dispensing with uv,1a filters....on Canon l series lenses

[Allan Bell]

9 minutes ago, MDM said:

What problem Allan? I don't see any problem and I don't think I will be binning my UV filters any time soon. 

 

Mick it seemed from the forgoing posts that some were experiencing UV filters as a problem. As it happens I do not see a problem. I use both UV & DP filters on some of my lenses, but I do not switch them around from lens to lens. Some lenses do not have filters on the front.

 

Allan 

[Bill Brooks]

For consistency in post processing it is important that all of your lenses give the same colour balance. So this is why all of your UV filters should have the same colour. If you change lenses you do not want the colour balance to change because of one particular UV filter on one particular lens, even if you can correct it in post.

 

This is also the argument for having all of your lenses from the same brand, as those lenses should give the same colour balance.

 

In high end video productions with big budgets, cinematographers will pay extra to use a colour matched set of lenses. This is so that no matter how much the colour is changed in post processing it all starts from the same lens colour no matter which lens they use. A unannounced switch in colour balance by switching lenses can be a big problem in post.

 

Here is a set of Zeiss prime cinema lenses, encompassing 21mm to 135mm, with all kinds of things including consistent colour balance. A steal at US$ 192,225.00 Note B&W recommends protective filters.

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1473964-REG/zeiss_2329_639_supreme_prime_9.html
 

[Marianne]

1 hour ago, Bill Brooks said:

For consistency in post processing it is important that all of your lenses give the same colour balance. So this is why all of your UV filters should have the same colour. If you change lenses you do not want the colour balance to change because of one particular UV filter on one particular lens, even if you can correct it in post.

 

This is also the argument for having all of your lenses from the same brand, as those lenses should give the same colour balance.

 

In high end video productions with big budgets, cinematographers will pay extra to use a colour matched set of lenses. This is so that no matter how much the colour is changed in post processing it all starts from the same lens colour no matter which lens they use. A unannounced switch in colour balance by switching lenses can be a big problem in post.

 

Here is a set of Zeiss prime cinema lenses, encompassing 21mm to 135mm, with all kinds of things including consistent colour balance. A steal at US$ 192,225.00 Note B&W recommends protective filters.

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1473964-REG/zeiss_2329_639_supreme_prime_9.html
 

 

I have used Nikon, Olympus and Sony cameras and the white balance varies greatly, and it also varies by lens - Nikon, Zuiko, Sony/Zeiss, Sigma, Rokinon - so I don't worry if my Hoya, B+W, Zeiss, and/or Nikon filters will affect the colors. I always play with them in post - either to find a color that seems most like what I saw - or most pleasing if I'm going for a manipulated look. 

It also varies if I decide to use Nik filters when I'm processing, or Capture One, or LR/PS/Adobe RAW - and all the different color options now available as presets in LR. 

 

Gray cards are very helpful in setting a good WB if I'm shooting portraits, but outdoors for landscape and travel I tend to use either daylight or WB auto and use the eye dropper tool later as a starting place when I'm processing. After an initial batch process, I tend to mostly process one photo at a time.

 

Ironically, some of my best selling travel and landscape images have been ones where I've thrown off the white balance to give them a more super-saturated look, not my favorite look but one that seems to be popular. I much prefer a more natural look, and generally try to tweak my WB to render what I've seen. 

 

For me, as I mentioned before, with wind, salt and sand on a beach, I wouldn't think of using a lens without some sort of protection.  But my wide assortment of lenses and cameras means I'm not going to get consistency across every shot, but I don't see any reason why I'd need to.

 

I try to tweak the look and WB to the scene - and sometimes I will take a single scene and process the photos differently to produce more than one "look," the great joy of digital photography.

 

I remember traveling across Europe as a senior in college during my 5-week winter break, after my first semester of photography class. I took along all different films and had to think each morning about what I wanted to load into my camera. Ilford B+W, Kodak Ektachrome,  Seattle Film Works Color (very washed out and pastel), Kodak color or PanX for daytime B+W or TriX for late afternoon, evening or indoors - now I can emulate most of those films after the fact, giving me such creative freedom.  

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Mick it seemed from the forgoing posts that some were experiencing UV filters as a problem. As it happens I do not see a problem. I use both UV & DP filters on some of my lenses, but I do not switch them around from lens to lens. Some lenses do not have filters on the front.

 

Allan 

I think it you read through all the posts you will find that there is no evidence that there is any visible difference in sharpness due to using high quality UV filters except perhaps when shooting into strong light. Bill talks about colour of filter being important but I don’t consider that to be significant for the reasons I mentioned above. So I don’t  consider there to be any problem and certainly not one that would be solved by using simple protective filter instead of UV which is what you suggested. My conclusion is that using high quality UV (or other protective filter if of similar high quality to the multi-coated optical glass UV filters that I use) has no visible effect on image quality which was what was asked by the OP. 

[MDM]

I think Bill’s quest for consistency with colour by using filters and lenses all by the same maker is doomed from the outset. My Nikon lenses span a 20 year timespan so there will be significant variation among them alone, even among the newer ones. It would be impossible to maintain consistency in colour across this range even if I wanted to and I also have a few independent brands as well. And as I said  before and Marianne has said something similar as well, different cameras even from the same maker differ in colour rendering. So much is down to the camera profile used in developing the raw image. And then there is monitor variation in

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

I think Bill’s quest for consistency with colour by using filters and lenses all by the same maker is doomed from the outset. My Nikon lenses span a 20 year timespan so there will be significant variation among them alone, even among the newer ones. It would be impossible to maintain consistency in colour across this range even if I wanted to and I also have a few independent brands as well. And as I said  before and Marianne has said something similar as well, different cameras even from the same maker differ in colour rendering. So much is down to the camera profile used in developing the raw image. And then there is monitor variation in

 

You know of course that you can have a different camera profile for each lens. And that at least ACR will take that into account. As long as it's not an old manual Zuiko or Leica.

 

wim

[Klinger]

23 hours ago, MDM said:

AWB isn't always accurate and there is a lot of variation between cameras as well. A lot of Nikon cameras are set to give an AWB on the cool side which tends to render better skin tones. There is an alternative warmer AWB setting as well. AWB will also be influenced by the colour of the light and the surroundings. It can be a bit of a mystery. I don't worry about it as I always adjust in post anyway and it is often a matter of taste as well as the fact that different (calibrated even) screens can give different results.

 

Using a grey card at sunset will tend to bring the colour back towards a cool rendering. I wouldn't use a grey card if I wanted to capture the warm sunset colours. Your shot of the tulips there looks a bit cool to me in fact (a little too blue I would guess). If you used a grey card and modified accordingly in post, I would guess it would go warmer. So much of this is subjective as the eye adapts to anything it seems.

 

 

What problem Allan? I don't see any problem and I don't think I will be binning my UV filters any time soon. 

 

Correct AWB changes from camera to camera and it may not be accurate. Different lenses will be different and effect the color. That's the optics and electronics. You and others who mention this are 100% correct.

 

My point is, that the filter on a specific camera will make no difference as AWB makes all filters and lenses the same, on that same camera. Also yes, I adjust after. I was just referring to filters as that was the question. Just in reference to a filter... 😉 they make no difference in the color using AWB.

 

Thanks for the thoughts on grey card. I don't use one, (not often, only indoors) that's why I was wondering. I can understand why I wouldn't want to use on early morning or late afternoon. Mostly a hypothetical. Again I use AWB and fix later.

 

As a note, I set the camera to incandescent doing night skies, because I like the results much better. Other than that, I'm usually set to AWB.

 

And true Allan Bell: "Dispense with the UV filters and buy the totally clear digital protection filters if you still need something to protect the front element." Since I shoot AWB and it doesn't matter if I have a haze, UV, Skylight or something else, I don't find any reason to be concerned. However if I did, like some do, I think he's got the simple answer. Buy clear glass.

 

I suppose it's worth adding since I'm in favor of filters, don't buy cheap plastic junk, invest in a good quality glass filter. That's a whole new discussion, because they do vary quite a bit, and the cheap ones you get what you pay for. But there another mine field in the middle and high end as some are made by the same company, under private label, and you could be paying for a brand name. Add to that, some well known names, might not be as good as others.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Klinger

[Allan Bell]

Since it was demonstrated to me how much sharpness of an image is affected by use of a well known manufacturers square effects "Gel" filters as opposed to similar in "Glass" I would certainly not use "Gels".  This was at a time when I was thinking of purchasing some effects filters and needless to say I went off the idea altogether. All or any of the effects I wish to add now are done on the RAW image in LR. Saves extra weight in the bag and fiddling about in the field. Much more comfortable doing it in the nice warm office.

 

Allan

 

PS : Here comes MDM.😄

 

ITMA

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Allan Bell

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

Since it was demonstrated to me how much sharpness of an image is affected by use of a well known manufacturers square effects "Gel" filters as opposed to similar in "Glass" I would certainly not use "Gels".  This was at a time when I was thinking of purchasing some effects filters and needless to say I went off the idea altogether. All or any of the effects I wish to add now are done on the RAW image in LR. Saves extra weight in the bag and fiddling about in the field. Much more comfortable doing it in the nice warm office.

 

Allan

 

PS : Here comes MDM.😄

 

ITMA

 

 

 

Hi Allen. Did you call? 😀

 

I am happy to have arguments and debates with anyone as long as they are evidence-based and the other person is understanding what I am saying and we are talking about the same thing or it might be precious time wasted. I don't use any plastic filters. The Lee Grad filters you saw in my possession at a meeting a few years ago were for Kumar to test. He never did and gave them back unused. I loaned them to another friend and the same thing - got them back 3 months later unused. I have not used a grad filter on camera in many years - the grad in Lightroom is excellent. I have only got high quality Hoya or Kenko UV and polarisers. Kenko are made by Hoya as well and tend to be the top of the range.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by MDM

[MDM]

18 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

You know of course that you can have a different camera profile for each lens. And that at least ACR will take that into account. As long as it's not an old manual Zuiko or Leica.

 

wim

 

I have done this as an experiment producing different camera profiles for different lenses as well as different lighting using a Colour Checker Passport and the X-Rite software (which have all now been updated). I have also used Adobe's DNG Profile Editor to generate profiles. It is very interesting stuff but in busy times I have slipped back to using the default Lightroom profiles which seem to have really improved recently (Adobe Portrait is better than anything I generated for good skin tones). The latest thing now seems to be generating one'e own LUTs which apparently can be used in LR instead of camera profiles but it is not very clear how to do this. I have played a little  but have been too busy to get to grips with it all. Another project for the coming winter months. 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by MDM

[Allan Bell]

On 04/11/2019 at 18:23, MDM said:

 

Hi Allen. Did you call? 😀

 

I am happy to have arguments and debates with anyone as long as they are evidence-based and the other person is understanding what I am saying and we are talking about the same thing or it might be precious time wasted. I don't use any plastic filters. The Lee Grad filters you saw in my possession at a meeting a few years ago were for Kumar to test. He never did and gave them back unused. I loaned them to another friend and the same thing - got them back 3 months later unused. I have not used a grad filter on camera in many years - the grad in Lightroom is excellent. I have only got high quality Hoya or Kenko UV and polarisers. Kenko are made by Hoya as well and tend to be the top of the range.

 

 

Hi Mick, Referring to enlarged statement above. I had forgotten about that. When I stated "Here comes MDM" I thought you would have some wise words to say on the subject.

 

As you know I am not a vindictive person and would never try to "get back at you". Our friendship is more valuable than that.

 

I was just trying to pass on the knowledge I had gained on how resin (gel) filters affect the image in the camera compared to glass filters. When I saw this they also showed the effect quality glass filters, grads etc, can have too, though they were no where as bad as resin filters, but still can degrade the image.

 

So to finish. All filters, no matter how good/expensive they are will affect the image to an extent. When someone puts a filter on the front of their lens they are adding two more surfaces for the light to pass through which can only be detrimental to the image.

 

Allan

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Allan Bell

[MDM]

20 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Hi Mick, Referring to enlarged statement above. I had forgotten about that. When I stated "Here comes MDM" I thought you would have some wise words to say on the subject. Sorry you took it the wrong way.

 

As you know I am not a vindictive person and would never try to "get back at you". Our friendship is more valuable than that.

 

I was just trying to pass on the knowledge I had gained on how resin (gel) filters affect the image in the camera compared to glass filters. When I saw this they also showed the effect quality glass filters, grads etc, can have too, though they were no where as bad as resin filters, but still can degrade the image.

 

So to finish. All filters, no matter how good/expensive they are will affect the image to an extent. When someone puts a filter on the front of their lens they are adding two more surfaces for the light to pass through which can only be detrimental to the image.

 

Allan

 

 

I think you have misinterpreted me Allan which is very easy to do. I wasn't taking you wrongly so please delete that notion. I don't see any effect on friendship. I will argue with anyone about anything as long as it is evidence-based as I said. And I will argue strongly and vehemently if I believe I am right and others are not which I believe is the case here. The uncertainty may be that we are all looking at this issue using different kit. But I am certain in what I say about the issue in relation to the kit I use and have used for testing. 

 

 So once again I would reiterate that even if the theory says as you say  "So to finish. All filters, no matter how good/expensive they are will affect the image to an extent. When someone puts a filter on the front of their lens they are adding two more surfaces for the light to pass through which can only be detrimental to the image." I see no visible evidence of image deterioration whatsoever with quality filters on quality lenses and I have tested this. The only time there may be a difference as I stated in my very first post here I think is when shooting into the light. That is a difficult one to demonstrate as the camera and light source would have to remain in exactly the same position. 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by MDM

[Allan Bell]

21 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I think you have misinterpreted me Allan which is very easy to do. I wasn't taking you wrongly so please delete that notion. I don't see any effect on friendship. I will argue with anyone about anything as long as it is evidence-based as I said. And I will argue strongly and vehemently if I believe I am right and others are not which I believe is the case here. The uncertainty may be that we are all looking at this issue using different kit. But I am certain in what I say about the issue in relation to the kit I use and have used for testing. 

 

 So once again I would reiterate that even if the theory says as you say  "So to finish. All filters, no matter how good/expensive they are will affect the image to an extent. When someone puts a filter on the front of their lens they are adding two more surfaces for the light to pass through which can only be detrimental to the image." I see no visible evidence of image deterioration whatsoever with quality filters on quality lenses and I have tested this. The only time there may be a difference as I stated in my very first post here I think is when shooting into the light. That is a difficult one to demonstrate as the camera and light source would have to remain in exactly the same position. 

 

 

 

 

Notion deleted. See you 15th Jan 2020?

 

The differences I saw were set up on laboratory equipment which is much more sensitive to diffraction/diffusion of light than you or I looking at whatever magnification we look at images on the computer screen. It probably makes no difference in the normal run of things to the images we present to Alamy, or others, but when looked at on the lab machines there is a difference.

 

I know what I saw. Just saying.

 

Allan

 

[MDM]

30 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Notion deleted. See you 15th Jan 2020?

 

The differences I saw were set up on laboratory equipment which is much more sensitive to diffraction/diffusion of light than you or I looking at whatever magnification we look at images on the computer screen. It probably makes no difference in the normal run of things to the images we present to Alamy, or others, but when looked at on the lab machines there is a difference.

 

I know what I saw. Just saying.

 

Allan

 

 

Ok Allan. I am not denying you saw some differences but I am talking about for all practical purposes for my work (and the work of most others here I guess). That means visible at 100% on a good quality monitor. See you in January I hope.