Quick question about a skylight (1B) filter

Hi Guys I have a skylight (1B) filter attached to my new 55mm F 1:1.7 lens. This afternoon I will be doing a model shoot again outside in overcast weather and want to know If i should leave the filter on or not.

Any advice

I know I could try shooting both on and off but time will be against me as it will be around 5pm when the lights about right.

Cheers Pete

Pete, you have a 50mm lens, not 55mm, pay attention

For a portrait shot I doubt you need the skylight (warming) filter. Leave it off.

Sorry Peter I was not paying attension and doing my old tricks "typing fast in a rush"

Thanks for the advice

Pete

in my experience skylight filters are so weak that it makes no noticable difference to the photo.

I have a UV or Skylight filter (whatever comes to hand) on my lenses most of the time for protection. It's remarkably close to impossible to get a Pentax SMC lens to flare or ghost even with a skylight filter on so unless I'm shooting straight at the sun I see no reason to take them off.

If its a Hoya filter then leave it on, if its a brand X then take it off and throw it away or at least save it untill you can afford a Hoya

Not all filters are created equal, not even the well known brands - there are varying qualities even within the Hoya range and as ever you get what you pay for. My preference is the thin Pro1 Super HMC Hoya's...

As a general habit and for walking around, I tend to leave my skylight or UV filters on the lens but if I'm doing macro or any work where I'm using other filters, grads, warm-ups etc then I'll take the skylight/UV off... avoids any vignetting issues too!

Will

oh certainly if you are using another filter then the UV/Skylight has to come off, that's a given.

Still I have never yet been able to observe a difference other than ghosting resistance even with my cheap-as-they-come Hama UV filters. Admittedly I don't own any * lenses, but I've tried it on my Zeiss Flek 35mm and Pentax 50mm primes.

Everyone will have a personal preferance on filters, and on that basis all I can offer is mine. I do not dispute anyone else's choice.

I have not used a skylight or UV filter for 25 years or more and never regretted it. I see no sense in putting a piece of glass in front of my Pentax glass that has not been designed for it and offers no benefits for me I have been able to find.

Skylight may offer a crude warming effect, but shooting in RAW offers considerably more scope for control over colour temperature than a faint colour filter. A combination of Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop gives me everything I want

That said, many excellent photographers do not use Photoshop. There is also a line of argument that a filter provides some protection against sticky fingers or worse. Again I think you can only be guided by personal experience. If it gives you peace of mind then it is a cheap investment and money well spent (and you always have the option of unscrewing it if you want to).

For whatever it is worth my opinion is that skylight and UV filters were more appropriate (if at all) for film than digital in terms of visible effect. Mechanical protection for the front lens element against slight damage is possibly more relevant, though I have never come close to damaging any of my lenses since putting away my skylights for good in the early 1980s. Not having a filter does make you more conscious of the potential for damage however, and I don't think that is a bad thing.

At the risk of going slightly off-topic (though still on the protection theme), a colleague of mine was rather pleased with himself recently for investing in a Canon 400D. He then got very excited over the fact that he could purchase body armour for it from a third-party company - the justification being "it protects the camera from hard knocks". Frankly, if you are planning to subject what is in many respects a delicate electronic instrument to the kind of knocks that need body armour, I do wonder if someone is being a bit casual with their camera. I also wonder if a touch of fetishism is creeping into it. In any event, he seems thrilled with the armour and that is what counts in a treadmill world - even though the camera looks to me like an odd-shaped hand grenade now.

Body armour for a Canon 400D?

So it can be almost as good as A K10D then

I can honestly say that the only filter that I use on a regular basis is a polariser. I would go along with Delgado on most of what he says, but would maybe use a skylight for protection in bad weather. I tend to be careful with my equiptment (and my camera ) and dont subject it to too much abuse.
Harry

now that's just crazy talk, but it might lift the poor Canons self esteem so that it can be as good as it can be.

There is absolutely 100% no value in putting a skylight filter on for a portrait shot, these filters are intended to cut aerial uv haze, how far away is the model? Any filter will in theory reduce the performance of the lens if used injudiciously.

in theory, absolutely

in practice, I challenge you to show me a shot which exhibits this. Even pixel peeping a 100% shot with a cheap filter on a Zeiss lens I have never been able to find a loss of resolution.

I think the crucial word was 'injudiciously' - use that cheap old filter shooting with the sun shining on the filter, and although resolution may be the same, the contrast almost certainly won't.

As well you know!

Dan

Just read that back, and thought it sounded like a dig at you - it wasn't, I just know that you're a competent photographer, and didn't really need me to say what I'd just said.

Not sure I'm not making it sound worse now though.

Dan (Smiling - I hate it that getting the right context across can sometimes be a nightmare on these things)