DJO

To my eye, doll number one is the better photograph. It has better color and to me, the contrast is more pleasing (less harsh). It also has the UV filter. The give away as to which one has the filter has nothing to with aesthetics. Even a UV filter has some density. Doll number two has no filter and is therefor overexposed. Without correcting this important discrepancy a valid comparison cannot really be made.

Or it could all be the other way around.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

I agree. Considering the filter contains a very thin piece of glass, and the front element of a lens is typically much thicker and generally includes more than one piece of glass, it would seem reasonable that the lens element(s) would withstand considerably more impact before being damaged.

As for frontal scratches, most lens elements are recessed whereas the filter is typically right at the very front so it's much more likely to get scratched than the lens.

The best use for a filter other than its obvious purpose is to keep out sea spray, dust, and fingerprints, although today's lenses are pretty tough and designed to be cleaned numerous times without damaging them if reasonable care is taken.

DJO

http://youtu.be/P0CLPTd6Bds

This video effectively dispels the myth of lens protection from uv/Protective filters.

I watched it. He talks fast and edits faster. If you click on "pause" quick enough, often enough, the smoke and mirrors go away. No science whatsoever. A true to life carnival sideshow barker.

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

For heaven's sake, does this forum utilize moderators who can just shut down threads that devolve from snippy answers to down right rudeness and nasty? I find it amazing that with all of the different suggestions about letting those who like filters and those who do not peacefully coexist, we still get the same few people unable to sleep unless they continue to browbeat all opposing views until they cave in. Some of you guys just will not draw a relaxed breath until you have pummeled the opposition into submission.

We have two or three guys in this thread who fancy themselves Einsteinian physicists. They talk incessently, loudly and condescendingly to we fools who are clearly too stupid to stop using filters. It is obvious that we are clearly lacking in our engineering skills and an understanding of the laws of physics and we are lacking the innate intelligence that these priviledged few have. It is their duty to save us from ourselves; it is being done to save us and therefore must, for our own good, be treated as idiots who don't understand and accept the gospel BS that is being slung around. After all, several people sent us to You Tube videos to luxuriate in that bastion of scientific research posted there. I understand that watching 4 You Tube videos will qualify you for admission to Princeton's Department of physics. Wow. Nothing like visiting a you tube blurb for a deep understanding of natural law.

I beg a moderator to lock the thread, thereby putting these unhappy and petulant people out of their agony caused by the unfulfilled attempt to gain 100% compliance on the subject. Thank the Lord that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that gives photographers the right to bear filters to protect their lenses.

There will be peace between Syria, Iraq, Iran and Israel before the argument of whether photo filters degrade images is settled.

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca

To all the folks who are sick of this discussion and want to shut it down. Just stop following it. UHH has lots of great photos to look at and many other interesting threads to follow.
I know our discussion has been all over the place. Many folks have strong opinions and perhaps are not as polite as they should have been. But I have actually learned a lot from this discussion. I don't have to agree with you in order to learn from you. :)

picturedude Loc: Yosemite natl. park, Ca.

Uhmmmm, can I phone a friend?

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

True that! :thumbup:

paccmps

Not really sure ! Possibly if filter on during exposures outside there might be more differences . I use skylight filters for lens protection but will run a test for myself to verify ! Good question

Jim Bob

Thank you. AND NOW, THE ANSWER IS:

PHOTO 1, NO FILTER

PHOTO 2, UV FILTER

Draw your own conclusions.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

I win!

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Once again your opinion which you are free to have. But not unbiased proof.

Bear123 Loc: Wild & Wonderful West Virginia

Interesting discussion. Thanks Jim Bob. By the way, what brand filter did you use? :-D

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

While a bit dated, this is a Polish test of UV filters you might want to peruse...After all, you asked for unbiased proof

http://www.lenstip.com/113.2-article-UV_filters_test_A_few_words_about_UV_radiation.html