DSLRUsers.com

I have taken 3 identical photos, the photos themselves have no particular merit, except that I included a brick wall for Mattk's sake
there is only one variable, the photos were taken 1 with a Hoya UV filter 2 with a cheap Matin UV filter and 3 without a filter at all. I won't tell you which photo is which at the moment, the Idea is to see if an expensive filter is justified or are we conditioned to buy brand names for no real gain.

I like number one as it seems to show a little more saturation and contrast - but having said that it's hard to tell whether that has anything to do with a filter or if a cloud possibly zoomed over the sun and created more diffuse light.

If you look at the left hand chair leg in the first image you can see it's missing the bright sun spot that is evident in the second two pic's which is what makes me think the light changed.

OR: I could be entirely wrong and have just demonstrated my cluelessness!!

Liam =]

Hmm... Maybe my experiment is not as controlled as I had hoped. Also I'm not entirely sure that this type of shot is right to see the effect of UV.
I tried to get a high contrast between shadows and highlights but I didn't include any sky.

Probably would have to make a very large print in order to see the difference. A computer monitor at 72 DPI will tend to even the differences out. But thanks for the experiment...it is one way we can all learn using our eyeballs.

Well Matt, you've just settled it for me. Since the chanses of me making very large prints is very small, in future I will stick with the $9.00 Matin UV filter rather then the much more expensive brands.
For the record, the first shot is with the Matin filter, the 2nd ia a Hoya and the third no filter.

I would not have picked the difference, even though i tried.

However, if your subject was of the Blue Mountains, then maybe the difference would have been noticeable, mostly between the two filters and no filter at all, maybe not between the two filters. Does that make sense??? i know what i meant to say

Matin filter. Where did you aquire these?

Nice demo by the way.

I'd be interested in knowing the shooting data - it is said that some filters let more or less light in (eg Hoya refer to mid-range filters letting I think 97% of light through and the super expensive ones as letting 99% through). Presumably, if the change in light transmission were noticeable, it would have had an effect on the settings required to achieve the same shot in the same(ish) light - eg less light transmission to the lens would presumably require a wider aperture or a longer exposure time to achieve the same result.

Hhmmm. This interests me. I thank you too for the experiment. Due to the content, and the limitations of the computer monitor, I cannot see any difference. I bought the Hoya multi coated filters that birddy was selling in Bargains, and seem happy with them.
Having said that, I cannot repeat the experiment for myself except for with and without filter.
I would have liked an experiment with possibly mountains / water / shiny hot spot etc. - things that will test the filter possibly beyond its capabilities - to at least have a chance of finding differences between the snaps.
Thanks again - you've given me something ELSE to do with my camera today.
Adam.

yraen69

Matin filter. Where did you aquire these?

I got the Matin filter from Vanbar
You can see their catalogue on line at
http://www.vanbar.com.au

I think it's reassuring that 2 and 3 are literally identical since I also use Hoya!

Still think No. 1 is the best tho..

Liam =]