Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,331   Posts: 1,537,215   Online: 864
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,910
    Ctein also reports in his book "Postexposure" that there was no difference in printing a resolution chart between the placement of the filters.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  2. #12
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,297
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post

    the role that a below lens contrast filter plays in an enlarger's light path is very different than the role that a camera filter screwed on to the front of a lens plays.

    How? It seems exactly the same thing to me.

    ...
    Well ...

    You are working with a single light source, either collimated or close to it. The range of light intensities in the darkroom is much narrower than outside in daylight. The colour spectrum of the light source in the darkroom is relatively narrow, and very consistent. The paper has limited sensitivity to most colours, so chromatic aberration isn't as much of a potential problem.

    All working distances are in the macro range, rather than ranging from macro to infinity.

    There are a lot fewer sources of high intensity off axis flare in the darkroom as compared to outside in daylight.

    With a very few exceptions, in the darkroom you don't have to worry about your lens having to zoom through a wide variation of angles of view, so your filter doesn't have to be concerned with that.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,920
    Sounds like the difference is really not enough to worry about....
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    All filters come in two types. One type type is used above the lens and another below the lens. It used to be that they were marked with identifying notation such as "CC" and "CP" which is what Kodak used.

    Your filter instructions should telll you.

    PE

  5. #15
    Saganich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    447
    Images
    176
    When using my Focomat IIA I tried putting a filter in the negative mask slot below the negative but above the lens and below the condenser above the film. I also compared prints using the same filters under lens on top of condenser. No difference with the above condenser and below the lens but I can say that the filters under or over the negative, between the condenser and lens, without a doubt caused the image to degrade.
    Chris Saganich
    http://www.imagebrooklyn.com

  6. #16
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    I've used the "above" Ilford filters under the lens. I didn't notice any degradation but additionally did a test:
    - ultra high resolution negative (USAF1951 on Orthopan UR / Adox CMS) with 180lp/mm (sic!)
    - enlarged to 45*65cm
    - analysed with a loupe: 180lp/mm are there.

    So my first hand evidence is: as long as the filter is clean and not scratched you are fine. Common sense says scratches and dirt will only lower contrast.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    256
    Having interviewed some of the best printers in the UK in my series 'Master Printers' for B&W Photography magazine, I can confirm that several of them use filters below the lens without any obvious degradation in image quality. It's especially helpful when you're split grade printing, if you haven't got a multigrade head there's less risk of knocking the enlarger as you change filter drawers if you hold the filter in your fingers beneath the lens.

    Yes, there's a theoretical chance that you may degrade the image with a very scratched, dusty, filter but it remains mostly theoretical. If you've got that much dust on your filters then, in putting them into your enlarger, you're probably dumping a shed load of dust onto your negative anyway...

    Do whatever suits you best.

    Regards
    Jerry

  8. #18
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,253
    Images
    148
    Having used both, commercially and at home, I have to agree with Jerry and others that below the lens filters are fine, just treat with care.

    There's no compromise in quality with below the lens filters, the Ilford ones are in good holders and will easily last a few years.

    Ian

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, Western Suburbs
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,436
    Dear tkamiya,

    A quote by Ctein from Post Exposure, 2nd Edition, p144: "According to my tests, it makes no difference. I set up a high-resolution target with my 55mm Computar lens at optimum aperture and examined the projected aerial image with no filter under the lens, with modern thin filters under the lens, and with older cast plastic filters under the lens. In all cases, I could see a clean, 320 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm) in the center of the field and more than 280 lp/mm at the corners. I could not convince myself that I saw any degradation in image quality with the filters in place, no mater how hard I looked. That surprises even me, but it's true. As long as your VC filters are not scratched enough to create serious flare (see Chapter 5) I can see no reason for avoiding below the lens filters."

    Neal Wydra

  10. #20
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,253
    Images
    148
    i think Greg Davis has already said that

    However thanks, you added more details, and that backs up what many of us have said

    Ian

    Quote Originally Posted by Neal View Post
    Dear tkamiya,

    A quote by Ctein from Post Exposure, 2nd Edition, p144: "According to my tests, it makes no difference. I set up a high-resolution target with my 55mm Computar lens at optimum aperture and examined the projected aerial image with no filter under the lens, with modern thin filters under the lens, and with older cast plastic filters under the lens. In all cases, I could see a clean, 320 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm) in the center of the field and more than 280 lp/mm at the corners. I could not convince myself that I saw any degradation in image quality with the filters in place, no mater how hard I looked. That surprises even me, but it's true. As long as your VC filters are not scratched enough to create serious flare (see Chapter 5) I can see no reason for avoiding below the lens filters."

    Neal Wydra

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin