lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Wow, I really played with fire in HS chemistry. I got to the Potassium metal.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

We can get pretty high here in CA, in the Sierras, San Gabriels, San Bernadinos, Cascades, etc. Funny I don't think I ever bothered with UV filters for color film back in the day. Could cause excess violets with color film. But what did I know then. I shot mostly Plus-x B&W.

User ID

If laughter is emenating from the jury room, how should the defendent react ? Is it reason to call a misstrial ? Or maybe its an automatic acquital ? or conviction ?

User ID

Given the choice of clear glass or UV filter for the same $$, we want more for our $$ so we choose UV, not only for the $$, but also cuz we just love that it really irritates know-it-all geeks. *THAT* is much more for our $$. So now you know and since youre a collector of facts, be sure to collect that one. Its a gem.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I did. My own controlled tests in my AV lab years ago indicated about 1/3 stop loss on film with a typical POS UV bundled with a lens purchase, and nearly a half stop loss on film from a typical POS Skylight 1A that was popular with Ektachrome users 40 years ago. These were verified by measuring densities on Ektachrome 64 with a densitometer, not my eyes. Test subject was a chart with a Q-13 21-step gray scale, a ColorChecker Chart, and a Delta-1 gray card. Lighting was studio flash with flash tubes filtered for UV.

Tests in 2016 with my GH4 and a clear glass filter vs no filter indicated about 1/6 stop loss (-0.15 exposure points in ACR).

The biggest reason to use a protective filter is working in hazardous locations. I will use one at the beach, in industrial environments where things can spatter, on nature hikes, at crowded special events, where someone could trip over my tripod, etc. I ALWAYS use a lens hood on my Lumix zooms and regular primes. Lumix does not make one for the 30mm macro, but I rarely use that lens away from home.

I use a trio of ND filters for video (I use -3, -6, and -10 stop filters).

I use a CPL for reflection control and darkening blue skies and foliage.

I try not to stack filters. If I need a CPL with a three stop ND filter, I'll stack. I have no reason to stack a clear, UV, or skylight filter with an ND or a CPL.

I will use a UV at high altitudes. I always used a UV with film when recording distant scenes (but no longer use film). I hated the pink tint from the Skylight 1A. There is simply no logical reason to use one with digital cameras.

Whatever you use, keep it clean... dust and fingerprints on optical glass create flare and reduce contrast.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Maybe someone told a blond joke.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

What, no star filters?

So all that testing info and $10 will get you a cup of coffee almost anywhere.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Apparently you missed my point and answering his question. In other words.. why add a layer. No reason too.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So just because there is no reason to, one shouldn't do it?
Easier than fumbling with removing a filter, stowing it, and attaching another in the field.
But I suppose it's more important to have only one.

Your philosophy......
But you aren't alone.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I don't buy ten dollar coffee. I'll drink the cheap stuff, black.

I did the testing for ME, to know what I was doing. Testing UV and Skylight 1A filters was part of a test of a bag full of color correction filters, to arrive at guidelines I could use for my work as an AV show producer in the 1980s. Using slide film under artificial light isn't like working with negatives or raw files. There is an order of magnitude LESS latitude. Film and processing are expensive. There is no immediate feedback. So testing and note taking and chart making were part of the job.

I don't like owning gear I'm not using correctly, since I don't like owning or carrying much of it. I don't like buying things that I don't need or don't use, so I choose carefully. Your choices necessarily will vary.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Definitely vary.

btbg

Was there any damage to the filter? Because if there wasn't your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. Even if the filter was damaged, the little piece of flimsy metal that the filter glass is in bends and breaks much more easily than the end of a lens. Bend the metal the glass in the filter breaks.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Didn't say the filter saved anything. But the grass that was stuck to it could have been a rock that scratehed it. If you read what I have written, I clearly state and stipulate that a filter us not going to save a lens or anything else from catastrophic damage. That absolutely is not the same as saying that it provides no protection at all.

btbg

So the filter kept your lens from getting wet grass on it. Wow. Some protection. Use what you want, but the reality is unless you are in something like blowing sand that might really cause damage to a lens then all filters do is waste money and possibly degrade image quality.

Exception when a polarizing filter may stop glare or reflections as that is worth the risk of degrading the image quality. Same thing with neutral density filters as they make shots possible that you couldn't do otherwise. Clear and UV filters don't really do anything but make some people feel better, but it that's what you want go ahead. I don't use them but you are welcome to. Whatever floats your boat.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Also read slowly and carefully and pay attention to what I say about UV filters vs. clear glass.

Good night, and may God bless.