BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
 

Filters Downgrading Quality?


Hi, I have been shooting pictures for about 6 years now and have been a professional photographer for numerous newspapers, currently I work with the Star-Telegram. Now needless to say, I have shot hundreds of events, mostly professional football, baseball, racing, and basketball and have never had any problems with my 1DmII, 20D or 300D or any of my L lenses: the 70-200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8 IS, 400mm f/2.8, or the 17-40mm f/4. However, I decided to buy a UV filter for my 70-200mm because that is one that I regularly carry around and it has the most potential to get something on the glass or get scratched up; although, this may just be me being paranoid because I always use the lens hood and have the cap on whenever I'm not using it. But anyways, back to the point, recently I bought a Hoya 77mm UV filter for my 70-200mm f/2.8 and I can't help but notice, it almost seems like my photos aren't up to the standard anymore, I have shrugged off the idea that it could be my filter lowering the quality of the picture, but then again, I'm a photojournalist, I have little experience with filters as I rarely use one. Does my Hoya 77mm UV filter lower the quality of my pictures, I have noticed the decrease in quality at night moreso than day, any input on this?


To love this question, log in above
10/20/2005 4:05:31 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  Wow now I'm really jealous. For being 15 you sure do have a lot of money wrapped up in photography. Wow just got done with the figures. For a 15 year old I'd say $29, 284.50 is a nice chunk of equipment. Wish I had that kind of money.


To love this comment, log in above
10/20/2005 6:37:51 PM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
  Lol, nonono, most of the equipment isn't mine. I wish. I own only the 70-200mm f/2.8 the 17-40mm and the 100-400mm L's, the others are provided by the newspaper and other photographers, my next purchase is the 300mm f/2.8, I'm about a month or two away from that. I own the 20D and the 300D, the 1D again is a provided by one of the newspapers I work for. And I don't make as much off of stills as I do off of video (USA Network television), I'm a contracted Dolly Operator.


To love this comment, log in above
10/20/2005 7:34:21 PM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  you've added a piece of glass to the front of your lens.stray light,reflections,even a slight metering problem.moisture from cold to hot,humidity,air conditioning.
you might have even changed your shooting habits worrying about the effects of the filter?
shoot a still pic of something with and without the filter.
hth,sam


To love this comment, log in above
10/20/2005 8:12:11 PM

 
Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/18/2000
  >>"Does my Hoya 77mm UV filter lower the quality of my pictures, I have noticed the decrease in quality at night moreso than day, any input on this?"<<

So what is the "decrease in quality" you're seeing? Distortions? Flare/ghosting? Loss of contrast? Less color saturation? Less detail resolution?

If you notice a decrease in quality, then there is probably a decrease in quality. You're in a better position to answer this than any of us. Test it yourself. Take the same shot with and without the filter and compare.


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 6:35:05 AM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
  If I had to say what I'm noticing is, if anything, a decrease in detail, an occasional white balance thrown off, decrease in contrast, and saturation. At least that's what it seems to be.


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 8:22:20 AM

 
Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/18/2000
  Post some samples, with and without.


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 10:52:47 AM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
  As I said, due to paranoia I haven't used it without the filter since I bought the filter. I have a football game I am covering for the Telegram tonight, I will take off my filter and post after.


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 11:07:33 AM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  you jerking our chain forrest?


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 5:56:41 PM

 
Dave    forrest sure sounds like someone else who loved to brag but could not keep there story straight ! when did you become a pro ? @ 9 years old


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 8:50:56 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Think it's a case of making things sound more than what they are instead of making them up.


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 9:38:40 PM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
  I started shooting on my family's film SLR camera at 10, which is where I developed the love for photography; I have been pro ever since the Southlake Carroll Dragons went right through their season and into the playoffs last year. I have the pictures, I will upload them tomorrow.


To love this comment, log in above
10/21/2005 10:20:12 PM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
 
 
 
Here are a few from the game, the top two are from last game for Carroll with the filter in use, and the second two are this game.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 10:24:03 AM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
 
 
 
© Forrest C. Wilkinson
Canon EOS 1D Mark ...
 
  Rounding the Corner
Rounding the Corner
f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/800s. 70-200mm L.
© Forrest C. Wilkinson
Canon EOS 20D Digi...
 
  Draw Right
Draw Right
f/2.8, 1/640s, ISO 1600. 300mm L.
© Forrest C. Wilkinson
Canon EOS 20D Digi...
 
  Breaking Away
Breaking Away
f/2.8, 1/640s, ISO 1600. 300mm L.
© Forrest C. Wilkinson
Canon EOS 20D Digi...
 
 
Here they are:


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 10:24:37 AM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  i really can't tell any difference.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 10:55:16 AM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
 
 
 
I have to say that all this criticism over me in this topic really hurts. I mean, whatever you believe, my question wasn't "do you believe me?" it was "does the Hoya 77mm filter downgrade the quality of the 70-200mm?" Your attempts to make me look bad not only sound childish to me, it is a strong show of patronization, "This 15 year old kid can't possibly own more equipment than me, it's impossible." I do not appreciate it, and I feel that I have received little help on this thread, but I thank Samuel and Jon for sticking to the thread. Justin, I don't know where you bought your calculator or where you shop for equipment, but I suggest you either send your calculator back, or change retailers, the total cost of all the equipment posted in the first thread is $17,174.43. But as I said, I only own a 20D, 300D, 100-400mm IS L, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and the 17-40mm L; which add to $5219.49. And I might add that I only posted my first post to ask the question, I put my job in so I didn't get any answers like, "Try screwing the filter on tighter," so I wouldn't be wasting anyones time. Unfortunately, that backfired on me. Now I don't know what your motivation is to take shots at me, but hey, I'm not you. Regardless, I have posted a picture of my 20D and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L; maybe this will help settle you guys down so I can actually receive a little help. Again, thanks to those who were not so critical.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 11:16:23 AM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
 
 
  20d, 70-200, 100-400.
20d, 70-200, 100-400.
I can't believe I had to upload this.
© Forrest C. Wilkinson
Canon EOS Digital ...
 
 
.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 11:18:16 AM

 
Howie Nordström
BetterPhoto Member Since: 3/11/2005
  Forrest:

Here's my $.02.

With these types of shots I think that you are the only one who will notice changes in what you've been shooting. You, the action, the objects and the lighting are changing too fast for single instance comparisons. Of course, since you've seen thousands of your images your eye is trained and will therefore pick up any slight changes. (Note: as an example, I visited the US mint once and watched ladies inspecting huge sheets of uncut bills. The pages were thumbed through as fast as they could be turned. Even still, those ladies could pick up the tiniest flaw. Any one of us would have missed it completely, let alone even noticed what denomination the bill was.) The un-titled photo is also shot with a different camera so any divergences could be a result of that camera.

With that said, I personally find that 'Breaking Away' and 'Draw Right' to have a different color cast than the other two. There's also something rather odd about 'Breaking Away': check out the lower portion of #11's legs and his feet. Notice how there's an area around him on the grass that is sharp and then all of a sudden it gets blurry. #27's shadow goes from blurry to sharp to blurry, at f2.8 I would expect this to be blurred all the way along, and the grass that is at an even distance from the camera as #11 is should be sharp – it's not. It's like there's some post-processing that's been done to this shot.

Anyway, a more empirical test (not that I personally ascribe to empiricism, but it does have its merits at times) would be to mount a camera on a tripod. Take varying shots of still objects at varying ranges and apertures, each shot with and without the filter. Comparisons of these shots should show any differences. Sure, this isn't the type of shooting you do to make a living, however, you could take these comparison shots in the same sporting environments either before or after the action begins – just as long as nothing in the frame changes.

...IMHO.

/howie


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 12:07:56 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  more skepticism than criticism. Here's the deal. The courier newspaper was a really small paper that came out one day a week. They didn't have a staff photographer, only use photos given to them. Even it meant from a parent in the stands at a game. They'd pay $10 a picture. The southlake paper wasn't much different.
The courier got bought by the star-telegram, which is the major paper he keeps talking about. And the southlake journal is also owned by the star-telegram. So in a way you could say you shoot for the star-telegram if you're doing something for one of the small papers. The star-telegram also has an intership program that they do for people in high school so they get a feel for how a big paper does things. They'll let you go on assignments with staff photogs. I know somebody who did that. She was on yearbook and the school paper at a different high school. So if he's doing that, yes it's not far fetched that he's been to pro games and used all that equipment at some point.
Is he on staff at the star-telegram? Doubt it. But since the star-telegram now owns several small papers, what he shoots for one could be used in the star-telegram. And also it probably made what the pay per picture go a lot higher than $10.
So starting every post with being a pro at only 15, going to hundreds of NFL,NBA, etc... is bound to raise a question at some point. After all, don't think a 'major' paper would hire somebody who didn't have a license to drive to assignments.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 1:41:00 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  And the color cast is the way those lights are. There are spots where it changes.. The other picture does look like a sharpening only on one part of the picture. Or it could be gaussian blur on everything but the guy with the ball.
Looks fuzzier with the filter? Take it off or clean it. If they look clearer after that, it's the filter. Don't think there's any other way of going about it.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 1:50:11 PM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
  And do be quite honest, Gegory, that is almost exactly on the dot, and I work with my friend who is 16. And I know some people who shoot for different publications that I have tagged along with, without affiliation to the newspaper; I also am able to use some of the equipment on my own events. And I do not work for the Courier nor do I work for the Southlake Journal, I used to, but my photos are published soully in the Star-Telegram during the events that I cover for them. I do work for another paper called the Sports-Report, which is not affiliated with the Star-Telegram in any way. And of course I'm not on the staff, firstly, I'm not old enough, nor could I work 20-40 hours a week and keep up in school; I work freelance, but to say the paper that I shoot for shouldn't imply that I am staff of their newspaper. But thank you for the information, I will try this, and thank you Howie, you are most likely right.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 3:00:26 PM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  i guess i'll go stand in the corner


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 3:15:56 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  but you kept saying a professional for the star-telegram, and pointing out major this and that. Got a problem with a filter, but what's that have to do with hundreds of NFL games?
And if it was as grand it was always made to sound, the star-telegram wouldn't have had a 2nd person shooting a high school game. Especially one that was expected to be a blow-out.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 4:09:59 PM

 
  I'm not getting any answers to my question, probably many of pros think that it is to basic for them to bother with, so I'll say a few words on this thread which I found interesting to read. Forrest is getting his lesson here. Bragging about equipment is a no-no. Older male camera users (didn’t hear any complaints from women) subconsciously become jealous and start to criticize – that’s probably “the man-thing” if you fill threatened -attack. :) As to use of a word "professional", as I’ve read in many times over in this forum; If you get paid for your pictures, you are professional –no mater how old you are. In that sense Forrest is a 100% professional photographer.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 5:50:27 PM

 
Forrest C. Wilkinson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/15/2005
  Thank you Siaba. I was wanting to say the same thing in my previous post, but I was trying to save some unneeded further argueing. Certainly I have learned my lesson. I really must have been mistaken, in fact, I was way off. You see, the photographers I have worked with are some of the nicest, trusting, and accepting people I know. Many leave $12,000 of equipment lying around in press boxes and sidelines because photographers respect other photographers; I'm very disappointed and have to say that my hopes of going further in the photography world may be diminishing if this is what I have to look forward to. Maybe video is better for me, because this is ridiculous, people just keep on dragging this out more and more, this thread could have ended 3, but people just can't get enough of it, picking on someone because, not only do they think that they have him in a corner, they want to rub it in while they're at it. I don't know what to say other than, I'm sorry for bringing this up, because obviously all the blame is being placed on me; I didn't mean to threaten your obvious superiority, won't happen again.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 6:02:55 PM

 
  I'm sure you won't get discouraged over this. As you said, it's a lesson, and take it that way. Many of responses you got were impulsive words that wouldn’t be said if the respondent gave himself a bit more time to process… In reality they meant no harm. Best of luck in your pursuits. Sorry, I can’t help you with filters ;)


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 6:29:16 PM

 
Nobu Nagase
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/31/2003
  Don't make a hasty conclusion, Forrest.
There are many many kind and congenial photographers here. It is dangerous to generalize so quickly...

The reason you are not receiving info you are looking for is, most likely, there are no really simple way to determine what the problem is in this case. As some has already said, you will most likely experiment with this more. Jon Close has answered many techinical questions here on this forum. I will take his suggestions and run with it a little more.

As long as you, being a photographer, I would think that many folks here will envy your position. You will be a great photographer, if not already. Keep it up, Forrest. I know you will...


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 6:31:22 PM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  well mr nobi,nobi one,thank you for trying to settle this youngster down.forrest doesn't understand that many will question his ability.and being young he will take offense.just a passage,to a higher plane.he's taken a step back and is questioning his own presence,or ability.i'm hoping he will outgrow this.i do not think envy played any part in this, only his lack of confidence.when he put that filter on he questioned his ability to photograph.
there are no corners forrest,only the ones you paint yourself into.opinions?
just that.
i believe we are on here to question everything,everything.settings,ability ,and ourselves.no stopping to wipe the snot off our nose or tears from our eyes.
and I think siaba,forrest needs no one to back him up.he can stand on his own.i am sorry I missed your question.
and now I think I have a campfire and a bunch of beer to attend to.just a personel preference.
i welcome you all to stop by and partake,sam


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 8:31:52 PM

 
Dave    ha ha ha ...when he got caught ....he admitted to streatchingggggggg....the truth ...then then ,keeps backtracking and making excuses .....my...$00.02 still sounds like our ghost with 101 ID's


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 9:08:21 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  No need to be so dramatic. They didn't criticize him, they just thought things didn't sound right. And it's sure not a man thing miss winfrey. And I can't see anybody being that wimpy to say they may not want to do any more photo stuff just because of anything here.
Not unless they're from Canada.


To love this comment, log in above
10/22/2005 10:24:31 PM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.