User ID

Orange (etc) filters for are, for some BW film users, as permanent as UV (yes, yes, *UV*) filters are for digital users.

RolandDieter

This question relates to the earlier post where someone asked "Am I an amateur or professional?" Asking this filter question seems to solidly place that person as amateur (which is not a put-down, but I don't think a professional would care).

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

You'd be surprised.
Some professionals DO NOT want any extra glass in front of the lens. Not just restricted to amateurs.
Those that believe that should do a test with and without a filter under the same conditions for the same subject and look to see if there is a discernible difference between the two shots, regardless if "physics" says there is.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

this is redickaless

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Agreed.

But, there's a lot of super detail persnickety people out there.
.1% (or whatever) image degradation is .1% TOO MUCH.

BebuLamar

Some of my lenses are cheap, they are cheaper than the filter.

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

Took the poll and marked always, although it should have been 'almost always.' I don't use filters at all for astronomy and moon shots and I try to remember to remove them for portraits and 'once in a lifetime' kinds of shots. BTW I don't think I have ever touched a lens with my finger or cleaning materials in the last 50 years. It's true, I am only an occasional shooter, but still.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Suffices to say always. You just remove on occasion.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

BTW I never use one.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Did you vote?
Not counting here.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I will offer a reply to this conversation. I learned only last evening a benefit. I took a cold camera into a swimming meet and suffered having my lens fog up. It was only very slowly recovering, but when I took the "protective filter" off, the front lens element was clear and stayed that way. Unexpected to me but glad it happened.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

I use them all the time for several reasons #1 is I don't have money to replace or repair damaged lens. I was taught several safety methods early in my venture into photography and the use of these filter lens was one of them. I can say over the past 30 or so years these safety methods have saved me several lens.
Harvey in the Sierras.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Not a "stupid, useless" poll. Some are very adamant about the issue though. I use a filter for polarization and very extreme environments (welding shop with hot sparks, crosive fumes, etc.). Ordinary weather conditions (rain, wind, dust, salt spray, snow, etc.) do not require a filter. As advanced as my camera system and my cameras are, neutral density and variable density filters are not going to be needed any more.

But not everyone owns a system like mine. And there are others that prefer more or extra protection for their equipment. Will a filter actually provide the extra protection the photographer desires? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would the lens be better without a filter? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would a lens be better protected with the lens shade? Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Would the lens be better protected with a filter and a lens shade. Again, sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. There is no one solution that will protect a lens perfectly. The least protection is no filter with the most protection being a filter and a lens shade. But, again, sometimes it will protect and sometimes it won't.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Nobody is wrong on this issue, and maybe everybody is wrong on this issue. It just don't matter.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I have a poll for you: what does it say about a person if they keep posting stupid polls they know are stupid?