How much to spend on UV filters

[Klainmeister]

Sure. Like I said, I have 4 shots left on this mystery roll (forgot where I was when shooting it). Anywho, I think I'll do something with text and high contrast and then maybe something with glare...reflections or something. I have the Mamiya lens hood I can keep on it.

 

[NB23]

Yep. It appears you're trying to increase the amount thereof.


Interesting statement... NOT.

Could you explain how the light bypasses a filter that's firmly screwed into the front of the lens?

- Leigh

Leigh,

For the very same reason why a 20x24 print doesn't show any degradation when I use a PLASTIC, DUSTY and SCRATCHED Ilford filter underneath the enlarging lens: Because the focus is on the negative, not on the filter.

I repeat: My 20x24 prints show NO degradation wether or not I place an Ilford Filter that is made of cheap PLASTIC and which is SCRATCHED and DUSTY and is, by no means, of optical grade.

Please explain why.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

35mm.

The OP is about the relative expense/quality merits of UV filters attached to the front of a camera lens.
It bares no relationship to plastic, dusty scratched Ilford filters attached to an enlarger head, which is probably the subject of a separate thread.

 

[Klainmeister]

Shall I perform my test on 35mm rather?

 

[tkamiya]

One major difference I can think of, between two conditions 1: filter in front of camera lens and 2: filter in front of an enlarger lens, is direction of light that'll be hitting the filter.

In case of camera lens and the filter, the light will be arriving at the lens from all directions including directly at the lens axis and at an angle, including nearly at 90 degrees if a hood isn't used. On the other hand, enlarger filter only sees light coming at it from one direction at lens axis which crosses filter at 90 degrees.

I am no optical expert. I know from experience, scratches on Ilford filter makes no difference. But, I also know, if I want to see the scratches on surface, I won't look at it straight on. I see them at an angle. Suddenly, scratches reflect light (thus I can see!) and become obvious. Not a condition enlargement filter will see but lens filter will.

I think we are comparing dissimilar systems.

Has anyone compared Lee or Cokin system verses regular filters? That'll be more similar. If you badly scratch those.... would it show?

 

[NB23]

One major difference I can think of, between two conditions 1: filter in front of camera lens and 2: filter in front of an enlarger lens, is direction of light that'll be hitting the filter.

In case of camera lens and the filter, the light will be arriving at the lens from all directions including directly at the lens axis and at an angle, including nearly at 90 degrees if a hood isn't used. On the other hand, enlarger filter only sees light coming at it from one direction at lens axis which crosses filter at 90 degrees.

I am no optical expert. I know from experience, scratches on Ilford filter makes no difference. But, I also know, if I want to see the scratches on surface, I won't look at it straight on. I see them at an angle. Suddenly, scratches reflect light (thus I can see!) and become obvious. Not a condition enlargement filter will see but lens filter will.

I think we are comparing dissimilar systems.

Has anyone compared Lee or Cokin system verses regular filters? That'll be more similar. If you badly scratch those.... would it show?

No. Scratch your sensor tell me what you see.

 

[tkamiya]

Huh? Sensor?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Leigh,

For the very same reason why a 20x24 print doesn't show any degradation when I use a PLASTIC, DUSTY and SCRATCHED Ilford filter underneath the enlarging lens: Because the focus is on the negative, not on the filter.

I repeat: My 20x24 prints show NO degradation wether or not I place an Ilford Filter that is made of cheap PLASTIC and which is SCRATCHED and DUSTY and is, by no means, of optical grade.

Please explain why.

Of course they show degradation. Just because you can't see it doen't mean it isn't there. Pasteurella pestis isn't easily noticed, either.

 

[NB23]

Of course they show degradation. Just because you can't see it doen't mean it isn't there. Pasteurella pestis isn't easily noticed, either.

Sorry, I'm not into nano-microscopic detail research. And anyone who mixes nano-micron viewing with photography should have a reality check as it is not photography anymore.
While
We're at it, what about the subatomic neutrinos?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Sorry, I'm not into nano-microscopic detail research. And anyone who mixes nano-micron viewing with photography should have a reality check as it is not photography anymore.
While
We're at it, what about the subatomic neutrinos?

Your statement that a scratched and dusty printing filter causes no degradation of the image is not within the realm of physical possibility. Of course, if your standards are low enough you can print through a bottle bottom and you'll notice no degradation. It's like stating that an anusburger from McD's is the equal of a real hamburger.

You do realise, don't you, that by definition neutrinos are subatomic? There's no other kind.

 

[tkamiya]

I think this discussion went well beyond reasonable at this point.

 

[Leigh B]

Your statement that a scratched and dusty printing filter causes no degradation of the image is not within the realm of physical possibility. Of course, if your standards are low enough you can print through a bottle bottom and you'll notice no degradation.

Thanks, E. You saved me a bunch of typing.

To expound a bit... I'll absolutely believe NB23's assertion that he saw no degradation, for the reasons you mentioned.

- Leigh

 

[bladerunner6]

35mm.

The OP is about the relative expense/quality merits of UV filters attached to the front of a camera lens.
It bares no relationship to plastic, dusty scratched Ilford filters attached to an enlarger head, which is probably the subject of a separate thread.

Thanks.

I am wanted a discussion about filters on the front of my camera lenses.

 

[NB23]

Leigh,
Let's jusy say that you don't come across as someone that has a lot of darkroom experience.

E. von,
With arguments like "you don't see the difference but there is one" and "anusburger", I guess you really know your stuff. No wonder Leigh is your follower.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Leigh,
Let's jusy say that you don't come across as someone that has a lot of darkroom experience.

E. von,
With arguments like "you don't see the difference but there is one" and "anusburger", I guess you really know your stuff. No wonder Leigh is your follower.

Cut the bullshit and stick to the main thrust of the original post please: the quality of filters on the front of the lens.

 

[NB23]

Cut the bullshit and stick to the main thrust of the original post please: the quality of filters on the front of the lens.

Wasn't I clear enough? A good filter will not degrade the image. Maybe at Neutrino level, yes, but not that our eyes can detect.

Bonsoir.

 

[Leigh B]

Leigh,
Let's jusy say that you don't come across as someone that has a lot of darkroom experience.

That's true.

I've only been developing and printing film since 1955. That's about 57 years.

- Leigh

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Leigh,
Let's jusy say that you don't come across as someone that has a lot of darkroom experience.

E. von,
With arguments like "you don't see the difference but there is one" and "anusburger", I guess you really know your stuff. No wonder Leigh is your follower.

I know garbage when I read it. It is not your ignorance, but your arrogance which I find irksome.

This is your sole criterion for your judgement: "Well, if there is a degradation, my customers never saw any. And that's what counts."

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Okay, that's enough of that.