Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:44 PM 2/28/01 -0800, you wrote: >><Snip> >> Jim (I pick on you because you're the leading force in the anti-UV movement) >> I don't care if the filter degrades performance. You might be right; you >> might be wrong. I don't care, and before you can convince me filters are a >> quality issue, you have to convince me that quality is an issue. :-) >> >> I wonder how many people share that view. I bet more than a few, though I >> don't think I've ever heard it succinctly stated here, which is why I'm >> piping up at all. . . . >> >> --Michael > There is enough evidence accumulated by the masters (Ansel Adams, Westons, etc.) and the schools (Brooks, RIT, etc.) and the independent researchers (Erwin, Ctein, etc.) to fill volumes as to what keeps an image from being perfect. Besides technique (tripod, MLU, film type, exposure, development, how printed or projected, etc.) there are other factors. A filter is just one of these other factors. A thumb print on the lens would be another. Filters under you enlarging lens is yet another. All of this stuff adds up. But the question begs: Why would someone go the extra mile, spend the extra dollars, to buy the best lenses available, only to "not" pay attention to image degrading practices. Own the best prime equipment and produce mediocre results. Sorry. For me, that is oxymoronic. :-) Jim These are simply my (Jim Brick's) personal observations and preferences. No attempt has been made to emphatically state that this is either the correct way, or the only way, to effect the end. The above statement is meant to calumniate the insolent and exculpate the innocent.