Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/08/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, without reignighting the filter war, EVERY filter has the same problem. But as an intelligent photographer, you should know when you can and when you cannot use a filter. ND's and Polarizers are VERY USEFUL filters. They alter your captured image in some manner. If you want wispy waterfalls and streams, you'll probably need a ND filter. If you want to kill reflections, darken blue sky, you'll need a Polarizer. If you are going to photograph outside toward the sun, then the ONLY answer is to use no filter, and in Arturo's case, use a slower film. You cannot use a filter. Read Erwin's magnificent article in the current Photo Technique "King of the Night." He gives quite a bit of insight of what happens on the surfaces of glass that image forming light passes through. If you are not VERY CAREFUL about WHEN you use a filter, ANY FILTER, you will pay the veiling flare penalty. You may claim you cannot see it, but it's there. And if you try to make a very large print, it will bite you, you know where. It's sort of like using an R lens with and without an extender. I have photographs (enlarged portions of the photographs) taken by Leica (Leitz at that time) that show, side by side, a photograph taken with the 350 Telyt, and the same photograph taken with the 180APO plus 2x extender. They are both great, but the 350 is much better in the fine detail and shadow detail area. There IS a noticeable difference. You can see it. The same would apply if you have a filter on your lens and point it in the wrong direction. Actually, a filter on your lens, pointed in any direction will create some level of the problem that Erwin talks about. But useful filters are useful, so I use them. But very carefully. Actually, there is another answer for Arturo. There is a developer, I believe of low activity, surface developing, (perhaps the Ethol brand?) that basically cuts your film speed way down. So Tri-X might be EI 50 or 100 instead of 400. I can't remember. Maybe Microphen??? Acufine??? Does someone know? At 04:16 AM 8/22/98 -0400, you wrote: >>> >> >>I suggest either slower film, a polarizer, or a ND filter. >> >>Jim >Jim: Without reigniting the filter wars, should one not expect the same >limitations with a ND filter than with an SL or UVa? > >regards, Andrew Jordan >