So.. I'm a causal 365'er. I mostly photo-journal life, not a photographer. Still, that doesn't mean I don't want my pictures to look good.
So I stopped by a camera store today. He recommended a UV filter that was pretty dark (think like sunglasses) -- thing is, it was $50, so before I plunk down that kind of money, I was curious -- is it worth it? Do they do that much to improve pictures?
The type of pictures I most like to take are outdoors -- sky, clouds, woods.
A UV filter shouldn't appear dark. Most photographers do use a UV filter on all of their lenses since it protects the lens from damage. I've had it save my bacon more than once, that's for certain! Cost for a UV filter depends on both the quality and the size, but $50 is not unreasonable. Most lenses have a specific filter that is recommended for it, though. Some filters can create a vignette on wider angle lenses if the depth of the filter is too long for that particular lens. What I normally do is go to B&H Photo's website, find the lens I have, click on "Accessories", and see what UV filter is recommended specifically for that lens. Bottom line, though, a $50 filter is well worth the insurance policy to protect your more expensive lens.
As a strictly "taking photos for my own pleasure" type of photographer, I bought all my filters off e-bay. I got a UV for both lenses, 3 ND filters for both lenses, and a graduated ND for both lenses. The total for the lot would have been less than $50, and they work a treat. As Ron said, the UV filters are mainly for lens protection, and the ND's can be screwed on top of them.
If it was dark, it was probably a circular polariser (or possibly an ND filter).
My personal experience is that UV filters (which appear clear to the eye and look just like a piece of window glass) have no positive benefit to the resulting photo, at least for digital cameras. All digital cameras have UV and IR filters on the sensor, so an extra UV filter has no effect.
Additionally, cheap UV filters can add internal reflections to an image, especially where there are bright points of light -- this is typically the cause when people are baffled by a weird 'double image' they got when photographing the moon, sunlight reflected on water, neon signs, etc.
The main benefit of a UV filter is a non-photographic one -- they protect your lens from accidental damage with things that might scratch it. It's far cheaper to replace a scratched filter than a scratched lens. Personally I prefer a lens hood -- they are cheaper than a decent UV filter (one that has a good anti-reflective coating), and have at worst no effect on the resulting image -- and when sunlight is hitting the lens, they can significantly increase contrast.
What I suspect he was recommending was a circular polariser -- this is a filter that does have an effect on your photographs. A polariser only lets light through that is polarised in a certain direction -- explaining exactly why that helps is quite technical, but what if effectively means is that it will cut through haze and alter reflections. This can also result in making the sky more blue and also darker, making it easier to control exposure (as the sky is not as bright compared to the ground as without a filter).
The polariser can be rotated on the front of the lens to alter the effect (although this isn't why it's called a circular polariser -- again, it's technical). They are very widely used in landscape photography and almost a must-have for the kind of photography you mention. The shop assistant should be able to demonstrate it to you (if it's a sunny day) so you can see the effect yourself. If you have a pair of polarised sunglasses you can also see the effect -- hold them in front of you and rotate them while looking at blue sky.
Note that some people who have a circular polariser never take it off -- this is not a good idea. This is not a filter that should stay on your camera all the time, but should be used when the situation is right. A circular polariser does cut down light entering the camera overall, so using it in low light is generally a bad idea and will add little. Also, removal of reflections can sometimes be a bad thing -- you can transform a sparkly lake into a flat and dull scene, for example.
Also be aware that using a polariser with a very wide lens is usually a bad idea -- you will get a weird change of colour across the sky which is seldom appealing. Generally for lenses that are 20mm or less (on a crop-sensor camera) you probably don't want to use a polariser except in exceptional situations.
The last thing he could have been suggesting is an ND filter -- this is quite simply a filter that darkens an image overall. This does have uses (they are particularly handy for waterfall photography) but are a bit more specialised than a circular polariser -- I wouldn't advise spending money on one unless you have a specific need for it, and it doesn't sound like you do at the moment.
If the shop assistant did genuinely call a filter that wasn't completely clear a UV filter -- find another shop!
@abirkill It is a digital camera, so that's good to know, and really, I'm looking for something that would have an impact on the photo itself
@shirljess Maybe -- now I wish I'd looked closer! The sales clerk said UV filter "but the dark one" but he was kind of a kid and seemed a bit... I dunno...
@abirkill After I replied, I saw the longer message (I think it came through shortened the first time)
wow, okay, thanks for the lengthy reply and good details.
He did call a dark filter a UV filter, and he was a little goofy on other information, too, so... he's probably a high school kid working there, didn't seem to be the super-knowledgeable I'll give you guidance type I was looking for, but more the eh, here's some things over here kind of kid.
I will wander back by a different time, and now I know a little bit more what I'd be looking for and what kinds of questions to ask!
That's the response I got when in the camera corner of the chemist shop. I was looking for ND flilters to get slow shutter speed water in the day light, and she showed me UV filters. I asked some 365 friends about filters, got them all explained, then went and bought online.
Watch as the sky changes brightness relative to the landscape. When the sky is brightest, this is approximately equivalent to not having the filter on at all. As you can see, the darker sky is more pleasing for landscape photography.
Whether you buy off eBay or in a shop, make sure you are getting a good quality filter with a good anti-reflective coating. Cheap filters with poor coatings are usually a false economy.
@abirkill
Thank you for all that, a very helpful filter explanation. I did get inexpensive UV filters, and they had made no difference to my photos (as they shouldn't) until I tried a moon shot last night, and got the double moon! Now I know why.
@ariel817 If you look at a decent online store that carries a wide range (e.g. B&H) you can generally get an idea just by price.
I'd be looking to spend at least $50 on a polariser at an online shop. Bear in mind that the good brands are probably ones you've never heard of! I tend to use Hoya filters are they are reasonably priced -- they have a few different filters at different price levels, and the cheapest or one up from the cheapest is usually a good choice.
If you want to spend a bit more, look for a filter that's described as being multi-coated -- but these typically cost $80+, depending on what size you need.
Steer clear of camera manufacturer brands (Sony, Nikon, etc.) -- they are overpriced.
Brands I'd recommend are Hoya, B+W and Cokin.
Retail camera stores love to mark up filters, so be careful you're not getting ripped off -- I've seen a camera store in Australia selling a polariser for $150 that was $30 online. (I decided I wasn't that desperate!)
One last thing to note -- make sure the filter has the word 'circular' in the description or on the packaging -- this isn't simply telling you it's a circular in shape, it's a technical quality that you need for it to work properly with digital cameras. The vast vast majority of polarisers are circular these days, but you might find a shop that's happy to clear out an old 'linear' polariser to an unsuspecting photographer.
@onie You're welcome! One thing I would note -- you say it's making no difference to most of your photos, but the same effect that gave you the double moon is happening every time you take a photo, to some degree. Light is bouncing back and forth between the back of your filter and the front element of your lens, reducing clarity and contrast.
Whether that difference is a concern to you or not is for you to decide, vs. the protection the filter offers you, but it is there. Professional photographers buy $300+ filters for exactly this reason -- they don't just like showing off!
I don't bother with UV filters. As @abirkill said, they have no effect on digital cameras (except cheap ones can degrade images). They can save a lens if you drop it (if you're lucky and it drops just right) but a lens hood/cap can do the same.
I have a polarising filter that I keep on my main lens all the time. I have to sometimes take it off for certain shots, but I probably leave it on 80% of the time. It has a real effect on images and can I guess also somewhat protect the lens.
I had the "fortune" of dropping a 70-200mm f2.8 out of a camera bag "just right". The lens cap popped off and the UV filter shattered in a million pieces but the lens was fine. Whew!
So really I think I was asking about ND (whatever that means) filters rather than UV ones, and it still sounds like a circular polarizing one is what I'd like, in order to have an impact on how my images look -- if I'm reading this thread correctly. :).
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Thank you for the replies.
There were two types of filters side by side - UV and UV ones that were also shaded, and he said would improve contrast, bring out colors more.
My personal experience is that UV filters (which appear clear to the eye and look just like a piece of window glass) have no positive benefit to the resulting photo, at least for digital cameras. All digital cameras have UV and IR filters on the sensor, so an extra UV filter has no effect.
Additionally, cheap UV filters can add internal reflections to an image, especially where there are bright points of light -- this is typically the cause when people are baffled by a weird 'double image' they got when photographing the moon, sunlight reflected on water, neon signs, etc.
The main benefit of a UV filter is a non-photographic one -- they protect your lens from accidental damage with things that might scratch it. It's far cheaper to replace a scratched filter than a scratched lens. Personally I prefer a lens hood -- they are cheaper than a decent UV filter (one that has a good anti-reflective coating), and have at worst no effect on the resulting image -- and when sunlight is hitting the lens, they can significantly increase contrast.
What I suspect he was recommending was a circular polariser -- this is a filter that does have an effect on your photographs. A polariser only lets light through that is polarised in a certain direction -- explaining exactly why that helps is quite technical, but what if effectively means is that it will cut through haze and alter reflections. This can also result in making the sky more blue and also darker, making it easier to control exposure (as the sky is not as bright compared to the ground as without a filter).
The polariser can be rotated on the front of the lens to alter the effect (although this isn't why it's called a circular polariser -- again, it's technical). They are very widely used in landscape photography and almost a must-have for the kind of photography you mention. The shop assistant should be able to demonstrate it to you (if it's a sunny day) so you can see the effect yourself. If you have a pair of polarised sunglasses you can also see the effect -- hold them in front of you and rotate them while looking at blue sky.
Note that some people who have a circular polariser never take it off -- this is not a good idea. This is not a filter that should stay on your camera all the time, but should be used when the situation is right. A circular polariser does cut down light entering the camera overall, so using it in low light is generally a bad idea and will add little. Also, removal of reflections can sometimes be a bad thing -- you can transform a sparkly lake into a flat and dull scene, for example.
Also be aware that using a polariser with a very wide lens is usually a bad idea -- you will get a weird change of colour across the sky which is seldom appealing. Generally for lenses that are 20mm or less (on a crop-sensor camera) you probably don't want to use a polariser except in exceptional situations.
The last thing he could have been suggesting is an ND filter -- this is quite simply a filter that darkens an image overall. This does have uses (they are particularly handy for waterfall photography) but are a bit more specialised than a circular polariser -- I wouldn't advise spending money on one unless you have a specific need for it, and it doesn't sound like you do at the moment.
If the shop assistant did genuinely call a filter that wasn't completely clear a UV filter -- find another shop!
@abirkill It is a digital camera, so that's good to know, and really, I'm looking for something that would have an impact on the photo itself
@shirljess Maybe -- now I wish I'd looked closer! The sales clerk said UV filter "but the dark one" but he was kind of a kid and seemed a bit... I dunno...
wow, okay, thanks for the lengthy reply and good details.
He did call a dark filter a UV filter, and he was a little goofy on other information, too, so... he's probably a high school kid working there, didn't seem to be the super-knowledgeable I'll give you guidance type I was looking for, but more the eh, here's some things over here kind of kid.
I will wander back by a different time, and now I know a little bit more what I'd be looking for and what kinds of questions to ask!
Thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN8Dk-UkW0Q
Watch as the sky changes brightness relative to the landscape. When the sky is brightest, this is approximately equivalent to not having the filter on at all. As you can see, the darker sky is more pleasing for landscape photography.
Whether you buy off eBay or in a shop, make sure you are getting a good quality filter with a good anti-reflective coating. Cheap filters with poor coatings are usually a false economy.
Thank you for all that, a very helpful filter explanation. I did get inexpensive UV filters, and they had made no difference to my photos (as they shouldn't) until I tried a moon shot last night, and got the double moon! Now I know why.
Hoya
B+W
Heliopan
Try to stay away from tempting cheap ones.
I'd be looking to spend at least $50 on a polariser at an online shop. Bear in mind that the good brands are probably ones you've never heard of! I tend to use Hoya filters are they are reasonably priced -- they have a few different filters at different price levels, and the cheapest or one up from the cheapest is usually a good choice.
If you want to spend a bit more, look for a filter that's described as being multi-coated -- but these typically cost $80+, depending on what size you need.
Steer clear of camera manufacturer brands (Sony, Nikon, etc.) -- they are overpriced.
Brands I'd recommend are Hoya, B+W and Cokin.
Retail camera stores love to mark up filters, so be careful you're not getting ripped off -- I've seen a camera store in Australia selling a polariser for $150 that was $30 online. (I decided I wasn't that desperate!)
One last thing to note -- make sure the filter has the word 'circular' in the description or on the packaging -- this isn't simply telling you it's a circular in shape, it's a technical quality that you need for it to work properly with digital cameras. The vast vast majority of polarisers are circular these days, but you might find a shop that's happy to clear out an old 'linear' polariser to an unsuspecting photographer.
Whether that difference is a concern to you or not is for you to decide, vs. the protection the filter offers you, but it is there. Professional photographers buy $300+ filters for exactly this reason -- they don't just like showing off!
I have a polarising filter that I keep on my main lens all the time. I have to sometimes take it off for certain shots, but I probably leave it on 80% of the time. It has a real effect on images and can I guess also somewhat protect the lens.
I had the "fortune" of dropping a 70-200mm f2.8 out of a camera bag "just right". The lens cap popped off and the UV filter shattered in a million pieces but the lens was fine. Whew!