uv filters reduce contrast?

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by awatahurm, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. awatahurm

    awatahurm Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 10, 2011
    I just watched this bit on DigitalRev TV which said that UV filters reduce contrast.

    [ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9TUIC-Dtk&feature=player_embedded]UV Filter vs No UV Filter - DigitalRev TV Test - YouTube[/ame]

    It was pretty clear to see on the examples given. But I couldn't see a difference on my camera. (e-p3 with 12mm lens)

    I took about 20 shots at 1/2000 under different lighting conditions and couldn't see a difference with or without the filter? (I posted 100% crops on flickr: uv filter tests - a set on Flickr )

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnshare/6082605483/" title="uv-test-5A by awatahurm, on Flickr">[​IMG]"962" height="722" alt="uv-test-5A"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnshare/6082606025/" title="uv-test-5B by awatahurm, on Flickr">[​IMG]"948" height="711" alt="uv-test-5B"></a>

    How do most people on this forum shoot? With or without uv filters?

    PS Oops. I just went over my images at 200% and noticed that there was a slight reduction in contrast. I also didn't consider that jpeg conversion might be erasing the differences. So I'll have to shoot some RAW images and see how they look in Olympus Viewer 2.
    In any case I still wonder if the difference in quality is worth risking the life of my lenses.
  2. wirehead

    wirehead Mu-43 Rookie

    Aug 15, 2011
    I have a 50mm lens with a UV filter wedged on that I don't use anymore. Every lens that has been destroyed in my years of photography was destroyed in such a way that a 'protective' filter wouldn't have helped in the slightest. Even with film at high altitude, I've never noticed much of an objectionable UV haze.

    There are some super-high-end protective filters that have a micro-coating such that they resist water and schmutz. Which would be nice for shooting in crappy nasty weather.

    But, really, I think UV filters are best not bothered with. Nothing but superstition.
  3. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I don't buy into the protective filters ideology. First, I've never had an issue with the front element becoming scratched. Second, any damage that has happened to a lens, as wirehead stated, didn't matter whether a front filter was on the lens or not. Third, ANY piece of glass-air contact automatically loses you contrast, through decreased light transmission. Those pesky physics keep getting in the way of us having cool cameras.
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Want more contrast outdoors?

    POLARIZING filter FTW.

    x4 on the hooey for protection argument.
  5. tigertiger

    tigertiger Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 30, 2011
    I've only used them to protect the lens, but these days you can get clear filters to do that.

    Those who think it's unneccesary to protect their lenses have obviously never used their cameras in coastal environments or for macro photography.

    Or for weddings, for that matter. Not like the reception is going to be put on hold while you carefully clean the soap bubble residue or other gunk off your lens... Just swap filters!
  6. Alanroseman

    Alanroseman Super Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 21, 2010
    New England
    • Like Like x 1