Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,566   Posts: 1,545,400   Online: 1073
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    464
    For what it's worth, I was using a 180mm Mamiya Secor C lens on an RB67 MF camera with mirror locked up on a heavy Gitzo tripod. The filters were multicoated B+W MRC just bought-right out of their shipping containers. I was comparing shots taken with and without the filter, but they were different scenes. Probably has to do with that rather than equipment or, I hope, operator error. I'll shoot some more and compare similar scenes, with and without filters. Thanks for all your help.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    This whole topic can be definitely proven on an optical bench. But otherwise, it's common sense. I can even tell when wearing a smudged or
    cheaper pair of reading glasses that something is off, compared to a recently cleaned good pair. How much does it matter? Just depends. I'm
    of the school of thought that these little things tend to add up. A minor compromise here and there, and eventually it really does show in the
    print. But not everyone has the same priorities. What I categorically deny is that filter quality is not a factor. Every filter manufacturer knows
    that! I could same about the lens analogy above: If you've ever owned a multicoated dagor lens with only four air/glass interfaces no way
    your eyeballs won't pop out (I know, hyperbole- but you get the point), compared to a plastmat, not to mention some zoom lens with sixteen
    or seventeen separate elements. I really really does make a difference, and if everything else in the workflow follows suit, even the public
    will quickly perceive something, even if they can't explain it. Happens all the time to me. But a misaligned enlarger, or cheapo lens on that,
    why bother....?
    Drew,

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    The OP was talking about multi-coated B+W filters, which are as good as it gets for filters; plano-parallel Schott glass and top-notch coating. The effect of using one of these, when you have to, would be negligible. Sure, a lot of "negligibles" will add up to a tangible, but we were just talking about filters. The real question was if a particular color (orange) itself was responsible for degrading the quality of the image. I rather think not. The culprit is likely something else besides the color of the filter.

    As to craftsmanship and careful working: Yes, don't use cheap and uncoated filters, get the best optics you can afford, etc., etc. I'm way with you there. I replaced all my pretty-good filters with B+W filters some time ago.

    On the other hand, if you are a careful worker and the need arises to use a bit-less-than-optimum-quality filter, that alone is not going to make a noticeable difference in the final result; it is only one "negligible."

    And, sometimes, "good enough" is really good enough. The best modern lenses are indeed superior to much of what was used in the past. We have things available to us that were not available (or affordable) for the likes of Adams, Weston, et al. Nevertheless, they made the best of what they had and some rather good images as well...


    Best,

    Doremus

  3. #23
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,987
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    The best modern lenses are indeed superior to much of what was used in the past.
    Because I shoot more than test patterns posted on a wall I would disagree heavily with this statement. In fact I avoid most modern glass and actually do not find it superior at all. But perhaps that's the subject for a different thread someday...
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #24
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Geelong & Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,581
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Sintchak (rich815) View Post
    Because I shoot more than test patterns posted on a wall I would disagree heavily with this statement. In fact I avoid most modern glass and actually do not find it superior at all. But perhaps that's the subject for a different thread someday...

    OMG...
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Sintchak (rich815) View Post
    Because I shoot more than test patterns posted on a wall I would disagree heavily with this statement. In fact I avoid most modern glass and actually do not find it superior at all. But perhaps that's the subject for a different thread someday...
    Richard,

    Let me qualify

    I'm talking about optimizing resolution and contrast here, nothing more. There's really no question that modern computer-aided designs and multi-coatings coupled with more stringent quality control and assembly procedures have resulted in a general improvement in these parameters when compared with single or uncoated lenses that were hand assembled and designed "on paper." Whether you like that or not or whether you call that "quality," is another issue.

    The OP's question was about whether a particular color of filter would degrade contrast and sharpness more than another. That is what I was addressing, not aesthetic issues.

    FWIW, there were/are a lot of older lenses that don't fit this generality; I love my Ektars and there are those who swear by the Red-dot Artars, etc. etc.

    Best,

    Doremus

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    664
    If you increased the exposure for the filtered shot by opening the aperture, then the depth of field is reduced.

    If you forgot about the aperture change, the reduction in depth of field might be interpreted as a “loss of sharpness” and wrongly blamed on the filter.
    Last edited by Ian C; 03-16-2014 at 08:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,987
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    Richard,

    Let me qualify

    I'm talking about optimizing resolution and contrast here, nothing more. There's really no question that modern computer-aided designs and multi-coatings coupled with more stringent quality control and assembly procedures have resulted in a general improvement in these parameters when compared with single or uncoated lenses that were hand assembled and designed "on paper." Whether you like that or not or whether you call that "quality," is another issue.

    The OP's question was about whether a particular color of filter would degrade contrast and sharpness more than another. That is what I was addressing, not aesthetic issues.

    FWIW, there were/are a lot of older lenses that don't fit this generality; I love my Ektars and there are those who swear by the Red-dot Artars, etc. etc.

    Best,

    Doremus
    I hear ya. :-)

    And understand your point. I just take issue with the blanket statement that "modern" lens are "superior" to older ones. In many cases sharper and more contrasty? Yes. But that does not make them necessarily superior in my book.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #28
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    729
    The sharpness challenge taken to the limit should recognise that a perfect lens working with a perfect dark red filter can deliver only about half the resolution of that same lens with a perfect dark blue filter. The longer the wavelength the lower the theoretical diffraction limited resolution.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    Let me give an example of when being nitpicky helps. Most of my time I'm lugging around at least a 4x5, and often an 8x10, and the effect on
    perceived sharpness with any high-quality modern glass coated filter is going to be largely undetectable. But now that Quickload and Readyload film sleeves are no longer available, and I'm getting to be a bit of a geezer, I sometimes prefer to carry 6x9 roll film backs for my 4x5 on long backpacking trips. If I put a film like Ektar in that (color) or maybe ACROS (black and white), I might be able to squeeze out a 16x20 print that pretends to look like I shot it in large format, if everything is optimized, including the quality of any filters. That's like trying to get a chiuahua to bite like a rottweiler. Needs some good sharp teeth. But again, how many filters does a person really need to carry?
    Unless you're talking very large sized ones, good multicoated ones don't cost all that much more than so-so varieties.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    Maris - in the real world, you've got it backwards. Blue light is more easily scattered by the atmosphere. That's why the sky looks blue, and why, outdoors, shots with blue filters (over a distance) will come out softer than red filter shots, often dramatically so. This fact will overcome
    the characteristics of the lens itself, at least with modern lenses and panchromatic films. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use a blue filter for a
    deliberately atmospheric effect, creatively. Just means distant details will be much less contrasty, maybe to the point of being undetectable.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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