UV filter vs Polarizer filter

Started May 20, 2008 | Discussions thread
austin design New Member • Posts: 4
Re: Well...

Barrie Davis wrote:

austin design wrote:

tjack wrote:

Jim Boutilier wrote:

While digital cameras are less sensitive to UV than film they are not
immune to the effects so where you are taking pictures of distant
landscapes, particularly at high altitudes, a UV filter han help
eliminate the "haze" or fog caused by the UV light.

Clarification... This is NOT the "haze" they cut down on. In the old days of film, UV light would cause a haze on the film itself. Or, UV light would bounce off particles in the air and get recorded by the film. This had absolutely nothing to do with the actual haze in the scene. Also, the film recorded too much blue at high altitudes so a Skylight 1A or 1B was used to cut UV and some blue.

These days, film and digital sensors assemblies are not sensitive to UV light and do not create the haze as in the old days. If there is haze in the scene, there will be haze in the image. No filter can remove that. The only thing a UV filter does is to "protect" the front element of the lens in bad conditions. There is no effect on the image itself.

Plainly not so, according to Bjorn Petersen. Of water (vs. pollution) based haze's effects on DIGITAL cameras, he writes:

"UV affects image quality in several ways. When photographing outdoors UV light manifests itself in the form of haze, which can vary based on how close you are to large bodies of water or snow (water and snow both reflect sunlight, which in turn magnifies UV levels), altitude (the higher you go, the more UV light you encounter), and larger cities (reflective glass and metal-clad structures can also amplify ambient UV levels). This haze robs image detail, especially at longer distances with longer focal length lenses where cumulative haze densities can severely soften the sharp details of distant objects. In many respects, this neutralises the argument against using filters for fear of compromising the resolving power of the lens, most notably telephoto lenses."

Two points:-

1) Through exhaustive practical tests the effect of the UV absorbing filter has been shown to be negligible in digital cameras... to all intents and purposes a normal sensor is not sensitive to UV to any degree worth anyone concerning themselves about.... or, out another way, the filter doesn't do anything.

2) It's academic anyway. This thread died more than four years ago... (2008)

-- hide signature --

"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

I've never understood the notion of "this thread died (X) years ago".  This is the Internet, on which people search items of interest.  Either items are relevant and useful or they aren't.  If they are, then they're free game for comment.  If they're not, what's the point of archiving them?!  Your "dead" comment is akin to saying there's no point in housing classic philosophy texts in a library because their questions are dated.  Besides, Barrie, YOU AND I HAVE JUST READ AND RESPONDED TO THIS THREAD; necessarily, then, it remains a living topic.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow