Importance of U/V Filters
May 26, 2022 11:30:37 #
burkphoto wrote:
It reduces exposure by a small percentage. So does clear glass, but it removes less intensity.
A UV filter may also alter the color balance of the image reaching the sensor. Again, so will clear glass, but less so.
Personally, I use lens hoods if the manufacturer makes one. When needed, I add high quality glass protectors unless I'm using a circular polarizer or a fixed ND filter.
A UV filter may also alter the color balance of the image reaching the sensor. Again, so will clear glass, but less so.
Personally, I use lens hoods if the manufacturer makes one. When needed, I add high quality glass protectors unless I'm using a circular polarizer or a fixed ND filter.
Are you talking about 0.3% small?
Or, do you mean something that could possibly actually be seen by a 'normal' human, one beyond the super human population of UHH?
May 26, 2022 11:41:47 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Are you talking about 0.3% small?
Or, do you mean something that could possibly actually be seen by a 'normal' human, one beyond the super human population of UHH?
Or, do you mean something that could possibly actually be seen by a 'normal' human, one beyond the super human population of UHH?
It mattered in film days. I used to see a yellow color shift and a darkening of my slides when using a UV filter. If you're working in raw digital mode, the exposure difference and color shift are so slight they may not matter. But the purist in me wants as little as possible between my lens and my subject.
I'll use the glass filter when the environment could get hazardous. Photographing a welder at work, or a guy chain-sawing a tree, or a mud-track demolition derby, I'll put one on. In the high mountains, I'll use a UV for its extra dose of UV removal capability.
I haven't been to Keystone, CO, in two decades, but if I go there again, I'll have UV filters on all my lenses. And I'll wear 100 SPF sunscreen and take oxygen! It's almost 11,000' up. Two martinis at the restaurant on the mountain top will kick your butt.
May 26, 2022 11:41:53 #
terpfan
Loc: central coast, California
I have rented lenses from Lens Rentals. They always come with a UV filter. recently sold a lens so I removed the filter prior to selling. Much to my surprise, there was a deep 1/4 inch scratch on the filter. The lens was fine. I have no idea how the scratch got there, but at least it was not on the lens.
May 26, 2022 11:43:58 #
aaj3
Loc: Birmingham, AL
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
I have, despite being mocked and criticized, alway... (show quote)
It looks like you have a Hyperion Camera Strap on the camera, of which I have several. Out of interest, what part of the camera strap or attachment failed and caused the camera to fall? Those straps seem very sturdy and could actually cushion the fall if it fell onto it. Thanks.
May 26, 2022 11:44:10 #
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass instead of the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision how you treat it and whether you protect it. If you dream today of ever selling your expensive lens in the future, ask yourself if you'd buy a used lens with a scratched front glass?
May 26, 2022 11:48:19 #
burkphoto wrote:
It reduces exposure by a small percentage. So does clear glass, but it removes less intensity.
A UV filter may also alter the color balance of the image reaching the sensor. Again, so will clear glass, but less so.
Personally, I use lens hoods if the manufacturer makes one. When needed, I add high quality glass protectors unless I'm using a circular polarizer or a fixed ND filter.
A UV filter may also alter the color balance of the image reaching the sensor. Again, so will clear glass, but less so.
Personally, I use lens hoods if the manufacturer makes one. When needed, I add high quality glass protectors unless I'm using a circular polarizer or a fixed ND filter.
So the odds of me actually noticing a difference are pretty slim? Like .3%?
(I also remove the Clear/UV when I use a CP or Star filter.)
May 26, 2022 11:51:46 #
May 26, 2022 11:59:26 #
Longshadow wrote:
So the odds of me actually noticing a difference are pretty slim? Like .3%?
(I also remove the Clear/UV when I use a CP or Star filter.)
(I also remove the Clear/UV when I use a CP or Star filter.)
Make tests. I see about 1/6 stop light reduction from a UV filter, and about a 5-point shift toward yellow from the same filter.
I see about 1/10 stop light reduction from a clear glass protector, and about a 2-point shift toward green.
Doing exposure and white balance through the lens with the camera metering features will cancel out these effects for JPEG and raw capture.
Using a hand-held meter and a fixed white balance (or setting the white balance and changing the filter or lens) will change the look of a JPEG.
I imagine most folks won't give a damn. But my old habits die hard.
May 26, 2022 12:04:45 #
burkphoto wrote:
Make tests. I see about 1/6 stop light reduction f... (show quote)
Our friend Roger Cicala at LensRentals.com explained his process using an Olaf Optical Testing bench in 2017: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/
He comments early in the article that he's testing the 'top brands', not the $6 filters. What testing approach did you use when you "see" a 10% difference? He only had three of 21 rankings even near the 10% loss of transmission, one sold for $10.
May 26, 2022 12:29:13 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Our friend Roger Cicala at LensRentals.com explained his process using an Olaf Optical Testing bench in 2017: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/
He comments early in the article that he's testing the 'top brands', not the $6 filters. What testing approach did you use when you "see" a 10% difference? He only had three of 21 rankings even near the 10% loss of transmission, one sold for $10.
He comments early in the article that he's testing the 'top brands', not the $6 filters. What testing approach did you use when you "see" a 10% difference? He only had three of 21 rankings even near the 10% loss of transmission, one sold for $10.
1/10 of an f/stop is not a ten percent loss of light. It is ten percent of one stop, or 0.03 out of .30 density points on film. It is the equivalent of going from 0 on the Lightroom Classic exposure slider to -0.10. You can easily see it in Lightroom Classic. Heck, you can see 0.05 difference in Lightroom Classic, but only if you are watching closely as you move the slider!
May 26, 2022 12:34:40 #
burkphoto wrote:
1/10 of an f/stop is not a ten percent loss of light. It is ten percent of one stop, or 0.03 out of .30 density points on film. It is the equivalent of going from 0 on the Lightroom Classic exposure slider to -0.10. You can easily see it in Lightroom Classic. Heck, you can see 0.05 difference in Lightroom Classic, but only if you are watching closely as you move the slider!
Yes, and I occasionally (rarely, but occasionally) find myself making an 0.05 modification in the 'perfection' of some edit to an image. But, I guess that makes me too part of the community of Super Humans that populate UHH. Similar to those with eyes that 'see' the 0.3% difference of light from the best of the filters?
May 26, 2022 12:41:54 #
burkphoto wrote:
Make tests. I see about 1/6 stop light reduction from a UV filter, and about a 5-point shift toward yellow from the same filter. ...
What UV filter brand and how did you test it?
I use only B+W filters. I have measured the difference using RawDigger. The sample variation is within the margin of error - in other words, none.
The light yellow filter I use only with B&W film changes the exposure by about 1/3 stop.
May 26, 2022 12:43:23 #
burkphoto wrote:
1/10 of an f/stop is not a ten percent loss of light. It is ten percent of one stop, or 0.03 out of .30 density points on film. It is the equivalent of going from 0 on the Lightroom Classic exposure slider to -0.10. You can easily see it in Lightroom Classic. Heck, you can see 0.05 difference in Lightroom Classic, but only if you are watching closely as you move the slider!
But only if one has something to compare it to.
Showing a viewer only either image, I seriously doubt that the viewer will know that something may be off a skosh, unless they have something to compare it to.
Just like Clairol, only the photographer knows for sure.
He may be "watching closely", comparing the two instances.
May 26, 2022 12:44:28 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Similar to those with eyes that 'see' the 0.03% difference of light from the best of the filters?
Have to wonder how anyone can see a difference in exposure of 0.03%. That only 1/2300th of a stop.
May 26, 2022 12:44:56 #
Would that there was one single action in all of photography that would make me even just 0.3% better.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.