|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Thank you. I did some more research... posted by Joe Murphy Jr on August 26, 2001 at 12:18:28:
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
Follow Ups:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: