Photography Myths and Stereotypes: Do UV Filters Actually Ruin Your Images?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2016
- For the full written article and additional sample images, (which don't suffer from UA-cam's video compression) please click here:
www.slrlounge.com/photography-...
In this video series, we will explore some of the photographic myths and stereotypes that you may have never actually tested for yourself, but always wondered about.
Many experienced photographers claim they would never use a filter, because of how it degrades image quality. How serious is this issue? Can you actually see a difference in color, sharpness, or other areas? - Навчання та стиль
My own test show the same thing. There is no difference in image quality (even with cheaper filters). However even the most expensive filters introduce flare, especially with artifical lightning. This is why I use UV-Filters if there is a lot of dust (or even Sand) and for the casual use of expensive lenses, but never after dark.
At first it sounds like you're disagreeing with our findings, but you totally agree with all our conclusions: In most situations, UV filters usually don't change your images, though they never actually seem to improve them as some people claim. They definitely can make flaring much worse, and that can definitely ruin images. Hoods generally offer better physical protection.
But UV filters (especially good UV filters) aren't free, so you really need to justify that cost, not to mention the hassle. Most people don't have an unlimited budget, so suggesting they buy UV filters for each of their lenses means they don't buy, say, a reflector or flash or diffuser or education or something that can definitely have a positive impact on their photography.
BTW, front elements don't scratch all that easily in my experience, and I exclusively clean my lenses with whatever shirt I'm currently wearing, I'm constantly at the beach and ocean, and I refuse to use lens caps. It depends on the lens, but in the unlikely event you do need to replace the front element, it's not usually that expensive. Certainly repairs are more expensive than UV filters, it's just they're rarely required.
Hi Tony,
you're right, in many cases due to flare, a UV filter is more hassle than its worth and a hood is far better protection if you're going to be bumping into things like while rock climbing with a camera slung over your shoulder.
That is why I couldn't draw any conclusion other than, they're advisable to own, in case you ever need to shoot in a sand dune or dust storm and would like to keep crap out of your lens, but in general use I leave them off.
Also, cleaning most front elements with a T-shirt might be fine, but a few brands are downright abysmal when it comes to this issue. Namely, Rokinon. And as a nightscape / landscape photographer, I love me some Rokinon glass. The 24 1.4 and 16 2.0 are killer lenses for both nightscape and landscape work, so I always have at least one 77mm UV filter in my bag just in case I want to shoot during nasty weather.
This is wrong on so many levels, a dirty shirt cleaning and scratching off the nano coating of my expensive glass. No way in hell.
kalidesu depends on what it is. I'll admit to breathing on my 50 or 85 and rubbing it with my shirt to get a finger smudge off. However, in a sand dune with the wind picking up? No way in hell I'm touching my front element with anything other than a rocket blower, PERIOD. (Which is why having a UV filter instead is a wise option.)
I never considered lens flares to be a problem in any situation. They always look pretty. I guess that's just my opinion :)
Great video! (thumbs up)
It's all an artform I agree. And it saves me from over cleaning the front element and protects it from the outside contaminants.
There is some difference between the shots with and without the filter, always in favour of the latest; to protect the front element you could use the lens hood and/or a "Protector" glass in front of it (there is the very good Hoya HD series). UV filters don't add any quality to your photos with digital cammras, so there is NO need to use them.
I use my lens hoods 24/7. I probably get weird looks but the lens hood protects you from more than a UV filter could ever.
However... IMHO You really don't need to worry about the front element. I never use caps (on the front or back) and have had no issues with lenses that I've had forever.
as do I added side note it looks cooler.
I have never had any issues using my UV filters from Hoya. Nothing like lensflare or flare from indoor lightning.
Thank you so much for your incisive review. Most interesting. 👍👍👍
What is that tripod? Thanks,
Where do I find that shirt?
I shoot close-up images and have found filters can cause a loss in sharpness in this genre of photo work. Without a filter the images are not as clear and crisp as back in my film days BUT there is a difference in digital photography. So with filter my images are soft. Without the filter, the images still have a little more softness than I like but improved over image with filter. One problem may be that there are quality differences in one filter brand over another. I plan to get HOYA filters and test soon.
Thank you for your video.
I did some test with with my 24-70mm & 70-200mm with and without UV filters (3 different models actually)
and I got the same results that you had. Since I don't really care about lens flares, I keep them on my lens WITH the hood (always the hood !!) :-)
Simple way to see using a computer science approach. Take a pic with and without, compare the histogram. At the end of the day, a RAW / JPEG data is just data. From that you can conclude if you lose or gain data from the two images.
No, that’s not going to work - additional flaring has only a minute influence on the distribution shown in the histogram as flares are typically small in relation to the overall image size.
The only evidence I have is that I had a Hoya Pro-1 protection filter on my Canon 100-400mm lens when it went for calibration to the camera Canon told me that the filter was adversely affecting the image quality. I am left feeling unsure about whether to use them.
Thanks for the video by the way... very useful.
Again, there's a slight, slight chance that a filter was adding a faint amount of haze, *IF* the sun was falling directly onto the glass of the filter. But most of the time, if you have a multi-coated filter, you'll be fine unless the sun is actually or almost *IN* the picture.
Do images degrade to some degree with a filter? Probably. But It would generally be impossible to conclude that an image has been badly degraded by using a filter, if you're not comparing two images. Most serious landscape photographers stack multiple filters regularly to get desired results. If you shoot into the sun, then take it off. Otherwise, use a hood to block side light. For some cameras, I keep a filter on in place of a lens cap. For other cameras, I don't use one at all. It all depends on personal use, given certain situations. Does it really matter? Nope. An $8,000 Ansel Adams photo won't lose value if he used a filter or not.
Does the megapixel count matter? Would I see a difference with a 5DSR?
no, it doesn't.
Hi Ryan,
The most likely answer is, nope.
However, it may depend on just how pixel-peeping you are, and how closely you scrutinize shadow detail. Also, it depends on what filter you're using.
Simply put, even with a 5DsR there will be no difference in sharpness or color if you're using a good quality UV filter, in non-flare-prone light.
In fact, you're far more likely to ruin your images through any of the other more common culprits, from camera shake to diffraction. If you're shooting in "easy" conditions though, and/or with tough flare happening, using a filter is probably not necessary, so you can leave them at home if it gives you any additonal peace of mind.
However, as I stated in the video, it's extremely important to at least own a set of quality filters for when you do find yourself in a nasty place with dust or sand or whatever. A scratch on your front element is far worse than any microscopic difference a pixel-peeper might see when using a UV filter.
Thanks for the reply! This myth/stereotype has been with my for ages and has resulted in small chips/scratches on my 70-200. I like the disclaimer about just having one for the necessary environments... still gonna be hard to screw one on though. Great video, I look forward to the future of this series.
Ryan Robinson That's what I'm hoping to help people avoid. Replacing a front element is a whole lot more costly than replacing a half-decent filter. And if you shoot in rain or dusty conditions a lot, you might find yourself missing shots because of how carefully you are trying to protect and/or clean your front element. When I have a UV filter or a polarizer on, I just grab anything cotton and wipe it down and keep shooting.
Using a lens hood is the best way to go. I always have my lens hood on. If you are shooting outdoor, skip the UV filter and use an ND or Polarizing filter.
I agree I have seen really bad flaring indoors, which all went away as soon as I removed the filter. I could see the difference right on the back of my mirrorless camera live. I have also seen vignetting because it made the lens longer. I once accidentally put a UV filter on top of a polarizer that made real bad vignetting. All this has put me off UV filters.
My conclusion: UV Filters Actually Do Ruin Your Images.
These myths are started by DxO mark circlejerk fanboys. They go on and on about how it'll ruin your images and say "why would you put a cheap piece of glass on your expensive lenses?" and copy/paste it on every photography forum they can find. It's for minor protection. Only an idiot would think the filter alone would stop damage from a real bang or drop. It's to keep stupid little mistakes from scratching your front element like a lens cap falling off in the bag and rubbing on other stuff in there or in my case, I have it on when shooting a Color Run or something with a lot of stuff flying around that could damage a lens. Used with a hood, it'll have extra protection. The only ones I'd really avoid are the super cheap ones that sometimes come free with other photography items. B&W are not really expensive but are great quality.
I agree. It's about protection for small scratches to chips and not for dropping .
UV filters may cause very bad reflections, be aware of that
do you also put filters on your glasses?
I do put a Polaroid sunglasses over my normal glasses, they act like a polariser and have UV protection.
Sometimes the reflections can look artistically good, I thought the wedding pic with the light reflections added to the atmosphere.
I use a multi-coated clear not UV filter. What are your thoughts about a clear Not UV filter, multi-coated
Hey Simon,
Using such a filter is a great idea, but again only part of the time, when you actually NEED the filter's protection. Otherwise, I'd rather have a lens hood and no filters.
Whatever works, it is subjective to the user
I've never bothered with them and never had any issues. And I clean my front element with my tshirt :O The horror! LOL
I shoot into the sun and strong light sources all the time so taking them on and off would be a pain in the ass.
Lastly light surfaces scratches rarely impact your image quality.
One way or another most quality lenses have 9 to 15 elements. I consider a lens filter as another lens element. If the filter is expensive like Zeiss with T* coatings then there isn't quality loss or lens flare. What is matter is not the filter's brand but the quality of it. Hoya have many UV filters and protective filters at various prices and qualities. In practice a 100$ filter on a 200$ kit lens is waste of money. But a top 200$ filter on 1500$ lens is an investment. UV filters are relics from the film era. UV is not a problem in modern digital image sensors. So many companies have introduced simply protective filters at various qualities and prices.
The lens hood instead doesn't helps only from lens flare. It protects lens during accidental hits. Cylindrical lens hood prevents accidental finger prints, and slowers the accumulation of dust on the lens. In the case of paparazzi the lens hood makes the lens more discreet and stop the reflection of the first element.
Sigma is now making a lens protector that is clear ceramic and supposed to be many times harder than a normal hardened glass UV filter.
Polycarbonate perfectly absorbs UV, only downside is that it has no AR coating but it's worth for low price. I'm myself actualy interested in UV photography so I would like opposite.
Ty for this advice, i just notices why my photo no clear as i want it. My be cz the bad uv filter. Thank you :)
Hi Bayu,
If you're shooting into the sun this could indeed be the problem, but I highly doubt that any clarity or vibrance issues are caused by a filter, if it's a good quality one. What type of conditions were you shooting in, and using which filter / lens combination?
hey matt,
im useing hoya UV with lens 11-16 tokina but i purchase 2 year ago and i had used again yasterday, i just notice that i had those lens. heheheh (sorry i use canon body 70d)
the condition is, wavy like shoreline of wave.i really dont know why the picture i had so aahgg not so clear. any suggest about the year i use or the condition past 2year for the lens and filter?
but thank you for this chennel and you matt :) hope be better person and had a gread picture :)
Bayu Bajra The age of the filter alone shouldn't cause it to need to be replaced, it's the wear-and-tear that will become obvious eventually. I've got plenty of old filters that I used for ~5 years and they didn't really start harming my images until year 4-5, then I retired them and got new ones.
And again, that's with me often not using them at all, yet also going on plenty of crazy adventures and being highly abusive of the filters, wiping them down with my T-shirt, etc.
Overall I'd say that's a pretty good lifespan, for having never had a scratched front element, ever, until I got a Rokinon 14mm of course, which can't accept front filters lol.
If you can't see visible scratches or haze on your filter, then it's probably fine to keep using. But, don't take my word for it, do a test! Shoot in an "easy lighting " condition, and shoot with 2-sec timer on a solid tripod with no wind, and see if you can tell the difference between with / without a filter. Then, try it again with the sun hitting the lens, and see what happens.
thank you for your amzing advice i will try it :) thank you very much.
A bit of history may help: UV filters are a throwback to the age of film where UV light could adversely affect a shot. They have no positive influence whatsoever on digital cameras because the sensors are not affected by UV light. The only positive purpose still left for a UV filter is that it protects your lens element in case of a fall. But this can be achieved by the lens hood as well, or even better.
If you have a cheap lens and a clean UV filter, you will probably never notice any adverse effects in your shots. But consider this: if you have a very good quality lens, why would you compromise your optics by placing what is likely to be an inferior piece of glass in front of it?
Mate, you sure are coldproof:)
clearly UV filters dont ruin The quality...........
www.dropbox.com/s/sk1uxb14ikc6b5s/UV.png?dl=0
You need to get your eyes checked. I saw a large difference in all your examples
Hi jl sc,
With all due respect to UA-cam, the compression of this video is terrible, so hopefully you're considering that?
Which examples are you talking about? The difference in the flare samples is obvious, but not so in any of the other samples. If you think you're seeing a difference in clarity in the Grand Canyon shot, I personally inspected dozens of test images with and without a filter, and unfortunately concluded that there was a bit of changing ambient brightness due to shifting clouds that may have caused a slight difference in the "punch" of the image,, but I wanted to include it anyway. If you take the non-video JPG images from the written article, and layer them in photoshop, you'll see that actual sharpness is the same. Plus, there are a couple other samples in the written portion of the article.
SLR Lounge | Photography Tutorials if its terrible for one, its terrible for all, so the difference would be the same either way. I just saw obvious differences in all your examples. To me the uv filters provide absolutely no usefulness whatsoever on todays digital cameras so there is no point to their use anyhow.
I'm not sure what you mean by "if it's terrible for one, it's terrible for all". Do you mean multiple sample images, or UA-cam compression?
What I'm saying is, I inspected dozens of images and did not see any difference, at least not one that was caused by adding a UV filter to the equation.
I did see differences however, and those were all caused by changing light, or camera shake, or (as I showed in the written article) an actual smudge on the UV filter itself.
You're far more likely to cause a faint reduction in sharpness for other reasons like diffraction or camera shake.
You're also more likely to cause a loss of clarity, color or overall contrast by shooting into the sun and creating horrible flare that would have ruined your images anyways.
If you personally have no use for a filter, that's great! You don't have to worry. I shoot many different kinkds of work on-location and in-studio that have me leaving all my filters home.
However for the photographers who do find themselves in nasty conditions where there is indeed great risk to their gear, at least having a filter at your is a very good thing.
Matthew Saville What I'm saying is youtube does not cause selective differences, it will change a video in total so if you have a difference visible in the images it will show in the video. Your point is valid except, if you need protection when you are getting to your site, keep it in your bag. You don't need protection when you are shooting. I dont see any reason to introduce a possible loss of clarity, color shifting or lens flare when you are shooting, it makes no sense. Just my opinion, why spend the money for something that serves no practical use. If you have the lens cap and hood on when you are carrying the camera, that makes more sense than a filter that would potentially ruin a good shot.