[nikonf4] Re: Color Correction Filters

  • From: Koichi Mac <nikonf3tmd4@xxxxxxx>
  • To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 01:20:32 -0800

        Acutally, that depends on the latitude too.  The more north you head, 
the thinner the atmospheric layer, rendering the same effect as elevation 
difference in terms of the strength of UV rays.

        In any event, I was saying that I don't mind having strong blue cast in 
photos when it's taken at high elevation.

Koichi Yasutani - a.k.a. Steve + MP
Lakewood, WA U.S.A.
2010 / 11 / 22          01:20 PST

On Nov 21, 2010, at 2214 , Eric Welch wrote:

> The higher you go, the more UV light there is in the picture. As you get 
> lower, the atmosphere filters out some of the UV light, so it becomes less of 
> a problem as you approach sea level.
> On Nov 21, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Koichi Mac wrote:
>>      To eliminate UV and color correct at high elevations?  I think that the 
>> blue cast is the synonym of being in high elevation, so I tend to still not 
>> to use UV filter.
>> On Nov 21, 2010, at 0851 , Eric Welch wrote:
>>> That was in the olden days. :-D
>>> Now lenses are so good at filtering UV automatically that you only need an 
>>> 81B for high up in the mountains. With digital, it's not needed any more in 
>>> any case.
>>> On Nov 21, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>> In CA, with all the UV, I put 81A on short lenses and 81B on long lenses 
>>>> shooting Kodachrome.
>>>> From: Koichi Mac <nikonf3tmd4@xxxxxxx>
>>>> To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Sent: Sun, November 21, 2010 2:58:01 AM
>>>> Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Protection filter questions?
>>>>    Yea, I never cared for Skylight anyway.  During my infancy period on 
>>>> photography, I didn't know any better and Skylight was what was most 
>>>> common filters sold, so I had it on for many years.  
>>>> Not knowing any better also meant negative film was all I knew, and I was 
>>>> using B&W mostly, and there was no point of reference to compare color 
>>>> rendition.  After knowing more, that was the first thing I ditched.
>>>> On Nov 20, 2010, at 1933 , Eric Welch wrote:
>>>>> Skylight filters are useless since lens makers started including UV 
>>>>> filtration in the glue between elements. Another Leica innovation.  
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Koichi Mac <nikonf3tmd4@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>    I have filters on most of my lenses.  Personally I care neither UV 
>>>>>> nor Skylight, but many of them are UV.  Canon has blank glass and that's 
>>>>>> in my EF 28-70/2.8.  
>>>>>>    Coatings can be a problem in cleaning up.  I have one Nikon 77mm UV 
>>>>>> that's got coatings messed up.  Maybe I should razor blade to peel it 
>>>>>> off.
>>>>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 1757 , John Osthus wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you folks use a UV or skylight filter to protect your lenses?
>>>>>>> I actually had a filter take the damage from a short drop once.  The 
>>>>>>> filter broke but the lens was OK.
>>>>>>> How about coatings vs. non coating for a 77mm skylight filter?
>>>>>>> I have a Hoya HMC super multi coated uv0 on my 24-70.
>>>>>>> I have a new 28-300 Nikon – I found a un coated 77mm tiffen “haze” 
>>>>>>> filter.  OK to use that on the 28-300 or am I better off spending 
>>>>>>> another $50 or so for a multicoated?
>>>>>>> Curous about your thoughts…

Other related posts: