UV Filters, they do do a bit more

[AshleyC]

I wont hijack the other UV thread down below but this is something i wanted to do a while back but never got round to it. I just wanted to see if a UV filter did more than just sit on the front of a lens getting in the way of things.

I wanted something to help cut through haze when im shooting colour landscapes. B&W is easy as you just use a yellow or orange filter, or what i found was that the cokin IR filter was pretty crap at IR but pretty awesome at slicing through haze! but with colour its seemed a bit trickier.

So step in the Lee UV absorbing filter. They do 4 different types or strengths i guess

http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera-directory/camera-dir-list/category/ultraviolet-absorbing

The one i got was the 1B and it looks like this



A definite pinky tint to it. So i took it off to the lakes with me this weekend and here is a before and after. I think it made a little bit of difference, the greens seems a little greener, the haze in the distance, while still there, is defenitly "thinner" These are jpegs right out of camera (Fuji X-E1 18mm Lens) with no lightoom / photoshop tweaking at all. Now it wasnt cheap, about 40ish quid but i think its clearly doing something and i might pick up one of the other stronger ones to see if that helps a bit more.

ok the lens isnt the sharpest lens in the range, the test is very non scientific but its what the average joe in the street would do, stick it on the front and shoot a picture. I uploaded the full size files which can be got at on flickr. I think it was worth the dosh and i think its definitely helping with what i wanted out of it to a degree. But draw your own conclusions

No UV Filter



With UV Filter

 

[HoppyUK]

Bottom pic just looks darker. A pink filter will darken the opposite colours, ie greens and blues.

It's very unlikely there's any significant UV getting through to a modern digital sensor. Not much gets through most lenses anyway, even before the sensor's UV filter cleans it up.

 

[AshleyC]

yeah but that's the point, haze being blueish you want something that takes it away. By darkening the blue element of it you give the other colours a little kick in relation to it. The clear glass filters clearly do nothing except sit on the front.

 

[redddraggon]

:shrug: To me the top image looks better

 

[Steve-T]

I would say it has just darkened it and it is not actually any less hazy.
A better job could be done in PS using curves to adjust the contrast and h&s take a little blue out of it

 

[crofter]

:shrug: To me the top image looks better

It does to me too.

 

[HoppyUK]

yeah but that's the point, haze being blueish you want something that takes it away. By darkening the blue element of it you give the other colours a little kick in relation to it. The clear glass filters clearly do nothing except sit on the front.

Yes, but as SteveT says, that's the same as tweaking the blue channel in post processing. Filtering out UV light is something different - but that's already been done.

 

[stu.artd]

It does to me too.

And me. I thought I'd misread it at first because I definitely prefer the top image. The bottom one looks washed out in comparison IMO.

 

[AshleyC]

ah well , beauty is in the eye of the beholder i guess

But since your removing a small blue element then its bound to look different, in this case a little darker. Its filtering something after all and unless you can suck all the moisture out of the atmosphere you have to slap a bit of resin on the front of the camera to compensate. That's the point of a filter.

In fact id say it just had a little more contrast and anything but washed out, upping the contrast slider of the original in lightroom and sliding the blue channel down 10-15% gives the same look but id rather use a camera for photography than a pc. Why use any filter when you just slide a slider in photoshop? does that make ND filters any less a requirement? By that argument the only filter someone should use is a polariser since that's one thing you cant mimick on a pc.

but my original point is the filter is doing something whereas people all along say a UV filter is a waste of time. The cheap ones are, the posh ones less so.

 

[HoppyUK]

ah well , beauty is in the eye of the beholder i guess

But since your removing a small blue element then its bound to look different, in this case a little darker. Its filtering something after all and unless you can suck all the moisture out of the atmosphere you have to slap a bit of resin on the front of the camera to compensate. That's the point of a filter.

In fact id say it just had a little more contrast and anything but washed out, upping the contrast slider of the original in lightroom and sliding the blue channel down 10-15% gives the same look but id rather use a camera for photography than a pc. Why use any filter when you just slide a slider in photoshop? does that make ND filters any less a requirement? By that argument the only filter someone should use is a polariser since that's one thing you cant mimick on a pc.

but my original point is the filter is doing something whereas people all along say a UV filter is a waste of time. The cheap ones are, the posh ones less so.

That's because they are a waste of time with digital photography (as opposed to film). All you are doing is reducing exposure very slightly and tweaking the colours fractionally as the filtration extends further than pure UV into the visible spectrum. But there is no UV filtering benefit beyond what's already in the camera, and the slight pink hue is no different to making an adjustment in post processing.

On top of that, you have the cost, inconvenience and possibly other detrimental IQ issues inherent to using any filter.

 

[stu.artd]

The blues, greens, yellows and browns are all stronger in the first picture - to my eyes and on my monitor. Other opinion's may vary.

It's good that you like the results from using the UV filter, and as you say it is doing something - whether it's something good or not appears to be debatable. I have always used a UV filter (Hoya HD usually) on my lenses for protection. However after reading this and the other thread I think I'll be trying them without the filters.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Bottom pic just looks darker. A pink filter will darken the opposite colours, ie greens and blues.

It's very unlikely there's any significant UV getting through to a modern digital sensor. Not much gets through most lenses anyway, even before the sensor's UV filter cleans it up.

enough said there.

On digital UV is protective filter, nothing more. You may have reduced your exposure and shifted WB, but at since that is non coated filter you did at least get lucky of not seeing loss of contrast.

There is photoshop and lightroom these days for a reason.

 

[Steve-T]

Indeed and why spend a load of money on a good quality lens and then stick a piece of glass on the front of it which has the effect of reducing IQ.

I can appreciate the protection reason, but even then I only ever use one in extreme environments such as on the beach with onshore spray and that is to protect the lens from the constant wiping.