The popular filters are a Skylight or a UV. They both improve the colour tone of skies and the UV absorbs the UV without any loss of “Exposure light”. Skylights also remove UV but some say it loses about a 1/4 stop of light.
Both claim to remove haze in landscape/seascape shots.
As you say, a lot of people use these just as a protector for the lens.

Polarisers do what they say on the tin, overuse will result in unfeasibly blue sky and sea, and outrageous greens. They take away two stops. Neutral Density filters just block out light in various stops. These are used to slow the shutter speed down on bright days, to capture a blurred waterfall for example. I used to stack a few ND plus a Polariser in my Cokin system, to remove 5 or 6 stops. At F22 I was exposing something like 30 seconds in daylight, which during the build up to a Thunderstorm gave me swirled trees, lightning in the background but solid buildings. Timing my 30 seconds to coincide with a lightning was the key. Mostly failed. I also used a black card which I held against the lens front and removed it for a few seconds at a time – hoping to get the lightning. This still kept my 30 secs exposure but the elapsed time of the “shot” was maybe 5 mins.
All other filters are gimmicks, grads, starbursts, blurry, blurry with colour, foggy etc. etc. All of this can be done in Photoshop. Polarising can be done in photoshop for the dark sky and sea, but on the telly you can’t remove the reflections from water / leaves like a polariser does. (Well you can but it would take hours n hours in PS).

In the days of film, it was always argued that putting a piece of cheap glass in front of a very expensive lens is an insult to the lens and reduces the quality of the image. If you want to protect the lens, then fit a large rubber hood on the end. So, expensive filters (And I’m talking £70 for a UV or skylight to fit a 52mm thread!) removed the quality issue.

Now in digital, that quality issue is still around but there is another problem. The CCD is reflective and there is potential for a Ghost image to appear. This would happen on a £7 or £70 filter.

And, the more expensive your lens, the likelihood is that the front element will be massive because the lens will be “Faster”. This means very large filters, which means very empty pockets!

Personally, I use the rubber hoods and tend to take more care with the lens. I am however often taking pictures in the rain or sea spray, and need to keep that lot off the front element coating and indeed the camera. I’ve experimented with cling film, but it takes perhaps 10 attempts to get a wrinkle free one! And, you can’t wipe it or it distorts. It’s a replace in-situ jobbie, not practical.

Lets hope the coward gets the noose!!

With any luck he will do his wrists and save 12 months of Court time and public money (From who’s budget it comes from doesn’t matter, it’s a waste)
We know he’s going to die, so genetically prove it’s him and “off-him” or leave a razor blade in his cell.
But, we are civilised and mustn’t lower ourselves to the level of them.
However, I see killing him as a moral uplift, sanctioned by all Gods n Mods.

Originally it was shown with 737 style blended winglets. The raked wingtips came later when they found out that they would be lighter, less draggy, and provide just as much fuel saving.

J

This is not the case, if you read my earlier post on this subject, the raked/kinked/cranked winglets are the old style design. They are slightly cheaper to make (Fitting of either is about the same cost) than the Blended style. They can be lighter, because the torque loads and pressure loads are less on them, allowing them to be not as structurally beefed-up as the blendeds.

The blended style are considerably more fuel efficient than the kinked. Kinked – about 2-4 maybe 5% but the blendeds are are 6 – 10% fuel saving.
The blendeds are much less draggy than the kinked. The kinked designs are from the 90’s. The Airbus “Fence” is from the 80’s, and AUK are considering putting blendeds on the narrow body range, it will be their own though (The test version from a few years ago wasn’t that brilliant). I can’t see Airbus buying a product off Aviation Partners Boeing. 🙂
The artist impression of the 767 above needs scaling up a tad. The 767 winglet is 16 feet from the join to the tip – measured along the bottom skin surface….which becomes the outer when it’s 22 degrees off vertical.
The 777 blendeds (If they get off the ground) will be very small, not much bigger than the 737, due to the wing design already dealing with some of those nasty tip vortices and a few other aerodynamic reasons.
They may have considered the kinked for the 777, basing it on the ugly ones on the 747 but it didn’t get further than the designers sketch book.
The 747 designers and customers now want the blendeds, but unfortunately the kinked one is in production, it is certified etc. To design/test/certify another one to do the same job will be costly. But, for a further 4 or 5% fuel saving, the customers may want to pay for that extra non-recurring cost. It will be only new aeroplanes though, with plenty of service life left……..it’s not going to be worth putting a new expensive winglet on a machine that only has 5 or 6 years life left.

The Dreamliner and the A350 Nightmareliner have the blended winglets built into the design, and are more like a gentle curl up at the end of the wing. Not sure if they have kept the wingspan to the max. allowed (For airport terminal sizes) or they have designed the whole wing taking into account an “Ordinary” span but with curly ends. I suspect the latter.

Thank you Gents , now I understand and I do agree that the PLONKERS who wear these stupid looking earpieces do look VERY STUPID whilst trying to look so self important. ;);):eek:

Spit, you must be of an age like me…….it’s more like a Blue Denture.

And, you can get a bluetooth adapter for an Ipod, it sends it’s music to your car stereo (Assuming you are in or very near the car of course).

But, if by chance another car is close, and he/she picks up your signal you could be done for broadcasting without a licence. Unless they’ve changed the rules recently.

Old shape Eithad have order both Airbus and Boeing. An airline doesnt have to be commited to one manufactuer now or does it:confused:

No not ever or never.
But, as I said, to have two contestants on the same order sheet could be hedging.

As far as I know, they are firm orders, not options. And I find your comment at bit odd. The 787 and the 350 are not similar planes with similar capabilities competing for the same segment of the market (at least the basic versions that are the 787-300 and the 350-800). The 787-300 is geared to replace the 767 and 330-200, the 350-800 the 777-200. It would not make sense for Etihad to order both to edge their bets. Companies usually know what planes they need to replace and what planes they need to meet what needs.

A firm order can still have options.
As for the machines: –
They are both in the 8,000nm+ and 260-300+ pax market. They are indeed up agin each other. The 787 has a few years up it’s sleeve on market penetration though. This will give Airbus the advantage of seeing what happens and changing (If they can) to suit.
Both programmes are in slippage (The A350 weight promises (Therefore fuel economy) are not being seen on the CAD screen), Etihad will indeed be hedging their bets if they have any business acumen. All companies do so, especially on untried technology. These will be the 1st pax aeroplanes with primary structure made of CFRP. The A400M will be the first large A/c with primary structure made of CFRP. Small military A/c have had it for years now, but they have a back-up system…made by Martin Baker.

In my experience, the facts and news have but a nodding acquaitanship.

Hear hear!
That’s why I avoid the news.