Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
UV Filter or Not? You be the judge.
Page <<first <prev 12 of 16 next> last>>
Oct 5, 2015 08:57:26   #
Jim Bob
 
Bear123 wrote:
Interesting discussion. Thanks Jim Bob. By the way, what brand filter did you use? :-D


Thanks. Hoya EVO.

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 09:00:29   #
Jim Bob
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
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


Why are you still hanging around?

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 09:07:04   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
papakatz45 wrote:
Once again your opinion which you are free to have. But not unbiased proof.


I have to correct you again.

GOOD science corrects for any bias and can be repeated by independent research. Additionally, facts are just that; facts. Contrary to modern belief, they are not debatable.

The laws of Physics are not subject to change because of human opinion. Filters filter, and that results in degradation of image quality. Filters add additional surfaces in the light path which in turn, introduces diffraction that was not calculated or compensated for in the optical formula of the lens. The result is a reduction of contrast, sharpness/resolution, flare, and ghosting... all totally unnecessary and avoidable.

As stated numerous times earlier, the best that can be done with current technology is a reduction of those negative effects... but not elimination. That is fact... not opinion.

And while the OP may wish to assert that there is no difference in image quality with filters on or off, as stated earlier, this is NOT a valid test, nor are the results applicable to ANY other photographic situation. It is a very poor demonstration of anything OTHER than his incorrect assertion that filters don't affect image quality.

And again, if filters were meant to or even needed to protect the front element of a lens, lens manufacturers would recommend them and filter manufacturers would warrant their "protective" capacity. The fact that neither does speaks volume about the designed purpose and use of uv/Protective filters.

Reply
 
 
Oct 5, 2015 09:08:38   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Same reason you are...
Jim Bob wrote:
Why are you still hanging around?

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 09:10:32   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Mr Jim Bob should get out of hiding & read the link I posted...
CHOLLY wrote:
I have to correct you again.

GOOD science corrects for any bias and can be repeated by independent research. Additionally, facts are just that; facts. Contrary to modern belief, they are not debatable.

The laws of Physics are not subject to change because of human opinion. Filters filter, and that results in degradation of image quality. Filters add additional surfaces in the light path which in turn, introduces diffraction that was not calculated or compensated for in the optical formula of the lens. The result is a reduction of contrast, sharpness/resolution, flare, and ghosting... all totally unnecessary and avoidable.

As stated numerous times earlier, the best that can be done with current technology is a reduction of those negative effects... but not elimination. That is fact... not opinion.

And while the OP may wish to assert that there is no difference in image quality with filters on or off, as stated earlier, this is NOT a valid test, nor are the results applicable to ANY other photographic situation. It is a very poor demonstration of anything OTHER than his incorrect assertion that filters don't affect image quality.

And again, if filters were meant to or even needed to protect the front element of a lens, lens manufacturers would recommend them and filter manufacturers would warrant their "protective" capacity. The fact that neither does speaks volume about the designed purpose and use of uv/Protective filters.
I have to correct you again. br br b GOOD /b sc... (show quote)

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 09:16:24   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
Mr Jim Bob should get out of hiding & read the link I posted...


Yeah.

It is telling that you have been both polite and respectful throughout your discourse with him, but he has not reciprocated...

Oh well. :hunf:

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 09:44:47   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
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


Thank you. I will view when I get home tonight.

Reply
 
 
Oct 5, 2015 10:33:28   #
Joanna27 Loc: Lakewood Ca
 
CHOLLY wrote:
I have to correct you again.

GOOD science corrects for any bias and can be repeated by independent research. Additionally, facts are just that; facts. Contrary to modern belief, they are not debatable.

The laws of Physics are not subject to change because of human opinion. Filters filter, and that results in degradation of image quality. Filters add additional surfaces in the light path which in turn, introduces diffraction that was not calculated or compensated for in the optical formula of the lens. The result is a reduction of contrast, sharpness/resolution, flare, and ghosting... all totally unnecessary and avoidable.

As stated numerous times earlier, the best that can be done with current technology is a reduction of those negative effects... but not elimination. That is fact... not opinion.

And while the OP may wish to assert that there is no difference in image quality with filters on or off, as stated earlier, this is NOT a valid test, nor are the results applicable to ANY other photographic situation. It is a very poor demonstration of anything OTHER than his incorrect assertion that filters don't affect image quality.

And again, if filters were meant to or even needed to protect the front element of a lens, lens manufacturers would recommend them and filter manufacturers would warrant their "protective" capacity. The fact that neither does speaks volume about the designed purpose and use of uv/Protective filters.
I have to correct you again. br br b GOOD /b sc... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 11:01:43   #
Leitz Loc: Solms
 
Jim Bob wrote:
Thank you. AND NOW, THE ANSWER IS:

PHOTO 1, NO FILTER

PHOTO 2, UV FILTER

Draw your own conclusions.


Drew my conclusion from reading the title. Read your post, saw nothing to change my opinion.

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 11:21:26   #
ClinchfieldPaul Loc: Salisbury NC
 
I believe photo 1 (top) photo is without filter because of the richer colors of the doll and the background colors. Also, the enlarged photo, the strands of hair on the forehead and eyelashes look more focused

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 11:51:26   #
oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA
 
ClinchfieldPaul wrote:
I believe photo 1 (top) photo is without filter because of the richer colors of the doll and the background colors. Also, the enlarged photo, the strands of hair on the forehead and eyelashes look more focused


the combined photo for comparison was not enlarged, it was only cropped.

Reply
 
 
Oct 5, 2015 12:02:04   #
DJO
 
CHOLLY wrote:
I have to correct you again.

GOOD science corrects for any bias and can be repeated by independent research. Additionally, facts are just that; facts. Contrary to modern belief, they are not debatable.

The laws of Physics are not subject to change because of human opinion. Filters filter, and that results in degradation of image quality. Filters add additional surfaces in the light path which in turn, introduces diffraction that was not calculated or compensated for in the optical formula of the lens. The result is a reduction of contrast, sharpness/resolution, flare, and ghosting... all totally unnecessary and avoidable.

As stated numerous times earlier, the best that can be done with current technology is a reduction of those negative effects... but not elimination. That is fact... not opinion.

And while the OP may wish to assert that there is no difference in image quality with filters on or off, as stated earlier, this is NOT a valid test, nor are the results applicable to ANY other photographic situation. It is a very poor demonstration of anything OTHER than his incorrect assertion that filters don't affect image quality.

And again, if filters were meant to or even needed to protect the front element of a lens, lens manufacturers would recommend them and filter manufacturers would warrant their "protective" capacity. The fact that neither does speaks volume about the designed purpose and use of uv/Protective filters.
I have to correct you again. br br b GOOD /b sc... (show quote)




A scientist knows that there are no facts, only observations.

It has been my repeated observation that you are an ass.

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 12:13:27   #
Jim Bob
 
DJO wrote:
A scientist knows that there are no facts, only observations.

It has been my repeated observation that you are an ass.


Absolutely and undeniably correct. However, he wears it as a badge of honor and therefore reformation is impossible. Such is the curse of narcissism.

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 12:13:51   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Don't we just love these people on forums who try & hide themselves so as to just be able to bully, demean & otherwise harass people they don't agree with ? They feel they can act & say whatever they want & be anonymous... Real juvenile behavior don't you think ? That is one of the big problems with the internet...

Reply
Oct 5, 2015 12:15:04   #
Jim Bob
 
oldtigger wrote:
the combined photo for comparison was not enlarged, it was only cropped.


And a great job. Thanks a lot. Made comparison much better than my crude efforts.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 12 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.