UV filters...not needed?

Here is a very unscientific test with the filter on & off. I don't see any hidden agenda in this vid, so take from it what you will. http://www.youtube.com/user/Dombowerphoto#p/u/47/a3YYOc8OC0w

The biggest problems I have had are described by Richard, shooting at direct light sources, signs, candles etc in the dark resulting in evident reflections. Other than that, I have had fewer instances of glare, flare, reflection with the UV than using the HoyaPro CirPol, Hitech Grads or Lee Big Stopper.

I use the UV due to the fact I don't want to damage the front element, I don't have a hood on the 10-22 and the 100mm L Macro hood can get in the way at 1:1 and definately with ext tubes on. Now don't get me wrong I often shoot with the filters off as it takes 5secs to unscrew them if I suspect image degradation.

Its my call, the image is nowhere near as badly affected in my experience unless shooting as described above in which case I'll remove for the times in shooting directly at light sources.

The UV filter is a bit of a religious debate on here. You either believe it destroys your work beyond salvation or you don't see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure a high percentage of people on here use a selection of filters other than UV - yet if they ghost, flare or glare regardless of their purpose, then they are as useless as a protection filter if thats your argument.
 
HoppyUK said:
Sorry, I should have been more specific. But in particular:

"graduated filter will affect the white balance setting" is misleading. Just about the only grad anybody uses is an ND grad, and that does not affect white balance....
Click to expand...

You haven't mis-read it have you - as that was in the 2nd sentence for "Any colour correction filter or graduated filter"

As in the 1st sentence its mentions "If you are using a neutral colour filter such as a ND (Neutral Density), circular polarizer, UV or other standard lens protection filter, these filters have no colour bias, thus will not effect the white balance"

As what I can make of it they're mentioning ND filters in the first sentence & coloured or graduated filters in the 2nd - but they dont actually say thats its a ND grad, just "colour or graduated filter"

So maybe they mean a coloured graduated filter effects the white balance & not a neutral one... If you know what I mean ( I know what I mean but have a slight prob explaining it in writing - have been up since 3am :eek:)
 
Last edited:
AndyB1976 said:
Here is a very unscientific test with the filter on & off. I don't see any hidden agenda in this vid, so take from it what you will. http://www.youtube.com/user/Dombowerphoto#p/u/47/a3YYOc8OC0w

The biggest problems I have had are described by Richard, shooting at direct light sources, signs, candles etc in the dark resulting in evident reflections. Other than that, I have had fewer instances of glare, flare, reflection with the UV than using the HoyaPro CirPol, Hitech Grads or Lee Big Stopper.

I use the UV due to the fact I don't want to damage the front element, I don't have a hood on the 10-22 and the 100mm L Macro hood can get in the way at 1:1 and definately with ext tubes on. Now don't get me wrong I often shoot with the filters off as it takes 5secs to unscrew them if I suspect image degradation.

Its my call, the image is nowhere near as badly affected in my experience unless shooting as described above in which case I'll remove for the times in shooting directly at light sources.

The UV filter is a bit of a religious debate on here. You either believe it destroys your work beyond salvation or you don't see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure a high percentage of people on here use a selection of filters other than UV - yet if they ghost, flare or glare regardless of their purpose, then they are as useless as a protection filter if thats your argument.
Click to expand...

Reference the last bit, not at all.

If you use a filter for an asthetic reason, fair enough. But to have ghosting, flaring etc for the sake if it is senseless.

Also when I shoot with nd's or polarisers I always look for the problems then eliminate them if they present themselves. If you have a filter in permanently it's easy to become complacent and shoot with disregard to ghosting and flaring. A friend of mine often falls foul of this as do a number of posters on here who will remain silent!
 
Last edited:
AndyB1976 said:
The UV filter is a bit of a religious debate on here.
Click to expand...

:agree: As well as 3rd party grips & batteries vs the real genuine batteries & grips... Will it ever end :shrug:
 
Well this is interesting, never realised there were so any people passionate bout a tiny bit of glass. Think I feel more relaxed with one on the front a brand new lens though..
 
Here`s a thought, if you want to use them,do so.If you don`t,then fair enough,don`t.

It really does not need debating over and over and over ableedinggain......:)
 
fracster said:
Here`s a thought, if you want to use them,do so.If you don`t,then fair enough,don`t.
Click to expand...

I understand that these kind of topics must be old news to some people, but I actually learned quite a lot. Some of us don't know what we want hence why we ask here (Talk Basics).

Sure we could search the history and see some old debate but then why bother having a Talk Basics section? Why bother having equipment discussion at all, when the answer is basically "use what you want to use"?
 
odd jim said:
Reference the last bit, not at all.

If you use a filter for an asthetic reason, fair enough. But to have ghosting, flaring etc for the sake if it is senseless.

Also when I shoot with nd's or polarisers I always look for the problems then eliminate them if they present themselves. If you have a filter in permanently it's easy to become complacent and shoot with disregard to ghosting and flaring. A friend of mine often falls foul of this as do a number of posters on here who will remain silent!
Click to expand...

I did say I will unscrew the filter if image degradation is present...if I understand your reply correctly. I actually take more time looking at the LCD when I've shot with a UV(or others) on to ensure its not causing issues. You could argue that shooting without could lead to equal complacency.

My point was that typically all the filters bar UV's that get used can introduce the same artifacts as UV's. I take you point as being that UVs can introduce unnecessary artifacts for no gain, whereas cirpols, grads are trying to affect or improve the image.

The argument seems to slap down the UV brigade each time. I will attempt to use the other filters mentioned, dare I say artistcally but will also take care to reduce, actually remove all artifacts on all shots all the time.

I won't argue with anyones point that if taking off a UV filter each time is a hindrance and waste of time and money for them. Some other posts recently mentioned some pros don't even pack a lens cap, never mind filter on the front element.

I'm not here to preach either way. Yet I like to see evidence and proof on any thread where proponents of the argument state their view as gospel and dispel the opposing view.

If you are serious about your photography budget...£40 is a insignificant sum to try for yourself, put your mind at rest.


Andy
Its all very cyclical eh? It been pretty quiet and in the last couple of weeks, a few wedding threads erupted into life or more accurately strife, then some UV threads appeared, no doubt the 'should I work for free to gain experience' thread will be posted in a few days. That infamous ban stemmed from this exact topic on UV filters.
 
salmoally said:
I understand that these kind of topics must be old news to some people, but I actually learned quite a lot. Some of us don't know what we want hence why we ask here (Talk Basics).

Sure we could search the history and see some old debate but then why bother having a Talk Basics section? Why bother having equipment discussion at all, when the answer is basically "use what you want to use"?
Click to expand...

I agree Sal. Virtually every question on this entire site could be answered by saying 'search' but where's the fun in that? It's not very helpful either.
 
salmoally said:
I understand that these kind of topics must be old news to some people, but I actually learned quite a lot. Some of us don't know what we want hence why we ask here (Talk Basics).

Sure we could search the history and see some old debate but then why bother having a Talk Basics section? Why bother having equipment discussion at all, when the answer is basically "use what you want to use"?
Click to expand...

I am fully aware that this is Talk Basics, I was one of the people who pushed for this section to be instigated. A search on UV filters realises some 12 pages,did you read any previous threads on the subject? If you did and did not find what you wanted,then fair enough,start another thread,no problem at all.

At the end of all the posturing and over technical advice given by very knowledgable people,the choice is still yours.The debate " To UV filter or not to UV filter" will always give differing opinions,opinions that have been and are regularly posted on here still.

Have you chosen a bag or tripod yet?...............:lol:
 
fracster said:
The debate " To UV filter or not to UV filter" will always give differing opinions
Click to expand...

And, sometimes, facts:

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
 
hollis_f said:
And, sometimes, facts:

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
Click to expand...

"Facts" that some will disagree with,others will swear by. The debate is like apple/pc,Ferrari/Lambo,Nikon/Canon. It is down to ones own choice.

For the record I don`t use them.
 
hollis_f said:
Really? I'd be interested to hear any semi-cogent argument, preferably using the physics of this universe, against any of those facts.
Click to expand...


Try doing a search.........;)
 
jon ryan said:
http://photo.net/equipment/filters/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter#Clear_and_ultraviolet

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-UV.html

http://www.photostockplus.com/community/2011/03/30/uv-filters-coolingwarming-filters/

Enough to be going on with?
Click to expand...

Er, you'll have to point out to me exactly what you're referring to.


The first one demonstrates that UV filters absorb UV. It also shows that they absorb other wavelengths, thus altering colours. The author seems to think that UV absorbance is the sole important criterion for choosing a filter, ignoring things like reflectivity that can degrade images.

The only pro-filter bit in the Wiki link is the claim that it can reduce purple fringing. However, if one follows the link to the original artice one reads - "due to the difference in sensitivity to ultraviolet light between film and digital camera sensors (film is more sensitive), a UV filter may not need to be used with a digital camera." Indeed the glass used in lenses blocks a lot of UV and the filter in front of the sensor blocks just about all of it. So a UV filter has no beneficial effect on a digital camera.

The third link has some great examples of colour casts induced by filters and the overall loss in contrast they produce. The no-filter image looks the best. This is also a great example of the "I've spent loads of cash on these filters that they must be doing some good" placebo effect.

The final link - "Before the advent of digital cameras, UV filters were a must to reduce haze and improve contrast by lessening the amount of ultraviolet (UV) light that reaches the film. Digital camera sensors are not as sensitive to UV light compared to film so it makes filtration unnecessary."
 
Last edited:
Well, your first statement was:

No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.

The links I offered, as you yourself point out, demonstrate that filters can induce a colour shift and may in some circumstances reduce fringing.

Both of these can result in an improved IQ, yes?

The main point I'm making is that there is no correct way to do photography. To claim as incontrovertible fact that a uv filter cannot be advantageous in terms of IQ is simply wrong.

My opinion is that in the overwhelming majority of shooting situations, a uv will neither degrade or enhance a file to any significant degree. Therefore I use one at all times as it offers protection to the front element of my lenses. So do a lot of other photographer. Another lot of photographers use a naked lens.

We are all correct.
 
jon ryan said:
Well, your first statement was:

No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.

The links I offered, as you yourself point out, demonstrate that filters can induce a colour shift and may in some circumstances reduce fringing.
Click to expand...

Unwanted colour casts are not an improvement in image quality. And the only circumstances in which PF can be reduced is with film - digital (as in Dslr) is not UV-sensitive.
 
Just out of curiosity, anyone got filter/no filter samples of film photos? I'd like to see what I'm actually missing out on because I don't use them on film either. (although I guess in B&W any advantage is minimal at best?)
 
Would uv filters be more beneficial/less detrimental on older lenses? Mine have them but they're all 10 ish years old, apart from the EX macro which I've never bought a filter for. The same lenses were used with film cameras, generally bought with filters bought at the same time as the lens, screwed on, and then left. Mostly Jessops 1a.
 
hollis_f said:
Unwanted colour casts are not an improvement in image quality. And the only circumstances in which PF can be reduced is with film - digital (as in Dslr) is not UV-sensitive.
Click to expand...

And what about a desirable colour cast? Are you saying that there are no circumstances, ever, where a uv may be beneficial? If so, can you demonstrate this?

And here's a piece demonstrating that digital sensors most certainly are sensitive to uv frequencies:

http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-reflected-uv.html

Perhaps you'd like to link to a similarly technical article that argues your position?
 
jon ryan said:
And here's a piece demonstrating that digital sensors most certainly are sensitive to uv frequencies:
Click to expand...

"Both the IR and the UV records took a considerable longer exposure time in sunlight with the lens wide open than the visible record. Possibly by a magnitude of something like 1,000 or so."
Click to expand...

OK, so it can detect UV - but it's 1000 times less sensitive than it is to visible light, which is close enough to 'not sensitive' for me.
 
jon ryan said:
And what about a desirable colour cast?
Click to expand...

If I want a colour cast then I'll use a coloured filter (or, more likely, I'll do it in software). I suppose those people who experience blur with a filter shouldn't complain because sometimes a soft-focus effect is desirable.

jon ryan said:
Are you saying that there are no circumstances, ever, where a uv may be beneficial?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No, I didn't think I did.

Yes, there are circumstances where one may be useful. Indeed, I've used one - in a Namibian sandstorm. Interestingly enough I saw Thorsten Milse gave a talk about his photography in the deserts of Namibia. Despite lots of sand and lots of wind he said he never used 'protective' filters because he couldn't afford the image degradation they cause.
 
hollis_f said:
OK, so it can detect UV - but it's 1000 times less sensitive than it is to visible light, which is close enough to 'not sensitive' for me.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's about the same as Infra Red. Doesn't change your point though.

Just looking at the guy's EXIF shows that a Canon Rebel is 1/3EV less sensitive to UV as it is to IR. and we don't go around putting IR blocking filters on everything do we?

Quite interesting really. Doesn't really give a ready compariosn to film though.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Not really, it's about the same as Infra Red. Doesn't change your point though.

Just looking at the guy's EXIF shows that a Canon Rebel is 1/3EV less sensitive to UV as it is to IR. and we don't go around putting IR blocking filters on everything do we?
Click to expand...

No, because there's already one in front of the sensor. The same one as what filters the UV. I have a 20D that's been adapted so that this filter doesn't block IR. When I went to pick it up my friend asked the people who did the conversion about digital UV photography because she was interested in shooting plants under UV. He told her that is was much more difficult than IR conversions - partly because lenses tend to absorb a lot of UV. He reckoned they were several years from being able to adapt a consumer dSLR - and that a confidential client was helping with their research!
 
hollis_f said:
No, because there's already one in front of the sensor. The same one as what filters the UV. I have a 20D that's been adapted so that this filter doesn't block IR. When I went to pick it up my friend asked the people who did the conversion about digital UV photography because she was interested in shooting plants under UV. He told her that is was much more difficult than IR conversions - partly because lenses tend to absorb a lot of UV. He reckoned they were several years from being able to adapt a consumer dSLR - and that a confidential client was helping with their research!
Click to expand...

Shame you haven't got a Nikon :p

UV Photography with D1
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Just out of curiosity, anyone got filter/no filter samples of film photos? I'd like to see what I'm actually missing out on because I don't use them on film either. (although I guess in B&W any advantage is minimal at best?)
Click to expand...

You can extrapolate that from the images I posted earlier. In the 'with filter' images, there is both increased dispersion of the light within the material itself (the halo around the light) and also the increased ghost reflection.

With film, you still get the increased halo, but not the extra ghosting.

srichards said:
Would uv filters be more beneficial/less detrimental on older lenses? Mine have them but they're all 10 ish years old, apart from the EX macro which I've never bought a filter for. The same lenses were used with film cameras, generally bought with filters bought at the same time as the lens, screwed on, and then left. Mostly Jessops 1a.
Click to expand...

Older lenses on digital don't need UV filters any more than newer ones. The sensor has UV filtration built in, or rather, because sensors are not very sensitive to UV anyway, I think it's usually done with reflection coatings rather than an actual filter (unlike infrared, which is always filtered).

TBH, UV filters have not been necessary on any camera, film or digital, for decades. It's only the oldest colour emulsions, like pre-1970s, and some black & white films that had problematic UV sensitivity, and even then it was usually only evident in situations like high altitude, snow and beach scenes, which are heavy in UV.

In adition, as has been mentioned, modern multi-element lenses just don't let much UV through - optical glass is a natural filter - and that is further reduced by coating technology. I've got colour slides going back to the sixties and I don't recall any of them showing any evidence of UV contamination, and I've only ever used a UV filter for protection purposes, when absolutely necessary. The last time that I can remember was to protect against sea spray.

This whole UV myth has been propogated for ever by sales people. There are no image benefits. Use one for protection if you like, but not to make anything look better, but bearing in mind that it will sometimes make things worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top