 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005which filter is beter
hi all. just want to know which filter is better. UV FILTER or UV HAZE FILTER Vinnie... > hi all. just want to know which filter is better. > > UV FILTER > or > UV HAZE FILTER It's a shame when cousins marry... > hi all. just want to know which filter is better. > > UV FILTER > or > UV HAZE FILTER You'll never notice the slightest difference.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > hi all. just want to know which filter is better. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You'll never notice the slightest difference. You might notice a difference, particularly if you're shooting over long distances out-of-doors on a sunny day. While it's true that the camera's internal white balance software will ensure good color rendition for both the UV and the UV haze filters, blue light is still scattered by the atmosphere more readily than red light, so far-away objects will appear more distinct in the UV haze filter's exposure since the blue-produced haze is blocked from reaching the camera's sensor and affecting the exposure. My red filters were constant companions back when I was shooting lots of b&w 35mm. > You might notice a difference, particularly if you're shooting over long > distances out-of-doors on a sunny day. Actually, I'd like to see some actual with-and-without examples of a UV filter having any visible effect whatsoever on a digital camera. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > You might notice a difference, particularly if you're shooting over long > > distances out-of-doors on a sunny day. > > Actually, I'd like to see some actual with-and-without examples of a UV > filter having any visible effect whatsoever on a digital camera. You're absolutely right, Jeremy: the UV filter does nothing for the digital camera because UV doesn't affect the sensor the way it fogs film. My comment was directed toward the "haze" part of the filter , though, which lends red transmissive tinge to the filter, indicating it is attenuating *visible* blue light. Atmospheric scattering of visible blue light makes distant objects appear less distinct and you don't need a camera to see the effect, either: Just go to the top of a nearby hill on a mildly hazy day and look out at the world through a pair of proverbial rose-colored glasses. I guarantee you'll make out details of object in the distance far better than you would with your naked eyes because red lenses block out the bluish glare. > My comment was directed toward the "haze" part of the filter , though, > which lends red transmissive tinge to the filter, indicating it is > attenuating *visible* blue light. Red would block cyan, not blue, but I see what you're saying. However -- wouldn't proper color require simply reversing its effect? It's not like black-and-white where you can cut the blue and leave it cut. I've never used a "haze" filter, but it doesn't make sense to me for color. > Atmospheric scattering of visible blue light makes distant objects appear > less distinct and you don't need a camera to see the effect, either: Just > go to the top of a nearby hill on a mildly hazy day and look out at the > world through a pair of proverbial rose-colored glasses. I guarantee you'll > make out details of object in the distance far better than you would with > your naked eyes because red lenses block out the bluish glare. Yes, but you'll also see it with incorrect colors, which is fine for glasses but not so much for photographs. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> My comment was directed toward the "haze" part of the filter , though, >> which lends red transmissive tinge to the filter, indicating it is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > glasses > but not so much for photographs. I've always heard UV and UV haze used totally interchangeably and was under the impression (and told in a college photo class) that they were the same. The UV + rose tint is the Skylight filter, isn't it? (All of my UV filters, whether labeled "UV" or "UV haze" appear to be totally neutral gray...I think the designation difference is just whatever each manufacturer decided to call it, i.e., I've never seen both from the same manufacturer.) George > > My comment was directed toward the "haze" part of the filter , though, > > which lends red transmissive tinge to the filter, indicating it is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, but you'll also see it with incorrect colors, which is fine for glasses > but not so much for photographs. I do understand what you're saying. That said, I really have gotten good color results with a UV Haze and last night I went out the a local marina and took a couple of 10x photos looking back toward the Cal Berkeley clock tower which was several miles away. May I send you an 800K jpeg showing a comparison between the filter/no filter shots? Perhaps it's my eye-brain combo working overtime to see something which isn't there, but I think the filtered result shows more clarity and better color with the blue bias removed. The shots were taken hand-held with my old Oly C-2100UZ because I needed to use an image-stablized long lens and I don't have such a beast for my other cameras. P.S. My address is "paulhtck", followed by a dot "comcast", followed by a dot "net" if you'd rather reply by email. > I do understand what you're saying. That said, I really have gotten good > color results with a UV Haze and last night I went out the a local marina > and took a couple of 10x photos looking back toward the Cal Berkeley clock > tower which was several miles away. May I send you an 800K jpeg showing a > comparison between the filter/no filter shots? You may. It might be more generally useful, though, to post them somewhere that everyone can look at them, if you have such a place available. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com hey paul and jeremy can you send me the photos as well so i can see what they look like with and without the filter. thank you vinnie vince_j69el@hotmail.com Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote: > I do understand what you're saying. That said, I really have gotten good > color results with a UV Haze and last night I went out the a local marina > and took a couple of 10x photos looking back toward the Cal Berkeley clock > tower which was several miles away. May I send you an 800K jpeg showing a > comparison between the filter/no filter shots? You may. It might be more generally useful, though, to post them somewhere that everyone can look at them, if you have such a place available. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > hey paul and jeremy can you send me the photos as well so i can see what > they look like with and without the filter. Okay, I got the comparison. With permission, it is available here: http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/filtercomp.jpg What I see is a change in color balance, nothing more. If we match the color balance between the two images: http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/filtercomp2.jpg I see no real difference. Thanks for the test shots, Paul. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> hey paul and jeremy can you send me the photos as well so i can see what >> they look like with and without the filter. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I see no real difference. If the filter has a slow, simple frequency response, you're not going to see much difference after white-balancing, unless there is a relatively big attenuation in one or 2 channels, and the exposure is weak. This will affect mainly shadow areas. Now, if the filter had a dramatic curve within the range of the blue channel, then there should be a visible difference after white-balancing. What I am thinking is that the best way to deal with this would require a special plugin; use a filter that has a simple, but steep curve through the range of visible laight, and take manual exposures with and without, and use the same setting, in-camea, and in RAW conversion. The plugin can compare the images, and determine from the amount of attenuation in the blue channel, what the central frequency of each blue pixel is, and reduce the blue level where it seems to be from haze. This could be done at the RAW level, as well, perhaps better, before demosaicing. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > hey paul and jeremy can you send me the photos as well so i can see what > > they look like with and without the filter. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks for the test shots, Paul. Thanks for doing the follow-up work on the shot, Jeremy. I still contend that the photo with filter is bit more distinct buy, hey, I'm not married to my obsession. :-) >hi all. just want to know which filter is better. > >UV FILTER >or >UV HAZE FILTER The haze filter has a slight warm tint, either pink or straw. If you are shooting with a DSLR you don't need a haze filter. The plain vanilla UV is best. But the difference is very small, and will be cancelled out when doing a white balance. > hi all. just want to know which filter is better. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Vinnie... If you are doing mountain, arial, or marine photography, then get the UV Haze filter, otherwise, get just the UV filter. Be careful about the names that are bandied about, and look at the filter characteristics. Filters vary greatly in quality, so be careful about what you buy. See "http://www.2filter.com/prices/specials.html" for the best prices. Thank you all fo all the info. i got a CANON DIGITAL REBEL XT so just got the CANON UV HAZE FILTER. and of cause it will protect my lens as well. again THANK YOU ALL. Vinnie Vinnie wrote: > hi all. just want to know which filter is better. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Vinnie... If you are doing mountain, arial, or marine photography, then get the UV Haze filter, otherwise, get just the UV filter. Be careful about the names that are bandied about, and look at the filter characteristics. Filters vary greatly in quality, so be careful about what you buy. See "http://www.2filter.com/prices/specials.html" for the best prices. > Thank you all fo all the info. i got a CANON DIGITAL REBEL XT so just got > the CANON UV HAZE FILTER. and of cause it will protect my lens as well. > again THANK YOU ALL. And protection while great in theory never quite "feels" the same in practice. ;-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.