Filter on a Nikon F, necessary?

[Kowloon]

Hello all,

Easier to open a new thread about this question.

I have read that UV filters would help lowering that milky effect on the pictures taken with my camera (Nikon F). If that so is there any specific one that I should buy? How to know if I should compensate any lack of light once put on my lens?

Here are some samples of some pictures taken myself, I wonder if it would help since the background looks kinda blurry (most of the time it is extremely sunny)

Any suggestions are welcome.

Thank you!

 

[xkaes]

That looks like "haze" to me, but whether or not you can get rid of it depends on what causes the haze -- humidity, pollution????

A UV (haze) filter might help, but a skylight (1A) would probably help a little more to get rid of the blue tint. It still won't get rid of smoke/pollution. Skylight filters come in different strengths -- to reduce the blue.

 

[Nitroplait]

You can’t change reality but a skylight filter may help in this case.

 

[Paul Howell]

It's not the F, it is a combination of the lens coating, film and environmental conditions. Lens from the 60s are in general not as well coated as later lens from the late 70s to modern lens. A U.V filter will help cut through the haze, as noted by xkaes a skylight will help with bluish tint. A circular polarize will make the blue, bluer and more natural as well as cut down on the haze. Shooting in the early morning or later in the day just before dark also helps, also a warmer film like Porta rather than a cooler film like Ektar. If you shoot color I would get all three filters, spend a little time on line looking up varies filters and their effect, buy the best quality you can afford. If you have early Nikon lens you might want to think about getting a late model AIS lens with the meter prongs, if you used a metered head.

 

[ags2mikon]

I have both L 37 and L 39 filters and the L 39 cuts excess uv and blue harder. But it is not going to go away altogether. That is more than likely a mixture of water vapor and particulate mater from industrial pollution mixed with a lot of UV reflected off the water.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Skylight filter 1A and 1B reduce haze, but the UV or Haze filters are stronger. All will cut smog, but not eliminate strong smog. They do not remove fog which is a good thing for photography. Any of these filters will protect the lens from dirt and scratches and from some bumps or knocking against objects. I always use a UV filter.

Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[250swb]

If you want to modify the environmental conditions use a filter, but I think the example photos look fine as they are with rich colours fading to muted colours in the distance. It all depends on what you want from your photos, a true record or something that expresses your own interpretation of the scene.

 

[Larryc001]

I always put a haze filter on. They are cheap these days and provide good insurance. Being much of a stumblebum I sometimes bang the lens into something. Also being all thumbs any more I get fingerprints on the front sometimes. It is better for me to scrub the filter than to risk scratching the lens itself or rubbing the coating. I have never done any tests to see if the filter actually effects the haze though.

 

[meowdameow]

good to have one uv / skylight to protect yr front element in Hong Kong,

 

[mshchem]

I've never tried one of these but this is an interference type of filter, tuned to stop ultraviolet and infrared. Pretty cool, not colored glass color neutral.

UV-/ IR-Blocking

schneiderkreuznach.com

 

[xkaes]

Since the Nikon F is not a digital camera, that filter is of no better than a regular UV filter.

 

[Huss]

You're looking at Hong Kong smog haze. If you want that gone, take pics the moment after a rain storm rolls through and the air is clean.

But you know, I really like the two pics you show because the haze gets more diffusive the further away it is, so whatever is closer to the camera will pop out more.
Utilize your environment to its strengths.

 

[gone]

The op is in Hong Kong. I'm not an expert, but I believe they have some pretty darned dirty air there. It might be possible to get good results up in some altitude, hopefully above all that.

 

[Kowloon]

You're looking at Hong Kong smog haze. If you want that gone, take pics the moment after a rain storm rolls through and the air is clean.

But you know, I really like the two pics you show because the haze gets more diffusive the further away it is, so whatever is closer to the camera will pop out more.
Utilize your environment to its strengths.

Thank you! It was my very first roll so I did not think too much, and a basic roll too, so it did not help. But that day was just burning hot without a heavy smog (the closer to the Chinese New Year we are, the dirtier the air is, because of the factories working non stop. Otherwise we are pretty much ok).

Here is a newer one taken with EKTAR 100 and UV filter.

 

[benveniste]

For the Nikon F, and all other film SLRs, UV sensitivity depends on lens and film, not the camera body. My guess is what you are seeing is light fog or smog, and no filter can help with that.

The Ektar 100 datasheet shows some sensitivity to UV light in the 380-400nm range, but it's not enough to account for the haze shown in the initial shot. Most other C41 emulsions have even less sensitivity to UV. In addition, the optical cement used in modern lenses absorbs UV. So unless you are using an older low-element count lens, I would not expect to see a significant difference with a UV filter. With traditional B+W film, tungsten balanced color film, and a few films like Velvia 50, you might see more improvement.

All real UV filters also both reflect away some light from the air-glass surfaces, and absorb a small amount of visible light in the violet range. The amount of light reflected is largely determined by the type of glass used and the coatings. The cheapest UV filters may use uncoated window/"green" glass and reflect away about 9% of the incoming light. A good quality multicoated filter will reflect away about 0.5%, but some coatings (like B+W MRC) also absorb a small fraction of red light. These percentages are small enough so that exposure compensation is rarely needed.

For critical applications, you can use a specialty UV-IR "cut" filter such as the B+W 486 MRC. This is not an inexpensive item -- in the US it typically sells for $75 or so in 52mm. I've never tried one.

Use of UV filters for protection is a perpetual debate. If there's a photographic topic about which more has been written for less of a difference, I don't know of it. I do own B+W 010 UV filters in multiple sizes, but I only use them in adverse environmental conditions or when using older prime lenses with Tri-X or Ilford's Delta films.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Thank you! It was my very first roll so I did not think too much, and a basic roll too, so it did not help. But that day was just burning hot without a heavy smog (the closer to the Chinese New Year we are, the dirtier the air is, because of the factories working non stop. Otherwise we are pretty much ok).

Here is a newer one taken with EKTAR 100 and UV filter.

View attachment 323228

A few questions:

- How are you metering? This one is a little bit over-exposed, which accounts for the slightly washed out effect. Ektar 100 is not a forgiving film, and doesn't respond as well as Portra 160 to over-exposure. I like it a lot, but it's a tough film to master.
- How are you focusing ? Infinity? Zone? On the boat?
- What lens are you using? Not all Nikon lens are sharp and crisp
- Have you tried a warming filter? The scene is awash in blue — sky, sea, buildings, mountains (blue-green, in that case), the light is just bouncing in blue all over the place. A low-grade color-correction filter, either 1A (skylight) or 81B, could be more efficient than a UV filter here. These are two filters you should have in your arsenal anyway if you're doing a lot of color photography.

 

[Kowloon]

A few questions:

- How are you metering? This one is a little bit over-exposed, which accounts for the slightly washed out effect. Ektar 100 is not a forgiving film, and doesn't respond as well as Portra 160 to over-exposure. I like it a lot, but it's a tough film to master.

I used my phone on this one but I bought a KEKS lightmeter a few days ago so I will stick to it starting from now on. I really like ektar 100!

- How are you focusing ? Infinity? Zone? On the boat?

Infinity

- What lens are you using? Not all Nikon lens are sharp and crisp

That one was a 50mm f/2

- Have you tried a warming filter? The scene is awash in blue — sky, sea, buildings, mountains (blue-green, in that case), the light is just bouncing in blue all over the place. A low-grade color-correction filter, either 1A (skylight) or 81B, could be more efficient than a UV filter here. These are two filters you should have in your arsenal anyway if you're doing a lot of color photography.

So the skylight one will add a touch of pinkish color right to it?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So the skylight one will add a touch of pinkish color right to it?

Check this short thread, especially comments #7 and #10: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/uv-skylight-lens-filters-and-color-negative-film.153224/

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Infinity

Don't want to discuss too much focusing here, because part of the fuzziness of the pick might be due to poor scan quality. That said, for vistas like this one, especially one in which you have a vast, uniform foreground, you might gain from learning to use hyperfocal distance rather than focusing on infinity. It would give a better sense of sharpness to the picture in post #14. If too much of your foreground is out of focus, it won't help getting rid of the general impression of "milkiness" of the pick.

But again, in this case (#14), might be the scan. I don't remember Ektar 100 having such a huge grain structure, so something, somewhere, is amiss.