Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 10:29 AM 23/01/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Marc James Small:
> >>>The degradation caused by filters is real, but only can be seen when
>REALLY large blow-ups are made...But try a 20" by 24" full-frame
>blow-up, though, and you'll note a difference.<<<
Ah, yes, it never ends.
Theory: Filters degrade image.
This sounds very reasonable and logical and I have no problem with the theory.
Real World Application:
The locations I have to shoot often require UV filters to protect the front
element.
I usually buy new filters for major shoots and have to throw them away
after the shoot.
The filters are scratched, pitted and chemical stained. Without them, I
would be replacing lenses.
Many of my clients require large prints for display.
Typlically, 24X36 inch reversal prints from Fujichrome 100, Velvia or Fuji 64T
NO VISIBLE DEGRADATION due to UV filters for the type of work, subjects and
locations I work. In fact, clients asks me where I get my stuff printed
because they have never seen such sharp prints that large.
I tell them it's not the printing. It's the film and lenses. When they see
my M6's they can't believe "THAT LITTLE CAMERA!?" produced their work....
until I tell them what they cost.
Conclusion? If you don't need filters to protect your lenses, don't bother
using them. But if you do need filters... don't worry about it.
Of course you have to buy good filters, too!
Greg Locke St. John's, Newfoundland
locke@straylight.ca http://www.straylight.ca/locke
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Touched By Fire: doctors without borders in a third world crisis.
http://www.straylight.ca/touchedbyfire.htm
ISBN#0-7710-5305-3 McClelland & Stewart