> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> As far as I can remember, I have twice replaced damaged filters where I >>> could not have afforded to replace the underlying glass. >> >> In 40 years of photography I've never used a filter for protection and >> never damaged a front element or filter. > > We should consider the possibility that filters cause damaging falls, > in much the same way that umbrellas ward off rain.
Heh! Bicycle helmets are annoying, uncomfortable, a huge nuisance and are only useful when you crash your bike. I first wore a bike helmet in 1980 because they were required for riders in the Davis double century. In the intervening years I've worn them sporadically depending on where I was riding, how far, and hazards. I've only used a bicycle helmet once. My feeling is that the vast majority of the time a UV filter makes no difference one way or another. There are very few cases where the presence of a UV filter is going to make any noticeable difference in my photo. In the few cases where it might such as photographing a bright object in the dark, or when I have the luxury of setting everything up to maximize the clarity and sharpness of everything in taking the photo, then it is easy enough to take the UV filter off, slip it in my filter wallet, take the photo, and replace the filter when I'm done. Of course, it would be a lot easier to just put the filter on before I do something that would damage the front element. But, if I could do that, I'd just not make whatever stupid mistake that was going to damage the front element. -- [email protected] via squirrelmail -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
