 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I've been reading info on a few websites about a possible problem that I have. When I take pictures in natural daylight, there seems to be a blue haze/tint to my pictures. It was suggested that I use either a UV filter or a Skylight filter. From what I've read, they are pretty close in their function (removing the blue tint from film). From what I understand, as UV light is not able to be seen by the eye, we are not aware of its presence. Of course, when the film is developed, it shows up because the film can "see" it. Can anyone tell me the difference in performance between the HOYA Super-Multicoat filters and B+W Multicoat filters? I ask because on their respective sites their descriptions are rather close. However, in the B&H Photo ads, their prices aren't (for a 77mm UV/Skylight filter, B+W is $77 and HOYA is $45). I don't mind spending more money if the product is better, so that's not an issue -- I just want the better performing filter. As for my "problem", would the UV or Skylight filter be better? I use mostly Kodak 100 Speed print and slide film with Nikon AF-S lenses, if that's any help with an answer.
Follow Ups:
B+W specialise in larger filters intended for larger format cameras and as they are probably made to tighter tolerances, you will pay a premium price. Their coatings may also differ.
You will probably not notice any difference unless you enlarge your pictures considerably...you may then notice some slight differences.
Hoya SMC filters are excellent, I have used them for a considerable amount of time with excellent results.
I would go for a 1a or 1b as the UV filter is basically just plain glass....1a and 1b have a slight yellow tinge 1b is stronger. You will not notice the difference between the two so readily with SMC filters.Regards
You just mentioned two fine filters, the HOYA Super-Multicoat filters and B+W Multicoat filters. I use both and they seem to be equally good as far as optical quality. I prefer the Hoya due to the thinner frame (better for use with wide angle lenses). B&W makes a narrow frame filter but you must pay extra for some reason. Nikon makes great filters as well (somewhere in price between the Hoya & B&W). I'm a Canon shooter but I like Nikon filters because they are excellent, multicoated and very thin (Canon filters are merely repackaged cheap Tiffens). I believe the L37C is their UV filter. The main problem with Nikon filters is they only come in a few sizes.Skylight and UV filters are almost the same thing: they both filter the blue end of the spectrum (UV). The UV filter has a slightly stronger effect than the skylight. The filter effect will be most apparent with slide film.
Whatever filter you choose, get the best possible multicoated filter you can afford so as not to degrade the image.
Aloha
Good filters help. Bad filters do nothing but add more dispersion, etc.B&W is my filter of choice. I also use some (sorry!) cokin filters, mostly when I'm doing B&W and want to pull up/down contrast in something.
JJ
and found the pricing variables. The ads that B&H has in the magazines are different than the ones on the website. Two different "grades" of HOYA filters are listed at the same price! I'm sure B&H won't give up the top grade HOYA for $45, even though the magazine ad lists this price. The website lists it at $84 -- almost double! Of course, the website is probably right, due to the fact that the top B+W filter is within $1 or $2 of the HOYA. I agree that the best filter that I can afford is what I should get. After all, some shots only happen once. You don't want to chance that lifetime shot with a filter that you saved $3 on that's nowhere near as good as the one you should have purchased! My question is this: would the UV or the Skylight be the better filter to leave on all the time (morning, day and early evening)? I don't want to have to change filters for different light circumstances (yes, I'm both lazy and wary of damaging the threads and/or the lens). Does the Skylight add a bit of "warmth" due to its slight pinkish color? If the UV filters nearly all of the UV light that the film sees, would that make the picture a bit unnatural? I'm just trying to make the best decision for my picture taking needs (mostly outside, but from morning, throughout the day to early evening!). Thank you for responding to my question.
UV and Skylight filters are NOT almost the same. Try taking a picture of snow with a Skylight and you will see a definite color tint. A UV filter cuts the bluishness from UV, because film renders UV as blue. The end of the visible spectrum is 400nM. But if you look at absoption curves for most UV filters, they don't have a lot of effect until you reach 350 nM. The UV between 350 and 400 nM is easily passed by most lenses, and will create a bluish cast. There are some UV filters that are effective at 400 nM, but they tend to impart a greenish cast to the pictures. Not good for skin tones! The Hoya UV(0) filters exhibit this color cast. Just place the filter on a sheet of very white paper under sunlight or a halogen lamp, and the tint is obvious.You often see comments that multi-coated lenses don't pass UV. This is true if you are talking about wavelengths that are much shorter than 350 nM, but they pass the 350-400 nM range just fine.
I use both the Nikon L37c or the B+W 010 (UV) filters because they are still fairly effective at 400 nM and are less colored than most others. Good coatings and very well made.
If you want maximum effect on UV, then check out some of Tiffen's specialty filters. Some are very effective at 400 nM, but are noticeably colored.
A polarizing filter is also quite effective on UV haze even if it is not set to maximum effect.
Skylight filters are not terribly effective at 400 nM, and are lightly tinted to remove excess blue light, but not UV which images as blue. The 1A filters are a light tan color in the same family as the 81A but lighter still; while the 1B is slightly pinkish and IMHO is more attractive. I use one all the time in tropical environments to punch up the colors a bit. The Nikon L1Bc is very close to Hoya's Skylight 1B in color and I prefer it over the Hoya. If you can find a used one, Vivitar used to make a series of VMC (Vivitar Multi Coated) filters that were very good IF they were made in the USA. Later ones were Japanese (Hoya?) and aren't all that wonderful. But the USA version has a Skylight 1A that is close to a 1B, and a UV that is nearly colorless. They have thin rims and are well made and effectively coated.
I have found that the larger sizes of Hoya filters have the bright edge of a retaining ring visible to the lens, and have had suspicions that it may cause flare. Smaller sizes don't seem to suffer from this problem.
Joe,Use filters to modify image color. Use lens caps and hoods for protection. Seems there are strong feelings both ways, but I can't advocate placing 2 more glass/air interfaces between the subject and the film for any reason. I was born and raised at the Jersey shore and have never lost a lens to salt spray and I abandoned skylight filters long ago.
The small amount of UV (BTW, UV is not light)you could filter has little impact on the final print quality. Too many other factors which can impact print quality/color. Most helpful with transparency films as other poster suggests.
If you do intentionally wish to add some warmth to pics, consider a filter such as an 81A.
Cheers, Bill
Especially at high altitudes, a haze, UV or skylight filter (for colour or B&W as you wish) can be quite important, as can (sometimes) an 81a, b, or c, depending on the light.But you want good filters, and they aren't lens caps, we agree on that.
JJ
that with transparency films, especially, the STRONGER UV filters (which also cut into the blue) are helpful. I don't routinely take aerials but the effect of UV scattered by atmospheric moisture between camera and subject at altitude would make UV filters more useful.I've heard nothing but praise for the B+W brand.
Bill
nt
Ultraviolet and infrared are sometimes incorrectly referred to as 'light'. The human eye 'sees' radiation between 400 and 700 nm. Wavelengths above or below this are not visible, and hence, not 'light', unless there is such a thing as 'invisible light'. For that matter, we can refer to X-rays and radio waves as light too.UV and infrared is correctly called 'radiation'.
Why all this fuss? I got nailed big-time on an exam freshman year about this, a lesson I'll never forget!
Regards,
Bill Zarycranski
Go back to school and get your point. Both UV and infrared ARE light, though for us humans they are not visible to us. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't light (they're just not "visible" light). Infra (below) red is just below our sight threshold and ultra (beyond) violet is just above our sight threshold. Many teachers, even when they know better, will follow what a textbook says just to get through the class. I've seen it in high school and college. Some even admit it! Maybe this is what your teacher was doing. Think about how we classify sound. Human hearing is nearly always listed as 20Hz-20kHz. Soundwaves below 20Hz are called infrasonic: those above 20kHz are called ultrasonic. If someone could hear a 23kHz tone, would we say they are hearing "inaudible" sound (to use your "invisible" suggestion)? Of course not. We'd say they were crazy (HA HA). Of course, physicists are strange sometimes. They are much like the French -- they try to be difficult to get on your nerves. All of this because I asked a question about filters. Please accept my sincere apologies. Now back to something to soothe and calm... the Audio Asylum. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
he was correct and this was one of the first courses at RIT in Photographic Science and Instrumentation. Yes, I have an undergrad degree in Photography.Joe, certainly this point won't help you take better pictures but the term light only refers to radiation we see. We don't see infrared radiation or ultraviolet, nor X-rays, microwaves, radio waves, et. al. Of course we sell untraviolet 'lights' and maybe even infrared 'lights', but any radiation emitted from these sources are not UV or IR. They are blue or red wavelengths which fall within the roughly 400 to 700 nm spectrum. Believe me, you cannot see UV or IR any better than you can see microwaves.
To get back to the original question, films are sensitive to UV and therefore unseen UV could have some impact on the film image. My experience over the past 35 years in photography suggests present films are much less impacted by this exposure than those years ago. I see no difference between identical color prints taken with or w/o a skylight filter. Ditto for 'haze' filters, which begin to filter into the far blue visible wavelengths. Maybe if you are an aviator and take alot of picures from the air where the effect of UV is greater or potentially more noticeable, then the haze filters may have some impact. However, this will be most important with color transparency films as printing effects can easily mask any differences.
So whether UV is or is not light, like they say at AA, try it in your own system. Your results may vary.
Good luck in your photography! A good hobby to have along with music and audio.
bz
nt
"I was born and raised at the Jersey shore and have never lost a lens to salt spray and I abandoned skylight filters long ago."I guess you have never shot big wave surfing in Hawaii! It's something I do year round. After two hours of shooting on the beach your front element is totally coated (I use Canon EOS 3 and 1V bodies which are well sealed). Of course, you must leave the camera out in the elements on a tripod since you're using big glass. If I'm lucky, I hitch a ride on a boat with a pro friend and get both salt water and spray on my gear (I use a plastic protector but the lens and control surfaces must be open). As a foolish youth I used to change lenses at the beach. I thought a few seconds of exposure would be ok, but my reflex mirror had salt spray on it after the first day.
I remember taking an old Yashica FX3 to a local motorcycle scramble meeting when I was young(er). It was very dusty...the FX3 didn't live long after that.
A pity because an excellent camera with brass body...Redcoat
Never shot big surf in Hawaii, no, nor for that matter in South Jersey. Big surf and Jersey are mutually exclusive.Keep skylight on to focus, etc. but off for the really big shots.
bz
As I mentioned above, the effect of either the UV or skylight filters is so weak you will barely notice it (a true warming filter is a different story). Thus, most people use these filters mainly as front element protectors. I use a UV filter and a lens hood at all times for protection. I shoot at or near the beach most of the time so salt spray is a real threat (my sun glasses and hair become stiff with salt after a couple of hours). Thus, you clean the filter rather than the lens. I've broken several filters due to drops or blows to the lenses and the hood/filter combo saved my glass!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
