rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I know. This subject has been beaten to death. A few weeks ago someone suggested posting comparison photos. So, here you go. Your turn to guess which was shot with a UV filter and which was not.

(Download)


(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I take it this is a JOKE !

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You take it incorrectly.
--Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

If the same EV, I'm guessing the second is the UV filter.

ggttc Loc: TN

I'd go with #1

But who knows???

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Images are too small to be able to discern....Plus details on web images lack enough resolution anyway. Prints (large ones) will be needed to actually discern which is which. That said, subject matter isn't of the type that differences are as discernible either. You need images of higher contrast.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

Looking at both side-by-side I see very little difference. Both pic's seem to be out of focus and are of very low resolution making any kind of comparison difficult. Pic #1 has a slight loss of shadow detail possibly because of less exposure. Pic #2 is darker and has slightly better shadow detail. What this means is anybody's guess.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

There is a definite rule when it comes to UV filters. It's a simple rules but a rule none the less. All photographers must follow this rule, pro or non pro. Even I follow the UV filter rule, religiously! Use a UV filter if you want to, don't use a UV filter if you don't want to.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

Thank you for bringing up this frequently discussed subject, rmalarz!
The reason some UHH members are trying to find out about the use of the UV filters is the fact, that UV light has a different wavelength from the visible light. Knowing that, we can expect, that it focuses on different plane - regardless whether we use film or unprotected sensor of a digital camera? That create a possibility of TWO images recorded instead of one.
For sunny, open landscape conditions - like we can find on the beaches or high altitude snowy mountain slopes, I would happily use the ultraviolet filter (not the "protective" or "skylight" filter).
We don't need to use the UV filter in tunnels, under water and other dark absurd places?

However, since your two photographs were apparently not taken in the open sky bright sunlight, I have to assume that they are not useable for such a comparison test?

So, your point rather reminds me an anecdote I have heard about a famous scientist making similar (that is a way off) assumptions when he decided to test the hearing capabilities of a flea:

He cut off two legs of the flea and shouted: Jump!
The flea jumped.
After that, he kept cutting legs off the same flea - one pair after another and watched the flea jumping with increasing difficulty - until the flea didn't have any legs.
When the scientist shouted: Jump, the flea didn't jump.
Than the scientist wrote in his notebook: If you cut all legs off the flea, the flea becomes DEAF.

BebuLamar

But you know that there are people who violate the rule that is to use the filter even when they don't want to.

Leitz Loc: Solms

C'mon, Bob, are you really that bored?!

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

It's quite obvious to me which one has a UV filter.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I'm with you on this. And who knows? The Shadow knows!

Tom G Loc: Atlanta, GA

If UV filters were excessively expensive this might be an interesting topic. A good UV filter costs less than $20.00, at B&H.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Taking a guess, just a guess, I would say it's the second shot, only because it's darker.

I use clear filters for lens protection. I often remove them to shoot. I use Xume magnetic adapters, so removal is very fast.