uv light - film v digital

jerry12953

jerry12953

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12,421
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
In another thread Stewart R said that digital sensors were not as sensitive to UV light as film is.

Having spent half a lifetime (+/-) getting to know what works on film and what doesn't, should I be re-assessing my subject matter now I'm using digital?

I do mainly landscapes, by the way.

I never found UV filters to be much use with film, and I still don't use one.

Anybody noticed any changes when they made the switch, or have any suggestions/ideas? :thinking:
 
as you can't see UV light, you don't really want the sensor to either, otherwise it will simply record apparently erroneous results.
 
I think the main difference you should concern yourself with is the way a digital sensor collects light information. Film has the added side effect of being able to deal with highlights more gradually if there blown out, simply because the over exposure of film reacts as a gentle curve off into 'blow out' areas, unlike a digital sensor which has a fixed limit, after that limit all information is lost immediately as you go ever the sensors gathering limits... rather than being recorded as a gentle curve into 'blow out' as it does on film.

Hope that makes sense, hopefully some one will better knowledge will explain it more throughly for you.

You may also want to look at shifting the histogram to the right (if possible) to gather more information than standard exposures ..its quite confusing that one too.

Edit: Digital cameras come with UV filters built in so don't worry about that one.
 
jerry12953 said:
Is that right? I didn't realise that.:)
Click to expand...

Well almost, there are a couple with no filters and improved IR and UV sensitivity for astrophotograpy and scientific applications, but you won't find those on the open market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top