1 of 3

Write now Article Tools

Upon purchase of every filter-accepting lens I have ever bought I have been encouraged by the retailer to include a UV filter. Some claimed the UV filter would improve the color in my photographs while others would be less firm in the matter, suggesting only that the filter would be an important safeguard, protecting my expensive lens from the outside world. So who, if anyone, was correct?

There are arguments for and against both positions. Let's take a step back first and think about what ultraviolet light is. Put simply, our eyes see wavelengths of light between about 400 to 700 nm. (Don't worry the nm units aren't important here.) ROY G. BIV is simply the acronym for the corresponding colors for certain values within this 400 to 700 range. While our cameras work in a similar fashion as our eyes, some cameras (or, more accurately, films) can pick up light just below the 400 (i.e., violet) value. These sub-400 wavelengths are called ultraviolet. And just as we strive to protect our skin from ultraviolet light, we should also take steps to avoid the presence and effects of ultraviolet light on our photographs.

So will a UV filter rid my photographs of UV light? It depends. If you shoot at high altitudes, where there is more UV light in the atmosphere, a UV filter will have more of an effect. Also, if you are shooting in hazy conditions, where particulate matter in the atmosphere is reflecting additional, unwanted light, a Haze filter (a close relative to the UV filter) can help reduce backscatter and promote clarity. UV and related filters all help to absorb the sub-400 wavelengths, reduce the influence of blue in your photographs and the stronger ones (haze and skylight filters) can actually tend your photographs toward warmer tones.

If you are now running through your mind all the photographs you wished you had used a UV filter on, don't fret. The good news is that for the majority of you who use digital equipment, UV filters are considerably less, or not at all, effective. The computers in digital cameras are programmed not to pick up UV light and you would be hard-pressed to see a difference with a UV filter. And while this family of filters is more effective with film cameras, the improvements are rarely distinguished unless you are in one of the aforementioned situations.

The final question remains: So why not use a UV filter solely to protect my lens? The answer is that a $20 filter is cheap and effective method to protect your $500 lens. However, others argue that if the filter isn't actually filtering anything, it only represents more glass the light must pass through before it reaches your camera generally not a desirable condition. Ultimately, the answer is a matter of personal taste or experience. For example, I use a UV filter (under the assumption that it will do nothing photographically) when I shoot off boats in saltwater. The filter protects my lens from the tiny salt crystals that fly around, but otherwise I tend to shoot without any benign glass between my subject and lens.

In summation, you are safe to disregard a UV filter if you use digital equipment and only moderately admonished if you shoot with film. If you do decide to invest in a filter from the UV family, consult a reputable photographer for advice on which brand of filter to purchase. Anecdotally, I've been told that some low-end UV filters are simply plain glass imitations.

Learn more about this author, Steve Midway.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Using a UV lens filter to improve your photographs?
We want to hear your view. Write now!