What's new

Saw these filters and just thought id ask...

No. Those are the one the author was talking about.
Yes, they are. Did you even read it? You even highlighted the relevant part in red...
a tease:
"Exposures for digital UV photography are often handled well by the camera itself, just as we found for digital IR. However, take extreme care to ensure that no stray light can enter through the camera's ocular. Use the eye-piece shutter to guard against this, or if your camera lacks such feature, cover the ocular by your hand or black cloth. Since the UV levels are much lower than ordinary light, the metering system is guaranteed to be thrown out of whack unless you take these precautions. ​
Some cameras, in particular Nikon D100, needs a substantial +EV correction to be dialed in as well. Similar to the IR case, you should check that the LCD histogram displays really useful information. If the CCD records little in the green channel for the UV pictures, the histogram will indicate a severe underexposure, while in fact the image may be properly exposed for UV. You have to examine the entire RGB-histogram in a suitable computer program (Bibble, Nikon Capture, Adobe Photoshop etc.) to make sure your exposures are spot on.​
Compared with visual-light shooting, you can expect any kind of UV photography to give from 6 up to 15 stops longer exposures, so by necessity a tripod should be used. The apparent loss of film/digital sensitivity is largely caused by UV intensity itself being so much lower than visible light levels, but a further loss occur due to lens and the recording media (film or digital sensors). With my UV-Nikkor lens, I find the digital UV correction to range from +4 to +6.5 EV, which in fact is quite similar to that of film-based UV photography. However, for non-quartz lenses you would expect quite higher correction factors than this. Stacking the UV bandpass filter(s) with a hot-mirror filter also gives a penalty measured in a higher factor, thus typically 1- 2 EV should be added.​
One might end up with excessively long exposures, so digital noise is likely degrading the images. If your camera has a noise-reduction feature, ensure it is switched on before shooting UV.​
 
Either you didn't read it, or you didn't know what they were talking about...

If you read it, there is no doubt that they are talking about a UV PASS filter, NOT the UV BLOCKING filters that are commonly used for protection (which is what the OP was talking about - and what most people here would think of when you say 'uv filter').

There are two types of UV filter...

The blocking filter that is commonly used for lens protection, and the passing filter that blocks all visible light and only lets UV through.

Read that excerpt again and decide which one they're talking about.

The UV blocking filter is largely made obsolete by today's digital technology. The UV passing filter is still the only way to get UV photographs (that is, photos where the only light source is UV).

Take a standard UV filter... You can see through it... Explain to me how a filter that you can see through is blocking all visible light like that excerpt says...
(OK, they don't actually say it, but it's implied. I think it's quite obvious what they're talking about...)

They also mention quartz lenses, which are pretty much only used for UV photography... (and expensive as hell, btw.)

But modern DSLR lenses already have UV coatings and the camera sensor itself has a UV filter in front of it.
Not to mention that GLASS (yes, the stuff your lens is made out of) absorbs UV light... That's why they use quartz lenses for UV photography.
 
Last edited:
No. Those are the one the author was talking about.
Yes, they are. Did you even read it? You even highlighted the relevant part in red...
a tease:
"Exposures for digital UV photography are often handled well by the camera itself, just as we found for digital IR. However, take extreme care to ensure that no stray light can enter through the camera's ocular. Use the eye-piece shutter to guard against this, or if your camera lacks such feature, cover the ocular by your hand or black cloth. Since the UV levels are much lower than ordinary light, the metering system is guaranteed to be thrown out of whack unless you take these precautions. ​
Some cameras, in particular Nikon D100, needs a substantial +EV correction to be dialed in as well. Similar to the IR case, you should check that the LCD histogram displays really useful information. If the CCD records little in the green channel for the UV pictures, the histogram will indicate a severe underexposure, while in fact the image may be properly exposed for UV. You have to examine the entire RGB-histogram in a suitable computer program (Bibble, Nikon Capture, Adobe Photoshop etc.) to make sure your exposures are spot on.​
Compared with visual-light shooting, you can expect any kind of UV photography to give from 6 up to 15 stops longer exposures, so by necessity a tripod should be used. The apparent loss of film/digital sensitivity is largely caused by UV intensity itself being so much lower than visible light levels, but a further loss occur due to lens and the recording media (film or digital sensors). With my UV-Nikkor lens, I find the digital UV correction to range from +4 to +6.5 EV, which in fact is quite similar to that of film-based UV photography. However, for non-quartz lenses you would expect quite higher correction factors than this. Stacking the UV bandpass filter(s) with a hot-mirror filter also gives a penalty measured in a higher factor, thus typically 1- 2 EV should be added.​
One might end up with excessively long exposures, so digital noise is likely degrading the images. If your camera has a noise-reduction feature, ensure it is switched on before shooting UV.​

Let this be a lesson for the beginners on this forum. The arrogant self important argumentative lens caps (I'm being restrained) are not here to read, understand or interact responsibly.

"Did you even read it? You even highlighted the relevant part in red..."

O|||||||O;2134863 Um, had you went to the link you would notice the the author highlighted in red not me. Why don't you do us all a favor a just duct tape the accusatory mouth shut. Oh, wait you will simply make your antagonistic accusations with the key board. Oh. well duct tape the mouth anyway.

The author is talking about maximizing UV impact and eliminating visible light which would throw the sensor out of whack if visible light gets in when trying to expose for UV.
He said "Exposures for digital UV photography "
he did not say
Exposures in spite of l UV in digital photography

I'll send you the duct tape if you don't have any.
 
Either you didn't read it, or you didn't know what they were talking about...

If you read it, th........

The UV blocking filter is largely made obsolete by today's digital technology. The UV passing filter is still the o....... That's why they use quartz lenses for UV photography.


"The UV blocking filter is largely made obsolete by today's digital technology."

This is wrong if using film with the digital darkroom. It is maybe correct with a digital camera. But again I have not found authoritative writing on the subject telling me that all digital cameras bar none have zero need for a UV filter. You are certainly not a good source since you have reading problems. (see my post #18 about your claim that I highlighted in red) So obviously you can't be trusted to accurately relay information.

ORIGINAL LINK SAYS (IN RED CLAIM) "Firstly, the CCD records not only ultra-violet (UV) rays like an ordinary film,"
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev02.html#top_page

Nikon USA page says

"UV FilterA filter that eliminates invisible ultraviolet light, rendering pictures with higher contrast. This filter can be left on the lens as a lens protector."
http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Glossary/U/1/Nikon-Standard.html
I would think that Nikon might mention that their glorious, wonderful (sales pitch glitz and glamor) has eliminated the need for UV filters freeing the photographer blah, blah so buy Nikon today! I would think that they might mention it somewhere.

Filters for Digital Cameras

• You are here: BobAtkins.com > photography > tutorials > This Page

So the first type of filter you really don't need for digital is a color modification filter. These would be warming filters like the Hoya 81 series or the Tiffen 812, cooling filters like the 82 series and fluorescent-daylight conversion filters.
So which filters do you need for digital? Well, there are probably 6 main types:

  1. A Polarizer
  2. A UV filter
  3. A Graduated Neutral Density filter
  4. A Neutral Density filter
  5. Filters for Infrared Effects
  6. Special Effect Filters

- UV filters

UV filters block ultraviolet light, which can cause a bluish cast in images shot where there's a lot of UV (e.g. high altitudes). However most people use UV filters to protect the front element of their lens as much as to block UV and they leave it on the lens at all times.

Filters for digital cameras - BobAtkins.com


IF ANYONE HAS A LINK FROM AN AUTHORITY THAT SAYS ALL DIGITAL CAMERA SENSORS HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR UV FILTERS PLEASE SHARE IT.

"Firstly, the CCD records not only ultra-violet (UV) rays like an ordinary film,"
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev02.html#top_page
 
Last edited:
Again, you are talking about the opposite kind of filter that the author you quoted is talking about...

The filters you're talking about block UV and pass visible light.

The filters the author is talking about block visible light and pass UV.

Read it again and see if it makes more sense.
 
Let this be a lesson for the beginners on this forum. The arrogant self important argumentative lens caps (I'm being restrained) are not here to read, understand or interact responsibly.

Don't be so hard on yourself.


Not to drag this off topic, but just to be clear for future reference; is this person the resident know-it-all that every forum has? The one that spews crap as fact and then resorts to name calling and ancestral attacks if you question or correct them?
 
sobolik You've just posted two references that clearly state that the UV filter on modern DSLR cameras is used not for UV removal but for "protection"; with the second adding the fact that the only UV they are needed to block today is very high concentrations such as at high altitude.
 
Let this be a lesson for the beginners on this forum. The arrogant self important argumentative lens caps (I'm being restrained) are not here to read, understand or interact responsibly.

Don't be so hard on yourself.


Not to drag this off topic, but just to be clear for future reference; is this person the resident know-it-all that every forum has? The one that spews crap as fact and then resorts to name calling and ancestral attacks if you question or correct them?

Yup.

Isn't it fun to use the posters words against him?
 
Not that I'm all anxious to jump to sobolik's defense, but I think the point he's trying to make is that if a UV pass filter can enable digital cameras to record UV light for UV photography, then the glass and the filter in front of the camera sensor obviously isn't blocking 100% of the UV light.

However, earlier in the article that you posted, sobolik, the author says:

People sometimes claim they obtain "UV" images with their digital cameras, but just slapping on a UV bandpass filter will by itself not guarantee true UV images are recorded. To ensure this, the taking lens must pass sufficient of UV, and the digital sensor must be sensitive to UV as well.

So he seems to be saying what everyone else is: the camera and lenses themselves are inherently barriers to UV photography. Later he says that you'll need between 6 and 15 stops of additional exposure to even record the UV light at all. What are the chances that you'd notice any UV contamination in a normally-exposed photograph when it's at least six stops below the visible light?

UV blocking filters may still have a use once in a while as has been pointed out, but I think it's hard to argue that they're a critical necessity for today's digital cameras.
 
Last edited:
sobolik You've just posted two references that clearly state that the UV filter on modern DSLR cameras is used not for UV removal but for "protection"; with the second adding the fact that the only UV they are needed to block today is very high concentrations such as at high altitude.


You have a serious reading comprehension deficiency probably caused by willful agenda driven blindness.
 
Again, you are talking about the opposite kind of filter that the author you quoted is talking about...

The filters you're talking about block UV and pass visible light.

The filters the author is talking about block visible light and pass UV.

Read it again and see if it makes more sense.


What you say here is true but your conclusion is that I'm confused and need to read it again. You are seriously confused by your own doing. You can't keep me straight from a different author. Nor manage to connect the two in a coherent discussion of UV filtration. You should just move on to a different thread.
 
Why are you such an ass?


We have once and for all identified the ass. And it is Bitter Jeweler. Why does the bitter one call sobolik an ass? because of the following

"The UV blocking filter is largely made obsolete by today's digital technology."

This is wrong if using film with the digital darkroom. It is maybe correct with a digital camera. But again I have not found authoritative writing on the subject telling me that all digital cameras bar none have zero need for a UV filter. You are certainly not a good source since you have reading problems. (see my post #18 about your claim that I highlighted in red) So obviously you can't be trusted to accurately relay information.

ORIGINAL LINK SAYS (IN RED CLAIM) "Firstly, the CCD records not only ultra-violet (UV) rays like an ordinary film,"
All About Digital UV and IR. Page 4: How Digital Differs From film

Nikon USA page says

"UV FilterA filter that eliminates invisible ultraviolet light, rendering pictures with higher contrast. This filter can be left on the lens as a lens protector."
http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Ex...-Standard.html
I would think that Nikon might mention that their glorious, wonderful (sales pitch glitz and glamor) has eliminated the need for UV filters freeing the photographer blah, blah so buy Nikon today! I would think that they might mention it somewhere.

Filters for Digital Cameras

• You are here: BobAtkins.com > photography > tutorials > This Page

So the first type of filter you really don't need for digital is a color modification filter. These would be warming filters like the Hoya 81 series or the Tiffen 812, cooling filters like the 82 series and fluorescent-daylight conversion filters.
So which filters do you need for digital? Well, there are probably 6 main types:

  1. A Polarizer
  2. A UV filter
  3. A Graduated Neutral Density filter
  4. A Neutral Density filter
  5. Filters for Infrared Effects
  6. Special Effect Filters

- UV filters

UV filters block ultraviolet light, which can cause a bluish cast in images shot where there's a lot of UV (e.g. high altitudes). However most people use UV filters to protect the front element of their lens as much as to block UV and they leave it on the lens at all times.

Filters for digital cameras - BobAtkins.com


IF ANYONE HAS A LINK FROM AN AUTHORITY THAT SAYS ALL DIGITAL CAMERA SENSORS HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR UV FILTERS PLEASE SHARE IT.

"Firstly, the CCD records not only ultra-violet (UV) rays like an ordinary film,"
All About Digital UV and IR. Page 4: How Digital Differs From film
 
I would think that Nikon might mention that their glorious, wonderful (sales pitch glitz and glamor) has eliminated the need for UV filters freeing the photographer blah, blah so buy Nikon today! I would think that they might mention it somewhere.

Nikon want you to spend more on their products and buy their UV filters which is why they don't make mention that regular UV light levels are already filtered out by the lens, lens coatings and the camera.

UV filters block ultraviolet light, which can cause a bluish cast in images shot where there's a lot of UV (e.g. high altitudes)

The part that clearly states that it has to be high levels of UV in order for the UV filter to be needed to remove the UV light component when working with a digital camera.
 
Again, you are talking about the opposite kind of filter that the author you quoted is talking about...

The filters you're talking about block UV and pass visible light.

The filters the author is talking about block visible light and pass UV.

Read it again and see if it makes more sense.


What you say here is true but your conclusion is that I'm confused and need to read it again. You are seriously confused by your own doing. You can't keep me straight from a different author. Nor manage to connect the two in a coherent discussion of UV filtration. You should just move on to a different thread.
So you agree that I was right and you were wrong, but somehow I'm the one that is confused?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom