Filter question...

[Axel]

I have already purchased an UV filter. Now I see that there is a HOYA 52mm SKYLIGHT(1B) FILTER that seems to be interesting. What I wonder about though is if that is very different from the UV filter that I already have? I mean, should I "invest" (not much of an investment honestly) in this Skylight filter or go with something else that may make more of a difference. I want to have filters for all situations, so it is not a specific filter I'm looking for, but filters in general.

Thanks

 

[santino]

I wouldn't get myself an Skylightfilter if I had an UV already. IMO there is no real difference, what about an polarizing filter? they are great

 

[Canon Fan]

I agree with Santino. If you have the UV already I see no real need for the Skylight. A polarizer is a good idea if you shoot outdoorsy stuff alot also might look into some graduated ND filters.

BTW: 2 types of polarizers- Cricular works for auto and manual focus lenses, Linear is for manual focus lenses only (except for auto focus with non-rotating style front element, I think)

 

[motcon]

if i remember correctly, you are shooting b&w. i am not the original author of this document and the site where it was hosted (years ago) has died so i'll post it:

http://motionless-continuum.com/tpf/filters.htm

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Skylight and UV filters are the same thing - but they only work for colour and then only in situations where there is a lot of UV (early morning, altitude, snow - that kind of thing). Their main use is to protect your front lens element from harm but then they are another layer of glass to cause problems.
Polarisers are generally for colour use. They cut down specular reflections and darken the sky in specific circumstances. The effect is not very noticeable in BW. Useful to drop exposure by 2-3 stops if you have the wrong speed film in.

 

[motcon]

Polarisers are generally for colour use. They cut down specular reflections and darken the sky in specific circumstances. The effect is not very noticeable in BW. Useful to drop exposure by 2-3 stops if you have the wrong speed film in.

actually, they have a significant effect w/black and white film:

compare first row, first column image to second row, second column image.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Significant? They have pretty much the same effect as any other BW filter - they just push up the contrast.
But if you notice the sun in those pics is almost at right angles to the lens. This gives maximum polarised light in the sky so the poly filter will work to the max.
If the sun was head on or behind you the polarising effect would be near enough zip. This is not the case with the other filters. Try it for yourself.
Perhaps I should have said 'limited usefulness'?

 

[motcon]

Perhaps I should have said 'limited usefulness'?

perhaps.

it took zone 1 and moved it to 3 and zones 9/10 down to 7 or so. that kind of compression of the dynamic range is significant.

and i have tried it for myself. i speak nothing of which i haven't done.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

As I have said: polarisers work only under certain circumstances. Try using them on a dull, overcast day or when the sun isn't at right angles. You won't get anything like that sort of contrast.
But we could argue this all week. There are no rights and wrongs only things that work and things that don't and if polarisers work for you then I'm happy. Let's leave it there.
I only know that in over 20 years of being a professional photographer I have only needed to use a polariser twice.
I speak of nothing I haven't been paid to do ;-)

 

[ksmattfish]

I use a pol with BW. Besides darkening the sky, it removes glare from foliage, water, glass... A red #25 darkens the green foliage also, but not if it's all washed out with bright glare. Also, if you wanted a really, really dark sky you could stack a pol and a #25.

A skylight filter is a slightly warm UV filter. Put a UV filter on a white piece of paper, and it's usually pretty much clear. Put a skylight filter on a white piece of paper, and it's a little pink. I believe it's called a skylight filter because the slight warm cast is to offset the blue cast caused by light at the blue end of the spectrum bouncing around a lot more than the light at the red end of the spectrum (that's why the sky is blue) making the light in shade and shadows cooler.

It's also useful for dealing with the blue cast of electronic flash.

You can get warming filters that have more of an effect than a skylight filters.

 

[motcon]

As I have said: polarisers work only under certain circumstances. Try using them on a dull, overcast day or when the sun isn't at right angles. You won't get anything like that sort of contrast.
But we could argue this all week. There are no rights and wrongs only things that work and things that don't and if polarisers work for you then I'm happy. Let's leave it there.
I only know that in over 20 years of being a professional photographer I have only needed to use a polariser twice.
I speak of nothing I haven't been paid to do ;-)

as i've said; i have used them under those circumstances with noticable effect on the negative.

so we leave it there.

and i'll be happy to discuss your 'years of professional photography and experience' via email if you'd like; i don't think it would add much to the genesis of this thread.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

And maybe you could tell me all about what you've done ;-)

 

[Jamie R]

The tooth fairy ain't gonna be too kind either if you don't shake hands and make up.

You're probably both right

Polarisers are over-rated in colour work. Since Axel is asking about UV versus Skylight filters for universal use, I'd chip in that I prefer UV filters: the pink cast which skylight filters introduce in saturated filters isn't something I particularly warm to.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Fair point Jamie R. I stand chastened and penitent.
As for UV v Skylight - at the risk of starting another war I never used either and don't know a professional who does on a regular basis. The objection is that the what they keep out is less noticeable than what they add. And they certainly add another layer of glass for flare and fingerprints and dirt. But we all have our likes and dislikes and if it works for you then go with it
(ps hardly have anything left for the tooth fairy... :-( )

 

[Jamie R]

Hi Hertz,

I think you're spot on again: shooting without any filters is a much cleaner way forward for a photographer. Unfortunately some of us aren't very good at keeping our equipment clean (someone else has a whole thread devoted to why pro' photographers batter their gear

Best wishes,