Filters, shades and other accessories

[Robin]

I'm thinking if I want anything new to improve my pictures, I should stick to something....inexpensive.

I went and pulled out my little box of camera accessories I've saved. Pulling out the lens cleaning supplies (need those) and shutter release gadgets (don't) I came across my collection of filters and a lens shade.

Most of my filters are 50's and one is a 46. None match my existing camera. Then I wondered about my Cokin (http://www.cokin.com/ico1-p1.html) filters, which apparently would only need a new holder. Or one for each camera and then I could use the same filter lenses on any camera. Back in the old days Cokin (and Hoya my other filters) were considered good brands.

I'm not sure if worth getting anything other than a screw on filter for the Kodak D7590 (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/products/ekn029622.jhtml?pq-path=3061). If they made a shade for it, that might also help keeping rain off the lens. (A problem I had at the F&G Show...pictures to come.)

Problems I've had with filters is that I find myself sticking my finger on the glass much more often than with a recessed lens. My concern with a shade or filter is that I need it to still allow me to put a lens cap on.

So, filters, shades...what kind of accessories do you recommend for photographers using both high and amateur level cameras?

And let's discuss the basic filters. I get confused between the polarizing, UV and daylight filters. If I don't want to have to keep switching around which do you recommend as the basic 'must have' filter?

[Kelly Grannell]

you camera requires 55mm thread size (according to Kodak's website). Whether you need an extension tube before adding the filter, I don't know.

[Robin]

It says I do need the adapter. It might not be a bad deal, with the adapter, I'd be able to use the 55 filters I already have.

The lens is actually much smaller, so the adapter must allow it to hold the larger size. It will be interesting to see how that works, since only a small section of the lens doesn't retract into the camera when you turn it off.


Do filters effect digital photos differently than film? I have a problem with the strong Florida sun often washing out parts of my photos. I also seem to have to tilt most of my photos. Interesting to note, this wasn't such a big problem when I was shooting in the rain. (Wet lens was a bigger problem.)

[Kelly Grannell]

I went to my friend's camera store yesterday and she mentioned that for that Kodak you'll need a lens adapter (you can just buy it on eBay, it's cheaper than the original Kodak, for example http://cgi.ebay.ca/Lens-Adapter-for-Kodak-Easyshare-DX7590-DX6490-52mm_W0QQitemZ170106074958QQihZ007QQcategoryZ30059 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

Then you'll also need a 52mm to 55mm step-up ring.

From your description, what you need is not a filter but a lens hood. Just find any rubber lens hood to be installed on the tube (or on the 52-55 step up ring)... again on eBay.

Lastly, colour correction filters are not needed on digital camera (due to Auto White Balance), but ND filter, Polarizer (check whether your camera Auto Focus will work with polarizer), are sometimes needed; and a UV filter (as a lens protector) which is best to be left on all the time.

:woot:

[Mark]

and a UV filter (as a lens protector) which is best to be left on all the time.

This point is often debated. With a digital camera, you no longer need a UV filter to filter UV light. The issue is whether having a piece of glass in front of your lens to protect it is worth the image quality impact. Scratching lenses is pretty rare, as is significant loss of IQ do to having a UV filter, so neither choice is likely to be monumental.

Personally, I always use a hood and never use a UV filter. YMMV.

[Kelly Grannell]

Dunno, but I've tested taking pictures (as usual, on a tripod, remote shutter release, mirror lock) and compare between with and without UV0 filter, I don't see any difference even at 100% and 200% magnification... and I only use Hoya HMC filter.

[Robin]

The white balance is often off my my camera, and I've tried various settings. (Daylight, open shade, even the beach setting). This it way it often takes me so long to post pictures, as I have to tweak almost every shot. Interesting to note, when I took pictures on the rainy day, my color seems better for most pictures. A few even had too much saturation.

The down side with the automatic, is if you change the settings and forget, the next batch of pictures turn out to be off.

Protecting the lens isn't so much about scratching it, as rubbing the lens coating when for example, it's got a water droplet on it. I was running out of dry shirt tails to use. :oops:

[Robin]

Here's a typical photo... the undoctored version. I'm not worried about composition for this discussion, as I as simply to capturing Christmas decorations around the parks.

http://cgrobin.com/photos/BlandAK.jpg

Everything seems a bit too bluish. My sky is washed out, my scenery is dark and flat. Reds seem off. When tweaking my photos, I'm often lessening the magenta, and adding a touch of yellow.

This is probably taken late in the day, with the sun going down behind in front of me, and not to my back.

[Mark]

Dunno, but I've tested taking pictures (as usual, on a tripod, remote shutter release, mirror lock) and compare between with and without UV0 filter, I don't see any difference even at 100% and 200% magnification.

On a shot taken in good conditions, you generally won't see any degredation from a good UV filter. Where they cause a problem is with flare. When you have a light source that hits the filter, you are more likely to have flare problems. Because the filter sits further out on the lens, you are more likely to have light hitting the filter compared with the chance of light hitting the more recessed front lens element.

Like I said, that chances of lower image quality because of the filter are relatively small. So are the chances of scratching a front lens element. I've shot for years with and without UV filters and have never scratched a filter or front lens element....and I'm not known for being careful.

[Kelly Grannell]

I guess I never encountered the flare problem because I use the filter AND lens hood. Like Robin stated, the problem with not using filter is abrasion to the lens coating. The "snow" at Osborne Lights, for example, have eaten my B+W UV0 filter's coating. Also when taking pics with one camera and have another camera (with the 70-200 f/2.8) dangling, sometimes kids will run to the camera and for the fun of it rub their grubby fingers on the filter.

[Kelly Grannell]

forgot to add, if you take pictures in the ocean settings and get your lenses' coating sprayed (even a tiny bit) with sea water, I guarantee you that it'll smear like there's no tomorrow. I threw out a couple of lenses that way back in the days of 35mm.

[WillCAD]

I've always used a UV filter on all of my SLR lenses for protection. It's a common practice even among high-end pros, so I figure that the quality hit from the extra piece of glass is small enough that an ameture like me won't even notice it. And the added peace of mind from having a $15 piece of glass running interference for the $250 piece of glass is more than worth the effort.

Lately I've been using my lens hood all the time. This reduces flare and also puts another bumper out there to protect the lens from sprays and bumps.

When I got my current camera, I went out and blew a bunch of extra money on a UV filter (good investment), a 5-poit star filter (used it a few times but not enough to justify the cost), and a circular polarizer. Unfortunately, I didn't carry the CP around with me on my last WDW trip, but I know that there have been many situations where I could have used it to eliminated reflections and glare, so I'll be carrying it with me on my next trip.

[Mark]

It's a common practice even among high-end pros

That's a pretty common misconception. Back in the film days, many pros, especially landscape shooters, used them because film was sensitive to UV rays. Digital sensors aren't. So optically, the glass only does bad things on a digital camera, not good things. In fact, many of the big lenses don't even have threads for adding a front UV filter; they take filters closer to the back of the camera. I honestly can't think of a single pro that regularly uses a UV filter.

forgot to add, if you take pictures in the ocean settings and get your lenses' coating sprayed (even a tiny bit) with sea water, I guarantee you that it'll smear like there's no tomorrow. I threw out a couple of lenses that way back in the days of 35mm.
I've never had a problem with sea water. Pretty much by definition anything disolved in sea water will dilute and wash away with water or a cleaning solution. It can require a bit of effort to clean off, but unless you consider your UV filter disposable, the cleaning work has to be done either eay.

I guess I never encountered the flare problem because I use the filter AND lens hood.
The filter sits in front of the area covered by a lens hood, so there is small a chance of getting stray light that the hood won't block. The hood also does nothing for light sources that are in the frame of the photo itself.

I do use a mutli-coated UV filter in hostile environments like the beach where things like blowing sand can etch your glass. Even then, I'm careful to take it off if I'm shooting with a light source (typically the sun) in the frame.

Here are a couple of articles that show examples of filter induced flare.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html

I don't want to sound dogmatic about this issue. I think that, when using high quality multi-coated UV filters (expect to pay at least $75 each) you will rarely have a problem. Even then, the situations that could cause a problem are pretty easy to identify - direct light hitting your filter. I just think that the protection business is also very low probability. I've been shooting for more than 20 years and I've never scratched a UV filter or a front lens element.

Use a filter if it makes you happy. Don't feel like you need one or that it is the normal practice among professional or serious photographers. Regardless of whether you use a filter, you should definitely use a lens hood.

[Photographer]

Let's go back to the original question posted by Robin who is using this, the Kodak Z7590.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/32/0900688a802dd832/Z7590_270x190.jpg

Robin can get a lens adapter from Kodak for $30. It will accept the 55mm filters she already owns. She can put a rubber collapable hood and a lens cap on top of the filter. If she's getting various shifts in color even though she's adjusting the white balance then perhaps the fault lies in the camera itself. Kodak is known among retailers for a high level of returns and repairs due to faulty equipment. Unfortunately they've been sliding by on their name for years and the execs know it.

Digital cameras realistically only warrant using a UV or CPL (circular polarizer) filter.

[Robin]

Thanks Lisa. After looking at the info on the UV on the digital camera, what I'm probably looking for is the polarizing filter.

As for a filter in general, sites seem to vary in opinon. I did notice this on one of the links posted.

There are a few exceptions. When you are shooting in actively hazardous environmental conditions, such as flying salty sea-spray or blowing sand, snow, or volcanic ash, it might be smart to use a protective filter that's easy to wipe clean.

I think the risk to scratching the coating on the lens is most likely to happen when wiping the lens off. While I'm not surprised the quote included salt water and sand, I was surprised snow was a problem.

[Kelly Grannell]

snow is okay, "snow" is not (the "snow" the use at MGM's Osborne Lights).

PS: not to be argumentative but I know at least a couple dozen concert, wedding and nature pro photographers who always use UV0 filter on their lenses. The only pro photographers who don't use lens protectors are fashion and studio photographers. Maybe it's different in the US?