Reading mode: Light Dark

UV Filters and Landscape Scenes

Go to last post
I agree. One of the first things I noticed about this digital camera was that I could shoot without UV filters. With my old SLR film camera, (which has great sensitivity to UV) I had to suffer monies worth of wasted film (and time) due to unnatural peak frequencies. No film, no problem. :-)

Jim
Ulysses said:
Bottom line for me is that we've tested this in years past with the
F505 and the F505V. I doubt that the response in the F707 is any
different.

We've also had comments made by Sony on the issue. The word is that
you wouldn't notice a significant difference filter on or off. It's
just another piece of glass in front of the lens. If a difference
could be demonstrated, you'd need a spectrographic representation
to see it.

Noticeable differences could be as simple as metering or white
balance drift issues.

This is not to dispute or argue with what others notice. Just that
some of us haven't seen those same results.
Click to expand...
 
A good parent wouldn't let their kid be cought out in the cold like that. Gotta make sure he has a nice warm pair of mittens on, at LEAST! There... all better...



--

Ulysses
 
Well , I have taken several different photos with and without the uv and I have not been able to see any difference. I do not have any of them to share since I have already trashed them all.
--
Scott A.
 
Thanks Ulysses and Jim,

hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to Ritz I go.....
(ND2, UV MC, and linear polarizer)
buy2 get one free :-)
Jim Walker said:
If I were using it for lens protection and had to choose, I'd opt
for the straight UV filter, only because it has less chance to
filter out the blues.

Jim
happybirdie said:
Please be gentle....

IF one were to prefer the lens protection value of a filter for a
wide variety of conditions (indoor/outdoor), would you folks vote
for the UV or the skylight?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I am pretty sure you are talking about Peyto lake 's image from Darwin Wiggett. Is it the case ? I just want to confirm before I place my answer to you ...
Jarett said:






It's simple to assume that this could throw off everything from
metering to color processing when the F707 assesses it's levels.
Yves P. said:
I agree and disagree. Mostly disagree in all respect. As soon as
you add a piece of glass on top of any lens, you will lose
sharpness. In a landscape, you need all the details
Click to expand...
Plus the lose of sharpness is neglegible, or else the SKY/1A filter
would not be as popular as it is on landscape photography.

On a side not, that landscape photo in the 'can the F707 do this?'
post pretty much sucks in my opinion. A $200 Blue/Gold polarizer
(Yes his polarizer cost him a good 200$) should produce a MUCH
nicer image if the person using it actually knew how it. Slide
film, too much photoshop, expensive toys. He was in the right
place at the right time, not skilled in the shot.
But then again, thats just my opinion.

--
Jarett §§ DSC-F707 Lover!
http://www.uglyduck.com
Click to expand...
--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle
 
And Scott, you couldn't see much difference even with a magnifiying glass because it really does nothing. It protects the lens and add extra glass in front of a the original lens period ...
mortal said:
Well , I have taken several different photos with and without the
uv and I have not been able to see any difference. I do not have
any of them to share since I have already trashed them all.
--
Scott A.
Click to expand...
--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle
 
Can't wait for the results ....
Jaysam Thanki said:
Shay Stephens said:
Can you show an example of this? I would love to see actual
difference in the scene using a UV filter (with the F707) and not
using one. So far as I have seen, there has not been any
difference in the scene and you wind up just adding another glass
interface light has to traverse without benefitting the image.

Show me the money! hehehe

--
Shay

My Sony F707 Gallery: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.) Owner of DSC-F707,
No BFS, No hassle but strong vignetting on left
VCL-MHG07A, HVL-F1000 and some close up lenses ...
http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle
 
Ann McRae said:
Ulysses said:
A good parent wouldn't let their kid be cought out in the cold like
that. Gotta make sure he has a nice warm pair of mittens on, at
LEAST! There... all better...



--

Ulysses
Click to expand...
--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Click to expand...
--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
 
I haven't had the opportunity to do any landscapes yet with my 707. I put a Hoya UV on my camera once I started taking flower and insect macros and was running into branches and spider webs. But I want to share a 707 shot that a new "friend" (we met through a photography forum, and live in the same city) has just posted. I think it is really beautiful, and I've been to this place several times and think it is an unaltered representation of the scene.

BTW, I think Darwin's photo of Peyto Lake is really lovely. I see no difference between using filters, and using telephoto lenses or PSP. Photos are/should be peices of art that belong to/reflect the ideas of the artist. And we should all accept them for what they are. Sometimes we take snapshots that are priceless to us, and sometimes we take works of art that are marketable. Some of us do this as a hobby, and some of us as our livelihood. And none of us need to be criticized for who we are or what we produce!

Here's the link:

http://www.digital-photographers.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Landscape_Photos&action=display&num=1025626564

ann

--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
 
Tell your friend thats an awesome Pano. Especially with it being 15 shots. Must have taken forever to stitch.
Ann McRae said:
I haven't had the opportunity to do any landscapes yet with my 707.
I put a Hoya UV on my camera once I started taking flower and
insect macros and was running into branches and spider webs. But I
want to share a 707 shot that a new "friend" (we met through a
photography forum, and live in the same city) has just posted. I
think it is really beautiful, and I've been to this place several
times and think it is an unaltered representation of the scene.
BTW, I think Darwin's photo of Peyto Lake is really lovely. I see
no difference between using filters, and using telephoto lenses or
PSP. Photos are/should be peices of art that belong to/reflect the
ideas of the artist. And we should all accept them for what they
are. Sometimes we take snapshots that are priceless to us, and
sometimes we take works of art that are marketable. Some of us do
this as a hobby, and some of us as our livelihood. And none of us
need to be criticized for who we are or what we produce!

Here's the link:

http://www.digital-photographers.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Landscape_Photos&action=display&num=1025626564

ann

--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Click to expand...
--
Jarett §§ DSC-F707 Lover!
http://www.uglyduck.com
 
Heheheh.. Even the Dutch kids need mittens if they're going to be out like that. :-]

--

Ulysses
 
Wish I read this thread before I went on my hike. I always use my polarizer as my second piece of glass in front of the camera and sometimes I place my graduated filter on top of that. Here's one shot from today with both filters on the 707.

Lisa


Jaysam Thanki said:
Shay Stephens said:
Can you show an example of this? I would love to see actual
difference in the scene using a UV filter (with the F707) and not
using one. So far as I have seen, there has not been any
difference in the scene and you wind up just adding another glass
interface light has to traverse without benefitting the image.

Show me the money! hehehe

--
Shay

My Sony F707 Gallery: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986
 
that is stunning, you should get a 16x20 of that, beautiful!

Larry Myers
Lisa Young said:
Lisa


Jaysam Thanki said:
Shay Stephens said:
Can you show an example of this? I would love to see actual
difference in the scene using a UV filter (with the F707) and not
using one. So far as I have seen, there has not been any
difference in the scene and you wind up just adding another glass
interface light has to traverse without benefitting the image.

Show me the money! hehehe

--
Shay

My Sony F707 Gallery: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Larry. You can see why this is my favorite hike in the Colorado Mountains.

Lisa
Larry Myers said:
Larry Myers
Lisa Young said:
Lisa


Jaysam Thanki said:
Shay Stephens said:
Can you show an example of this? I would love to see actual
difference in the scene using a UV filter (with the F707) and not
using one. So far as I have seen, there has not been any
difference in the scene and you wind up just adding another glass
interface light has to traverse without benefitting the image.

Show me the money! hehehe

--
Shay

My Sony F707 Gallery: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986
 
Ann,

Awesome Pano. Did it take 15 shots to make that pano because you shot it in portrait orientation?
Ann McRae said:
I haven't had the opportunity to do any landscapes yet with my 707.
I put a Hoya UV on my camera once I started taking flower and
insect macros and was running into branches and spider webs. But I
want to share a 707 shot that a new "friend" (we met through a
photography forum, and live in the same city) has just posted. I
think it is really beautiful, and I've been to this place several
times and think it is an unaltered representation of the scene.
BTW, I think Darwin's photo of Peyto Lake is really lovely. I see
no difference between using filters, and using telephoto lenses or
PSP. Photos are/should be peices of art that belong to/reflect the
ideas of the artist. And we should all accept them for what they
are. Sometimes we take snapshots that are priceless to us, and
sometimes we take works of art that are marketable. Some of us do
this as a hobby, and some of us as our livelihood. And none of us
need to be criticized for who we are or what we produce!

Here's the link:

http://www.digital-photographers.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Landscape_Photos&action=display&num=1025626564

ann

--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Click to expand...
--
John
http://www.pbase.com/johnrweb/
 
johnrweb said:
Ann,

Awesome Pano. Did it take 15 shots to make that pano because you
shot it in portrait orientation?
Click to expand...
Sorry you misunderstood my original post. The photos were taken by a lady named Lesley O'Neill. She is en route to B. C. so I cannot ask why it took 15 shots, but I think it is impressive. Her post says she does not use a UV filter.

ann
--
Canadian Ann
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.stfchallenge.com
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
 
I guess many of us may have different opinions... with a UV or without is the question LOL :P~

Personally, I always keep my UV on for standard shooting (if I'm shooting with other filters, I may take it off). Mostly, I like the added protection of the UV filter, because even though I take extremely good care of my camera, there have been times when someone bumped into me, or into the tripod, or just SOMETHING happened that could have proved catastrophic to my lense, and honestly, I'd rather replace a UV filter than my camera.

Now, keep in mind, I also ALWAYS use a lense hood to minimize flare.

Even for the "purest" who doesn't want the extra glass when shooting a photo, there are STILL times when a UV is helpful. Consider that you are down on the beach on a windy day shooting a landscape, or even your kids playing in the water. I'd much rather risk having fine, salty water mist on my UV than on my lense glass. I might be shooting on a rainy day, and even though I've taking extra precautions to put my camera in a ziplock bag, why wouldn't I want a bit of clear glass protection over my lense (and even the sensors that surround it)?

99.9% of the time you cannot notice the difference between a picture taken with a UV filter, a skylight filter or without any filter at all. I have all three, and tomorrow I WILL try to remember to post some examples. If you take the steps to minimize lense flare, there isn't much else to worry about. If you're a purest, that's fine too, but don't do away with the possibility in situations like I gave examples of above. MANY a-famous photographer has shot wonderful photographs with UVs, Skylights, Polarizers, whatever-filter fill-in-the blank.

Just my thoughts ;)

Amy
 
Amy -

I think you're possibly wrapping all of the "purists" into one big generalization here.

What some are saying is that we don't get a visible benefit in the images from a UV filter (this is not the case with a Skylight filter, which usually turns everything a very fine pink cast).

If folks want and need the protection that a filter can offer, then that's great. It's an added expense, and particularly new folks need to know why it is that they are making the purchase.
SFishy said:
99.9% of the time you cannot notice the difference between a
picture taken with a UV filter, a skylight filter or without any
filter at all. I have all three, and tomorrow I WILL try to
remember to post some examples. If you take the steps to minimize
lense flare, there isn't much else to worry about. If you're a
purest, that's fine too, but don't do away with the possibility in
situations like I gave examples of above. MANY a-famous
photographer has shot wonderful photographs with UVs, Skylights,
Polarizers, whatever-filter fill-in-the blank.
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top