This is part of a larger series: I’d suggest you read the overview first. Or any other review. Seriously, I just made this as a throwaway joke, and was originally planning on leaving this post blank.
No?
… are we really going to do this? Nothing? really? Okay, but in honour of the item being reviewed, no photos will be on this post.
Okay, lets start. By Nothing, I mean ‘No filter’. No filter means that I have my camera(which can see into the UV range, unlike most) and lens(which still blocks most UV light), but no additional filter. To be very clear, my camera can see into the ultraviolet range because I removed an internal filter. Even so, the amount of UV light contamination is so minuscule through the lens that it doesn’t affect my photos unless I block most of the visible and infrared light. If I had the money to buy a more advanced lens, it might improve the UV photos taken, but still not by much
If you want to compare how ‘no filter’ looks compared to the other UV filters I reviewed, just look at those pictures, outside the filter. If you don’t notice much of a difference, I’d say that means that ‘nothing’ is on par with the filter.
Of course, it really isn’t ‘nothing’, but rather Earth’s atmosphere. I’m going to continue to call it nothing, however, as that is more amusing, and I’m easily amused. I’ll judge Nothing by the same criteria as my other reviews.
The criteria again:
1- How is the packaging design(0% of total score)?
2: How is the protective case size & durability(5% of total score)?
3- Do the reflections off the glass look off-colour(5% of the total score)?
4- Does it block UV light for my full-spectrum camera(35% of total score)?
5: Does it block any light for my full spectrum camera(10% of total score)?
6: does it block any UV fluorescence from a black light(35% of total score)?
7: How reasonable is the price(10% of the total score)?
1- Packaging: 0 out of 5. ‘Nothing’ wasn’t in any packaging. Unless you count the Ozone layer, but it still isn’t very attractive. I certainly wouldn’t buy it.
2- Case durability: 5 out of 5. The only protective case is the endless void. You’d think it wasn’t much of a protection, but it seems to have protected the atmosphere for a few billion years, so what do I know?
3- reflective colouring: n/a out of 5. I guess I could count rainbows, or the blue sky itself, but that might get a little tricky to judge objectively.
4- blocking light into a UV camera: 0 out of 5. It doesn’t block anything.
… okay, I’m lying. The atmosphere blocks a lot of ultraviolet light, including most UV(c) and UV(b) rays, and about half of UV(a) rays. The problem is that I can’t test that right now. As I can’t think of a way to compare my photographs to pictures taken outside of the atmosphere, it gets a zero, because I’m petty. For anyone who is arguing this score, please contribute to my gofundme “Send the parallel views blogger to space”, and I’ll write a more accurate review upon my return.
5- does it block other wavelengths: 0 out of 5.
Yes, it blocks several wavelengths, reducing light in the visible spectrum and almost completely blocking some wavelengths in the mid-range of infrared. I don’t think I can detect those with my camera, though, and again, I can’t leave the atmosphere, so I’m giving it a zero.
6- Does it block black light florescence: 0 out of 5.
Same objection as above. Again, support my trip to space to get better results. If you don’t have a lot of money, it’s okay. It doesn’t have to be a return trip, after all.
7- Price: 5 out of 5! Perfect Score!
It is free, as long as you don’t mind a bit of contamination at times.
Conclusion:
Fifteen percent!
‘Nothing’ is free and easily available. It performs almost as well as most ‘UV filters’ in my review, and is a lot easier to attach to the camera. Can’t go wrong with that! The quality of photos may drop in big cities using Nothing, but you can correct for that if you have a UV filte… oh, wait
Parallel Views 