UV or Not UV, That is the Question
Apr 23, 2012 08:14:42 #
Apr 23, 2012 09:02:28 #
jerryc41 wrote:
This topic has come up many times, so I am posting two images. See if you can tell which was taken with a 99 cent UV filter from China, and which was taken with the naked lens. I'm not trying to make a point here. I just want to see if it makes a quality difference to the photos. My less-than-critical eye couldn't tell them apart.
Both shots were taken with a Nikon D5000 set on Auto, on a tripod - one right after the other.
Both shots were taken with a Nikon D5000 set on Auto, on a tripod - one right after the other.
I think any difference would be more visible with 2 broad shots that encompass some features in the distance. Just my thought.
Apr 23, 2012 09:08:42 #
[quote=jerryc41]
Here are two more I just took with a D5100. Same 18-55mm. You can download these and see if there is any difference in the Exif data.[/quot
I think the first one in both sets is the UV. To my eye they look richer and deeper. If this is not the case. I will be WRONG..............
jerryc41 wrote:
This topic has come up many times, so I am posting two images. See if you can tell which was taken with a 99 cent UV filter from China, and which was taken with the naked lens. I'm not trying to make a point here. I just want to see if it makes a quality difference to the photos. My less-than-critical eye couldn't tell them apart.
Both shots were taken with a Nikon D5000 set on Auto, on a tripod - one right after the other.
Both shots were taken with a Nikon D5000 set on Auto, on a tripod - one right after the other.
Here are two more I just took with a D5100. Same 18-55mm. You can download these and see if there is any difference in the Exif data.[/quot
I think the first one in both sets is the UV. To my eye they look richer and deeper. If this is not the case. I will be WRONG..............
Apr 23, 2012 09:15:33 #
In both sets of photos, I think #1 seems to be slightly crisper. Unless I was really looking for differences, I don't think I would see any.
Apr 23, 2012 11:05:29 #
Apr 23, 2012 11:37:59 #
Hammster wrote:
And the winners are...?
... rightfully proud of themselves. Answer coming shortly.
Apr 23, 2012 11:39:38 #
Apr 23, 2012 11:59:16 #
Apr 23, 2012 12:11:35 #
Gotta reply only to hear the answer tomorrow, LOL!
Well, I'll vote anyway. Second one has the UV?
Well, I'll vote anyway. Second one has the UV?
Apr 23, 2012 15:53:47 #
OK. Here we go. When I originally looked at the "with" and "without" shots, I had to load one, look at it and then load the other. I couldn't tell the difference. When I posted them here, one above the other, I could see a difference, and I knew which I preferred. I had to check my cheat sheet to see which ones had the filter.
The first image in each pair was taken with a 99 cent Hong Kong UV filter on the lens. The images with the filter are a bit darker - notice the lack of detail in the trees. So, for protection, I'll keep the filter on - like when the camera is packed safely away in a bag. When I take it out into the mean world to snap some photos, I'll remove the filter. Makes no sense at all, does it. I'm not going to buy a $50 filter to see if that looks any better. It will be tough getting used to having a naked lens. Someone should invent a flip-up filter.
The first image in each pair was taken with a 99 cent Hong Kong UV filter on the lens. The images with the filter are a bit darker - notice the lack of detail in the trees. So, for protection, I'll keep the filter on - like when the camera is packed safely away in a bag. When I take it out into the mean world to snap some photos, I'll remove the filter. Makes no sense at all, does it. I'm not going to buy a $50 filter to see if that looks any better. It will be tough getting used to having a naked lens. Someone should invent a flip-up filter.
Apr 23, 2012 20:11:18 #
photomom25
Loc: chippewa lake
UV1 better the colors are a little crisper and a the green of the pine tree is a little deeper ,it just looks better .
Apr 23, 2012 22:15:22 #
Apr 23, 2012 22:18:14 #
jerryc41 wrote:
This topic has come up many times, so I am posting two images. See if you can tell which was taken with a 99 cent UV filter from China, and which was taken with the naked lens. I'm not trying to make a point here. I just want to see if it makes a quality difference to the photos. My less-than-critical eye couldn't tell them apart.
Both shots were taken with a Nikon D5000 set on Auto, on a tripod - one right after the other.
Both shots were taken with a Nikon D5000 set on Auto, on a tripod - one right after the other.
the colors look a little deeper or darker in the first. The second one looks like it has kind of a haze over it or looks a little over exposed or something like that
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.