Filters: UV or Polarising

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Andrew Brydon, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Been recommended both UV filter and Polarising filter, both as
    alternatives for a semi-permanent attachment when outdoors.
    What are the pros and cons of each, and overall which would be the
    better choice? [Local shop only has circular polarisers, if it matters.]
    --
    Andrew Brydon
    Life is just the beta-version of death
     
    Andrew Brydon, Feb 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew Brydon

    Lucas Tam Guest

    Andrew Brydon <> wrote in news:m$7ysveB1DOAFwc6
    @isbjorn.demon.co.uk:

    > What are the pros and cons of each


    UV filters help remove the haze in the sky, helps with landscape
    photography. Personally I never noticed any increase in picture quality -
    probably due to the fact my camera already has a multi-coating on the
    lens. Most people use UV filters as a cheap lens protector.

    Polarizers are used to filter out certain wavelengths of lights, thus
    Polarizers have the ability to reduce glare and increase the saturation
    of blues and greens. A polarizer is great if you want to get a vivid blue
    sky or lush greens you see in photographs in magazines or posters. A
    polarizer can also be used to shoot photographs through glass or water by
    reducing reflection.

    In short, a UV filter is useful as a lens protector, a Polarizer makes
    your pictures pretty for landscape photography (because there are a lot
    of blues/greens in nature).

    p.s. some digital cameras may have some internal polarizing... like the
    Canon S400. The Canon S400 seems to produce some VERY nice blue skies...
    which I don't see on my Fuji S602. On my Fuji, I need a polarizer to
    create the same blue sky effect as my S400.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
     
    Lucas Tam, Feb 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew Brydon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns949789969473nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:50:47
    GMT, Lucas Tam <> wrote:

    >Andrew Brydon <> wrote in news:m$7ysveB1DOAFwc6
    >@isbjorn.demon.co.uk:
    >
    >> What are the pros and cons of each

    >
    >UV filters help remove the haze in the sky, helps with landscape
    >photography. Personally I never noticed any increase in picture quality -
    >probably due to the fact my camera already has a multi-coating on the
    >lens. Most people use UV filters as a cheap lens protector.
    >
    >Polarizers are used to filter out certain wavelengths of lights, thus
    >Polarizers have the ability to reduce glare and increase the saturation
    >of blues and greens. A polarizer is great if you want to get a vivid blue
    >sky or lush greens you see in photographs in magazines or posters. A
    >polarizer can also be used to shoot photographs through glass or water by
    >reducing reflection.
    >
    >In short, a UV filter is useful as a lens protector, a Polarizer makes
    >your pictures pretty for landscape photography (because there are a lot
    >of blues/greens in nature).


    A polarizer has a light loss of almost 2 stops, whereas a UV filter has
    essentially no light loss.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Feb 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Andrew Brydon

    GLC1173 Guest

    Andrew wrote:
    >Been recommended both UV filter and >Polarising filter, both as
    >alternatives for a semi-permanent >attachment when outdoors.
    >What are the pros and cons of each, and >overall which would be the
    >better choice?


    If it's just to protect the front lens, get the UV filter. It won't alter
    the photo - but the polarizing filter sure would.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    <B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, nationwide weather
    <I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
    official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>
     
    GLC1173, Feb 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Andrew Brydon

    Jeffrey Guest

    "Lucas Tam" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns949789969473nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    ....
    > Polarizers are used to filter out certain wavelengths of lights, thus
    > Polarizers have the ability to reduce glare and increase the saturation
    > of blues and greens. ...


    My understanding is that, Polorisers only allows light to go through the
    filter that has a certain polarity (depending upon the orientation of the
    filter), so it is good for removing glare (that light apparenly has waves
    with all different polarities). I did not understand that they also
    filtered out certain wavelenghts, but you are corect that they do increase
    the saturations of blues and greens (but I do not quite understand why).

    Jeffrey
     
    Jeffrey, Feb 22, 2004
    #5
  6. Andrew Brydon

    AArDvarK Guest

    A polarizer I recommend not, for the same reasons mentioned
    previously in this thread ... and I think a UV would do nothing
    other than protect the front element, UV factor possibly being
    useless for a digital ccd ... my favorite idea is a 'sky 1A' which
    will do two jobs, cancel out atmospheric blue hues on distant
    objects such as mountains as well as protect, some examples:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/26181857
    http://www.pbase.com/image/25833021
    http://www.pbase.com/image/25288161
    http://www.pbase.com/image/25288050
    http://www.pbase.com/image/26082645

    Alex

    "Andrew Brydon" <> wrote in message news:m$...
    >
    > Been recommended both UV filter and Polarising filter, both as
    > alternatives for a semi-permanent attachment when outdoors.
    > What are the pros and cons of each, and overall which would be the
    > better choice? [Local shop only has circular polarisers, if it matters.]
    > --
    > Andrew Brydon
    > Life is just the beta-version of death
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 22, 2004
    #6
  7. Andrew Brydon

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Jeffrey" <> wrote in
    news:4038601e$0$5870$:

    >
    > "Lucas Tam" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns949789969473nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    > ...
    >> Polarizers are used to filter out certain wavelengths of lights, thus
    >> Polarizers have the ability to reduce glare and increase the
    >> saturation of blues and greens. ...

    >
    > My understanding is that, Polorisers only allows light to go through
    > the filter that has a certain polarity (depending upon the orientation
    > of the filter), so it is good for removing glare



    You're probably more correct in saying the polarizer filters out certain
    refractions of light. I made the post quite late and couldn't think of
    the right word.

    Found this article online:

    http://www.mindspring.com/~dmerriman/Polawrk.htm

    I'm not sure how accurate it is, but seems to explain how polarizers
    work.


    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
     
    Lucas Tam, Feb 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Andrew Brydon wrote:
    > Been recommended both UV filter and Polarising filter, both as
    > alternatives for a semi-permanent attachment when outdoors.
    > What are the pros and cons of each, and overall which would be the
    > better choice? [Local shop only has circular polarisers, if it
    > matters.]


    Polarizing filters should NOT be used on a regular bases. They make
    changes to the recorded image that you may or may not like. They also
    reduce the total amount of light reaching the sensor by a significant
    amount. They are the filter I would consider the most useful to the digital
    photographer as you can't reproduce the effect after the exposure, but you
    don't want them all the time. Circular polarizers are required for some
    cameras to assure the automatic systems work properly.

    UV filters filter out UV and, depending on the filter, some visible
    light in the blue range. Based on what I have been told and from my own
    quick experiments, digital cameras by nature have very little if any
    sensitivity to UV light.

    Most people who own UV filters have little or no idea what they really
    do. They use them not for their filtering effect, but because the want to
    "protect" the lens.

    In the real world, very little reduction in image quality will be caused
    by the additional glass. UV filters are easier to find and cheaper than
    plain glass.

    Also in the real world there is very little to fear from meaningful
    accidental damage to a lens under normal situations. A small scratch or
    nick on a lens really does almost nothing to the capabilities of the lens.
    While there may be some loss of resale value due to a scratch, with
    digitals, even a two year old camera is so far out of date that resale value
    is not a real issue. SLR's with interchangeable cameras are an exception

    I would have to say that much more is paid for UV filters every year,
    than value lost by scratches etc.

    In short, if it makes you feel good to use one, do it and don't feel
    bad, if it makes you feel good not to use one, then don't and don't worry.

    Personally I don't wear suspenders and a belt, I often don't even wear
    either. ;-)



    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 22, 2004
    #8
  9. "Jeffrey" <> wrote in message
    news:4038601e$0$5870$...
    >
    > "Lucas Tam" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns949789969473nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    > ...
    > > Polarizers are used to filter out certain wavelengths of lights, thus
    > > Polarizers have the ability to reduce glare and increase the saturation
    > > of blues and greens. ...

    >
    > My understanding is that, Polorisers only allows light to go through the
    > filter that has a certain polarity (depending upon the orientation of the
    > filter), so it is good for removing glare (that light apparenly has waves
    > with all different polarities). I did not understand that they also
    > filtered out certain wavelenghts, but you are corect that they do increase
    > the saturations of blues and greens (but I do not quite understand why).


    They shouldn't filter out any colours, unless you are using a really cheap
    filter. What you are seeing is that the sky 90 degrees from the sun
    position is mostly polarised light, and the light reflecting off leaves and
    water is polarised. Hence the polariser affects the colours and makes them
    stand out or subdue, depending upon the angle of the polarised light
    compared to the polariser.

    Regards,
    Aaron Queenan.
     
    Aaron Queenan, Feb 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Andrew Brydon

    Guest

    In message <4038601e$0$5870$>,
    "Jeffrey" <> wrote:

    >I did not understand that they also
    >filtered out certain wavelenghts,


    If you understood that, you would understand wrong.

    They may be frequency-selective outside the visible light spectrum, but
    within it, they are pretty neutral.

    >but you are corect that they do increase
    >the saturations of blues and greens (but I do not quite understand why).


    That's only because green leaves, sky, and water are the most likely
    things to have glare. The glare color is dependent mainly on the color
    of the light source, so if you have a highly saturated bject, and it has
    white glare on it, it will reduce the contrast of the detail, and the
    saturation. A polarizer helps see the object itself, underneath the
    glare.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Feb 23, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter  Billinghurst

    Polarising filters

    Peter Billinghurst, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    337
    Paul H.
    Sep 4, 2003
  2. Ian Bull

    Polarising Filters for Canon Cameras

    Ian Bull, Jul 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    423
    David Littlewood
    Jul 28, 2004
  3. jslevin

    Digital photography and polarising filters?

    jslevin, Jun 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    413
    Frank ess
    Jun 10, 2005
  4. Geoff. Hayward

    Circular Polarising Filters

    Geoff. Hayward, Apr 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    546
    Bryan Olson
    May 26, 2006
  5. Jeff R.

    Re: crossed polarising filters to reduce light?

    Jeff R., May 14, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    456
    George Anderson
    May 20, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page