You can not post to an archived thread.
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]
In Reply to: Your teacher was WRONG! posted by Joe Murphy Jr on August 29, 2001 at 19:05:48:
he was correct and this was one of the first courses at RIT in Photographic Science and Instrumentation. Yes, I have an undergrad degree in Photography.Joe, certainly this point won't help you take better pictures but the term light only refers to radiation we see. We don't see infrared radiation or ultraviolet, nor X-rays, microwaves, radio waves, et. al. Of course we sell untraviolet 'lights' and maybe even infrared 'lights', but any radiation emitted from these sources are not UV or IR. They are blue or red wavelengths which fall within the roughly 400 to 700 nm spectrum. Believe me, you cannot see UV or IR any better than you can see microwaves.
To get back to the original question, films are sensitive to UV and therefore unseen UV could have some impact on the film image. My experience over the past 35 years in photography suggests present films are much less impacted by this exposure than those years ago. I see no difference between identical color prints taken with or w/o a skylight filter. Ditto for 'haze' filters, which begin to filter into the far blue visible wavelengths. Maybe if you are an aviator and take alot of picures from the air where the effect of UV is greater or potentially more noticeable, then the haze filters may have some impact. However, this will be most important with color transparency films as printing effects can easily mask any differences.
So whether UV is or is not light, like they say at AA, try it in your own system. Your results may vary.
Good luck in your photography! A good hobby to have along with music and audio.
bz
Follow Ups:
You can not post to an archived thread.
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]