Lee Resin vs. Quality Glass Filters?

[Neil Poulsen]

How do Lee resin filters compare to high quality (Schott glass, MC, etc.) glass filters? Sometimes it's difficult to find certain colors (e.g. Wratten 12) in a large, glass filter. So, I'm looking for alternatives.

In a different post, it's been suggested, and I think that it's logical, that gels will slightly degrade images, when compared to quality glass filters. With that in mind, how do resin filters perform.

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

Plastic (resin) filters are colored using soluble dyes instead of pigments. This has the advantage that there are no particles that can scatter light, but, dyes are not very lightfast and migrate. Gel/Resin filters deteriorate over time. They are practical when bought "fresh," but are not to be considered a long-term investment.
Good filters are expensive pieces of glass, but they will last forever, if taken good care of.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Anything be it a glass filter or a gel with degrade the resolution. You are adding two new surfaces into the im,age path. I personally would go with quality glass filters as they are easier to clean and less delicate. But it also depends on what type of photography you do and your equipment. Large diameter glass filters can be expensive. Gels are probably more suited to a studio environment.

 

[Andre Noble]

lee resin filters fade quickly over time

 

[Neil Poulsen]

It's interesting.

I was considering an 82mm Med. Dark Yellow (Wratten 12) Formatt HiTech glass filter made from Schott glass. Not multi-coated, though. (Not sure if they're coated at all?) They're $135. I can find an 82mm Wratten 8 in a B&W or a Hoya MC, but not a #12.

Reviews I've seen demonstrated how Formatt's HiTech resin ND filters only take a couple of years to degrade to an obvious magenta. This leaves me wondering about their "high" quality glass filters, and that in turn led me to ask about Lee Resin filters? Lee makes a #12 4"x4" resin filter.

It seems like everything's a puzzle, these days.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Apart from the expense, Schott glass filters will shatter easily if dropped. They are easy to clean and are unaffected by temperature extremes. Careful handling is something you would need to brush up on. Some in the Formatt range cost up to $400, so it's going to hurt if you are fumble-fingered.

How much you value the quality of your lens performance will often dictate whether you angle for a resin or Schott glass filter. Everybody will have a personal preference based on long experience. For me, I will never put a resin filter in front of a highly corrected lens. In your case you could buy both a Schott filter and a resin filter, and test each. Uncoated filters with large surfaces will be subject to flare and possibly ghosting.

 

[Ian Grant]

For practical reasons (as an LF user) I use Cokin P filters ad have one or two lee filters as well. I've had all of my filters since the 1980's and none have faded, I consider that an excellent long term investment. I actually bought them second-hand from a dealer (in mint condition).

In terms of quality I've never seen a difference between images made with the Resin filters, Glass filters or no filter. It has to be remembered that the same materials are used for spectacles.

Ian

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Neil,

Filters that are coated are going to degrade the quality least of any choices as far as flare goes. I don't know if any of the resin or acrylic filters are coated; B+W, Heliopan and Hoya HMC filters certainly are. Good quality glass filters are plano-parallel so should be optically sound in that regard as well, but gels and resin filters have good reputations too. FWIW, I agree with Ian; I've never seen a difference when I use gels or glass except the gels aren't coated and can flare sometimes (a holder with a hood is a good idea here). I'd go with what was most convenient for you.

Mostly, though, I'm posting to question why you specifically need a Wratten #12 filter. A #8 is easily available and does almost the same thing. If you need stronger, then a #15 filter should do the job. I have some Wratten gels in #12 and use them occasionally, but don't see a reason to carry them much since my glass filters are easier to use and do the job just fine even though they are #8 or #15.

FWIW, most of my glass filters are B+W coated filters with brass rings (I really love the brass rings...). I got them all for very little used on eBay, but I use rather common sizes (52mm and 67mm).

Best,

Doremus

 

[Neil Poulsen]

Neil, Filters that are coated are going to degrade the quality least of any choices as far as flare goes. . .

Doremus,

I've been doing some B&W architectural photography lately using a #12, and I really like the results I'm getting. But not having used filters too much in the past, my experience is limited. I'd planned to give an #8 a try, but haven't yet. And not having had much experience, I was confronted with the whole resin, gel, glass, polyester, etc., question and thought that I would ask.

I appreciate your input on #8 filters. I have a gel #8 and will see how it compares prior to spending quite a lot for a new glass #12. I couldn't find any #12 glass filters large enough that were used. But, #8 glass filters are pretty common.

Neil

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Yes, that's what I was getting at. A #12 filter's blue cut-off point is just about in the middle between the #8 and the #15. One of those will likely get you the results you need and both are much easier to find. If you find you really need that middle value, then you'll just have to bite the bullet one way or the other; either rig up a gel holder or shell out for a glass filter. FWIW, there are a few gels I carry around with me when I'm not traveling ultra-light in cardboard frames and in a book (a 4x6 photo album repurposed). These fit into my old Voss filter holder, which, in turn, fits all my lenses. The Voss holder with the barn doors aren't made any more, but turn up from time-to-time used. Maybe that approach will be something you could use. Alternately, I've just taped or held gels in front of the lens when taking...

It seems like you're looking for larger filters than I use. Good luck finding a system or combination of things that works for you.

Best,

Doremus

 

[gone]

I found this interesting test of glass vs plastic filters

https://photographylife.com/filters-affect-resolution-lenses

This was with digital though, and film will be different. In my mind, while any filter MAY degrade image quality on a graph, in actual use w/ film cameras you won't see anything. Years ago I had an old Nikon 35 70 2.8 lens w/ a terrible front element. Scratches galore, and one chunk out of the glass that I had to fill in w/ black paint. It took extremely sharp shots, and when compared to a mint lens of the same focal length that I had, the results were exactly the same. I also once owned a Leica R Elmarit 90 2.8 w/ a rear element that looked like it had been hit w/ sandpaper or something, and amazingly, the shots from it were perfectly fine. There's a post w/ images somewhere on the site here.

It takes quite lot to degrade a film shot to the point where it's visible to our eyes, although flare will certainly cause problems, so always use a hood, and better to go w/ a coated filter if you have a choice. All of my old series filters are gel, and many of them have, over the years, started to either delaminate or get cloudy in places, something that will degrade shots.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's nothing cheap about true Wratten gels. They're downright expensive, and are easily damaged in an outdoor environment. Substitute polyester
gels are optically quite inferior. Multicoated glass filters tend to be the best buy in the long haul, and will be optically superior to any sheet filter;
but landing spot on that no.12 could be an issue if for some reason you think it's essential (???). Just remember that some manufacturers do not use the old Wratten numbering system, but generally provide a conversion chart for reference. An actual spectrogram is best.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's nothing cheap about true Wratten gels. They're downright expensive, and are easily damaged in an outdoor environment. Substitute polyester
gels are optically quite inferior. Multicoated glass filters tend to be the best buy in the long haul, and will be optically superior to any sheet filter;
but landing spot on that no.12 could be an issue if for some reason you think it's essential (???). Just remember that some manufacturers do not use the old Wratten numbering system, but generally provide a conversion chart for reference. An actual spectrogram is best.

Very muddled as usual and as expected quite incorrect

The reality is you need to join the real world and see the superb images that have been made for over a 100 years, with first Wratten (pre Kodak) filters which are gelatin coated and later dyed acetates.

Your contradicting yourself across 2 Forums as well.

Ian

 

[Hatchetman]

Somebody asked this a few years ago. I told them I experienced significant image degradation with a wide angle lens (24mm in 35mm film). somebody else called me crazy.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Very muddled as usual and as expected quite incorrect

The reality is you need to join the real world and see the superb images that have been made for over a 100 years, with first Wratten (pre Kodak) filters which are gelatin coated and later dyed acetates.

Your contradicting yourself across 2 Forums as well.

Ian

Ah, actually I see a lot of truth and fact in what he has said.
My use of gelatin filters on rear-mount Canon L-series lenses (2) has been quite the nightmare in less than dry conditions. One drop of rain on these frail and archaic "filters" and it starts a cascade of more problems leading to outright disintegration. I am not alone in migrating totally away from gelatin to glass. For the expense, Wratten gelatin filters are appalling in service — a quaint relict of a romantic, bygone era. No such durability problems are experienced with Hoya, B+W, Kenko... a long list of quality filters that will fit into any budget, not necessarily those who demand and use $400 to $700 filters.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ah, actually I see a lot of truth and fact in what he has said.
My use of gelatin filters on rear-mount Canon L-series lenses (2) has been quite the nightmare in less than dry conditions. One drop of rain on these frail and archaic "filters" and it starts a cascade of more problems leading to outright disintegration. I am not alone in migrating totally away from gelatin to glass. For the expense, Wratten gelatin filters are appalling in service — a quaint relict of a romantic, bygone era. No such durability problems are experienced with Hoya, B+W, Kenko... a long list of quality filters that will fit into any budget, not necessarily those who demand and use $400 to $700 filters.

I don't disagree about Gelatin filters being prone to damage. I used the Ilford VC/MG Gelatin below the lens filters though for years with never an issue, however for camera use the only Gelatin filters I've used have been for very specific colour correction with fluorescent lighting for one off jobs, they weren't Wratten.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ian - I own a complete set of Lee light balancing and CC filter, have all kinds of true Wratten gels in the lab you've probably never even heard, or wouldn't even know why they were made in the first place. I used the Lee for test shots only per lighting issues, cause I wasn't about to lug around a full set of glass one until things were better specified, which even a color temp meter doesn't always tell you. Or I'd use them for something casual. For instance, a magazine shot printed even smaller than 1:1 from 4x5 film doesn't really need to be very sharp to begin with. Or I still use them in
non-image forming applications. Dyed acetate is miserable for image forming applications. Your argument that people made pictures with such and such a method for a hundred years doesn't really impress me. Most of them chewed tobacco during that era. Flash powder was popular quite awhile too.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Stick with glass, and stick with coated filters. Many manufacturers have made coated filters over the years. B+W, Heliopan, Hoya, even Tiffen and others like Vivitar. The only reason to not use glass is if you need something specific and obscure.

And you won't really see much difference, if any, between an 8 and a 12.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Or just be born in the 19th Century, before panchromatic film even existed. That way, you don't need any filters! But for me, glass it is. Funny how
nobody makes lenses out of acetate, if all such things are allegedly equal.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian - I own a complete set of Lee light balancing and CC filter, have all kinds of true Wratten gels in the lab you've probably never even heard, or wouldn't even know why they were made in the first place. I used the Lee for test shots only per lighting issues, cause I wasn't about to lug around a full set of glass one until things were better specified, which even a color temp meter doesn't always tell you. Or I'd use them for something casual. For instance, a magazine shot printed even smaller than 1:1 from 4x5 film doesn't really need to be very sharp to begin with. Or I still use them in
non-image forming applications. Dyed acetate is miserable for image forming applications. Your argument that people made pictures with such and such a method for a hundred years doesn't really impress me. Most of them chewed tobacco during that era. Flash powder was popular quite awhile too.

Rambling nonsense again.

There aren't many things in photography I've not come across,so cut the bull-shit please

Yes almost all the filters we have today were around over 100 years ago including graduated filters, only acrylic/resin are newer, the difference today is quality is very much higher, that includes gelatin filters, Acrylic/Resin and of course glass filters.

If you came here tomorrow and set your camera up, and then we placed various filters in front of your lens you wouldn't be able to say which was glass, Gelatin, Acrylic etc. in the final images.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

Can't tell which is which, cause they all look like fuzzballs.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks Greg.

I had intended to quote Kirk Gittings comment to Drew in a parallel identical thread (same OP) on the LFP Forum but unfortunately he edited the paragraph. It was a strong rebuffal of Drew's comments.

In that thread though Drew's comment to me is "Of course, everyone has a right to learn the hard way. It's just time and money."

No-one is saying there aren't poor quality filters around, but the reality is there are high quality, gelatin, resin/acrylic and glass filters available from a variety of manufacturers, there's nothing hard to learn except that like lenses filters of any type need to be kept clean and scratch free.

I think maybe there's a concern when you start using resin/acrylic filters about how robust they are and how they'll stand up to use but my experience is that after about 40 years all mine are still in excellent condition.

Cokin, Lee, Tiffen etc sell huge numbers of Resin/Acrylic filters and yet we NEVER hear of quality issues because of filter use. There's also a many leading photographers using these filters making superb images which shows that Drew's comments are totally unfounded.

Greg Davis has posted a valid comparison showing no image degradation with any of the filters he used, that can't be flippantly dismissed.

Ian

 

[Jim Jones]

Can't tell which is which, cause they all look like fuzzballs.

Fuzzball may be stating it rather strongly, but none of the four crops look sharp to me. Comparison is difficult with a non-static subject, and without enough magnification to mask media limitations. Critically evaluating images on a computer screen is like enjoying a full symphony on a pocket radio. The Burke & James chart seems limited even for old enlargers, let alone for good cameras.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What the heck is a "rebuffal"?? Gosh, Ian, where have you been for the last half century, ever since optical multicoating began? My comments were
about polyester filters. Acrylic resin filters are something completely different, but nonetheless easily marred, electrostatic (attract dust like all acrylics), and prone to secondary reflections. ... In other words, not ideal outside a studio environment. Gel filters are downright fragile, expensive,
and not optically equal to better modern glass ones. I don't care what source you quote from 1942 concerning them allegedly having no effect on the
image. There are better choices these days, unless you need a very special type not available in glass. These were made for various scientific and
technical lab application, not just conventional photography, so the choice at one time was impressive. I can still remember unpacking my Sinar up
on the windy end of Titcomb Basin in the Wind River range a number of years ago. The sun was setting. Another guy showed up with a Tachihara
4x5, with seven lenses in his pack, and then started fooling around with a stack of about twenty Wratten gels. Most of them were messed up with
grit and creases - inevitable in that environment. I had plenty of time to notice what he was doing, cause I had taken my shot and was all packed up
again while he was still fooling around. The sun set before he got a chance to do anything. Gels filters flapping in the wind, granite sand flying around
his little stack of them on a rock, trying to keep one or two of them actually flat in a gel holder under those conditions. Gosh, even the wretched
Tiffen sandwich-style glass filters I owned back then were dramatically better.

 

[Ian Grant]

You make your choices Drew, the rest of us make our own based on experience and for the vast majority that is that resin/acrylic filter are useful and of high quality. Greg's tests are valid regardless of what you say.

Ian