UVFilters & Hoods

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by William J. Burlingame, May 22, 2006.

  1. I have read a lot of threads about the effects of UV filters. Everyone
    seems to have an opinion. I've been using a Quantaray UV filter on my
    Konica-Minolta Dimage A200 camera. I've kept it on because I thought
    it protect the lens and have no negative results on my shots. I took
    a lot of pictures recently where the subject was in the shade and I
    was facing into the sun on a clear day. The results were terrible.
    I've never bothered with a hood and didn't have it with me.

    I decided to experiment with the UV filter on and off and with the
    hood. I posted the results at:

    http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wjburl/album?.dir=/a580re2&.src=ph

    One shot was with neither the UV filter or hood, one with both, one
    with only the filter and one with only the hood. The location was at
    home rather where I took the shots that displeased me (at an outdoor
    bluegrass festival where the stage faced east). These were taken
    about 2:30 PM and I was facing a little south of west. The shots were
    taken as quickly as I could change the filter or hood. The
    differences are very discernable.

    I resized the pics to 800x600 and added the notations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
    amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
    to send me a message.

    Bill Burlingame
    William J. Burlingame, May 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. William J. Burlingame

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <>,
    William J. Burlingame <> wrote:

    > I have read a lot of threads about the effects of UV filters. Everyone
    > seems to have an opinion. I've been using a Quantaray UV filter on my
    > Konica-Minolta Dimage A200 camera. I've kept it on because I thought
    > it protect the lens and have no negative results on my shots. I took
    > a lot of pictures recently where the subject was in the shade and I
    > was facing into the sun on a clear day. The results were terrible.
    > I've never bothered with a hood and didn't have it with me.
    >
    > I decided to experiment with the UV filter on and off and with the
    > hood. I posted the results at:
    >
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wjburl/album?.dir=/a580re2&.src=ph
    >
    > One shot was with neither the UV filter or hood, one with both, one
    > with only the filter and one with only the hood. The location was at
    > home rather where I took the shots that displeased me (at an outdoor
    > bluegrass festival where the stage faced east). These were taken
    > about 2:30 PM and I was facing a little south of west. The shots were
    > taken as quickly as I could change the filter or hood. The
    > differences are very discernable.
    >
    > I resized the pics to 800x600 and added the notations.
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
    > amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
    > to send me a message.
    >
    > Bill Burlingame


    Whenever you are shooting into the sun or a spectral it is very
    important that you use a properly made multi coated quality filter as
    well as a hood to minimize or eliminate flare. As you did neither in the
    shots on your page some flare is in the images. You should as a first
    step get rid of your house brand OEM filter and put a high end multi
    coated filter on your camera.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, May 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:50:21 -0400, Bob Salomon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > William J. Burlingame <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have read a lot of threads about the effects of UV filters. Everyone
    >> seems to have an opinion. I've been using a Quantaray UV filter on my
    >> Konica-Minolta Dimage A200 camera. I've kept it on because I thought
    >> it protect the lens and have no negative results on my shots. I took
    >> a lot of pictures recently where the subject was in the shade and I
    >> was facing into the sun on a clear day. The results were terrible.
    >> I've never bothered with a hood and didn't have it with me.
    >>
    >> I decided to experiment with the UV filter on and off and with the
    >> hood. I posted the results at:
    >>
    >> http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wjburl/album?.dir=/a580re2&.src=ph
    >>
    >> One shot was with neither the UV filter or hood, one with both, one
    >> with only the filter and one with only the hood. The location was at
    >> home rather where I took the shots that displeased me (at an outdoor
    >> bluegrass festival where the stage faced east). These were taken
    >> about 2:30 PM and I was facing a little south of west. The shots were
    >> taken as quickly as I could change the filter or hood. The
    >> differences are very discernable.
    >>
    >> I resized the pics to 800x600 and added the notations.
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
    >> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
    >> to send me a message.
    >>
    >> Bill Burlingame

    >
    >Whenever you are shooting into the sun or a spectral it is very
    >important that you use a properly made multi coated quality filter as
    >well as a hood to minimize or eliminate flare. As you did neither in the
    >shots on your page some flare is in the images. You should as a first
    >step get rid of your house brand OEM filter and put a high end multi
    >coated filter on your camera.


    It looks like I was using the worst case. A cheap filter and no hood.
    Even with my cheap filter, it wasn't bad with the hood. I had never
    bothered with the hood before, but I've not been is a position where
    it was a big problem.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
    amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
    to send me a message.

    Bill Burlingame
    William J. Burlingame, May 22, 2006
    #3
  4. In article <>, William J.
    Burlingame <> wrote:

    > I have read a lot of threads about the effects of UV filters. Everyone
    > seems to have an opinion. I've been using a Quantaray UV filter on my
    > Konica-Minolta Dimage A200 camera. I've kept it on because I thought
    > it protect the lens and have no negative results on my shots. I took
    > a lot of pictures recently where the subject was in the shade and I
    > was facing into the sun on a clear day. The results were terrible.
    > I've never bothered with a hood and didn't have it with me.


    Mistake #1 - Quantaray...
    Randall Ainsworth, May 23, 2006
    #4
  5. William J. Burlingame

    Matt Ion Guest

    William J. Burlingame wrote:
    > I have read a lot of threads about the effects of UV filters. Everyone
    > seems to have an opinion. I've been using a Quantaray UV filter on my
    > Konica-Minolta Dimage A200 camera. I've kept it on because I thought
    > it protect the lens and have no negative results on my shots. I took
    > a lot of pictures recently where the subject was in the shade and I
    > was facing into the sun on a clear day. The results were terrible.
    > I've never bothered with a hood and didn't have it with me.
    >
    > I decided to experiment with the UV filter on and off and with the
    > hood. I posted the results at:
    >
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wjburl/album?.dir=/a580re2&.src=ph
    >
    > One shot was with neither the UV filter or hood, one with both, one
    > with only the filter and one with only the hood. The location was at
    > home rather where I took the shots that displeased me (at an outdoor
    > bluegrass festival where the stage faced east). These were taken
    > about 2:30 PM and I was facing a little south of west. The shots were
    > taken as quickly as I could change the filter or hood. The
    > differences are very discernable.
    >
    > I resized the pics to 800x600 and added the notations.
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
    > amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
    > to send me a message.


    You should put all four pictures into a grid for easier comparison.

    Also, were they all shot with the same exposure settings?


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0621-1, 05/22/2006
    Tested on: 5/22/2006 8:38:26 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
    Matt Ion, May 23, 2006
    #5
  6. On Tue, 23 May 2006 03:38:27 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    wrote:

    >William J. Burlingame wrote:
    >> I have read a lot of threads about the effects of UV filters. Everyone
    >> seems to have an opinion. I've been using a Quantaray UV filter on my
    >> Konica-Minolta Dimage A200 camera. I've kept it on because I thought
    >> it protect the lens and have no negative results on my shots. I took
    >> a lot of pictures recently where the subject was in the shade and I
    >> was facing into the sun on a clear day. The results were terrible.
    >> I've never bothered with a hood and didn't have it with me.
    >>
    >> I decided to experiment with the UV filter on and off and with the
    >> hood. I posted the results at:
    >>
    >> http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wjburl/album?.dir=/a580re2&.src=ph
    >>
    >> One shot was with neither the UV filter or hood, one with both, one
    >> with only the filter and one with only the hood. The location was at
    >> home rather where I took the shots that displeased me (at an outdoor
    >> bluegrass festival where the stage faced east). These were taken
    >> about 2:30 PM and I was facing a little south of west. The shots were
    >> taken as quickly as I could change the filter or hood. The
    >> differences are very discernable.
    >>
    >> I resized the pics to 800x600 and added the notations.
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
    >> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
    >> to send me a message.

    >
    >You should put all four pictures into a grid for easier comparison.
    >
    >Also, were they all shot with the same exposure settings?
    >
    >
    >---
    >avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    >Virus Database (VPS): 0621-1, 05/22/2006
    >Tested on: 5/22/2006 8:38:26 PM
    >avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
    >http://www.avast.com
    >
    >

    All were shot with auto settings. I don't know if the camera had to
    change the exposure settings to compensate for the filter and hood or
    not. It's something I didn't think about when I took the pictures.
    Since they were all taken within seconds, and it was a clear sky, I
    doubt that the natural lighting changed noticeably. I take most of my
    pictures in the auto setting mode.

    Sorry about the individual pictures. I view the pictures with MS's
    viewer that's included with XP. When I cycle through the set with the
    viewer, the differences are really apparent. I can see your point
    about having all on a single page. I printed them that way.

    I only posted them because I've read so many messages from people who
    claim that a UV filter has no effect on the shots and I wanted to
    demonstrate that there are differences. Of course, the most dramatic
    change is with a hood.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
    amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
    to send me a message.

    Bill Burlingame
    William J. Burlingame, May 23, 2006
    #6
  7. William J. Burlingame

    Matt Ion Guest

    William J. Burlingame wrote:

    >>You should put all four pictures into a grid for easier comparison.
    >>
    >>Also, were they all shot with the same exposure settings?
    >>

    > All were shot with auto settings. I don't know if the camera had to
    > change the exposure settings to compensate for the filter and hood or
    > not. It's something I didn't think about when I took the pictures.
    > Since they were all taken within seconds, and it was a clear sky, I
    > doubt that the natural lighting changed noticeably. I take most of my
    > pictures in the auto setting mode.


    Yeah, problem is, if the filter significantly affects a large area of
    the image, it could affect the exposure, and it makes for a poor
    comparison. For example, if the filter caused the trees to appear darker
    (not that it did, I'm just postulating something that would illustrate
    the problem well), it could cause the camera's AE to increase the
    exposure, which would then make everything brighter. That would not
    provide a realistic example of the filter's effect; it would make it
    appear as if the filter actually brightened the scene, rather than
    demonstrating how it darkens the trees.

    > Sorry about the individual pictures. I view the pictures with MS's
    > viewer that's included with XP. When I cycle through the set with the
    > viewer, the differences are really apparent. I can see your point
    > about having all on a single page. I printed them that way.


    Well it's harder with the online view because there's a delay when
    switching from one to the next... plus having to step sequentially, it's
    easy to compare, say, #1 to #2, #2 to #3, etc., but nearly impossible to
    properly compare #1 with #3.

    > I only posted them because I've read so many messages from people who
    > claim that a UV filter has no effect on the shots and I wanted to
    > demonstrate that there are differences. Of course, the most dramatic
    > change is with a hood.


    Well, in that situation, anyway, probably mostly because of the bright
    surrounding light... but then you get the same thing, if that light is
    affecting the exposure reading, adding the hood would cut it down and
    likely produce a higher exposure, which then lightens everything up and
    misrepresents what effect the hood is actually having.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0621-3, 05/24/2006
    Tested on: 5/24/2006 5:06:42 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
    Matt Ion, May 25, 2006
    #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. Alan F Cross

    Time for a new range of lens hoods?

    Alan F Cross, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    324
    Alan F Cross
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. Leonard

    Lens hoods for dSLR

    Leonard, Oct 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    348
    Leonard
    Oct 23, 2003
  3. Steve Chesney

    Does anyone use lens hoods with digital cameras?

    Steve Chesney, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    341
    Simon Gardner
    Jun 24, 2004
  4. PSsquare

    LCD Hoods

    PSsquare, Mar 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    639
    Lisa Horton
    Mar 30, 2005
  5. Bernard Rother

    RE: Lens Petal Hoods - Reasons ?

    Bernard Rother, Jun 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    290
    george
    Jun 1, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page