The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rap sizzle,
- Start date
- 19,270
- 20,085
- 12,061
- 5,112
I need good vibes / prayers y’all. I have a video conference meeting on wednesday that will lead to my first traveling wedding when they book me.
- 88
- 126
^get that work, bro!
- 358
- 1,058
@Fongstarr super clean shots. can i ask what is your external lighting set up when you do sessions like this? like how much lighting equipment is involved be it flashes and reflectors and things of that nature.
Last edited:
- 13,073
- 7,279
This is City Hall in SF and it has pretty much 3 stories to it with the top have the most natural light and the bottom having none.
This place actually is great to shoot all natural light when the sun is out and it's overcast. The light just leaks in perfecting where you don't need anything else. On the bottom floors is where people would want to shoot with flash. There is another area where people get married that has only electrical light and creates nothing but yellow photos. I had to convert some photos into black and what cause the color was so bad. I did this shoot as a favor for my friend but it was a lot of work considering. It's tough trying to pose people when you know it's going to be a bad shot but they insist you take it because background is better.
JoDeVa89....man, you got dope stuff. You shoot mostly natural light right? As much as I do like shooting external flash, it's just so damn hard to set that up right unless you just have tons of time. I am like to scared to try and prep all that up only to ruin shots. A reflector would be good but you would needs an assistant too.
- 39,085
- 55,199
24 x 36
- 543
- 135
hey guys whats the best uv filter or one you recommend? i want to protect my camera lens when i go to shoot. i usually just keep taking the cap on and off the whole time. i have a best buy gift card i want to use.
- 12,061
- 5,112
- 12,061
- 5,112
I'm probably in the overwhelming minority but I dont recommend using a UV filter at all.
**Flame suit on**
- 13,073
- 7,279
^^^^^I would normally agree but my 24mm lens took a spill years back and even though it's an L lens, I do have dent on it that prevents other filters going on. If I had a UV filter on it, it'd probably still be in new condition.
- 12,061
- 5,112
See i just dont believe that the filter would have absorbed so much of the shock that it would have actually prevented that from happening.
Versus say something like a lens hood.
And of course, this can get into a huge "what if" debate
- 19,270
- 20,085
See i just dont believe that the filter would have absorbed so much of the shock that it would have actually prevented that from happening.
Versus say something like a lens hood.
And of course, this can get into a huge "what if" debate
I have personally seen my friend have his 5d3 + wide angle canon lens, fall off his lap at lunch. It landed directly on the edge of the lens, in a near vertical orientation. The filter was blown to smithereens, but the lens and camera survived, with minimal damage. He acted like it was no big deal, so I'm sure it had happened to him in the past with similar results.
- 12,061
- 5,112
See i just dont believe that the filter would have absorbed so much of the shock that it would have actually prevented that from happening.
Versus say something like a lens hood.
And of course, this can get into a huge "what if" debate
I have personally seen my friend have his 5d3 + wide angle canon lens, fall off his lap at lunch. It landed directly on the edge of the lens, in a near vertical orientation. The filter was blown to smithereens, but the lens and camera survived, with minimal damage. He acted like it was no big deal, so I'm sure it had happened to him in the past with similar results.
And im also sure we've seen the video of tony northup literally shoving a stick and random stuff into the front element of his lens trying to break it.
I dont know enough about physics, but i hardly believe a filter absorbs that much shock from the total distributed PSI of a drop.
Basically what im getting at is that filter or not, enough impact can damage your equipment and the required impact to damage your lens is more than the amount of impact required to damage a filter.
Like, I dont get why its so shocking that a 20, 50, 100, or 200 filter is less durable than a 2,000+ lens and breaks under less total impact then said lens.
I'm also not willing to run the experiments myself
- 3,995
- 4,930
And im also sure we've seen the video of tony northup literally shoving a stick and random stuff into the front element of his lens trying to break it.I have personally seen my friend have his 5d3 + wide angle canon lens, fall off his lap at lunch. It landed directly on the edge of the lens, in a near vertical orientation. The filter was blown to smithereens, but the lens and camera survived, with minimal damage. He acted like it was no big deal, so I'm sure it had happened to him in the past with similar results.See i just dont believe that the filter would have absorbed so much of the shock that it would have actually prevented that from happening.
Versus say something like a lens hood.
And of course, this can get into a huge "what if" debate
I dont know enough about physics, but i hardly believe a filter absorbs that much shock from the total distributed PSI of a drop.
Basically what im getting at is that filter or not, enough impact can damage your equipment and the required impact to damage your lens is more than the amount of impact required to damage a filter.
Like, I dont get why its so shocking that a 20, 50, 100, or 200 filter is less durable than a 2,000+ lens and breaks under less total impact then said lens.
I'm also not willing to run the experiments myself
- 13,073
- 7,279
Haha.....that first video is a photographers nightmare. Like a total freak accident that happens in seconds that will costs hundreds to fix.
- 12,061
- 5,112
See i just dont believe that the filter would have absorbed so much of the shock that it would have actually prevented that from happening.
Versus say something like a lens hood.
And of course, this can get into a huge "what if" debate
I have personally seen my friend have his 5d3 + wide angle canon lens, fall off his lap at lunch. It landed directly on the edge of the lens, in a near vertical orientation. The filter was blown to smithereens, but the lens and camera survived, with minimal damage. He acted like it was no big deal, so I'm sure it had happened to him in the past with similar results.
And im also sure we've seen the video of tony northup literally shoving a stick and random stuff into the front element of his lens trying to break it.
I dont know enough about physics, but i hardly believe a filter absorbs that much shock from the total distributed PSI of a drop.
Basically what im getting at is that filter or not, enough impact can damage your equipment and the required impact to damage your lens is more than the amount of impact required to damage a filter.
Like, I dont get why its so shocking that a 20, 50, 100, or 200 filter is less durable than a 2,000+ lens and breaks under less total impact then said lens.
I'm also not willing to run the experiments myself
Video 1 - A lens hood would have protected the lens from this
Video 2 - Did not answer my last point:
Theoria Apophasis is a fun channel to watch. been subbed to him a couple years.
Notice that he didn't actually hit the front element of the lens without the filter to prove it was undeniably the filter that saved the lens and not the fact that the front element of the lens is just harder to break.......
- 3,684
- 3,447
i don't rock with uv filters on the simple reasoning that why put another piece of glass/optic over the lens (other nd filters or polarizers)...but i do think there are a good number of scenarios where whatever modicum of protection it provides would be useful or better than not having it...
#lazyleisurelife
Untitled by a0, on Flickr
Untitled by a0, on Flickr
Untitled by a0, on Flickr
Untitled by a0, on Flickr
Untitled by a0, on Flickr
#lazyleisurelife
- 27,788
- 12,457
bought a cheap Amazon UV filter mainly for lens protection
- 12,061
- 5,112
yeah nobody can convince me that a 10, 20, 50, 100$ piece of crap is protecting my 800, 1000, 1500, 2000$ lenses.
lens hoods > uv basura
lens hoods > uv basura
- 19,270
- 20,085
Well, I've since given it to my parents, by my older styled Nikon 80-400 has a few chips and scratches in the front element. That lens has a massive hood, that I always had on it. How it got scratched or chipped, I have no idea... but it did. If I had a filter on it, it's likely that would have never happened. I don't usually use filters, but I will put it on if I know the camera is going to get some use.
I've been at great sand dunes national park with my 24-70, and 30+ mph winds. If I didn't have the filter on for that, the front element would have been severely damaged from the sand.
I don't see why it's such a big deal. Some people feel they need the extra protection, others don't. I get rid of my phones after AppleCare runs out because I like that assurance of if something happens to my phone, I can get it replaced. I've had every model of the phone, and I have yet to have one break from dropping it. Does that mean I should stop paying for it? Maybe... but I like to have less stress in my life than to be worrying and babying my equipment at all times.
- 224
- 517
Shots with the new Sony FE 50mm 1.4. Very happy with the purchase!
- 12,061
- 5,112
it really isnt a big deal.
I just love a good debate and i like defending my point
im sure one day i'll post in here extremely pissed off that i broke one of my lenses that could have been saved with filters
- 543
- 135
basically i want to be able to walk around and not have to keep taking my lens cap on and off. i could care less about drop protection as i have gone without one for so long already. i want one more so for dust protection and the like.
Last edited:
