Photoclubalpha

I've some doubts about the need for UV filters in DSLRs. Are they really needed to block UV light? My understanding is that sensors have a built-in UV filter, but are external UV filters also needed? I use a protector filter (Marumi DHG Lens Protector) just to avoid scratching the front glass, but I'm not really sure if a good quality UV filter will give me any advantage. Specially when shooting landscapes which I often do.

Hi Roy,

There is an interestiong thread about UV filters I have bookmarked.

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =27&t=2354

The link in the first post includes a description of why UV filters may be useful. I just quickly scanned through it again and it doesn't make any mention of the UV filters already in sensors so can't help in this regard.

Actually I've never been all that impressed with UV filters myself, I always thought they slightly burnt the greens in foliage even in the film days, so I've been using Skylight 1B's for a long time as a protector for the front element. My thinking was that a UV filter seemed to be a slightly yellow toned bandpass filter, and I just didn't much like the tone it produced.
Greg

Some years ago (before digital), I read an article about UV filters (I think it was in PIC magazine - remember that?). The author took some test shots at Bryce Canyon where, due to the altitude, UV was causing a serious blue cast. He tried many different UV and other filters, but found that no UV filter made any difference and a fairly strong warm-up was needed to counteract the blue cast and give a satisfactory result.

I guess, if he says so, I haven't seen a blue cast from ultra violet radiation myself, but then I've never been above three thousand feet doing photography either, I think the highest mountain around these parts isn't any higher than about four thousand. I think I remember seeing/reading once that the film makers eventually adjusted their emulsions to take the UV filter effect into account...seeing that so many were using them as lens protectors. But I don't know if that included the professional chromes (probably not), or whether it was just some of the popular negitave/print ones.
Greg

Greg Beetham wrote:I guess, if he says so, I haven't seen a blue cast from ultra violet radiation myself, but then I've never been above three thousand feet doing photography either, I think the highest mountain around these parts isn't any higher than about four thousand. I think I remember seeing/reading once that the film makers eventually adjusted their emulsions to take the UV filter effect into account...seeing that so many were using them as lens protectors. But I don't know if that included the professional chromes (probably not), or whether it was just some of the popular negitave/print ones.
Greg

Being a former mountaineer I can say for certain that UV increases significantly with altitude and will give you too much blue.

Skylight filters also remove UV as well as a little of the blue to warm the photo.

I use UV on my Sony/Minolta lenses with my a700s, and the few Zeiss I have I use Skylight 1A which warms that cold Zeiss look to get it a bit closer to the Sony/Minolta.

I've not seen any color shift problems with the UV filters, either now or back when shooting Kodachrome.

Walt