BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

OK guys not to start a big fight but I simply had to do this. I read Jerryc41's post a while back where he compared his images with and without a protective filter and I was a bit shocked. I have been a photographer for over 25 years and I have tried pretty much all of the major flavors of filters and have recently, after some serious research, switched out everything for Hoya HD series filters. I do choose to use a protective filter since my work takes me to some nasty places to take pic's and I have, on many occasions, had the end of a lens saved by a simple filter. Now you can fume and fuss all you like and toss out things like using a lens cap or a lens hood and I will counter that I can't because I shoot sports and you need to be ready at the blink of an eye and I do use lens hoods at all times but that won't change your mind and you certainly are not going to change mine so we should agree to disagree and to each his own. All that aside if my images are being seriously effected I don't want them on there. I have tested this and I have never seen a detectable difference but Jerry's images did get me wondering so I did my own simple test.

To test I took two images a few seconds apart first with and then without the filter. Aside from the filter there was no changes to anything else. I simply placed my Canon 5d MkII on my tripod and attached a 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens set to 35mm. I set the ISO to 100, the aperture to f/22 and the shutter to 1/30's for a proper exposure all manual of course. I focused on infinity, locked the mirror up and fired with a wireless remote for good sharpness. I shot in RAW as well as .jpg Large Fine and compared the images straight out of the camera in Lightroom 4.3 with zero PP. I blew the images up to a 100% crop and did a side-by-side comparison of the two images on my Eizo 27" IPS Monitor which is very high resolution and could not see any difference. In fact if I somehow mixed the two up I would not be able to tell which was which. Here they are in the .jpg format, we'll see if they post as they appear on my computer monitor, what do you guys think?

With the Hoya HD Protector in place


With the filter removed a few seconds later

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

well no expert here but i spent some time compareing after downloading for a better look i can saw the first photo was a wee bit darker on the colors here,but in my opinion its not enuff that i wouldn't use either image .
i use dual monitors and both give a diff perspective as does my lap top , as noone has the exact same monitors or computers , there are 2 that you have to please, the client and yourself

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Very true so long as the Boss/Client is happy right? If you scroll the image up and down while keeping your eyes in the same spot or angle to the monitor I think you will see that the images are virtually identical in brightness. Not sure if everyone knows what all that IPS Monitor stuff is all about but its In Plane Switching and they have very even illumination all over the screen compared to TFT style monitors. They also have way more resolution than a typical computer monitor, but are also (sadly) about $3K :cry:

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

I appreciate the exactness of your comparison, BigD. I also see a perceptible difference, the one with the filter appears very slightly darker, which is to be expected. It is generally accepted that a single glass lens element will transmit 85% of the light striking it, and reflect about 15%. I think that's all you're dealing with here.
I see no degradation of the image at all. I rarely use a protective filter, but I'm not shooting in your situations.
Given the results of your comparison, I wouldn't hesitate to use the particular filter you are using. In a real shooting circumstance your camera would compensate for that 15% difference, anyway.
Good post, BigD, thank you!

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I can see no definitive difference between your two photos. Had you not labeled each, I could not tell which was through a filter.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Thanks, I debated about the two images brightness and on my monitor they are so close but I agree the one with the filter might be a tiny tiny bit darker. That's why I didn't change any exposure settings to really see what the filter did. Overall I was totally satisfied with the filters performance. If I am going out shooting calm landscapes I pull off the Protector and usually have a CP or an GND on there but for "work" I protect those front ends...

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

That's why I was so interested in the comparison that Jerry did. He has great gear and knows what he is doing so I was kinda blown away at the huge difference he got and on several different tests. I was fairly sure my own experiences were not that drastic but it did put a thought in the back of my head so I wanted to test it out.

john blue Loc: Lowndesboro, Al

Like my HOYA filters, when I don't use them I under expose by 1/3. My glasses (half blind) are also done with their coatings.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Your glasses? really? that's cool. Like I said I did some pretty serious reading and comparing and after a big debate and for several reasons I decided to eliminate all my various filters and go with a single manufacturer. Then along comes ol Jerry and scares the crap out of me after spending like two grand on filters haha. I honestly think he got a bad filter as none of mine give me any reason to suspect that they are robbing any image quality at all and I wanted to give the UHHers something to compare. I think the Hoya HD's are awesome. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

For what it's worth I have done the same test with my lenses. I use the Hoya Pro I Digital UV filter on all my lenses and had results similar to yours. BTW, this particular filter is used by a club member friend who is a National Geographic photographer. He travels the world taking pictures for a living and I figure if it works for him it will surely work for me. ;)

wrr Loc: SEK

using a color picker from same exact spot....

with filter:
rgb(164, 198, 223)
#A4C6DF

without filter:
rgb(160, 195, 223)
#A0C3DF

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

Yeah the Red and Blue are down a tiny tiny bit. Not too shabby though.

I mean Red and Green :shock:

RocketScientist Loc: Littleton, Colorado

The one with the filter is ever so slightly a tad darker. I think your lighting was different than JerryC41. He had a cloudier day and the differences were most noticeable on the somewhat reflective wet and icy road.

BigD Loc: The LEFT Coast

There was another pic similar to mine that was a lot of trees and bushes. The difference was dramatic if I remember correctly. Enough to get me to do my own test. These filters are multi-coated so I don't think they would be effected by reflections as much as one might think. I have not had any issues with them having trouble under very contrasty conditions. I choose the scene in my pic's to try and have plenty of differing light levels and detail to really judge the difference. Overall I think it shows that there is not a huge drop off in image quality with this particular filter.

RocketScientist Loc: Littleton, Colorado

Here's Jerryc41's post: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-85022-1.html

I noticed less difference on the trees than the road.