Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,522   Posts: 1,543,803   Online: 763
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,256
    Images
    73
    I was wondering (I do a lot of that) if the hassle wasn't an issue, would it be better (ie: sharper) to place the filter on the back element of the lens or is it better to put them on the front?

    Most LF lens have a threaded rear element so I think this is possible.

    I'm being alturistic here, I know it would be a bother to do it, so that is not the issue. I am looking for maximum sharpness, contrast etc. We are assuming we have the best filters money can buy as well.

    Has anyone ever tried this?

    Eric
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,284
    Images
    20
    Putting the filter in back introduces focus shift, so you have to be sure to focus with the filter in place. Dirt or scratches will also have a greater effect behind the lens than in front.

    On the other hand, you don't have to worry about shading the filter, if you put it behind the lens.

    In an ideal world, I'd always use filters with a compendium bellows in front of the lens, but in the real world, I've got too many weird old lenses with odd filter sizes for this to be practical. I also have a few ultrawides that just can't take a filter in front without vignetting, because even a step-up ring for a larger filter will vignette. So for those lenses, I have 3x3" filter holders epoxied to the back of the lensboard, and I put the filter behind the lens.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    I use gels and have for several years placed the filter in the rear of the lens and I see no difference in the the sharpness or any loss of contrast. You should try it and see if it works for you and your equipment.

    lee\c

  4. #4
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,256
    Images
    73
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lee @ Jan 10 2003, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I use gels and have for several years placed the filter in the rear of the lens and I see no difference in the the sharpness or any loss of contrast. You should try it and see if it works for you and your equipment.

    lee&#092;c </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Lee, if there is no apparent difference, I would assume that means there is no advantage to using the filters behind the lens. For sharpness and contrast anyway. Since you go the extra step to put them behind the lens, what is the advantage from your experience? Also how do you attach the gels?

    Eric
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  5. #5
    glbeas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Roswell, Ga. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,307
    Images
    109
    One advantage I can see for gels behind the lens is it gets the filter assembly out of the way for getting to the shutter and aperture controls. It&#39;s also a cleaner environment so would be much less likely to collect any stray dust, especially if you were working outside.
    Gary Beasley

  6. #6
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    Those are important considerations. The main reason is simplicity. I use a double sticky tape and place it on the back of the lens rim. This stuff is really malable and you can form it into strings. The filter is pressed into the tape. Care is taken to make sure I don&#39;t use the center of the filter. Then I attach the lens board to the camera. You understand that this is nearly the last step in taking the shot. All the prelim work (composition and focus) have been done. But the main reason is it gets the filter out of the way and won&#39;t blow off and get trashed as quickly. I do have to replace filters every so often. I have several lenses that do not share a common thread size. So, lthis is what I came up with. It works for me and I am happy with it.

    lee&#092;c

  7. #7
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    one other thing you might do is there are some card board squares that serve as frames for the filters and you could slide the filter into that and then use the double sided tape to attach the whole thing to the back of the lens.

    lee&#092;c

  8. #8
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,256
    Images
    73
    Is there any worries about the filter not being 100% parallel to the back element? If it is not totally square would this serve to add some distortion to the final image. I guess not since you find it successful. Have you done any A/B studies with the filter on the front, then back then no filter to see if there is any degradation? I suppose I&#39;m getting to nit picky, something I try to avoid when it comes to my photography. I find some get more obsessed with techie kinds of things and not enough with the "art".

    Eric
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  9. #9
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    As far as I can tell, there is no problem. All you are doing is coloring the light. Those techie things are somewhat necessary but they do become the devil&#39;s workshop. =[8^)

    lee&#092;c

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12
    I place grads and polarizers up front. They will induce focus shift on the rear. Sure, you could put them on the rear and then focus, but I have found it difficult to focus through anything that has any measurable density. I used to put Wratten CC gels on the rear, but if using 2 filters, that was prone to a ghosting, or double images in highlight areas. After reading the photonet posts, I don&#39;t think I will ever put anything on the rear again. Here are some links from photonet that dealt with this:

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-...g?msg_id=0033SN
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-...g?msg_id=0039TF
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-...g?msg_id=00392R
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-...g?msg_id=003FaN

    John Luke
    APA/ASMP
    John Luke
    member-ASMP

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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