If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:26:16 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
wrote: "Hans-Georg Michna" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:25:39 -0600, "RonFrank" wrote: I have UV filter on all my lenses, and always have. let's ask this question: How far does the extra UV filter reduce the contrast? At least 3% for two glass/air surfaces, which is a lot if you add 3% of a bright area to a dark area! Theoretically it could add some RGB 8,8,8 to the linear gamma shadows, on its own, before the lens groups come into play, and before gamma adjustment boosts it further. Bart, thanks for the quantification. I suspected something like this. In other words, you don't want any superfluous filters, at least when you take high-contrast photos. Night shots are just an extreme example and make the extra reflections very visible. Hans-Georg -- No mail, please. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
The importance of a uv filter?
"Bart van der Wolf" writes:
At least 3% for two glass/air surfaces, which is a lot if you add 3% of a bright area to a dark area! It depends a lot on the filter coatings. If I remember correctly, uncoated glass or plastic with a refractive index around 1.5 reflects about 4% per surface. But a single-layer coating brings that down dramatically, and good multi-layer coatings are in the 0.5-1% range per surface. Dave |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Bart van der Wolf" writes:
At least 3% for two glass/air surfaces, which is a lot if you add 3% of a bright area to a dark area! It depends a lot on the filter coatings. If I remember correctly, uncoated glass or plastic with a refractive index around 1.5 reflects about 4% per surface. But a single-layer coating brings that down dramatically, and good multi-layer coatings are in the 0.5-1% range per surface. Dave |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
The importance of a uv filter?
"Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... "Bart van der Wolf" writes: At least 3% for two glass/air surfaces, which is a lot if you add 3% of a bright area to a dark area! It depends a lot on the filter coatings. If I remember correctly, uncoated glass or plastic with a refractive index around 1.5 reflects about 4% per surface. Per surface, yes that's what I recall as well. But a single-layer coating brings that down dramatically, and good multi-layer coatings are in the 0.5-1% range per surface. Correct, a *good* multi(!)-layer coated UV filter will reduce the loss of contrast, assuming a good lens hood is used to keep false light away from the protruding filter :-( The multi-coating is also not extremely resistant to 'environmental' influences, although they have improved over the years. Some are hard to clean without leaving smudges, but clean micro-fiber cloth will achieve it. Bart |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... "Bart van der Wolf" writes: At least 3% for two glass/air surfaces, which is a lot if you add 3% of a bright area to a dark area! It depends a lot on the filter coatings. If I remember correctly, uncoated glass or plastic with a refractive index around 1.5 reflects about 4% per surface. Per surface, yes that's what I recall as well. But a single-layer coating brings that down dramatically, and good multi-layer coatings are in the 0.5-1% range per surface. Correct, a *good* multi(!)-layer coated UV filter will reduce the loss of contrast, assuming a good lens hood is used to keep false light away from the protruding filter :-( The multi-coating is also not extremely resistant to 'environmental' influences, although they have improved over the years. Some are hard to clean without leaving smudges, but clean micro-fiber cloth will achieve it. Bart |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
The importance of a uv filter?
"Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... SNIP If I remember correctly, uncoated glass or plastic with a refractive index around 1.5 reflects about 4% per surface. In fact the formula for normal (!) incidence is (with n as refractive index): R=((n-1)/(n+1))^2, per air to glass surface, so it is exactly 4%. At larger angles of incidence the reflection increases up to total reflection, and the efficiency of AR coatings decreases with deviation of the lightpath from the quarter wavelength thickness. Bart |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
The importance of a uv filter?
"Bart van der Wolf" writes:
The multi-coating is also not extremely resistant to 'environmental' influences, although they have improved over the years. Some are hard to clean without leaving smudges, but clean micro-fiber cloth will achieve it. Have you ever scratched a lens surface doing this? I'm always leery of the possibility of a tiny bit of grit in the cloth causing noticeable damage if I rub the lens using any significant pressure. I've always gotten good results using liquid cleaning, which takes very little pressure. I normally start with a detergent-based lens cleaner like Kodak lens cleaner, applying it with a new cotton Q-tip. Then wipe off (using little pressure) with some sort of absorbent cloth. If the cleaning solution evaporates and dries before you get it soaked up by the cloth, there will be some detergent residue left on the lens, but it comes off nicely in a second pass using distilled water. Occasionally, I'll see gunk on a lens that isn't water-soluble, and the Kodak cleaner won't touch it. Then I experiment with pure isopropyl alcohol and/or petroleum naphtha based lighter fluid. Both of these evaporate with no residue from a clean surface, and they're not too agressive so they're unlikely to damage plastic or paint if contact is limited to a few seconds. Dave |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Bart van der Wolf" writes:
The multi-coating is also not extremely resistant to 'environmental' influences, although they have improved over the years. Some are hard to clean without leaving smudges, but clean micro-fiber cloth will achieve it. Have you ever scratched a lens surface doing this? I'm always leery of the possibility of a tiny bit of grit in the cloth causing noticeable damage if I rub the lens using any significant pressure. I've always gotten good results using liquid cleaning, which takes very little pressure. I normally start with a detergent-based lens cleaner like Kodak lens cleaner, applying it with a new cotton Q-tip. Then wipe off (using little pressure) with some sort of absorbent cloth. If the cleaning solution evaporates and dries before you get it soaked up by the cloth, there will be some detergent residue left on the lens, but it comes off nicely in a second pass using distilled water. Occasionally, I'll see gunk on a lens that isn't water-soluble, and the Kodak cleaner won't touch it. Then I experiment with pure isopropyl alcohol and/or petroleum naphtha based lighter fluid. Both of these evaporate with no residue from a clean surface, and they're not too agressive so they're unlikely to damage plastic or paint if contact is limited to a few seconds. Dave |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... "Bart van der Wolf" writes: The multi-coating is also not extremely resistant to 'environmental' influences, although they have improved over the years. Some are hard to clean without leaving smudges, but clean micro-fiber cloth will achieve it. Have you ever scratched a lens surface doing this? Not yet. I'm always leery of the possibility of a tiny bit of grit in the cloth causing noticeable damage if I rub the lens using any significant pressure. Yes, grit and grease require a different approach. My common procedure, which is rarely needed, is to use a (blower) brush to remove loose surface grit/lint, vigorously shake the *clean* microfiber cloth (optical grade) to unfold, breath on the surface of the lens/filter, and wipe gently in a motion that rotates the cloth from the surface as I move forward. Usually the (blower) brush is sufficient, unless an accidental fingerprint finds it way to the surface. In extreme cases one could consider lens cleaner on the cloth. Bart |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... "Bart van der Wolf" writes: The multi-coating is also not extremely resistant to 'environmental' influences, although they have improved over the years. Some are hard to clean without leaving smudges, but clean micro-fiber cloth will achieve it. Have you ever scratched a lens surface doing this? Not yet. I'm always leery of the possibility of a tiny bit of grit in the cloth causing noticeable damage if I rub the lens using any significant pressure. Yes, grit and grease require a different approach. My common procedure, which is rarely needed, is to use a (blower) brush to remove loose surface grit/lint, vigorously shake the *clean* microfiber cloth (optical grade) to unfold, breath on the surface of the lens/filter, and wipe gently in a motion that rotates the cloth from the surface as I move forward. Usually the (blower) brush is sufficient, unless an accidental fingerprint finds it way to the surface. In extreme cases one could consider lens cleaner on the cloth. Bart |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
25/30/37/58mm Infrared 'X Ray' filter - SONY DV Cameras | yeo seng tong | Digital Photography | 1 | July 17th 04 11:38 AM |
25/30/37/58mm Infrared 'X Ray' filter - SONY DV Cameras | yeo seng tong | Digital Photography | 0 | July 4th 04 09:08 AM |
Order of filters/lenses for camcorder | Carl Swanson | Digital Photography | 3 | July 3rd 04 06:42 PM |
Using Lee hood with modified Cokin "P" series filter holder | Phil Glaser | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 1 | February 27th 04 02:27 PM |