Questions about UV and FLD filters

I received a TG-5 Tough as a gift. Along with it, I received a filter set: CPL, UV and FLD.

I understand what the CPL is supposed to do (though I still need to experiment and practice a bit more with it). I'm a bit less clear on the other two filters.

UV filter:

The instructions claim that this filters out haze, which appears to be one of the things the CPL filter does well. Is there any circumstance where I should use the UV filter in addition to the CPL filter? Is there any circumstance where I should use the UV filter instead of the CPL filter?

I have a clear lens to help keep dust, etc. off the camera lens, so I don't need a UV lens for that.

FLD filter:

Is there any reason to use a FLD filter, rather than setting the camera's white balance to fluorescent lighting? If I use the FLD filter, what would I set the white balance to instead?

I received a TG-5 Tough as a gift. Along with it, I received a filter set: CPL, UV and FLD.

 

I understand what the CPL is supposed to do (though I still need to experiment and practice a bit more with it). I'm a bit less clear on the other two filters.

 

UV filter:

The instructions claim that this filters out haze, which appears to be one of the things the CPL filter does well. Is there any circumstance where I should use the UV filter in addition to the CPL filter? Is there any circumstance where I should use the UV filter instead of the CPL filter?

A UV filter is sort of superfluous since your sensor already has a filter to make it less sensitive to UV light than film was. Additionally, your clear filter will remove UV just by the nature of the glass itself. UV and clear protective are pretty much interchangeable. If one is a higher quality than the other, use it.

As for clear vs. CPL, in addition to cutting glare from non-metallic surfaces and darkening the sky perpendicular to the sun, the CPL will cut about 1½-2½ stops of light, depending on the brand. This may introduce motion blur from the shutter needing to slow down or digital noise from the ISO needing to be higher, or both. In overcast conditions or indoors, the clear filter would be the better choice.

FLD filter:

Is there any reason to use a FLD filter, rather than setting the camera's white balance to fluorescent lighting? If I use the FLD filter, what would I set the white balance to instead?

Relic of days gone by. I swear there's a billion of them somewhere and they are included in every filter set bundle. Technically, they add red to the light coming into the camera since old fluorescent lights emitted almost nothing in the red end of the spectrum. Your camera will simply shift white balance to compensate for the filter.

Dave

That's one of those waterproof cameras, right? Then I honestly can't think of why anyone would use a filter on it. I'm surprised someone bothered to make one.

Nowadays, people use UV lenses just as a form of protection for their expensive interchangeable lens. Light protection. So light, it wouldn't make any sense on a camera built as tough as the TG-5.

I see a little more use for a CPL with a TG-5, but still, the nature of it (being a tough, go anywhere camera) makes the use case for a CPL very rare. I mean, it's possible, but we're talking a super niche product here.

pierces,

Thanks. That was very informative. Based on what you've said, the UV filter and FLD filter stay home. (The UV filter didn't strike me as high end.)

As for clear vs. CPL, in addition to cutting glare from non-metallic surfaces

I'm guessing that I should remove the CPL anytime that I want a reflection, like when I'm getting the reflection of a building in the water.

the CPL will cut about 1½-2½ stops of light, depending on the brand.

So ... it reduces the depth of field?

That's one of those waterproof cameras, right? Then I honestly can't think of why anyone would use a filter on it. I'm surprised someone bothered to make one.

Well, I'm generally expecting to use the filters when the camera's out of the water. But there's some usefulness in having a camera that can get drenched (i.e. white-water rafting) then shoot nice picture in a more normal context. We missed a great shot of a Hawaiian hawk last year (I got a shot, but it was crappy), because we saw it while on a snorkeling / kayaking excursion. The bird landed 12'-16' above us, stayed there for several minutes, but a GoPro isn't meant for that kind of shot.

 

I'm guessing that I should remove the CPL anytime that I want a reflection, like when I'm getting the reflection of a building in the water.

Actually, rotating the CPL will increase/decrease the amount of glare reduction. For most situations you can leave it place and get reflections in water if rotated away from maximum effect.

So ... it reduces the depth of field?

If the camera adjusts for the reduced light by opening the aperture, yes. Depth of field would be reduced. The Tough has a fairly small sensor so depth of field is pretty deep even at the widest aperture. Remember, it can also slow the shutter or raise ISO since all three have a component of exposure. Most full auto modes will shift all three simultaneously with ISO sometimes left for last to avoid noise.

Well, I'm generally expecting to use the filters when the camera's out of the water. But there's some usefulness in having a camera that can get drenched (i.e. white-water rafting) then shoot nice picture in a more normal context. We missed a great shot of a Hawaiian hawk last year (I got a shot, but it was crappy), because we saw it while on a snorkeling / kayaking excursion. The bird landed 12'-16' above us, stayed there for several minutes, but a GoPro isn't meant for that kind of shot.

You could have turned on the GoPro and thrown it at the hawk. You could extract single frames from the video for pictures and made a fortune on YouTube from the millions of views of you being bloodied by an enraged raptor afterwards. :)

Dave

 

You could have turned on the GoPro and thrown it at the hawk. You could extract single frames from the video for pictures and made a fortune on YouTube from the millions of views of you being bloodied by an enraged raptor afterwards. :)

 

Dave

I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this!

V:D

I received a TG-5 Tough as a gift. Along with it, I received a filter set: CPL, UV and FLD.

 

 

 

I understand what the CPL is supposed to do (though I still need to experiment and practice a bit more with it). I'm a bit less clear on the other two filters.

 

 

 

UV filter:

 

The instructions claim that this filters out haze, which appears to be one of the things the CPL filter does well. Is there any circumstance where I should use the UV filter in addition to the CPL filter? Is there any circumstance where I should use the UV filter instead of the CPL filter?

 

 

 

I have a clear lens to help keep dust, etc. off the camera lens, so I don't need a UV lens for that.

 

 

 

FLD filter:

 

Is there any reason to use a FLD filter, rather than setting the camera's white balance to fluorescent lighting? If I use the FLD filter, what would I set the white balance to instead?

While you are swimming along the reef with your snorkel gear the fld filter would be used to help liven up any underwater shots you might take, the first color water absorbs is red and this filter will add that back, I will warn you that underwater photography can become addictive and expensive though lol

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

While you are swimming along the reef with your snorkel gear the fld filter would be used to help liven up any underwater shots you might take, the first color water absorbs is red and this filter will add that back,

Have you tested that out before? Particularly at shallow/snorkeling depths?

I will warn you that underwater photography can become addictive and expensive though lol

I know. I took about 1,600 underwater photos while snorkeling in Hawaii. Despite the limitations of the GoPro, I still managed to get some good photos (and a couple good videos).

I'm looking forward to seeing what the TG-5 can do underwater ... though it will probably be another year before we go snorkeling again.

An FYI:

The Underwater Mode setting on the TG-5 does pretty much the same thing as the FLD filter but neither will do much below a certain depth since there's less and less actual red light available. After a point, you need a flash or light to get natural-looking images. That has it's own set of problems with the onboard flash illuminating any tiny piece of anything floating between you and the subject. That's why you see dedicated underwater cameras and housings with the flash extended way off to the side. For normal snorkel depths, the Underwater Mode should work well.

Here's a pretty thorough hands-on review with some examples.

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/olympus-tg5-tough-waterproof-camera-review/

Dave

Have you tested that out before? Particularly at shallow/snorkeling depths?

 

 

 

 

 

I know. I took about 1,600 underwater photos while snorkeling in Hawaii. Despite the limitations of the GoPro, I still managed to get some good photos (and a couple good videos).

 

 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what the TG-5 can do underwater ... though it will probably be another year before we go snorkeling again.

Both my underwater cameras need sealed housings so I do not get to “experiment “with the levels of underwater filters and such, on my 5dmkii one of my wide angle lenses has a gel pocket on the backside but once I get wet there is no changing so all pictures must use the gel or the filter.

Post processing can make an amazing difference in underwater shots especially if shooting in raw, but shots straight out of camera with gels or filter will hands down look better if not processing or posting wirelessly as soon as you shoot on Facebook or twitter.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Post processing can make an amazing difference in underwater shots especially if shooting in raw,

Even though I've been shooting underwater shots .jpeg without the benefit of filters or even white balancing, I've spent hours processing the shots afterwards.

Here's a pretty thorough hands-on review with some examples.

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/olympus-tg5-tough-waterproof-camera-review/

The Underwater Mode setting on the TG-5 does pretty much the same thing as the FLD filter

I'm mostly concerned that it might add a funny color shift to the photos ... particularly a color shift that's different than what the white balance correction normally does.

once I get wet there is no changing so all pictures must use the gel or the filter.

Functionally, I probably could add a filter while I'm in the water ... but there's an inherent risk of dropping and losing the filter (and possibly a lens) if I'm trying to change filters while I'm out in the water.

I was actually surprised to see that my processed shots had much better color than most of the underwater examples from the article (particularly the picture of the kid swimming at the surface).

 

Not surprising. Putting in the time on a good editor can work wonders.

Maybe using the UW Mode might lessen the amount of fix needed and speed up the post vacation ordeal a bit?

Dave

Not surprising. Putting in the time on a good editor can work wonders.

Well, I was using a mediocre editor (the one that comes with the Microsoft Office suite), so I was a bit surprised.

Maybe using the UW Mode might lessen the amount of fix needed and speed up the post vacation ordeal a bit?

I'm certainly hoping it will. I only tested out editing RAW photos for the first time on Monday and Tuesday of this week. It was quite a pleasant switch from editing a .jpeg.

By the way, I really liked the video and article you posted about not seeking perfection in photos. In my opinion, the best camera for photography is the one you actually have with you when you decide to take a photo. (Of course, that's something I'm trying to keep in mind as I see many of my old photos and think "That would have been much better with a polarized lens," or "I wish I could have taken and edited that in RAW.")

...or "I wish I could have taken and edited that in RAW.")

Take a moment to read this: http://pptphoto.com/articles/RvsJ_frame.html

Always shooting RAW won't guarantee perfection and JPEG is more flexible than people think.

Dave

Always shooting RAW won't guarantee perfection and JPEG is more flexible than people think.

I think you misunderstood my brief statement, and interpreted it to mean something different than what I meant.

The pictures I'm most frequently looking at are the ones in my electronic picture frame on my desk. They're a few hundred pictures (out of thousands) that we've collected over the last decade. The best pictures never required any work. RAW would be irrelevant. The most marginal pictures are the ones which capture a specific time and place ... and while they're the best pictures we have of those moments, they still fall a bit short.

I'm not assuming that RAW would fix those problems perfectly. Given my brief experiments with RAW, I'm saying that I could fix specific problems with certain pictures better than I was able to address those problems when playing with the .jpeg.

I think you misunderstood my brief statement, and interpreted it to mean something different than what I meant.

 

The pictures I'm most frequently looking at are the ones in my electronic picture frame on my desk. They're a few hundred pictures (out of thousands) that we've collected over the last decade. The best pictures never required any work. RAW would be irrelevant. The most marginal pictures are the ones which capture a specific time and place ... and while they're the best pictures we have of those moments, they still fall a bit short.

 

I'm not assuming that RAW would fix those problems perfectly. Given my brief experiments with RAW, I'm saying that I could fix specific problems with certain pictures better than I was able to address those problems when playing with the .jpeg.

I suggested the article for informational purposes only. Your statement above is actually the point of the article. If you take a good picture to start with the use of RAW is purely optional and not "needed" to get great photos. Keep doing what you are doing. If you like your photos, then you're doing it right. ;)

Dave

DAVE:

Memory is fading but didn't you write an article at one time about filters?

DAVE:

 

Memory is fading but didn't you write an article at one time about filters?

Just added it back to the article menu after revamping a little.

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/usingfilters_frame.html

Dave