Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Crappy pictures have absolutely nothing to do with the camera or lens or whether or not there was a filter on the lens. It has to do with the photographer. Over the last 35 years on repeated attempts I have not been able to produce an example where a UV filter had any deliterious effects on a photograph taken in ordinary lighting conditions. Over the years I have taken lots of crappy pictures, and perhaps a few nice ones, all with UV filters. I take credit for all. There is no way that the absence of a UV filter would have done anything to save the crappy ones. In all seriousness, I would love to see an example of the same scene photographed with and without a UV filter, where there are noticeable differences. Perhaps they could be posted to the LUG page (I've forgotten the URL) set up by Hans Pahlen for LUGers to post their Leica images. Dan C. At 06:39 PM 10-02-00 -0000, Julian Thomas wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jim Brick" <jimbrick@photoaccess.com> >To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 5:43 PM >Subject: [Leica] Re: UVa Filter unwanted effects. > > >But >> listening to those of you who continue to say (in a squeaky voice) >"leaving >> a UV filter on my lens all of the time cannot degrade my images" really >> defys logic. It is absolutely wrong. It has been proven to be wrong. It >> defys optical science. >> >> Either wake up or don't complain about crappy pictures. >> >> Jim >> >> >Hi Jim, >I'm in the same dilemma with my new gear that I'm about to pick - do I >degrade the image or do I risk having to shellout £300 for a new front >element? If you are an amateur its a hard decision to make. > >Julian > > >