Re: [Leica] UV or not UV

["TSL" <eno22@enter.net>]

- - -----Original Message-----
From: Albert Daddario [mailto:adaddario@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 8:28 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us



<<I've heard that putting a UV filter on a Leica lens is akin to having a
Porsche and towing a trailer! I'm new to all this ... should I  use one?
All suggestions are greatly appreciated! >>

Never heard that one.  I think towing a trailer with a Porsche is fine.
So are a series of ten UV filters on a Leica lens.
They both have their respective applications, at least the former.
Desired effects with filters I think is perfectly fine.  A polarizer is
sometimes good.
UV, warm filters - they are to be used.  The question is really does this
...UV...filter have an effect on the brilliance and other fine aspects of a
leica lens.  Of course.  Does it have a negative effect - like a Porsche's
compromise on applied horse-power.  Is this negative - if your goal is to
utilize the Porsche to it's capabilities as it is without any weight, etc.,
to it, then the trailer way slow it up a bit its If you are out to cause
wonder among the neighbor, then the latter is more effective.  Porsche
owners will say, "Man, that ain't goin' nowhere" they are right.  But they
are misled if you have a different intention. Must others 'know' the
intention?  Answering this is too speculative.  This is a big thing with
Leica and their precise and best lenses (yes, best - as in they are a
favorite).  I now rarely use a filter. Never have or want to with my M6.
With the R 19/2.8-180/2.8  I have used purple and red and blue... with color
film. I don't use them much anymore at all - but that's just because I'd
rather not.  Beware of the "purists".
a Leica lens (say a 28/2.8 R) is too good to use filters.
- -----  it's true, if you want to utilize and push the capabilities of the
unit. Of course the last in the chain determines the "quality" of the unit.
So B&W are better than Tiffen, in general.  I agree.  Have you noticed that
the majority of the filters used by 'serious' photographers are
"correction" - like UV and diffusers and cold tone/warm tone, and on...
What is the desired effect?  To have a great image in which the use of a
filter has "corrected" or "enhanced" the image, but has not "distorted" the
"reality" and is therefore, in most cases, not readily apparent to the
common observer.  So there is no trick, just a correction of what should be.
The tools are effective.  That is, they are acceptable.

- -----I like filters sometimes, but prefer to use the lens "as is".  But if I
put an orange filter on, that's good too.  When someone sees the picture,
they think - wow!  the sky is so orange! or BLUE! Too blue! (that;s
considered bad).  My question - do you or don't you like the image?  Yes?
well, it was all filtered.  Oh...  that's not realistic - I thought it was
real (but a polarizer, that is real).
The "critique academia" judges have already taken care of all that No need
though to have any 'right-wrong' ideology. Also, don't confuse valuable
tests (such as comparing and detailing lens capabilities) with art directors
and their self appointed, or "earned" rules.  They look with the mind.  The
sequence is first - oh.. interesting.  Then, an explanation and analysis.
Then what do we see? (good question)  And of course what strikes you? Ad
nauseum.  Not that the questions are no good, but the context in which the
answers are mended.
Then the photographer him/herself gets into analysis and artistic expression
and the pictures come from cognitive processes, not from the instinctive
blink of an eye.  I am not a photo-journalist, but my great appreciation of
this (documentary oriented, etc.) is that creativity is nothing "creative"
more "instinctive" and natural, and is the real world on paper (or
whatever).   Leica M6 (and the other m's) are perfect for capturing a
real-time scene (I do this, but I shoot mostly architecture and it neither
moves, poses nor smiles).  Ethics - that's been over.  The point being that
good shots, if they are to be "labeled" good, are, I think, good because
they look good.  They are "better" - in my opinion, or I at least give more
credit and respect when the pictures are the result of a good eye - a leica
eye!  Not a four hour pose with twenty lights that is black and white, but
not black and white, and so on.  That's great.  But it's not real-time - the
world isn't like that, it's not a movie, which is just a bunch of "planned"
pictures.  I like to shoot colorful doors, and Fire hydrants and just the
ground.  Good or not, it's my eye in real-time - I'm extrapolating what I
see as "frame me".  If it's people, then it is, if its staircases, it's the
same thing - not creating or inventing your surroundings, but framing and
discovering what your eye goes to.  The world is unchanged - as if it would
happen regardless if you were there.  Once you are "photographer" you are
dealing with a "photography" reality which is real, but quite different that
being on the lookout.  Most would agree that a "project" is more
restrictive - or less restrictive when it is the eye that is shooting, not a
'must'.

Leica, as I see it, especially M's give one freedom.  Large format cameras
have their place (a big area) and MF but they are not anything to be more
happy about. "My "Hassy" or, "'blad" is this or that.  And then spend one
out of four hours on one picture.  That's fine.  But it often has a stink.
Yesterday I was joking about how I gave up the tripod as it's a pain in the
ass, backaches, schlepping it around...got a snotty look from some other
"creative" people.
As for protection, that's a different concern and if you need a UV, etc. use
it or you may be sorry.  Don't use it if you don't need it, and don't want
it when it's not saving your lens - unless you would prefer..
Leica bashing is centered upon this nonsense.  The MF users (and the Nikon
Know - No No's Never Not Nikon) are "offended" (they look as though they
are) when they see that they have been around you for ten minutes and had no
idea that you had an M6 with 35 summicron at your side.
Along with the rules of filters and everything is the big one - be so
creative so as to produce something unpleasant to the human eye.  If it's
not "Expressive" it 'aint good.  Well, how about a good one that's not
expressive.  What is expressive!?  Everything and nothing - just a word of
compliance produced through academic influence (it is derived from there and
still is tainted).  The leica is practical - but some find it "well,
blablabla" I shoot pinhole.  Big deal!  They are more "genuine" or this or
that because they are fighting or "offering something different"  - to the
"digital revolution".  Many are black/white because color has less
expression or doesn't tell the story or capture the essence 'cause black and
white is 'timeless' or whatever reasons.  The image is only good if it is so
creative that it looks terrible to everyone but the "artistic individuals
and institutiions" who find it "new and fresh" and thereby run the show
until it gets old.  Or until it gets new. Listen Listen Listen.
Photographers need not listen - but it's good to listen to some people -
it's a question of confinement and determinism.  My photography has no doubt
become "brainy" because of "rules" like the most basic "rule of thirds".  A
good eye will put the subject in the third if it looks good at that time.
The rule is then learned - the photographer then notices that they ARE using
this!  It looked right!?
The last thing an aspiring young photographer needs is musts and musts about
styles and portfolios.  And someone to say "This person expresses the
inexpressible."  That's boxed in, and it too bad.
So UV - is it for protection while in muddy places.  But take the advice
from a simple dirt/no-dirt suggestion.  Not a theory on do's and don'ts.  Am
I doing and don'ting?  Yes, but that's tough to avoid... My opinion is not
about anything accept the status of certain opinions - so please do not do
anything I say - except perhaps take what you need and leave the rest...I
am, BTW not sure whether you are 25 years in the business or a "newbie".
It;s nice to leave that out,