Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

which filter is beter

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 13, 2005 1:56:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

hi all. just want to know which filter is better.

UV FILTER
or
UV HAZE FILTER

Vinnie...

More about : filter beter

Anonymous
July 13, 2005 1:56:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Vw_Ae.3080$6e3.386205@news20.bellglobal.com>, Vinnie
<Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote:

> hi all. just want to know which filter is better.
>
> UV FILTER
> or
> UV HAZE FILTER

It's a shame when cousins marry...
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 8:17:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Vinnie <Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote:

> hi all. just want to know which filter is better.
>
> UV FILTER
> or
> UV HAZE FILTER

You'll never notice the slightest difference.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Related resources
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 12:22:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11d95dtjjn4mp06@corp.supernews.com...
> Vinnie <Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > hi all. just want to know which filter is better.
> >
> > UV FILTER
> > or
> > UV HAZE FILTER
>
> 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.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 3:42:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Vinnie" <Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote:

>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.
July 13, 2005 7:22:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Vinnie wrote:
> hi all. just want to know which filter is better.
>
> UV FILTER
> or
> UV HAZE FILTER
>
> 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.
July 13, 2005 7:22:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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


"Steven" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:EkaBe.4030$p%3.25224@typhoon.sonic.net...
Vinnie wrote:
> hi all. just want to know which filter is better.
>
> UV FILTER
> or
> UV HAZE FILTER
>
> 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.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 7:53:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:

> 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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:07:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Vinnie" <Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:J2cBe.9471$qg1.706282@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 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. ;-)
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:01:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11dae84c0evo915@corp.supernews.com...
> Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>
> > 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.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:14:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:

> 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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 1:14:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11ddsen3s83tqe6@corp.supernews.com...
> Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>
> > 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.

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.
July 15, 2005 1:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11ddsen3s83tqe6@corp.supernews.com...
> Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

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
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
July 15, 2005 10:50:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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



"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11dg1bv8qb7dm24@corp.supernews.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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 4:27:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Vinnie <Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote:

> 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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:53:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11dgl2ree3pfh84@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>Vinnie <Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.

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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11dgl2ree3pfh84@corp.supernews.com...
> Vinnie <Vinnie@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.


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. :-)
!