Reminds me of those MBA types who can prove ANYTHING with a Powerpoint presentation. Garbage-in/garbage-out data. One of the first outfits to
offer acrylic filters was actually Sinar. They had a very good reason. Their concern was big lenses in studio settings. Oversized glass filters are hard
to get and very expensive. But that's also the kind of situation where you can keep things relatively clean and well shaded if need be. Otherwise, I'm not aware of anyone using acrylic to make large format lenses. I know of only one MF lens where that's the case, and it's for a single element inside the lens. The differential of expansion and contraction relative to glass imposes a serious limitation to the size of plastic elements. Acrylic hydrates. And of course, they scratch damn easily, so would be worthless as a front element. The same applies to acrylic filters. I'm not saying not to buy them, especially if you stumble onto a clean used set at a bargain. They stack tightly and fit those slip-in systems which many outdoor types useful. Shaded grads seem popular these day. I've just never seen a shot taken with one of these grads that didn't look fake to me. But as someone who has been seriously out in the elements with LF gear for thousands of miles of backpacking over several decades, I know what can go wrong, and why too much gear is actually a liability. Fragile filters would be an outright waste of time for me, regardless of whether they get creased like gels or risk scuffing and scratching like acrylics. But sorry, Greg. You are hardly the only one to try all three types. In fact, there are more than three types. Been there, done that; learned the difference long ago.
