Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X
When using normal roll film cameras it was always recommended to use a U/V filter when taking photographs near the coast because of the high intensity of U/V light.
Does anyone know if U/V has the same effect on digital cameras.??
What I mean to say is:- Was it (a) the U/V rays which actually made the pictures/scene look bluer or was it (b) the U/V effect on the roll film which changed the colouring??
If it was the latter option (b) then surely it wouldn't affect a digital recording of the scene, would it?
Any comments, Gents??
UV has much less effect on Digital than film, just google for the technical reasons/confirmation. I live in Lincolnshire on the coast, and have never found a need for a UV filter.
The only benefit from using such a filter would be as a lens protector, but the chances of "Flare " would increase.
Digital cameras are far less sensitive to UV than E6 (colour slides) or to a lesser extent C41 (negatives). When I used to work in the photographic industry we used to get enormous problems with the E6 film when using Quartz flash lights giving the film a distinct blue tinge because of the UV. The company I used to work for used Pyrex tubes, no UV but plenty of IR.
So the sort answer is, don't worry about UV with digital, the only exception, maybe, if you are over 10,000 feet where the UV is much greater.
I agree U/V should not be an issue with Digital, and any corrective measures needed can by carried out in the computer. Although I do have one on my E-10 more for protection as Stuartli suggested.
However I have oft considered but not implemented[perhaps I will now this has come up] - a Polarizing filter- which by rotation according to the available light can give some interesting results [In film it did ]
What do you all think?
Many thanks to you all for your interesting comments. Fortunately there's always someone "in the trade" who can add their weight to the pros and cons.
As a keen amateur from the 1960s I used to use the polarising filter to avoid reflections in windows etc but with an SLR you could see and judge the effect before taking the picture.
It may be interesting to see if the effect can be seen on the small digital screen.
Thanks again. I'll tick this as "sorted".
If by digital screen you mean the LCD on the back of a DSLR, well these are virtually useless for checking the quality of an image, apart from the invaluable information available, such as the histogram and shot details, the only visual value of any particular shot, is being able to check composition.
As for a polariser the benifits are just as useful on digital as they are on film, but although I have them, it's very rare that I use them. A neutral grad is far more rewarding.
Thanks for the extra bit of info.
When I mentioned the digital screen I was referring to the screen on the rear of a standard digital camera and not a Digital SLR.
I agree, the digital screens aren't much use for anything else except composition and on a bright day you sometimes can't even see them properly and have to resort to the optical view finder.
Whilst currently using digital I still keep the Pentax SLR + lenses ready for action.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.