a subject.

I answered a simple “BOTH” on the 1st but ignored the filter question… then watched the replies. Mainly, I wanted to see the trend on file type and possibly comments (knowing there would be some)… but didn’t care what others do on filters.

The result includes others, but the input is about what individuals do.
I don't care how others feel about filters either, I just thought it would be interesting to see what percentage does what since there is such a varied opinion. So far, 50% do and 50% don't use them as a lens protective device.
But if people don't want to participate, that's their prerogative.
I'm simply surprised at the response difference.

MJPerini

I think the answer may be that the filter thing has been mentioned dozens of times over the years.
People do what they want to do, and don't care what others do.
Although the same is true of the RAW vs JPEG, .......but folks are still falling for that one........

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Longshadow wrote:

525 votes on the RAW vs. JPEG Poll
and only 91 votes on the Lens Protective Filter Poll

There has to be more people out there with an opinion on use of filters for protecting lenses.
At least they show up in droves on threads when someone asks the question.

Why vote on something not cared about?

ANY filter is just another interface that may introduce distortion. Even if “flat” to less than 1/4 wavelength of 589 nm (Sodium light).

Bill_de Loc: US

Wyantry wrote:

Why vote on something not cared about?

ANY filter is just another interface that may introduce distortion. Even if “flat” to less than 1/4 wavelength of 589 nm (Sodium light).

It's important to people who don't take or post pictures. It lets them belong to a group known as photographers.

We are all entitled to speak our peace.

---

Randyfrieder Loc: Long Island, New York

I use quality uv or clear filters on my quality lenses.
I would rather clean the filter than touch the front element.
If there is any degradation of the images, I don’t see it.
Ymmv
Imho
📸 Regards, Randy 📸

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Bill_de wrote:

...

We are all entitled to speak our peace.

---

Peace man, for our having a piece!

.

Bohica Loc: SE Coast of NC

I always kept UV filters on my film cameras for protection. But those filters then were $8-10 for quality, now $30-40, cheaqper ones degrade image so now I use stiff, not rubber lens shades for protection

User ID

Longshadow wrote:

525 votes on the RAW vs. JPEG Poll
and only 91 votes on the Lens Protective Filter Poll

There has to be more people out there with an opinion on use of filters for protecting lenses.
At least they show up in droves on threads when someone asks the question.

Thaz cuz raw vs jpeg actually involves a real difference between two large camps and both sides wind up with admirable results ... so theres something there to chew on.

OTOH, theres really no big controversy about filters so the count of opinions is lower. We all rather automatically use filters out of common sense. Theres only a tiny contingent of silly azzed loudmouths butting in over and over against the horrors of filters. Their numbers are too insignificant so the argument is not large, just stupidly loud despite tiny numbers.

IOW antifilter types do NOT show up in droves simply cuz there is no droves. Big noise from small numbers.

BebuLamar

User ID wrote:

We all rather automatically use filters out of common sense.

That must be it. I don't use filter because I know I don't have common sense.