UV Sensitive???

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joseph Meehan, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. Not long ago I replied to a thread on the question of digital
    sensitivity to UV light as it related to using UV filters. That message and
    thread seems to have rolled off my server.

    In my message I voiced the opinion that digital cameras might respond
    differently to UV vs. clear filters. I went on to say I would try and do
    some test.

    Today I have completed those test and I can say that it appears I was
    wrong. At least with my camera my test did not show any visible difference
    under conditions I would expect to see them. While more careful test,
    might show some difference and it is possible that some digital cameras may
    differ in their response, I believe that for today's digital cameras, it is
    not likely that there is any photographic difference between the two
    filters.

    So to the writer who told me he thought I was wrong, thank you. I now
    know a little more about digital photography.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joseph Meehan

    agent yelow Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > Not long ago I replied to a thread on the question of digital
    > sensitivity to UV light as it related to using UV filters. That message and
    > thread seems to have rolled off my server.
    >
    > In my message I voiced the opinion that digital cameras might respond
    > differently to UV vs. clear filters. I went on to say I would try and do
    > some test.
    >
    > Today I have completed those test and I can say that it appears I was
    > wrong. At least with my camera my test did not show any visible difference
    > under conditions I would expect to see them. While more careful test,
    > might show some difference and it is possible that some digital cameras may
    > differ in their response, I believe that for today's digital cameras, it is
    > not likely that there is any photographic difference between the two
    > filters.
    >
    > So to the writer who told me he thought I was wrong, thank you. I now
    > know a little more about digital photography.
    >


    it must have been that irish math that threw you off
     
    agent yelow, Jan 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joseph Meehan

    JMooreTS Guest

    >it must have been that irish math that threw you off

    I miss the joke in the Irish math. Could someon explain or give me a hint?

    Thanks,

    John
     
    JMooreTS, Jan 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Joseph Meehan

    Bobs Guest

    On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:47:14 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
    <> wrote:

    > Not long ago I replied to a thread on the question of digital
    >sensitivity to UV light as it related to using UV filters. That message and
    >thread seems to have rolled off my server.
    >
    > In my message I voiced the opinion that digital cameras might respond
    >differently to UV vs. clear filters. I went on to say I would try and do
    >some test.
    >
    > Today I have completed those test and I can say that it appears I was
    >wrong. At least with my camera my test did not show any visible difference
    >under conditions I would expect to see them. While more careful test,
    >might show some difference and it is possible that some digital cameras may
    >differ in their response, I believe that for today's digital cameras, it is
    >not likely that there is any photographic difference between the two
    >filters.
    >
    > So to the writer who told me he thought I was wrong, thank you. I now
    >know a little more about digital photography.


    Do be aware that most digicams have some residual sensitivity to near
    UV, and this can be exploited by use of special UV pass filters. It
    is doubtful that quartz lenses would be of benefit, since the CCD's
    sensitivity to UV is limited to just beyond the visible, where
    conventional lenses are often reasonably transparent. For those who
    are interested in experimenting with this and have digicams with
    interchangeable lenses, if you can adapt any of various enlarging
    lenses such as the Schneider Componon to your mount somehow, they are
    quite efficient at near UV.
     
    Bobs, Jan 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Joseph Meehan

    gr Guest

    "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote
    > Not long ago I replied to a thread on the question of digital
    > sensitivity to UV light as it related to using UV filters. That message

    and
    > thread seems to have rolled off my server.
    >
    > So to the writer who told me he thought I was wrong, thank you. I now
    > know a little more about digital photography.


    I'm always happy to tell someone they're wrong. You're welcome.
     
    gr, Jan 9, 2004
    #5
  6. 26 Counties of the Republic (The South) and 6 Counties of the North
    equal one whole country, people and island as it was before the English
    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    Dia's Muire duit


    "JMooreTS" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >it must have been that irish math that threw you off

    >
    > I miss the joke in the Irish math. Could someon explain or give me a

    hint?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > John
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Joseph Meehan

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Silicon photodetectors (used in CCD and CMOS cameras) are far less
    sensitive to UV than film. Silicon photodetectivity is maximum in red
    and near IR, minimum in blue. Film was other way around. Earliest
    films were completely insensitive to red. In fact, printing PAPER still
    is, which is why darkroom safelights are red. So film shows a big
    difference (depending somewhat on what film) with UV and Skylight
    filters, digicams much less so.

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >
    > Not long ago I replied to a thread on the question of digital
    > sensitivity to UV light as it related to using UV filters. That message and
    > thread seems to have rolled off my server.
    >
    > In my message I voiced the opinion that digital cameras might respond
    > differently to UV vs. clear filters. I went on to say I would try and do
    > some test.
    >
    > Today I have completed those test and I can say that it appears I was
    > wrong. At least with my camera my test did not show any visible difference
    > under conditions I would expect to see them. While more careful test,
    > might show some difference and it is possible that some digital cameras may
    > differ in their response, I believe that for today's digital cameras, it is
    > not likely that there is any photographic difference between the two
    > filters.
    >
    > So to the writer who told me he thought I was wrong, thank you. I now
    > know a little more about digital photography.
    >
    > --
    > Joseph E. Meehan
    >
    > 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Jan 10, 2004
    #7
    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. Terje
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    407
  2. Jimmy Dean

    Is WinXP more driver sensitive than 98SE or Me?

    Jimmy Dean, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    469
    Greg M
    Dec 8, 2003
  3. Alex Vinokur

    Too sensitive mouse

    Alex Vinokur, Mar 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    8,032
  4. info

    Time Sensitive Vivitar Help Request

    info, Nov 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    579
    George
    Nov 30, 2003
  5. Ted LeSueur

    Federal Mandated Sensitive Data Elements

    Ted LeSueur, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    930
    Ted LeSueur
    Jul 11, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page