Photographic Filters, Adapters, Usage...

Photographic Filters
by Robert Monaghan

Index:
Cutting Filter-Costs with Adapters
Filter Price Markups - Yikes!
Filter Related Postings
Leica Photographers on Using Filters (Jim Brick)
Homemade Filters
Multicoating Myths
Protective Filters - To Use or Not to Use
Resolution Tests of Filters
Series Filter Sizes
Solar Eclipse Filter Safety (and sources)
Tricolor Filter Effects (Harris Shutter)
Ultraviolet Filters Vary in UV Absorbed (Tiffen..)

Introduction

I'll bet you think UV filters absorb UV and haze filters help you cut through haze? Hah! Haze filters don't cut through haze (see Kodak quote below) - try IR film instead. UV lenses don't absorb much UV (only 20% - see Tiffen filter manual figures below). Most modern lenses are made with glued together elements, using an adhesive that absorbs and blocks UV rays (see uv photography). The lens by itself blocks UV much more effectively than standard UV filters. In other words, UV filters don't block UV and haze filters don't help you penetrate haze to any useful degree. Surprise! ;-)

I have dozens of filters. But I really mostly use just a polarizer and warming filter (Tiffen #812 or #81A or #81b) for color work. We all have filters we haven't used in years collecting dust. Be sure you really need those odd-ball filters before you buy them.

Why do so many camera store clerks push the use of a "protective filter"? The answer is that filters have the highest markups, which is to say the most profits, of anything they can sell you. Those $15 and $20 filters cost the store circa $1 (see below). The lens protection you need is usually supplied free by the manufacturers in the form of front and rear lens caps.

Good filters degrade image resolution by approximately 2%. A cheapy non-flat bad filter might degrade the image quality by 10%. A thumbprint on your filter can reduce contrast by 20%+. I don't like protective filters because they accumulate scratches, thumbprints, and dirt which add flare and reduce contrast in your photos. Look in the used filter bargain box at most camera dealers or camera shows to see lots of evidence of scratched and dirty "protective filters" in recent use.

Tests of filters show no visible differences on film between the good third party (e.g., Hoya) and the most expensive filters; but the more expensive filters have better brass mounts which don't bind or stick as much...

Filters can be alarmingly expensive for the highest priced brands. The most costly filters are very flat, with non-binding brass rings and multicoatings. Fortunately, tests of filters have repeatedly shown that the results are indistinguishable on film between the good (e.g., Hoya) and the most expensive filters. So putting a $150 filter on a $2,000 lens, let alone on a $150 zoom, is overkill. You most likely couldn't tell the difference on film against a $15-$20 Hoya or Tiffen filter or other decent quality brand. Spend the money on film instead.

I prefer single coated filters over multicoated, which are often harder to keep clean. There are lots of reasons to believe that multicoated filters don't significantly improve image contrast and quality over coated filters. The light that bounces off the surface of the filter, which is carefully setup to look impressive in some ads, wouldn't be going through the lens or end up on film anyway. Reducing reflections circa 3-5% with multicoating on the inner filter glass surface isn't likely to reduce contrast by a noticeable amount over a singly coated filter. You will get much more contrast improvements by investing in a flare reducing lens hood.

An exception where multi-coated filters might be useful is in night photography with very high contrasts between lights and black shadows. An even better approach is to avoid using filters in these situations and use filtering at the printing stage. I have lots of uncoated glass filters which also work well. These older filters aren't worth replacing with coated filters for the amount of times I use them. Keep direct light or sunlight from hitting the uncoated filters, and they'll probably work just fine for you too.

We will look into some low cost specialty filters you can make very cheaply below. If you are going to use a lot of filters or turn semi-pro, you should look into the use of stepping rings. You can use a 77mm filter on a 67mm or 72mm filter sized zoom or prime lens using the right adapter ring, saving the costs of buying multiple filters of the same type.

The "organic glass" or resin (i.e., plastic) 3x3" and larger filters such as those by Cokin can be useful. The quality is usually acceptable, especially for medium format and LF users. The majority of filters are so specialized you would be lucky to use them a few times a year in general shooting. I find the graduated neutral density filters are handy for balancing light levels in landscape photography, as one example. But see the postings below on issues like color casts of some "neutral grey" Cokin filters and options for glass based ND filters that work in other holders for pro use.

Many of the postings below relate to specific problems, such as the search for a thin filter for use on wide angle lenses or alternatives to specialty filters for Hasselblad 93mm bayonet mount lenses. We also have material on older filter bayonet mounts for TLRs, tables of light conversion filters, and tips on solutions to various filter related problems. Enjoy!

Filter Price Markups - Yikes!
Photographic filters are the highest markup items in most photography stores:

Photography Filter's Astronomical Markups
From: Jack Gurner Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc Subject: Re: OEM filters vs. independent manufacturers Date: 3 Jan 1998 Matt, A tough question. I will tell you that I worked behind the counter of a camera store about 15 years ago and the Nikon brand filter was sold to the company for which I worked for about $1 each! That surprised me. Jack Gurner [email protected] See also related markups in photo gear

Photography Filter's Astronomical Markups

From: Jack Gurner
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: OEM filters vs. independent manufacturers
Date: 3 Jan 1998

Matt,

A tough question. I will tell you that I worked behind
the counter of a camera store about 15 years ago and
the Nikon brand filter was sold to the
company for which I worked for about $1 each!

That surprised me.

Jack Gurner
[email protected]

Protective Filters

Fear is usually used to sell and encourage the use of protective filters such as the UV or Skylight filter. The big fear is that you will scratch your high-priced lens, thereby rendering it useless. The unspoken fear is that you will be identified as an idiotic rank amateur or newbie if you don't have UV filters on all your lenses.

Actually, my questions to some top professional photographers suggest that some of them use protective UV filter usage as an indicator of amateur photographer status. Many professionals don't use filters unless they need and want the filter's effects in their photographs. Their ultimate version of lens protection is called professional insurance!

Haze Filters
Haze filters used to cut haze, when we were using older Kodak color films with ASA ratings around 10 with older lenses using balsam based adhesives. Today's lenses have UV absorbing glues so they don't need either UV or haze filters to filter out the UV. Today's films don't need haze filters to offset their UV and blue response either. So why use them, given they don't reduce UV or cut through haze?

Source: *Keppler on the SLR*, Herbert Keppler, Modern Photography, May 1966, p.18.
Haze Filters Don't Cut Haze per Kodak...
Surely a haze filter justifies itself by cutting haze? Nope, it doesn't. To quote the gospel according to St. Eastman "Haze or sunlight filters used with color slide films render the scene warmer or less blue, but don't actually penetrate the haze."

Lens Caps
If you really want lens protection, then a good lens cap is what you need. The screw-in kind won't pop-off. Metal and plastic lens caps are better protection than a thin glass filter in most collisions. Since filters are also expensive, shouldn't they also be protected from scratches? Won't scratches on your filters also affect your photography too? So if you seek lens protection, then a lens cap is the logical and obvious way to get it.

Metal Lens Hoods
Related forms of protection include lens hoods, especially the metal kind. As with the metal lens caps, a metal lens hood can provide a lot of protection from many sources of potential harm. There is also no debate at all among professionals about the benefits from using the proper lens hood on your lens. Lens hoods provide real protection from side-light which can induce flare and other defects in your photographs.

By proper lens hood, I mean one that won't vignette the corners of your images by being too small. A lens hood can also be too big, and let in too much side lighting. For fixed focal length lenses, the lens hood choice is usually well defined for a given lens or focal length. For zooms, you usually have to compromise, as usual, on something that works best at the wide-angle end while providing some protection at the other extreme.

An optimal solution can be found in the rather bulky compendium lens hoods, which are bellows-like and easily extended to the ideal protective length. Unfortunately, I have found these to be difficult to use in the field and when frequently switching lenses.

One of the problems with using metal lens hoods is that they rarely fold conveniently out of the way. The major exception is the built-in lens hoods on many telephoto lenses. Some metal lens hoods can be dismounted and remounted "backwards" over the lens when not in use, making them easier to pack. Bayonet mounts are used on some of the medium format lenses and mounts, usually on more professionally priced equipment (e.g., Hasselblads).

You can easily make low cost lens hoods which will cut flare and keep your fingers off the lens, as well as provide some protection in falls and collisions. That's good, because some manufacturers charge up to $900 for their official lens hoods. You might be surprised at how many lens hoods and lens caps you can find at the local grocery store (e.g., Pringles chip caps). And those cold beverage holders of foam rubber given away as promo items make great lens protectors for free too!

Converting Filter Threads to Bayonet Mounts
I found a convenient way to mount and dismount not only filters but also metal lens hoods. Kalt made a series of quick change rings for 35mm lens filter threads. For $15, you could convert a slow filter thread mount into a faster bayonet mount, with an adapter ring for one filter or lens hood. For $5 per adapter ring, you can add filters and lens hoods to this system. I like it. Unfortunately, these adapters are now out of stock and not made anymore. Darn!

HP Marketing and others also sell conversion kits for the Rolleiflex SL-series cameras and others. These professional medium format lens sized adapters make it fast and easy to mount filters and hoods onto and off of your lenses with just a fast twist. As you might expect, the costs are higher too. Top-of-the-line third party brands like Heliopan and B+W also offer bayonet adapter options in the larger filter sizes.

The original Rolleiflex TLR and early Hasselblads (500c) have long offered these convenient bayonet mounted filters and lens hoods options. As a further example, the Hasselblad 500c and progeny have two lens bayonet mounts, one inner mount for filters (e.g., B50) and the other outer mount for the lens hood. This simple approach makes it easy and fast to change filters without impacting the use of the metal lens hood. After you try this system out, you will see why I have searched for a similar approach I could afford for my frequently used 35mm filters (e.g., polarizer).

If you elect to use the amateur or professional slip-on filter systems such as the Cokin/Minolta or similar brands, you have to mount a treaded mounting ring in each lens before use. Now you can slide the Cokin filter holder onto and off of your lenses in a flash. Cokin also makes a set of add-on lens shading elements which you can stack to a modest depth. One handy trick for very wide angle lens users is to trim off all but one of the filter holder slots (usually there are three slots). This trick keeps the filter holder from vignetting the wide angle lens images, an otherwise common problem.

The pro compendium systems with extending bellows style lens hoods do have filter holder slots. These slots are usually only for the more expensive professional brands and styles of filters (e.g., 100mm square filters, vs 82mm ''P'' Cokin or 67 mm ''A'' sized Cokin filters). You can also use gel filters with a cardboard holder. Sadly, the costs of these gel filters have gone up and they are more subject to scratches and moisture damage.

Rubber Lens Hoods
Rubber lens hoods are convenient and cheap, but many photographers believe they provide less collision protection. You already know that the rubber lens hoods also rot and tear easier than the metal ones.

UV Filter Protection Uses
However, there are times when I think a clear UV filter makes sense in protective mode. You may be outdoors, or in a potentially sandy or muddy-spray environment. If so, then using a UV filter for lens protection makes sense to me too. Some types of closeup photography increase your risk of colliding with the subject, again possibly justifying a protective filter use. If you have a fetish for cleaning your optics, then it is probably better for you to scratch up your filter than your lens, at least as far as resale value goes.

Why Not to use a Protective Filter
The argument against using a protective filter is very simple. If you aren't using a top-quality lens filter, you risk reducing contrast and causing other defects on your photographs and slides. The theory is that every air-glass interface scatters light and can potentially reduce contrast. Filters also offer two surfaces to pickup contrast reducing dust and fingerprints and other contamination.

Lenses are designed to be used as-is, without adjustments for filter use. Manufacturers give you a broad hint by providing a lens cap with their lenses, but not a protective filter.

Inexpensive Filter Faults
You already know from the lead posting above that even the manufacturer's filters cost only a dollar or so. The off-brands may cost much less, perhaps a quarter to make. Just how much optical quality do you think you can buy for a quarter? Granted, you and I may have to pay $15 for a twenty-five cent filter, but that over-charge doesn't improve the filter, does it?

These inexpensive filters suffer from a number of faults. It is very costly and hard to get truly parallel and exact thickness to the glass. Most filters are not colored glass, but rather a sandwich of filter gel or colored resin between two pieces of glass. Failure to adequately seal the filter rim can enable moisture to attack the gel, altering the filter characteristics. Another eye opener is to compare identical filter type coloration, not only between brands but even batches. Filters may also shift coloration over time and with exposure to sunlight.

Another sensitive issue is that many pricey manufacturer's filters aren't made by the camera manufacturer at all. Just their name goes on it. They actually get another optical house to make their filters. For example, my Zenza Bronica 67mm UV filter was made by Asahi Optical Inc. (Pentax). Surprise!

Why Expensive Filters are Really Expensive
Only the best filters are truly plano-parallel, with exactly parallel precision ground glass surfaces of identical thickness throughout the filter. This kind of optical precision costs a lot, and so do these filters.

The best filters in my opinion are solid glass which has been batch dyed, although some resin filter designs are also good. My favorites are the Kodak glass series filters in the larger series VIII and IX sizes. These older filters are very high quality, but since series filters are out of favor, the costs are very reasonable.

Some of the original manufacturer made filters have excellent reputations (e.g., Nikon, Canon, Rollei, Hasselblad). A few third parties such as B+W and Heliopan also have excellent reputations among professionals too. The lower-priced filters with brands such as Tiffen and Hoya also have decent reputations. At the low end, the relabeled and no-name filters have optical qualities that reflect their low manufacturing costs (under a dollar, remember?). You generally get what you pay for!

Series Filter	Filter Adapter Range
Series 5	28-36mm filter threads
Series 6	31-47mm filter threads
Series 7	44-56mm filter threads
Series 8	51-69mm filter threads
Series 9	62-85mm filter threads

Series Filters (Series Filter Sizes)
Series filters were originally invented to help solve the problem of many different sized lens filter threads impact on filter costs. A series VII filter can be used in a range of adapters for the popular 49mm to 55mm sized mounts. The series VIII filters range up to 67mm filter thread lenses handily too. The series IX filters covered the 82mm filter thread sizes. A variety of smaller series filter sizes covered the older and slower lenses of the past, but are usually too small for most current SLR lenses.

A series filter usually consists of a colored glass filter with a metal rim, but without filter threads. The filter mounted in an adapter ring that fit the desired filter threads (e.g., 52mm, 67mm) and a retaining ring to hold the filter in. Unfortunately, this design doesn't work well on very wide angle lenses, which may vignette with the bulky height of the adapter plus filter and retaining ring. These series filters were often of excellent quality, but have given way to threaded filter rings, often used with a step-up or step-down adapter as appropriate.

A Grain of Salt
The above points need to be taken with a grain of salt, i.e., some testing in your own photographic situation. If you mainly shoot print film developed up to 4''x6'' in the local mini-lab, your requirements will be less stringent than a professional photographer shooting for a food ad poster. Similarly, if you use high quality filters, you may find that comparisons of slides or prints, with and without your selected test filter, show minimal impact of filter quality on your photographs.

Clean Filters Because...
Filters need to be kept very clean. Scratches in filters from poor cleaning have similar bad effects on contrast as if they were in your lens coating. Consider that a thumbprint on the lens has been tested (by Popular Photography Magazine staffers) to cause up to a 20% loss of contrast! Unless your filters are very clean, you will lose some of the potential contrast that your lens can deliver. Some cleaning scratches or a bit of smudge on even the most expensive filter may make it as bad as any no-name filter in its effects on your photographs!

Protective Filter Effects
Be aware that a UV filter has real uses for cutting haze and smog effects, especially for distant mountain and similar scenes. Most UV filters appear transparent upon inspection (and should be color-free). The UV filter may tend to reduce the amount of blue registered in some films, especially at high altitudes, depending on the exact filter curves.

A skylight filter is light pink in color, and therefore reduces blue light which it absorbs slightly. You may also see these skylight filters referred to as type 1A or type 1B filters. The skylight filter helps add ''warmth'' to scenes that would otherwise have too much blue coloration.

Both the UV and skylight filters have filter factors of 1, meaning they can be used without changing the exposure setting on non-TTL metering cameras.

Fluorescents and Filter Metering Factors
Naturally, a thru-the-lens metering camera will automatically adjust for most filter factors. A minor point is that metering systems vary considerably in their sensitivity to blue light in particular. A CdS cell may be most sensitive to yellow-green light, while a photodiode may be more sensitive to red or blue light. In sunlight, you are usually okay, but beware when using other light sources! I suggest you check to ensure your meter is reading your filters properly and matching the recommended absorption or exposure correction factors. In some lighting (e.g., fluorescents), some metering systems will be fooled by up to 2 stops or more!

Cutting Filter-related Costs:

A non-trivial cost of shifting lens mounts is the cost of buying filters for your new lens line. Having pentax (49mm) and minolta (55mm) as well as nikon (52mm) cameras makes me painfully aware of these costs. You risk vignetting if you use a smaller filter on a larger lens. Most users therefore opt to buy the largest filter size they need, and use adapter rings (e.g., 52mm -->55 mm) to share filters between cameras.

View Camera and Non-standard Filter Sizes
Many older lenses use non-standard filter sizes that are hard or impossible to locate. The simple solution is to break out the glass from a metal rim filter of the closest next largest size. Now center and glue the filter ring to the lens. With luck, you have converted your problem lens to the new filter ring size.

Slip-on Lens Filters
Some older lenses and many inexpensive point and shoot or similar cameras have no filter rings. Again, the simplest solution is to glue or mount an appropriate filter ring on the lens. Now you can use standard filter sets.

Internal or Rear-Mount Filters
It is often impossible to mount conventional filters on certain lenses, with fisheye lenses being an obvious example. Extreme telephotos of large filter diameter (e.g., 122mm) may not have filters available at reasonable prices. The solution has been to place filters at the rear of these lenses. Some lenses use a filter mount for a smaller, standard sized (often series) filter thread mount. Others provide up to half a dozen preselected filters for commonly used filters in a rotating ring. The alternative 122mm filter thread filters would be perhaps fifty times the cost, but provide equivalent effect.

A version of this approach can be done with regular filters and the lens attachments such as fisheye and ultra-wide angle adapters. See fisheye adapter article for details. These adapters mount on filter ring threads, often using a series VII or VIII adapter. A standard filter can simply be mounted underneath the adapter, acting as a rear mounted filter in similar ultra-wide or tele-lenses.

Wide Angle and Zoom Lens Problems
For larger lenses such as zooms, wide angles, and telephoto lenses, the cost of filters may be an element worth considering. As an example, Sigma touts that some of its wide angle lenses use relatively small filter rings compared to their competition (e.g., 67mm vs. 72mm or even 77mm for some brands for same focal length and maximum aperture). The cost differential for a set of a half-dozen new filters in the larger size may be enough to buy the lens! Similarly, you will usually be unable to use the built-in lens hoods on many telephotos if you are using a larger filter with an adapter ring. The result is either more frustration or more expense, or both.

Actually, it gets much worse when you have to consider wide angle lenses. Here, you may be unable to use thicker filters without vignetting the edges of your photographs. You can't use most step-up rings, as the resulting thickness will also vignette. You often end up having to use very large step-up rings (hint: Tiffen makes these) to go from say 52mm--> 67mm in order to avoid vignetting with your wide angle lenses.

Series Filters for Medium Format and Large Filter Lenses
Used series VIII and series IX filters are often available at surprisingly low cost for 67mm and 82mm sized filters (e.g., $5 and $7 US). I am very fond of the Kodak series VIII and IX all glass series filters, which have very high optical quality for their low costs. I also have many series VII bulk-dyed glass filters of various kinds. Being out of favor, these filters are often a bargain compared to their resin dyed filter replacements.

Resin and Gel Filters
Some filters simply can't be made in bulk dyed glass to achieve the needed filtration curves. So you have to accept dyed gel or resin filters. Naturally, there are high quality and low quality versions of both gels and resin based filters.

The colored gelatin or gel is usually poured and pressed flat (to 0.1mm in some cases) and then mounted between two pieces of flat glass. A higher quality filter maker pays particular attention to sealing the filter into its mount so as to exclude moisture. Gels can also be used directly, whether as lens filters or in the darkroom. Gels can also be used in larger sheets to cover lights and strobes for special effects. While the cost is low to moderate, gels require careful handling or they will get scratched and dirty quickly.

A resin based filter uses a bulk-dyed resin directly. The very best of these resin filters offer many advantages (e.g., Singh-Ray) and sometimes unique filtering characteristics. Higher quality resin filters tend to be rather expensive. On the plus side, they make possible many forms and designs of filters, such as graduated color filters, hard or impossible to get in any other way.

Cokin style Filter Adapters
A logical extension of the gel and resin filter series has been the development of filter systems by Cokin/Minolta, Kenko, Ambico, and others. These systems usually have several sizes of filters available, typically an amateur (Cokin series A) and a professional (Cokin series P) sized filter. The amateur sized filters might cover up to 67mm lenses, for example, using a standard lens thread mounting filter adapter. The larger lenses require the professional series filters (up to perhaps 82mm lens filter threads). As you might expect, there is a huge jump in prices for the larger or professional filter series.

Before you spring for the larger and much more expensive professional sized filters, check to see if you can use the amateur sized filters first. For example, a 72mm lens thread for a telephoto or zoom lens might accept a step down ring (72mm to 67mm) and standard amateur filter mounts. Check for vignetting, both wide open and stopped down. Even if there is some slight vignetting wide open, there may be none discernible stopped down a stop or two. Telephoto lenses and zooms work best for this trick.

Unfortunately, for wide angle lenses, you may have to go the other way (see postings below). A thin adapter ring might be needed to expand from a 67mm filter thread to a larger 72 or 77 mm filter thread size. The ring needs to be thin, as you want to avoid vignetting. You need a 72 or 77mm size filter or adapter to prevent vignetting at the edges of the image. So you might be forced to use larger and much more expensive professional filter sizes with wide angle lenses that are close to the system limits. Some professional filters holders for wide angle lenses forego the multiple filter holding options to provide a low-profile, non-vignetting filter holder for single amateur or professional filters.

Most of the standard amateur and professional filter adapters provide for use of three or even more filters at once. Besides colored filters, you can buy up to 130+ filters of various types. Some are matte filters, others feature rotating prisms, and other unusual special effects are available - albeit at a sometimes hefty price. One of my favorites is the diffraction filter, which converts light sources into rainbows of color. Conversely, I never use the pricey five-prism special effect filter that came with a group purchase.

Buy Slowly
I suggest that you acquire filters slowly, exploring each in some depth, rather than spending a lot of dollars on filters that you may not use often or at all. You also don't need to get every color or depth of filter in each series, but rather pick and choose to match your needs and interests. You may also find that using these filter kits in the field or while traveling is bulky and slow. Many professionals prefer compendium lens hoods which have built-in gel filter holders over these filter adapter systems.

Sources for Filters
Another benefit of the buy-slowly philosophy is the chance to find filters and add them to your collection over time. Many sources such as EBAY (www.ebay.com) auctions and online dealers (see Yahoo listings) plus rec.photo.marketplace provide chances to pick up photo filters inexpensively. Camera shows are another likely place to pick up filters too. Some discounter catalogs (e.g., Porter's Camera Store) list many filters at discounted prices for comparison purposes.

Organizing Filter Purchases
Many articles online and off-line, as well as entire books, are devoted to filter choices. Cokin and Ambico provide guides to their filter choices and examples of their use. Most filters come with sheets listing filter types and uses (the better to sell you more of them ;-). Consequently, we haven't tried to overview all the filters available and the specialty uses of each.

As you acquire more lenses, you may find it valuable to create a list of filters available for each lens. Split dedicated filters of that exact thread from those provided by adapters or filter box kits (e.g., Cokin). Reviewing such a list may encourage you to try out some unusual lens and filter combinations.

This same approach may motivate you to purchase adapters for some cameras (e.g., a B50 to 52mm adapter to let a Hasselblad 500c share my nikon filters). Conversely, it may highlight the lack of corrective filters such as a FL-D (fluorescent to daylight) filter for 67mm lenses. You may also decide to shoot some black and white film, as I did, just for the fun of seeing what the filter effects will be. This experimental approach is the best and most fun way to learn how to use your filters, and direct you in expanding your photographic vision through the use of filters.

You can buy the largest size filters (55mm in my case) and use adapters (e.g., 52 to 55mm) to adapt the filter to use on your other camera system(s).
You can adopt the amateur or professional series filter kits made by Minolta/Cokin and others, and share these filter between your various cameras. I find this slightly bulky in the field and less optimal than individual filters, however.
You can compromise, buying commonly used filters (e.g., polarizers) for each filter thread, but sharing the less often used filters between systems. For some special effects filters, you will have to buy the Cokin or similar kits or equivalent resin filters if available.
You can buy duplicate sets of filters for each size of lens thread in your collection. This approach gets very expensive fast, especially for the larger lenses, and if you are a filter fanatic!

David Foy asks me to point out that these prices are dated 15 years ago, so we have had a 67%+ inflation CPI since then, so double these older costs. Still, filters are among the highest markup items you can buy. Hence, filters are a favorite of aggressive mail order and retailers seeking maximum profits from your limited photo dollars!

I recently advised a newbie photo buyer who had shopped around carefully to get the lowest price on a mailorder consumer camera, only to be talked into adding on $130 for four name brand filters! Phew!! Surely this mail order firm made far more profit from the filter sale than the camera sale, right?

Using Smaller Size Filters on Bigger Lenses
Conventional wisdom says you can't use smaller size filters on bigger lenses without vignetting the image corners - but that advice may be wrong! You may be able to use smaller size filters on larger filter thread lenses in some applications. Naturally, I am not suggesting you can use a 40.5mm filter on a 72mm filter thread lens. But maybe your 72mm filters will work on that odd-ball 77mm filter thread telephoto? Mine does, so maybe yours might work too? Prime candidates for testing are telephoto and zoom lenses, which often have large front filter thread diameters. Wide angle lenses will rarely work, either as primes or at zoom wide angle settings. If you seldom use the lens wide open, but generally stop down in use, you will find smaller filters will often work in this setup. Stopped down, many normal to long telephoto prime or zoom lenses will work with somewhat smaller size filters without vignetting. Some telephotos seem to work well with slightly smaller filters in place, even wide open, without vignetting. Today's thinner filters, versus the thicker older series VII/VIII filters, may partly account for this effect. Lenses used in macro mode will also often work without vignetting. You will need a step-down ring to go from the large to smaller setting. For example, a long telephoto zoom has a 77mm filter thread, while you have 72mm filters on hand. Why not shoot a few test shots with the 72mm filters in place? You may be pleasantly surprised as I was! Even if your smaller filter does vignette in your on-film tests, you may still be able to use it. Simply compose so any vignetting will not effect the final desired composition. Crop out the edges to eliminate any vignetting effects on the final print. Slides can also be duplicated on a zoom slide duplicator to crop out vignetted corners too. The savings in weight and cost from being able to use more common or somewhat smaller filters can be substantial. The biggest savings will obviously come from using these tricks on the largest filter sizes, where costs quickly jump out of sight! Say you get a special buy on a 72mm enhancer filter. You may want to use it on a 77mm thread telephoto rather than pay over $100 US for the next size larger filter. You might be surprised to find from a few test shots that the 72mm filter works fine, without vignetting, on the 77mm thread telephoto. My point is that unless you are at least open to test it out, you won't know. You might be missing out on some serious savings. Isn't that worth testing a few shots at both wide open and stopped down apertures? Good Luck!

Using Smaller Size Filters on Bigger Lenses

Conventional wisdom says you can't use smaller size filters on bigger lenses without vignetting the image corners - but that advice may be wrong! You may be able to use smaller size filters on larger filter thread lenses in some applications. Naturally, I am not suggesting you can use a 40.5mm filter on a 72mm filter thread lens. But maybe your 72mm filters will work on that odd-ball 77mm filter thread telephoto? Mine does, so maybe yours might work too?

Prime candidates for testing are telephoto and zoom lenses, which often have large front filter thread diameters. Wide angle lenses will rarely work, either as primes or at zoom wide angle settings. If you seldom use the lens wide open, but generally stop down in use, you will find smaller filters will often work in this setup. Stopped down, many normal to long telephoto prime or zoom lenses will work with somewhat smaller size filters without vignetting. Some telephotos seem to work well with slightly smaller filters in place, even wide open, without vignetting. Today's thinner filters, versus the thicker older series VII/VIII filters, may partly account for this effect. Lenses used in macro mode will also often work without vignetting.

You will need a step-down ring to go from the large to smaller setting. For example, a long telephoto zoom has a 77mm filter thread, while you have 72mm filters on hand. Why not shoot a few test shots with the 72mm filters in place? You may be pleasantly surprised as I was!

Even if your smaller filter does vignette in your on-film tests, you may still be able to use it. Simply compose so any vignetting will not effect the final desired composition. Crop out the edges to eliminate any vignetting effects on the final print. Slides can also be duplicated on a zoom slide duplicator to crop out vignetted corners too.

The savings in weight and cost from being able to use more common or somewhat smaller filters can be substantial. The biggest savings will obviously come from using these tricks on the largest filter sizes, where costs quickly jump out of sight! Say you get a special buy on a 72mm enhancer filter. You may want to use it on a 77mm thread telephoto rather than pay over $100 US for the next size larger filter. You might be surprised to find from a few test shots that the 72mm filter works fine, without vignetting, on the 77mm thread telephoto. My point is that unless you are at least open to test it out, you won't know. You might be missing out on some serious savings. Isn't that worth testing a few shots at both wide open and stopped down apertures? Good Luck!

Homemade Filters

You can make a number of serviceable filters relatively inexpensively. Most books dealing with photo filters will describe some common and easy to make filters. Here is a brief overview:

cross-star
Usually a neutral color (grey, black) section of window screen put in front of the lens, or cut to fit into a conventional clear (UV, haze) filter, is described. Put more sections to get more cross-stars. Put one screen on back of UV/haze filter (glue with removable household cement). When you want a variable and multiple star effect, pop a second circular piece of screen onto the front, and twist until desired effect is achieved. A small piece of silicon putty (used for holding posters on walls, similar to silli-putty) can be used to hold filters and cutouts in place during temporary use (see other uses below).

diffuser
Usually a clear (UV, haze) filter is lightly coated with vaseline (messy, removable) or clear hairspray (see posting below - permanent) to the desired pattern and thickness.

Others suggest a neutral color (grey, black) panty-hose or nylon stocking to provide a similar diffusion effect. In this case, you stretch the section of nylon fabric over the front of the lens tightly. A rubber band can help hold it in place.

polarizer
Large polarizers are prohibitively expensive. You can buy sheets (e.g., 8'' x 10'') of polarizer material (e.g., Edmund Scientific Inc) and cut them to fit either a gel holder (squares) or clear UV/haze filter (round). While less rugged and more scratch prone, this polarizer sheet material filter works with reasonable care in use. Keep sheet material filters safe when not in use by packing between stiff cardboard or other protective containers.
This same polarizer sheet material trick can be used with regular lights to convert them into polarized studio lights. Examples of uses include photos of stress colors in clear plastic (e.g., picnic forks) and crystals on glass (e.g., Vitamin C). Put the polarizer sheet material between the light and the glass sheet supporting crystals or plastic items. Use a snout to eliminate side lighting, and watch for excessive heat if too close to hot light bulb! A second polarizer filter on the lens is rotated until the desired color pattern effects are seen. Same lights can also be used with polarized light microscopy in a similar setup. Neat!

diffraction (star-burst) gratings
You can buy sheets of diffraction (star-burst, rainbow effects) gratings relatively inexpensively (e.g., Edmund Scientific Inc.). A single sheet can be cut up into a number of square gratings for gel holder use. Cut circular patterns for 67mm, 72mm, and up to 122mm filter sizes or larger as needed. Again, while less rugged and more scratch prone, the very low cost makes this an option worth looking into.
You can obviously use these sheet materials directly in gel holders, or simply drop them into clear UV/haze filters (front or back). In some cases, sheet material may interact with glass (e.g., newton's rings). To avoid this, you can use an adapter step-up ring to hold the circle of sheet material in place. I prefer to use a spare Cokin lens adapter ring, since I have some extras, and just glue the sheet material to the ring. I find this more compact than the Cokin filter setup, yet I can easily rotate the adapter ring to vary the effects. Anything that works is fine - lots of people just hold the sheet up in front of their tripod mounted camera and click away. (see posting)...

cut-out patterns
You can use a cut-out pattern of a heart-shape, circle, square, triangle, etc. as needed to vignette a desired shape onto film. Just put the cut-out onto a conventional UV/haze filter for ease in handling, or use a 3x5 card or similar cutout holder in front of the lens. Matte boxes are just a convenient way to align and hold these cut-outs.
Incidentally, you can also shoot out-of-focus highlights from Christmas trees or other point sources of light using a cut-out pattern. You will get some unusual and nifty effects, with each light bulb showing as a colored pattern matching your cut-out pattern. A similar effect is responsible for those donut shaped circles on mirror lenses, which have a central round mirror ''cut-out''.

color filters (for strobe)
You can use colored transparent plastic, such as report covers, using multiple layers for deeper color effects. Mounted on your strobe in a cardboard U-shaped mount (with rubber bands to hold on strobe), you will color the strobe light itself. Cut the U-shaped mount(s) out of the slide-on report cover plastic holder and glue in place or use rubber bands. Very handy at night when you want to "paint with light". You can use multiple colors on different strobes from each side of a textured object (e.g., sea urchin shell, styrofoam human head wig holder). Using red and green filters from left and right will result in red and green colors where only one light hit, and yellow where they both lighted a crevice or protrusion on the subject. Interesting fun!

colored filters (for lens)
You can achieve color patterns of highly irregular shapes with a piece of clear plastic and colored marker pens. Unlike gels, you can mark in any pattern you want to fit the subject. Cut out plastic where you want sharp image (e.g., Bride's face). The plastic will act as a diffuser, reducing sharpness, and yielding an out-of-focus look. Put a circular plastic plus marker color cut-out into a clear UV/Haze filter for ease in handling.

Graduated Neutral Density Filter Replacement
Ansel Adams didn't have graduated neutral density filters starting out, but he did have a dark slide. Setting his camera on a long exposure for a landscape shot, he reportedly simply waved the dark slide back and forth across the top of the scene. The dark slide blocked some of the light from the overly bright sky, reducing the exposure range of the shot and holding back the bright sky highlights. With a larger lens, and perhaps a neutral density filter to make the exposure longer (without altering desired f/stop), you can give this trick a try too. Be sure to bracket several shots, and practice before any critical shots. With the camera back off, on a tripod, you can get a feel for where the blocking cardboard (grey card?) needs to be. Keep the card in motion and allow some exposure on the highlight section. Change the lower point on each cycle, so you get a more gradual dropoff in lighting. Naturally, this trick only works for slower exposures of non-moving subjects like landscapes - but that is where graduated neutral density filters are often used.

colored gradient filters (for lens)
You can create a single or multi-colored gradient filter of any complex design (unlike the simple linear top-bottom designs of conventional gradient filters). Computer users can simply use a screen painting program to create a colored printout or screen image that can be photographed onto colored slide film. You can also use colored lights and textured surfaces in the studio to produce unique textured single or multi-colored gradient filters with layouts as desired or needed. The resulting colored slide can be used as a gel, aligned for use, and the image composed and exposed through the filter in front of the lens. Or you can just use the gradient filter as part of a slide sandwich, along with the conventional photo if preferred.

Free Filter Samples tip from Jim Franz!
See Jim's tip posting below for a source of highly useful color filter materials for use in your Cokin or other 3x3inch holders!

Using Small Cheap Filters on the Rear of Big Front Filter Thread Lenses
Some lenses use huge filters (to 122mm) or hard to find threads (100mm for pentax shift lens). Ultrawide angle lenses may not permit use of any conventional filter at all (e.g., fisheyes). A possible solution is to add a filter mount at the rear of the lens. Some folks have used a conventional filter of the right size, with glass broken out, glued into place with a (removable) household cement. This mount doesn't need to be optically exactly centered, since the filters need not be centered in use. Be sure the rear filter mount with filter in place won't interact or effect proper use of your camera. Your SLR mirror should be carefully checked to be sure it won't hit the slightly extended rear lens mount with a filter in place. On wide angle or retrofocus design lenses, you may run into vignetting issues in a very few cases. I know of photographers who report having to use a rear cut-out circle of filter gel with side ''ears'' which they taped around the protruding rear lens element barrel. This trick gives the desired filtering effect without adding noticeably to the rear lens mount length dimensions. Now you can use the lens threads of the filter ring mounted at the rear of the lens to mount other filters of similar size (or use an adapter if needed). Since older smaller filters (e.g., 40.5mm) are often very cheap to buy used, you can save hundreds of dollars! The use of the filter at the rear of the lens results in the same effect as if a much larger and more expensive filter had been used at the front of the lens.

Using Small Cheap Filters on the Rear of Big Front Filter Thread Lenses

Some lenses use huge filters (to 122mm) or hard to find threads (100mm for pentax shift lens). Ultrawide angle lenses may not permit use of any conventional filter at all (e.g., fisheyes).

A possible solution is to add a filter mount at the rear of the lens. Some folks have used a conventional filter of the right size, with glass broken out, glued into place with a (removable) household cement. This mount doesn't need to be optically exactly centered, since the filters need not be centered in use.

Be sure the rear filter mount with filter in place won't interact or effect proper use of your camera. Your SLR mirror should be carefully checked to be sure it won't hit the slightly extended rear lens mount with a filter in place. On wide angle or retrofocus design lenses, you may run into vignetting issues in a very few cases. I know of photographers who report having to use a rear cut-out circle of filter gel with side ''ears'' which they taped around the protruding rear lens element barrel. This trick gives the desired filtering effect without adding noticeably to the rear lens mount length dimensions.

Now you can use the lens threads of the filter ring mounted at the rear of the lens to mount other filters of similar size (or use an adapter if needed). Since older smaller filters (e.g., 40.5mm) are often very cheap to buy used, you can save hundreds of dollars!

The use of the filter at the rear of the lens results in the same effect as if a much larger and more expensive filter had been used at the front of the lens.

Source: p. 63, Beg. Guide to Color Photogr., Ralph Hattersly 1979
Light Source	Filter for Tungsten (3200K)	Filter for Daylight (5500K)
clear skylight (open shade - 10,000K)	86	85
overcast sky (7,000K)	85B	81C
photographic daylight (5500K)	85B	none
carbon arc (5500K)	85B	none
flashcube (5000K)	85	82A
blue photolamp (4900K)	85	82A
clear flash - zirconium (4100K)	85C	80D
two hours after sunrise (3900K)	81EF	80C
two hours before sunrise (3900K)	81EF	80C
clear flash - aluminum (3800K)	81EF	80C
one hour before sunset (3600K)	81C	80B
one hour after sunrise (3600K)	81C	80B
500 watt 3400K photolamp	81A	80B
500 watt 3200K photolamp	none	80A
sunrise or sunset (3100K)	82A	80A
100 watt bulb (2900K)	82B
75 watt bulb (2800K)	80D
40 watt bulb (2650K)	80C

Patricia Caulfield's Capturing the Landscape w. Your Camera, p. 156
Tungsten to Daylight (amber)
85 - 3400-->5500K
85B - 3200-->5500K
85C - 3800-->5500K
Daylight to Tungsten (blue)
80A - 5500-->3200K
80B - 5500-->3400K
80C - 5500-->3800K
80D - 5500-->4200K

Patricia Caulfield's Capturing the Landscape w. Your Camera, p. 156
Light Balancing Filters
Warming (amber)
81 - +100k
81A - +200k
81B - +300k
81C - +400k
81D - +500k
Cooling (blue)
82 - -100K
82A - -200K
82B - -300K
82C - -400K

Patricia Caulfield's Capturing the Landscape w. Your Camera, p. 37
Average Color Temp. of natural light	degrees K
midday sunlight alone	5000K
midday sunlight plus light from clear blue sky	5500K
daylight (sunlight+skylight) before 9 AM	4800K
daylight (sunlight+skylight) after 3 PM	5100K
daylight slight overcast or air pollution	5800K
daylight substantial haze or air pollution	6000K - 6400K
daylight complete overcast	6500K
skylight from blue sky alone (e.g., cloud obscures sun)	12,000K - 27,000K

Patricia Caulfield's Capturing the Landscape w. Your Camera, p. 63 (FL); p. 122 (TV)
Filter Tips for Fluorescent Lights and Television Color Correction
Fluorescent Lights - CC30M - +2/3rds stop - daylight film
Fluorescent Lights - CC50R - +1 stop - tungsten film
Television - CC40R - 1/8th second or more (focal plane) e.g. ektachrome 200 f/4 at 1/8th second

Related Postings:

From: Harold Bean [email protected]
To: Rollei List [email protected]
Subject: Source for Filters & Adapters

Thought I'd suggest to this illustrious and illuminating group another source for filters and adapters:

The Filter Connection
P.O. Box 155
South Windham, CT 06266
Info: (860) 456-3990
Orders: (800) 882-2832
Fax: (860) 423-2738

I ordered new B&W filters for my Rollei 3.5 and my Rollei 35S at a very reasonable price. Thought this might interest everyone. Owner is very knowledgeable and courteous.

Harold

Subject: Re: OEM filters vs. independent manufacturers
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Date: 1998/01/04
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc

I recall an article from Shutterbug Ads some 4-5 years ago? (possibly popular photography's SLR column by Keppler, but I doubt that ;-) on this topic.

Basic summary is that for most of us, it doesn't matter. Factors such as SMC or multi-coated filters did very little for light transmission (from 95%-97% raised to 98% to 99% in SMC - big deal.

The highest quality filters had *very* optically flat and parallel glass, but the effects were unlikely to be seen in most slides or photographs.

One caveat is that for some wide angle lenses you need to be aware of filter thickness. For example, nikon's polarizers and filters were thinner than typical, so you might vignette slightly with the wrong thicker filter on a very wide lens. I use nikon hoods too on my ultrawides for the same reason, but suggest that money saved on filters might be better spent on hoods and tripods for most of us ;-)

The best filters were probably the batch glass series filters by Kodak,at least as measured for glass quality, uniformity (all the glass was colored identically) and for optical flatness (superb). In the larger series VII, VIII, and IX sizes, these filters are often unpopular - meaning very cheap, because they are old and require a bulky mounting ring set.

Some series VIII filters were threaded, and since they exactly fit the 67mm threads on my bronica and kowa medium format cameras, I grab em when the price is right ;-) The series IX are also huge and cheap, and optically usually superior to the generic filters of today. The savings can add up fast if you are buying used versus new filters, and even more so if they are unpopular or older series filters, despite their higher quality. Camera shows are a very good way to pick up some inexpensive used filters for a lot less than new prices...

The point on nikon filters being sold to the camera store for $1 in bulk is a good one by the previous poster; what do you expect optically for a buck? But what a great markup ;-) I was surprised to buy a bronica 67mm UV filter only to open up the package and discover the filter had been made by Asahi Optical Corp (Pentax) for Bronica and labeled as such. My bet would be that a lot of relabeling goes on, and that different batches of the same labeled filters might come from different makers, even for the top rated names, and so you may be paying a lot more for the name on the box, not for what is inside ;-)

What perplexes me is why we don't have filter thread to bayonet mount adapters for filters, since if you have worked with either the hassy or rolleiflex bayonet mounted filters, you quickly realize how much faster and easier they are to use and to stack up between use. Even a dual filter mount, one threaded and the outer being a bayonet mount would be a god-send to some frequent filter changers and users ;-) Filters are simply too much of a pain to use with the threaded approach, plus you need to have filter wrenches (Porter's Camera Store) to unstick 'em ...

Most of today's filters of the colored variety are sandwiches of glass and colored resin or plastic. This keeps the costs down, but quality and uniformity vary a lot more. Certain brands (singh ray sp?) are optical quality resins throughout, better optically but less scratch resistant. The various minolta/cokin filters and finally the gel filters are useful adjuncts, but the gel filters have a problem with scratches in heavy use, and are a pain to use outside of the studio in my experience.

A fun experiment at the next camera show is to compare sale filters side by side of the same type, the color variations are astounding. p;-) For some purists, these color variations are a concern, and if you can tell from your slides which were shot with Canon (bluer/colder) and which with nikon (redder/warmer) then you may want to be more picky when buying filters. It isn't enough to buy the same brand, due to different batches and makers used, so if you are a picky pro - you probably want to buy from the same tested batch of UV filters, say, so the effects are the same across your entire canon or nikon line of lenses as the filters are the same batch - plus however many spares you are likely to need in the future ;-) Fortunately, I don't have to worry about this level of detail ;-)

An equally important question is which filters do you need and will you use? this depends on the types of photography you are doing, film you use, and whether you are a special effects freak. Most of us get too many filters that we rarely use, but if your costs are low, they might be a fun way to expand your photography horizons -

enjoy - bob monaghan

From: [email protected] (James T210)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stuck Filter
Date: 5 Feb 1998

I had a lens hood stuck hard in a filter once. I put it in the freezer for about 24 hours which shrunk everything. I was then able to easily unscrew the lens hood from the filter.

James Pratt

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Opinions: Cokin system vs. Tiffen screw on filters?
Date: 6 Feb 1998

"Donnie Chance" [email protected] writes:

One thing I miss about the Tiffen filters though is that you can still get a lens cap on, while the filter is in place. With the Cokin setup, it starts to be a pain having to break down the front of the lens everytime.

Unless you're working in very dusty conditions, just stick the filter adaptor cap in one of the filter slots instead of the thin cap slot at the back of the filter adaptor. Works fine on P system holders, haven't tried it on A size. In dusty conditions the gaps on the sides of the filter will still let in dust, but it does protect the filter from getting scratched.

Oh well, I've got a good hundred bucks worth of filters I can use on my Canon A1, Canon Elan II, or my Olympus. Gee, I wonder if they make an adapter to fit disposable cameras ... ha.

Sort of. There's an adaptor that sticks to the front of point-and-shoot cameras without normal lens barrels. You can use this with double-sided tape to stick it temporarily on any flat surface, even a cardboard disposable camera. I've only seen them in A size, not P.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013

From: Jean-David Beyer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Calibrating Weston Master II
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998

Richard Knoppow wrote (in part):

[email protected] (Troy Tanner) wrote:

I have a Weston Master II meter that appears to work however, I don't know if it is accurate. Anyone know where I can have it checked for accuracy or recalibrated? Best Regards,
Troy ----

Hi Troy, You might try Quality Light Metric 213 467 2275 They are in Hollywood and have a good reputation. However, you can check the meter by comparing it a known good meter. Either a self-contained meter or a camera with TTL metering can be used. All you need is an evenly illuminated surface which is large enough to fill the field of view of the two meters.

Bear in mind that if you have more than one meter, you can drive yourself crazy trying to compare them. This is because they may have very different color sensitivities. Selenium, cadmium sulfide, and the various silicon cell detectors all have different color sensitivities. My cameras (with meters) are pretty well calibrated, as are my hand-held meters. But comparing them can indicate up to about 2 stops difference in luminance when measuring the same target if you are not careful. I have found that the target should be a neutral color (a gray card, or a white card are fine) and they should be illuminated by sunlight (to get the response the meters are expecting). When I do that, the meters I have read within about 1/3 of a stop. But using incandescent, fluorescent, sky-light (with no sun), or measuring colored objects (pale blue wall in one of my rooms), the vast differences obtain.

--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey

From Nikon Digest Vol 3 no. 202
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998
From: "Craig Rosenberger" [email protected]
Subject: UV filters

I can't advise you on the size of the circular polarizer, but I will advise you to remove the UV filter when you do use it, whatever size turns out to be right. With the polarizer mounted, there's no reason at all to use the UV filter - its additional thickness will only contribute to any vignetting and it add one more layer of glass to introduce distortion. If you insist on using UV filters, always remove them when using any other filter.

And now, I'll probably start a brawl here, but I *never* use a UV filter unless I'm shooting in very wet or windy, dusty conditions. I use a lens hood to *protect* the front element. In over 14 years of shooting I've never observed the so-called "UV haze" effect in any image. Use a hood, keep fingers off the lens glass and don't clean things to death and you'll do just fine with a "naked" lens... Those who disagree will no doubt weigh in now...

Craig Rosenberger
Pine River Photography

Nikon Digest Vol3 No.202

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Nikon AF20/2.8D with Circ. Polarizer

Tso Dart G" wrote:

I have a AF20/2.8D with a Circ. Polarizer. I want to buy a polarizer for this lens but should I buy a 62mm one or a one with bigger filter mount and
plus a step-down ring to avoid vignetting, since I don't want to remove my UV filter on my lens.

Hi There

I posted something about this a couple of days ago. No 62mm circular polarizer that I know of will not vignette on the 20mm/2.8, if I get a chance I'll borrow my buddy's new Tiffen slim filter and give it a try.

You have basically 2 choices, I have done both and both work well. The first one (and cheaper one) would be to buy a 62=>72mm step up ring and use a 72mm filter from my Nikkor 180mm/2.8. This works well and I can even leave my Nikon lens hood on the lens and actually rotate the filter as necessary.

NOTE: THIS SETUP DOES NOT WORK IF YOU LEAVE THE UV FILTER ON THE LENS!!!! Don't stack the filters, I would strongly urge you to take off the UV filter anyway when using the polarizer. You don't need both pieces of glass on there at the same time. In fact chances are it will degrade your image greatly, especially if your UV filter is a cheaper one (lets face it a lot of people don't always buy Nikon UV's). The more air to glass surfaces you have just create more chances for lens flare.

The second option would be to buy the Nikon polarizer for this lens, it is one of those over sized ones but then you won't be able to use the hood supplied with the lens. But you can buy the hood made especially for this polarizer.

If you have any questions please feel free to email at my home address. I'm just on my way home right now.

Terry

Terry Graham - Freelance Photographer - Regina, Saskatchewan - Canada

[Ed. note: Mr. Ruether is a noted web reviewer of Nikon lens qualities]

From: "Neuman - Ruether" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of Filters
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998

Jane Seto wrote:

Is there a difference in quality between the various makers of filters? If so which ones are considered to be the best.

There is much "theory" out there on this, helped along by advertising, but the truth is that for non-critical uses, virtually any filter brand will be OK. For fairly critical use, most any "name brand" filter will do (uncoated, single-coated, or multi-coated...). For those of us who are nuts about image quality, a good-quality single-coated filter with a good, thin metal rim will do (Hoya is a good name here... [I am less fond of Tiffen and Vivitar filters]). For those who will shoot straight into the sun with a long tele lens used at a wide stop... (!;-}), perhaps an expensive brand of multicoated filter may be desireable... (though, even here, Hoya is really sufficient...;-).

--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
[email protected]

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Closeup options with a 6003

Bob Shell wrote: The cheapest solution would be to get a set of closeup lenses in 67 mm size and one of the adapters to let you use these on the Rollei filter bayonet. .

Where can you find the adapter??jh

I have seen several different ones. One that I have right now came from Tiffen and works fine. Another in my collection came from either B+W or Heliopan and cost a lot more. It is nicer looking and weighs more but doesn't work any better!! I'm pretty sure the Tiffen one is still available, and any Tiffen dealer could get it for you. Since I buy all of my filters so I can use them on all of my cameras, it has never made any sense to me to buy Rollei filters. In recent years I've bought everything in 77 mm size, and keep an assortment of adapter rings in my filter drawer.

Also, if you like the Cokin style filters, Cokin and most of the others have Rollei bayonet adapters in their systems.

However, and this is important, I am not a wide angle shooter. If you use wide angle lenses a lot this approach will not work since the adapter plus filter will be thick enough to cause vignetting.

Bob Shell

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998
From: FortunkoC [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: ... Filters

This business about using filters to protect the lens is interesting. I adhere to the Leica/Leitz school on this subject. - Do not use filters unless you have to, for example, to protect the lens surface from dust or sea spray! Refraction is a real phenomenon that causes ray displacement and other undesirable effects. Also, coatings may introduce unwanted effects. Yes, I use filters, but very sparingly. The R1.5 is useful here in Colorado, because the sky is very blue most of the year, and I have two of them. Most of the time, they serve to protect my lenses during travel. I bought them used for less than a new Rollei front cap. (In fact, I prefer the older Zeiss front cap design, because it is more secure. However, these are very hard to find.)

So, best of light,

Chris

From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Making my own filters
Date: 4 Feb 1998

(Billy Woolfolk) wrote:
I have a Minox GT-E with a fixed, manual focus, 35mm lens. The outer edge of the lens is slotted to accept Minox's ND filter but I am considering making my own filter mount and cutting out some gels to fit it. If I do, would it be possible to buy a polarizer and cut it to size? What I mean is, will one section of the polarizer work the same as the whole thing?

Yes, there is no 'center' on a polarizing foil, only an orientation. You can even cut two pieces, mark them both equally for orientation, and use one for viewing the effect with your eye, and setting the lens-mounted version accordingly. Both Heliopan (default) and B+W (on request) have such a factory calibration on screw filters, with numbers on the rim, but you can do it yourself as well.

Also, the meter on my Minox would fall underneath the filters so metering would have to be done through the filters. It is not TTL, though. The meter is in the lens housing--underneath the built-in UV filter--but outside the actual lens. Would I then have to use a circular polarizer or would linear be best?

Circular only applies to those meters that have a semi-reflective mirror in their light path, and that only applies to SLR's. So linear is fine.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]

From: Benson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Filter Technique
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998

Omiya Lee wrote:

I need some assistance on using Rodenstock 90/6.8 with Hoya Center Filter. There is no description came with Hoya filter about the exposure compensation. Does anybody have experience in using this combination?

Thank you for your assistance.

K.C. Lee

I was not aware that Hoya made wide angle center filters, but they should function similar to most center filters. Look on the side of the filter, it should state the filter factor. This is the amount of light the filter absorbs when you use it. These filters work best when they are matched to the lens. They are simple to use. Just mount the filter on the lens and add the filter factor to your exposure. A typical wide angle lens center filter will absorb 1.5 f stops. do some test on a evenly lighted wall to evaluate how well the filter/lens functions. A transmission densitometer will aid in the evaluation of the exposed and processed film.

From: "Joe Cantrell" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stuck Filter
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998

[email protected] wrote

I have a rubber screw-in lens hood stuck in a Nikon filter. The filter is too expensive to just abandon, but I have tried everything I know, to no avail. I have unsuccessfully tried simply unscrewing, tried it using both palms facing each other, tried plastic filter wrench. I do not have (I believe they call it a) spanner. I do have some channel locks, but they will scar it. I really do not care if the lens hood survives.

Anybody have some other techniques that they have used successfully, when all else fails (e.g., heated water like we do on jar lids?).

I've successfully dealt w/ these by wrapping the pieces with thin pieces of masking tape or gaffers tape, holdint them as GENTLY as possible w/ fingers spaced around the rim, and been aghast at how easily they separate.

Joe Cantrell

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Steve1chsn)
[1] Re: Diffusion Filter
Date: Mon Feb 09 1998

since NIKON does not make a 58 mm soft filter, I would appreciate receiving suggestions ... it is for use with a 150 mm lens on Mamiya

The 52 probably will work with a step down ring, but if it does not you can always use the 62mm with a step up ring.

As an aside, all my 77mm lenses work with 72mm filters, and my 67mm lenses can use 62mm filters. As long as the lens is a normal or tele you can usually get away with it.

-steve vancosin

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998
From: Steffen Kluge [email protected]
Subject: Re: UV filters

And now, I'll probably start a brawl here, but I *never* use a UV filter unless I'm shooting in very wet or windy,

I have to agree here, too. Most of my lenses don't need a front protector. The 85/1.8 has its mighty hood, the 50/1.8AF and the 55/3.5 Micro have deeply recessed front lenses, and even the 24/2.8 has to live with its hood only (I rather put the cap on after the shot is taken). I occasionally use an L37c on the 180/2.8 since the retractable hood doesn't seem to be much of a bumper and the front lens is pretty large. I take it off whenever I really care about quality. The 300/4 on the other hand never gets a UV filter on - I just can't stand the thought of having one filter inside the lens and another one in front of it. So I guess I have to be careful ;-) But who wouldn't be with a lens like this...

Looks like we are into another "UV filter - yay or nay" debate.

Cheers
Steffen

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998
From: [email protected] (Bob Salomon)
Subject: Re: OEM filters vs. independent manufacturers
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc

Monaghan wrote:

You risk getting vignetting unless you use wide angle filters. These have a larger front diameter than the screw in threads. All a fat or thin filter does is extend the length of the lens and this means either type can vignette

The best filters were probably the batch glass series filters by Kodak,at least as measured for glass quality, uniformity (all the glass was colored identically) and for optical flatness (superb)

The same is correct for Heliopan and other all glass filters. The raw glass contains the color asd the shade is controlled by how thick or thin the glass is ground. That means that all warming filters come from the same piece of glass. All cooling filters come from a common piece of glass. All yellow filters come from the same piece of glass, etc.

These are available. Heliopan makes adapters to convert 67mm lens thread to accept Hasselblad Bay 60 and 52mm to Bay 50 and 55mm to Bay 50. Rollei did offer an adapter to convert 67mm thread lenses to Bay 6 but this was discontinued about 10 years ago as it was not a popular item. It was made primarily to use Bay 6 filters on the Japanese lenses sold for the 6002 which did not have a bayonet lens mount.

Most of today's filters of the colored variety are sandwiches of glass and colored resin or plastic.

This is the technique used by Tiffen and H & H. many other, probably most, manufacturers, like Heliopan use solid glass.

This keeps the costs down, but quality and uniformity vary a lot more. Certain brands (singh ray sp?) are optical quality resins throughout, better optically but less scratch resistant. The various minolta/cokin filters and finally the gel filters are useful adjuncts, but the gel filters have a problem with scratches in heavy use, and are a pain to use outside of the studio in my experience.

--
HP MARKETING CORP. Gepe, Giottos, G-O light, Heliopan, Kaiser, Linhof, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Rollei, Sirostar

------

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks Re: OEM filters vs. independent manufacturers

thanks, bob, for your useful comments and pointers; I am using a B50 to 52 mm converter on my hassy 500 so it'll work with some of my odd filters guess I need to find/build a thread to bayonet adapter ;-)

No you don't. You only need to order a Heliopan 700331 adapter. That will convert a lens with a 52mm thread to Bay 50. Just what you are trying to do.

Subject: Re: [Rollei] Bay 3 filters and adapters

Owen wrote:

I am looking for a good source for Bay. 3 lenscaps and filters that wont break my meager bank book. Can anyone make a recommendation?

Harrison & Harrison makes an extremely nice Bayo III to Series VI adapter ring and hood, and it isn't terribly expensive -- I believe $25 will buy the both. They also stock a complete set of Series filters.

Marc
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (DDunn22274)
Re: What is difference between UV, Haze, and Skylight filters
Date: Mon Feb 16 1998

You've already gotten some good answers on the slight "color" or B&W bias between the UV/Haze and Skylight filters. One other difference is the amount of Ultraviolet that they cut. With most brands a Skylight 1a cuts ~ 43% UV, a Skylight 1b about 55%, and the UV starts around 70%. There are some UV's that can cut 80% to 100% ultraviolet light out. For most of the UV's and Skylight filters, the exposure compensation is none to less than a 1/3 stop.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Angulon 90/6.8 Filter Size?
Date: Mon Feb 16 1998

Sakari Aaltonen [email protected] wrote: What is the filter size of a Schneider Angulon (not Super) 90/6.8? This is not a trick question.

40.5 mm.
Wolfgang.

Heliopan makes a nifty 40.5 to 52 mm converter. The guy at Schneider who thought up 40.5 should be shot. They also used it on several other lenses.

To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks Re: OEM filters vs. independent manufacturers

No you don't. You only need to order a Heliopan 700331 adapter. That will convert a lens with a 52mm thread to Bay 50. Just what you are trying to do.

Bob

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Use of UV Filter to Protect Lens
Date: 5 Jan 1998

I agree with Marcio. Though, I used to purchase a UV at the time of a new lens purchase and keep it on the lens all the time. At some point, I realized that flare was more of a concern, and it dawned on me that I had these superior quality lenses with what probably amounted to an inferior piece of glass over the front element. I used the Nikon 37c (I think that's what they were called) in front of all of my lenses which also got to be pretty expensive with larger lenses. Now I don't use UV filters at all.

Sincerely,
Mark

Date: 3/8/98
From: craig smith [email protected]
Subject: lee filters

I use the lee filter system and am very pleased with it. I use one 82 mm lens adaptor and use step up rings to use it with my other lenses. I had to buy a wide angle adaptor for my 20-35 2.8 lens and found that it wouldn't fit because of the bayonet lens hoods mounting points. I was able to use an old 77mm ring without the glass to fit in between the lens and filter holder. I haven't seen any vignetting with 2 filters but you can't use the shade(on the 20-35)

As far as what filters to buy I use ND grads in a 3 stop hard graduation and a 2 stop soft graduation line. my next nd grad will be a 2 stop hard grad. you can save a good bit of money (about 33%) by getting the filters in packaged sets. they come in a box of three I have the sky set and autumn tint set. you can check lee's page at www.leefilters.com

Craig Smith
Dyersburg TN

From: D. L. Feinberg [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lee filters; nikon-digest V3 #234

I hope you are sitting down.

The LEE filters are excellent. But the prices are astronomical. Ordinary LEE square filters cost about $50 to $70 each in New York . The UK sterling prices are close to the same ''number'', but with a sterling sign instead of a dollar sign, i.e., UKP 50 per filter instead of $50.

I once thought I might buy one of their holders and their shade for my MF stuff. They are really excellent quality. However, when the prices, all up, were getting near $300 - $400 -- essentially for a lens hood -- I gave it up.

Maybe you ''get what you pay for'', but it's a bit rich for my blood!

Don Feinberg
[email protected]

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Koni Omegaflex M Filter Sizes

Its is series 7, which equates to 54mm. You need a series 7 to 55mm adapter which are still available. Series 7 filters are also fairly common.

Peter K

[Ed. note: Series VIII are 67mm thread equiv. in the adapter rings]

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 
From: Robert Monaghan 
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Center Spot Filter. Can You Make Your Own?

Hi - interesting problem, I expect to hit it too someday, let us know
your best solutions please ;-)

My approach would be to reverse the problem, since center spot filters
are readily available for some smaller filter sizes, and mount those
filters on the rear of the lens, where smaller size is not a problem...

Now the main issue is where to position the filter so the spot matches
the desired gradient, without vignetting the image edges, and that can be
checked visually on ground glass, verified in some test shots.

Besides using cheaper commercial filters, you can use the same technique
for different WA lenses, simply vary size of tube used to standoff filter
from lens rear. 

I currently use rear of lens filter mounts epoxied in place using busted
out metal filter rings for large front element lenses (who wants to buy
122mm filters that cost more than the lens?). With the right adapters, you
can also use standard filter sizes (52mm etc) depending on the lens. 

I have even thought of building a micro-motorized Polarizing filter, but
haven't got that ambitious yet ;-)

Hope this idea helps - regards bobm
--

From: Emmanuel Simantirakis [email protected]
Subject: Response to Which Soft Focus Filter?
Date: 1998-03-11

Hi Steve. The filter I like using is the Cokin No 1 soft filter. I like the soft glow this filter gives my photographes. It almost seems that the photos have some sort of texture. I also have a Hassleblad softar 1which I have been using for more than ten years. But I prefer to use the Cokin filter ever since a fellow photographer introduced me to it one year ago. It's less expensive than the Hassleblad and most other filter out on the market. But the results are exeptional. Good luck Steve.

rec.photo.misc
From: Joe Schmoe [email protected]
[1] Re: filter question
Date: Sat Mar 14 1998
To: "James J. Campanella" 

A 30cc magenta. You can also add 30 points of green to a strobe. BTW
this technique also works outdoors for a sunset.

Regards
D.

James J. Campanella wrote:

> Here's a question that I should be able to answer
> but can't. What color filter do you use to filter
> out that blue/green cast that you get taking              
> photos under fluorescent lamps? Thanks for the
> help,
>
> Jim

rec.photo.misc
From: Bernhard Schopper [email protected]
[1] Re: filter question
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998 

James J. Campanella wrote:

> Here's a question that I should be able to answer
> but can't. What color filter do you use to filter
> out that blue/green cast that you get taking
> photos under fluorescent lamps? Thanks for the
> help,
>

 That would depend on what kind of film you use. Tungsten film requires
a different filtration than daylight film. Generally however, it's
magenta that corrects the cast.

Bernie

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: questions on which filters to use for B&W  

>I shoot w/ a Rollei 6008i (color film only up to now) and am interested in
>getting into B&W photography for indoor and outdoor portraiture only. What
>colors of filters do I need for this? Med yellow? Light blue? I figure the
>portraits will be taken with natural light outdoors, and either standard
>incandecent or flourescent light indoors, possibly combined with some 
natural
>light.
>
>--Jim

For black and white portraiture, you are not likely to need ANY filters.
Some photographers favor a very pale green because it can de-emphasize skin
blemishes, but I don't use one.  The only filters I use when photographing
people outdoors or indoors are sometimes a very slight softener (like 
a Number One Glamour Soft) and a polarizer (to knock reflections and glare
off glass and such.  Remember that a polarizer doesn't work on shiny metal.)

Bob

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 
From: "David C. Clark" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Portrait filter for B&W

I like a light yellow green filter for portraits.  These used to be sold as
portrait filters, but you don't hear them mentioned much anymore.

David


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Portrait filter for B&W

you wrote:
>I like a light yellow green filter for portraits.  These used to be sold as
>portrait filters, but you don't hear them mentioned much anymore.
>
>David
>
  Wratten type X-1, now called a #11. This filter corrected Type-C
panchromatic material for daylight and Type-B for tungsten.
  Modern pan films have better color balance and often don't need filters.
The X-1 is still a good choice for outdoor portraits where one wants to
darken the sky without also getting chalky flesh tones as sometimes happens
with Yellow filters like the old K-2 (now called #8).   
  The only Type-C pan I am aware of being generally sold these days is
Kodak Technical Pan.  With the 5X filter factor for the X-1 in daylight you
wind up with something like ISO 2 to 5 :-)
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]


From: Tapas Maiti 
Subject: Response to Pentax 67 servicing/filters
Date: 1998-03-16

Tony

I've used a Lee fliter system with the 82mm wide angle adaptor ring. It works fine but don't fit all the filter slides to the kit ( I think that you can use upto 4 or 5 filters but should build the kit to hold 2 filters maybe 3.

I wanted the Hitech 100mm system orginally so that I could use the polariser but it vignettes on both the 45mm and 55mm lenses so there was no point. I used Hoya skylight and polarisers on the 45mm - still very expensive. I'm on my second pentax outfit and opted for the 55mm instead - cheaper filters and a less extreme persepective but thats just personal.

Tapas

From: Gordon Vickrey [email protected]
Subject: Response to vignetting caused by filters extending too far 
Date: 1998-03-20

Yep, if your corners are actually vignetted and you're not using a
lenshood, then your filters are the likely cause. But you don't have to
use gels to solve the problem. One answer is to use the glass filters made
especially for wide angles. This approach will work, but it's an expensive
way to go.  It would be cheaper just to use a wider step-up ring. I use a
67 to 82 on my widest lens, and that gets the job done.

Gordon Vickrey [email protected]

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 
From: ScottG [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Filters for SL series lenses

Wilf, you might want to try Wally, a dealer in Texas who specializes in
filters.  Very pleasant chap.  If he doesn't know the answer to your
question, he'll direct you to someone who does.

email to: [email protected]
phone:  817-472-5185

hth,

Scott

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998
From: "Lehman John A." [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] cheap lens cap for Rollei 35

Vincent H Chan wrote:

...

Come to think of it, my Rollei 35 (also a Tessar 3.5) could also use a lens cap! any cheap alternatives out there?

I use a cap from a non-child-proof pill bottle; I also have one that fits over a filter.

From: [email protected] (Bob Salomon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Series Filters
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998

 [email protected] wrote:

> Does anyone have information as to what sizes the various
> Series numbers refer to?
>
>        Thanks.

IV = 20.6 mm
4.5 = 25.5 mm
V = 30.2 mm
5.5 = 35.9 mm
VI = 41.3 mm
VII = 50.8 mm
7.5L = 57mm
VIII = 63.5mm
8.5/5.5L = 74.8 x 5.6mm   
8.5/8mm = 74.8 x 8mm
IX = 82.6 mm
93 = 93mm
103 = 103mm
107 = 107 mm
119 = 119mm
125 = 125 mm
138 = 138 mm

Most filters are available in all of these sizes from Heliopan.

[Ed. note: Series VIII and IX filters are used widely on various Bronica lenses. These filters haven't got threads on their smooth edges. You mount them in a threaded filter holder that fits the lens filter thread and a filter series hood or filter retaining ring to hold one or more filters in place. On some lenses, you can just pop in the filter, screw in a retaining ring or series VIII lens hood, and there you are. Other lenses may require a lens filter thread to series VIII or IX adapter too.

For example, I use a 67mm filter thread to series VIII holder to hold various Kodak glass series filters, plus a series VIII retaining ring. Adapters let you mount larger filters on smaller lenses. Series VII filters were once popular with earlier 35mm SLR users.

Filter quality of older glass series filters is often very good or better. By standardizing on a given large filter size (series or threaded), you can use the same filters on multiple lenses - Bronica medium format, 35mm SLR zoom lenses, or even view camera lenses of various sizes. Some smaller series mounts use press-on designs, bayonet mount adapters (for TLRs oftentimes) and other specific approaches that merit further study.

Why bother? Because you can get great quality used series filters for 10% of the price of a new glass filter in that size. Many folks go into price shock when they find a large polarizing filter for their new 35mm zoom costs more than the zoom. Series VIII and IX filters offer an out of favor, and therefore low cost, way to get very high quality optically flat glass filters at low cost. ]

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] SERIES FILTERS

Okay, folks: here is the straight skinny:

SERIES IV       13/16"          20.6mm  14mm - 23mm filter threads
SERIES V        1 3/16"         30.0mm  23mm - 34mm filter threads
SERIES VI       1 5/8"          41.3mm  35mm - 44mm filter threads
SERIES VII      2"              50.8mm  43mm - 55m filter threads
SERIES VIII     2 1/2"          63.5mm  55mm - 65mm filter threads
SERIES IX       3 1/4"          82.6mm  66mm - 85mm filter threads
SERIES X        4 1/2"          114.3mm ?
SERIES XI       5 7/16"         138mm           ?

These are the "industrial standards": some manufacturers did make adapters outside of these ranges.

Marc

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Bob Salomon)
[1] Re: Filters for medium format
Date: Wed Apr 15 1998

[email protected] (Tad Tamura) wrote:

> After nearly 15 years shooting B/W photojournalism I'm getting back into
> nature/ landscape/ cityscape photos with a Pentax 67; and have the following
> questions regarding filters:
>
> - What are "enhancing" filters?  I see in the Lee Filter catalog one listed
> for $295; B&H lists several sizes for the Tiffen brand: $100 for an 82mm.  How 
> does it change the image?
>
> - In the B&H filter page I see  Lindahl 3"  listed among the Tiffen filters;
> does anyone know where I can get more information on these filters/system?
>
> - On the same B&H page B+W lists Kaesemann polarizering filters.  What are
> Kaesemann filters?  Is this a brand name or a patented, or otherwise,
> different filter?
>
> thanks,
>
> Tad

Kaesmann polarizers are available primarily from Heliopan and B+W.

Unlike regular polarizers the Kaesemann types are specially selected polarizing foils that are placed in the glass under constant tension, they are stretched and held taut by the way they are in the glass and to keep them taut the glass is totally edge sealed. This also makes the foil immune to the effects of humidity and fungus. For this reason they are often commonly called "Tropicalized" polarizers.

To ensure best results the glass used with kaesmann type polarizers is thinner than the glass used with regular polarizers.

Heliopan supplies Kaesmann type polarizers in linear and circular types in the following:

Screw-in
bayonet
squares
series type sizes
wide angle types
warm tone types.

They supply non-Kaesmann only in screw-in types.

Kaesmann polarizers were invented by Dr. Kaesmann in Bavaria who produced them for many years himself. After he died his business was purchased by H. Mandermann who incorporated it into the Schneider factory.

Bob

--
PLEASE SEND ALL E-MAIL TO ME AT:

[email protected]
HP MARKETING CORP. Gepe, Giottos, G-O light, Heliopan, Kaiser, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Rollei, Sirostar

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: [email protected] (D.Grabowski)
[1] Re: Filters
Date: Wed Apr 22 1998

The primary difference between the A and the P system is size and also the size of the accessories ( lens shades and such) . Also as a noteworthy point that you may be interested in is that a few of the P filters are not available in the A system. Another point of interest that you may or may not have considered is the availability of many other brand filters that will fit the Cokin holders, also the available adapter piece to use A filters in the P system. Companies such as Lindahl and Sailwind , Ambico and Pro Optic are quite compatable .In fact some of these companies list their filters in A and P systems as well or make adapters to fit the Cokin holders. You may already know that the adapter rings that mount the Cokin system to your lens comes in filter thread sizes from 36mm. -62mm. in the A system and 48mm.-82mm. in the P system and both have Hasselblad mounts available. As you will note there is room for overlap between the two systems, you should be aware that if you intend to use the filters on 24-28mm. lenses Cokin suggests moving to the P system to avoid possible unwanted vignetting . You may also like to know that many of the Cokin brand filters are made from optic resin, though I believe the ones you are interested in are glass , certainly the polarizer is .

I recently went through all this with some of these companies in an attempt to come up with a shade system that would enable me to better filtrate and possibly vignette for portraiture ( quite different than unwanted vignette) with my Mamiya C series twin lens cameras . Tired of fumbling with scewing filters on and off and not shading well enough for some effects ( severe backlighting comes to mind as well as radical strobe angle) or ultimately having the lab add a special touch instead of me , thus requiring added custom printing , I came to the conclusion that the Cokin system was the one that would get me as close as I would ever get with the twin lens cameras I own. Many pro shade systems are simply too large and block the viewing lens and the rubber shades that mount on screw on filters wasn't what was needed . The Cokin shades and system in general are reasonably priced, modular in design rather than bellows and though they can fuz the viewer on a twin lens camera a little with the 80mm. lens, it's acceptable to me. Fuzzing is nearly unpercievable with the 135mm. and longer lenses. If you are shooting with a single lens reflex camera the viewer problem is of no concern to you however.

For many years people including myself ( last example excluded) have been perfectly satisfied with the use of screw on filters from Tiffen and from Hoya as well as other companies. My opinion , based upon results from using both, on the differences between the two companies and especially with the polarizers is that Tiffen takes a little more subdued approach to filtration and Hoya filters run to the more extreme side of filtration by comparison. Both are good and it comes down to personal opinion or taste in the end.

Beyond this I have little else to say on the matter except that a graduated filter as you suggested you want to purchase would work very well in the square holder such as Cokin, simply because of the ability to slide it up or down as needed.

Hope this is of some help,

David Grabowski

Date: 24 April 1998
From: Richard Mendales [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wide angle filters

Javier,

I use Nikon filters on my 20mm. F2.8, and have had no problems with vignetting. They have much thinner rims than Tiffen filters generally, and so are less likely to cause vignetting. I've heard that the new B & W thin-rim filters are also thin enough to prevent vignetting on a 20, but have no personal experience with them.

Hope this helps,

Richard Mendales
University of Miami

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998
From: "Glenn Wm. Thrall"
[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Filters for Rollei 35 with Zeiss TESSAR 3.5 Lens.

Marc James Small wrote:
> >.... where to purchase filters for black and white film for
> >a Rollei 35 with a Zeiss Tessar 3.5 lens.

> I suspect H&H can as well and, Glenn, I believe they're
> not terribly far from you, being in Porterville, CA.

Thanks Marc! Is this the "H&H" you mentioned above?

> Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers
> Unit "E"
> 1835 Thunderbolt Drive
> Porterville California 93257
>
> or
>
> Post Office Box 1797
> Porterville California 93258-1797
>
> voice telephone: 209/782-0121
> FAX: 209/782-0824

Thanks again!

[Ed. note: I welcome other sources of filters and related items who want to be listed here, esp. if they have an online URL etc. - Thanks!]

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: [email protected] (D.Grabowski)
[1] Re: Filters
Date: Sun Apr 26 1998

"Alex Ang" [email protected] wrote:

>With reference to Cokin P. I used it on my Nikon AFD 24-120mm and notice
>slight vignetting at 24mm. Is it normal since the P system is meant for this
>range?
>
>Regards
>Alex Ang
>

Alex,

You did not state which filter you were using in your P holder . Some filters are mounted in a plastic holder that mounts into the Cokin holder be it A or P , these filters are round but the plastic is square to fit the Cokin unit . In this case the filter would be similar to using a screw in design and could cause the "slight" vignette you refered to . Also some lenses are prone to nearly vignette at the wide angle end of the zoom range and the addition of colored or polarizer filters can be enough to visibly show the vignette when shot nearly wide open . In short some zoom lenses are edge softness prone when zoomed to wide angle , I am not saying this is the case with your Nikon lens but something to consider and you might try shooting at small apertures when filtering and see what you get.

David Grabowski

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens hood, CC filters, & stuff
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998

Gee Bob, let's see Filters: yes you can tape either wratten gel, polyester or plastic (Lee, Sinar,or HiTech) to the metal barrel of the rear element of your lens. Tape it firmly in at least three places and you shouldn't have any trouble with it slipping. I don't know what you mean by "curving the filter"; it sounds like a way to get some weird distortion: filters should always be flat unless you are going for a special defect. Hi-Tech and Sinar both make very good lens hood/ filter holdeerr combinations to mount on the front of your lens with the appropriately sized adapter ring. These devices are pricey but do an excellant job of holding the filter and eliminating flare (or flair, as Calumet puts it in their latest catalog). The filters themselves are not much more (US$2-5) more than the easily destroyable wratten gels. The other thing these holders do is open up the world of graduated neutral density and other graduated filters to you. I have been using the 100mm size Sinar filters for years and they are truly an excellant product. The 100mm Sinar filters for years and they are truly an excellant product. The 100mm size holder has three filter slots and 3 interlocking shade rings and runs about US$200.00. The adapter rings about US$50.00 per ring. Another benefit it that instead buying an expen$ive compendium set up you can you use just a piece of Rosco black cinefoil shaped to block the flare. Or you can set up the Sinar comdedium as you describe. Another advantage in having the filters in front of the lens is that it allows you to bracket your filtration. A final advantage is that, once again with the approriate diameter adapter ring, you can use the system on all of your other cameras. By the way, I do not work for, nor do I currently own any other Sinar equipment. And when you say indoors, do you mean interior architecture or studio work or both? Good luck, Ellis Vener, [email protected]

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Cokin P Universal ring: smallest lens barrel possible?
Date: 21 Apr 1998

Cokin's literature claims their P-sized universal adaptor ring will mount on any lens with an OD dmaller than 85mm, but they say nothing about how *small* a lens it will mount on. I use Cokin P filters on my 35mm lenses, and I'd like to be able to use them on my old Moscow 5 folding rangefinder, but it does not have filter threads. I can either make my own slip-on Cokin adapter ring, or use their universal ring if it will fit on a small-OD lens barrel.

If I had my lathe set up at the moment the choice would be obvious, but it won't be running for a month or more, so I might be willing to buy a commercial adapter if I knew it would work.

Thanks for any input!

From: Benson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: CC filters
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998

There is a list of conversions on the back of the Fuji Pro film handbook ( it's the small one).

Benson

Robert Huckabee wrote:

> I hope this is not too far of topic;
>
> Can someone point me to a source for relationship between Kodak-Fuji-CC filters? >        
>
> e.g. a 81A is ?R + ?  and what the heck are LB-* in CC?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Filter Thread Size - Kodak Ektar 127mm F4.7
Date: Fri May 01 1998

[email protected] (Eric Myers) wrote:

>I've been trying to find out the filter thread size for this lens, a
>Kodak Ektar 127mm F4.7, which I purchased with a graflex graphic view
>camera (model 1).  If anybody has this lens and knows what the filter
>size is or knows where I might be able to find out (I've already
>checked the graflex web page) what it is I would be immensely grateful
>if they would share the information with me.  TIA!

Lenses of this period were used with push-on filter adaptors rather than the screw-in type. The adaptor for the 127mm, f/4.7 Ektar is 38mm or 1-1/2 inch, for series VI filters. These adaptors can be found used and are aparently available new from some sources according to some posts to this group but I can't remember from whome. Series VI filters are still made.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Infrared: Fuji IR 80 gel's wratten equiv?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 98

   "Russell Brooks" [email protected] wrote:
>I've a Fuji infrared sharp cut 80 gel and I was wondering if anybody knew
>what it's wratten equivilent would be? The salesman told me it sharp cuts
>all wavelengths below 800nm.
>
>btw, I picked this up in Japan and the Fuji gel's were very cheap. I think
>they were all under $10 including this one.
>
>

Cool, never heard of Fuji gels, not to mention IR gels.

As for 80=800....note that many filter manufacturers use the point of 50% transmission as reference/coding for their filter (Schott/Hoya), which would suggest that the Fuji 80 is a Wratten #87C.

You might want to check my homepage for an overview of IR filters, including transmission data and equivalents of Wratten, Schott, B+W, Heliopan, Cokin and Hoya:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm

rec.photo.marketplace
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
[1] Re: Variable Density ND filter
Date: Fri Apr 24 1998

Martin Krieger [email protected] wrote:

>Do such exist (could be just two polarizers rotated with respect to each
>other, I imagine)?  Where to buy?
>
>
>

B+H, and I assume Heliopan, makes such a 'double-pol'. I believe they are mostly used as faders in motion picture applications....

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

[email protected]

rec.photo.marketplace
From: robert [email protected]
[1] Re: Variable Density ND filter
Date: Sun May 03 1998

Using two polarisers together is a bad idea. First, there is a distinct blue shift when you cut out too much light, and also, most newer polarisers tend to cut out the light over a very small angle.

rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Cokin vs Tiffen
Date: Wed May 06 1998

Personally, I think the quality of Cokin filters is questionable for serious photographers who want realistic colors.

My problem with the Cokin graduated "ND" filters is that they are NOT really ND filters. They are listed as graduated GREY filters and a lot of the ones I've looked at have either a bluish or greenish color cast to them.

The Cokin circular polarizer I have also lends a strange color cast.

Sometimes this isn't really a problem... but at other times it can give you some pretty bad results.

I wish that I hadn't gone for the cheaper Cokin stuff because I'm ending up buying better filters anyway.

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Cleaning And Storing Filters
Date: Sun May 10 1998

Bill Powers wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote 
> >Hi All.
> >
> >I would like to know what is the best way to clean and store my camera
> >filters.
>
> I personally stack all my filters together and use metal end caps that 
screw
> into the filter threads. Fits nicely in the camera bag and protects them
> well.

Good suggestion. There are also some filter pouches (Tiffen and Tamrac come to mind) that hold various numbers and sizes of filters.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Richard Davis" [email protected]
[1] Re: Questions on filter quality.
Date: Sun May 10 1998

Here we go again. Don't both to flame me--others have done it for you already....

> My question concerns optical quality between different brands/types of gel,
> polyester, resin and glass filters (Nikon and B+W).  Which has THE BEST
> optical quality between these?

There is a short answer to your question. B&W is generally regarded as the best glass filter maker. Tiffen is widely regarded. If you want square gelatin or resin filters, Hitech and Lee charge enough to be taken seriously.

But there is a long answer too. Several studies of the optical effects of filters have been done, and most of them report basically the same result.....

If you use a single filter (just one piece of glass) in front of the lens and no more than one filter behind the lens, and you use a good lens hood that shields the filter well, it is generally not possible to measure the optical impact of the filter. Without a good lens hood you can see the effect of the different filters, but the effect is small compared to the general problems of flare and lowered contrast.

If you use multiple filters, you are talking about a whole different set of issues. The multiple pieces of parallel, flat glass, especially in front of the lens, will cause visible effects. Better filters, like the B&W or the Tiffens, will help some, but you are far better off figuring out how NOT to use multiple filters.

Quick summary.... It doesn't make any difference if you use no more than one filter in front of the lens and one filter behind the lens. Oh... And it makes a HUGE difference if the filters are the least bit dirty.

Hope this helps.

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Blurry Filter
Date: 13 May 1998

[email protected] writes:
>Blurry Filter
>
>Greetings all.   I was hoping that someone could help me out with a photo
>project I am working on.  I was wondering if anyone had ever heard of or  used
>any material that allows people to look clearly through it, but when someone
>attempts to take a photograph through it, it blurs and distorts thephotograph.
>
>If anyone can send me any information on this to [email protected], I would
>greatly appreciate it.
>If anyone can send me any information on this to [email protected], I would
>greatly appreciate it.
>
>thanks much!!
>

The material I use for that kind of photograph can be found in bags that mattresses are packaged in, or the kind you get when you pick up your dry cleaning. Both of these materials are clear when you look through them, but the picture is blurred because of the material these bags are made from.

Patrick G Horneker

[Ed. note: this idea may help some folks without filter threads on lenses..]

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginning 6x9 Folder?
Date: 22 May 1998

I haven't gotten around to taking a picture of it yet for my web page, but I recently modified a Cokin Universal mount to work on my Moscow 5 6x9 folder. The Cokin Universal uses three thumb screws with plastic tips to clamp onto the outside of just about any lens barrel, whether it's threaded, smooth, knurled, etc. My modifications were mostly done with a hot knife, removing plastic on the adaptor that got in the way of the folding and rangefinder mechanisms on my camera -- the designers of the adaptor must have expected more clearance around the lens than you get on a folder.

I was torn between using the Cokin adaptor and getting a proper slip-on to threaded filter adaptor, but decided in favor of the Cokin since it works with all the Cokin P filters I already own for my other cameras.

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: stefan poag [email protected]
Subject: Response to Which filters for B&W portraiture?
Date: 1998-06-02

I sometimes use a yellow filter (Wratten 11) or a pale green-yellow filter made by Voigtlander that my Father bought in Europe in the 1960s. The Wratten 11 yellow works well with natural light; it introduces a lttle more contrast into the clouds vs. the sky and I find green vegetation is a little easier to print. I think the Wratten 11 can introduce a little too much contrast into the pale skin of fair complected people. None of the local experts can tell me what "wratten number" the green Voigtlander filter is but it doesn't look close to any of the wratten gelatin filters. It is my favorite for portrature with natural outdoor light. I haven't noticed any significant benefit from using these filters with artificial light of any kind. Some people use a Wratten 25 red or a Polarizer for contrast control when shooting b&w outdoors; I think their results often look a little too extreme.

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Photographic filters

Is this the right way to contribute? Hope so. In the very useful collection of stuff on filters I was struck especially by references to the high cost of good filters. I like to use B+W multicoated, but the official UK agent's prices are astronomical, and from what I can see the US price from NY dealers is not much lower. So because I have friends in Germany I buy through a regular pro dealer there, with no special discount, and get B+W for almost exactly one third - yes, 33 percent - of the UK price. This suggests that outside Germany, photographers are being ripped off.

Second, re metering in artificail light, my Minolta spotmeter F gives wholly accurate readings under fluorescent light - I just shot several films in a shop using Provia 400 rated at 640 with a B+W F-Day filter, and the exposures are fine while the colour is certainly acceptable.

Third, do experiment to see how many filters you can get away with: Fuji sternly warn against more than one filter on the GA645's 60mm lens, but I just shot a lot in South of France using an 81C and a linear polariser together, both B+W which have quite thick mounts, with no trace of vignetting.

Regards - Tony Harrison

[Ed. note: Thanks, Tony, for passing on these tips - I know a number of prof. photographers will be esp. interested in tip re: B+W filters, maybe we can get some cooperative buying going via the net and arbitrage these prices?? ;-)]

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter question

>  I have a nikkor 28-70 3.3-4.5 lens and sometimes when I use my Hoya
> 62mm ploarizer or any other filter that is 62mm diameter on the lens
> at 28mm i get vingetting in all 4 corners....any suggestions to get
> rid of this?  besides getting 72 mm filters with step down rings..
>
>  the lens takes 52mm filters and I use 62mm filters with step
> rings...

Hello Eric,

I used a 52mm polariser on a Nikkor 28-70 without any vignetting, so you should not have any problem with a 62mm filter. I suspect the step-up rings themselves may be the cause of your vignetting. It's only showing up sometimes because the amount of vignetting sometimes depends on the aperture you use.

To test this theory, try some of shots at 28mm at different apertures with the step-up rings on your lens and no filter attached and see if you still get the same problem.

If you still get vignetting, the step-up rings are the problem. If not, you may need to get new filter with thinner mounts. Don't go for 72mm filters unless you need that size - they are expensive and bigger to carry around (having said that, filters with thin mounts like nikon's tend to be expensive anyway, sometimes you can't win :-).

From: Chun In Martinez [email protected]
Subject: Response to Which filters for B&W portraiture?
Date: 1998-03-24

In general there's no need to use filters for B&W portraiture. Everything looks pretty fine without filter. However if you want a tone reproduction closer to the apparent tones of the different colors, you can use a yellow filter. A yellow filter gives you a tone that matches to what you assume a color should look like in B&W. That blue should be darker than red. Filters are more useful for landscape and special effects where you want to darken and/or lighten specific colors for specific effects. The highest resolution film in B&W is Kodak Technical Pan. A film that can be exposed at different spped and developed in different developers for different effects and contrast. For portraiture, it must be exposed at ISO 25 and developed in Technidol. It's resolution is of 300 lpm. But I guess T-Max 100 is a better choice with a resolution of 200 lpm.

From: Tim Brown [email protected]
Subject: Response to Which filters for B&W portraiture?
Date: 1998-03-24

I'd use the medium yellow K2 as Chun mentioned, also a deep yellow K3 or orange G can hide blemishes. In 6x6 TMAX, Delta 400 are plenty sharp for portraiture. Sharpness isn't at the top of my list of what I look for in a 6x6 B&W portrait film. You might want a softening filter, especially for women. Try a piece of sheer nylon stocking stretched over the lens for kicks.

From: Sergio Ortega [email protected]
Subject: Response to Which filters for B&W portraiture?
Date: 1998-03-25

Jim, Kodak's own B&W film manual, Kodak Professional Black and White Films, Kodak publication No. F-5, cat# 152 8298, states that Tech-Pan's "extended-red sensitivity helps diminish the appearance of blemishes in portraits". Technical Pan is also the highest resolution film available: 125 lines/mm. T-Max 100: 63 lines/mm. T-Max 400: 50 lines/mm.

Also from the Kodak manual: Filters: No 58 (Green)--darkens lips dramatically. Increases contrast to add dimension to faces. No. 47 (Blue)--darkens skin tones, lips, and hair. No. 29 (Deep Red)--lightens skin tones dramatically. No. 11 (Yellow-Green)--retains natural skin tones while darkening the sky in outdoor portraits.

There are lots of subjective opinions about the "qualities" of different B&W films.

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: [email protected] (Wilt W)
[1] Re: Filters: B+W vs. Hoya
Date: Tue Jun 16 1998

Are B+W's really that much better than Hoya's to be worth the price?

I have some of both. Among the less expensive filters, Hoyas are very good in terms of the optics. But the rings are still aluminum, causing the binding in the lens that so many photographers put up with and think of as normal. B+W gave the great glass, but also the brass rings. Brass means that the filters are 'self lubricating' when screwed into the aluminum threads of most lenses. The value of the difference of brass vs. aluminum rings is something you have to decide for yourself. In terms of glass, the question is optical perfection of filters ground to plano parallel perfection (B+W) versus lesser techniques.

I'll admit to not knowing what the Hoya technique is.

--Wilt

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters: B+W vs. Hoya
Date: Tue Jun 16 1998

I don't think you would see any difference optically between the filters on a photograph. the B+W filters are of better quality construction, though and worth the price to me for that reason. Good shooting.

--
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com

[Ed. notes: recipe for an inexpensive softar style filter: ;-) ]

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: "Ron Walton" [email protected]
[1] Re: Soft Filters
Date: Fri Jun 19 1998

Use a UV filter and hair spray. Lay the UV on a flat surface and spray from about 2 ft. Don't just spray at the filter. Use a distance of about 2ft. and spray above filter so the spray kinda rolls across the filter. If you don't like the effect clean the filter and try again. Once you achieve the effect you like you will not be able to clean the sprayed side. Watch out for bright backgrounds.

--
Ron Walton
Visit the Bloomington Photo Club
at www.geocities.com/soho/lofts/7884/bpc/bpc.html

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: Jeffrey Novick [email protected]
[1] Re: Soft Filters
Date: Sat Jun 20 1998

Another effective technique is to spray into the air and then pass the filter through it in mid-air. This will give you a coating you can control by repeating the process until you have the diffusion you want

Jeff

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998
From: Bud Schoener [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Bayonet size for 3.5E Xenotar

I believe Rollei bayonet mounts are sized as follows:

bayonet 30 ... AKA bayonet I ... for 3.5 Tessar or Xenar
bayonet 36 ... AKA bayonet II ... for 3.5 Xenotar or Planar
bayonet 40 ... AKA bayonet III for 2.8 Xenotar or Planar

There is a fourth bayonet size ... for the wide angle Rollei, I believe.

A bayonet III filter fits INSIDE the camera's bayonet mount ... a hood fits OUTSIDE.

If you place a bayonet III filter on a flat surface, you can place a bayonet III hood over it, i.e. the outside diameter of the filter is nearly as large as the inside diameter of the hood.

A bayonet III filter measures 40mm inside the mount, i.e. the glass is 40mm diameter. I presume glass for bayonet II measures 36mm, and glass for bayonet I measures 30mm.

It is easy to attach a Rollei hood to its appropriate sized bayonet mount. If a filter is in place, the hood fits easily over it and connects in the outside flange of the mount.

Lots of words here ... I'm simply attempting to resolve a problem I am having with someone who sold me a "new, unused bayonet II Rollei hood." When the hood arrived in the mail, it did not fit my 3.5 Xenotar (it was smaller than the camera lens flange). The seller insists it is a bayonet II hood and is balking at a refund. I believe it is a bayonet I hood (it has no "R" marking as does my bayonet III hood or filters (marked "RIII"). What do you think? How can I make this seller understand the problem?

Thanks, Bud Schoener

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: 150 xenar filter size?
Date: Wed Jun 24 1998

My 135mm Schneider f4.5 Xenar takes a 40.5 mm filter. So do Fujion 150mm W and WS's. Now if 40.5 sounds a bit weird you are correct, but as I have been told numerous times, this is a perfectly wonderful size as some famous camera maker decided many years ago that is was the best size to use to get everyone to buy his propietary filters (as 40.5mm filters were not made by anyone else). All the other camera makers jumped on the band wagon and now we are stuck with it. :-( ... Heliopan makes 40.5 to 52mm converters. :-).

Kirk

rec.photo.film+labs
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.film+labs
[1] Re: is Hoya O (G) filter good for shooting EIR?
Date: Sat Jun 27 1998

[email protected] wrote:
>I have a Hoya O (G) filter  (yellow). Is it good for shooting EIR?

Officially not.

Hoya currently makes only the Yellow K-2 and the Orange G....equal to Wratten #8 and #21 respectively.

And EIR is best shot with #12....Hoya once DID make a similar color, Y-52, but my latest brochures don't list it anymore....you might find one used, but I don't give you much chance. As rare as the RM90 (#87A equivalent).

Even high up in the mountains in the middle of the winter, #12 was perfect....nothing that required a warmer tone, like #16 or #21. Right now I have a piece of #12 thin foil mounted in one of my EOS cameras....saves me a lot of headache when swapping lenses with other bodies (normal color slide and Kodak HIE infrared respectively....the latter *also* with its own #87C mounted inside the camera....you don't realy *want* to change filters in -20C and a nasty wind....;-))

More about IR and UV filters, including a chart with equivalents of Wratten, Schott, B+W, Heliopan, Cokin and Hoya:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm

Also general IR info, including FAQ's, links, galleries, and info about the Infrared Photography Mailinglist.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
From: "Dr. James Chow" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heliopan filters

>   Did you take your Heliopan filters with you? According to HP
>Marketing, "Moose won't stand for just any filter. They want their
>pictures taken with only the finest filters: Heliopan."

IMHO, I don't think heliopan filters are as good as the B+W multicoated. I have both the heliopan 95mm UV, B+W 95mm UV multi-coated, and heliopan 77mm UV (also had the Rollei [heliopan] BayVI UV previously). If the sun is at a low angle and shines on the filter, you'll get a hot spot at the edge of the chrome if the sun is from the side, or hexagons if the sun is from the front. With the B+W multi-coated, I've shot even at midday into the sun with no hot spots, no flare whatsoever. All 3 heliopan filters I've used give me the same problem. If there's no sun hitting the filter, optical quality is indistinguishable. So despite what reps/sales people claim about the heliopans, they don't match up to B+W multicoated filters. Does anyone want to buy a 77mm or 95mm UV heliopan? :-)

--Jim

[Ed. note: a tip for those who have been frustrated by the deep red #25 ;-)]

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: is Hoya O (G) filter good for shooting EIR?
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998

  [email protected] wrote:
>
> I have a Hoya O (G) filter  (yellow). Is it good for shooting EIR?

This is actually an orange filter (got a touch of colorblindness?) It's one of my favorite filters for B&W. It darkens blue sky almost as much as red #25 without darkening green foliage and with a factor of 3 it's more than a stop faster than than a red.

Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] rollei List Digest V1 #777

I would be happy to send you the Heliopan brochure. Like the B+W one it shows the differences in transmission between their standard and MC coated filters. While many dealers do their best to be helpful the manufacturer is usually the best source as to what they make. In Heliopan's case it is over 15,000 types and sizes of filters and no one person at retail will know them all.

Sorry you received the incorrect information.

Bob

PLEASE ADDRESS ALL FUTURE E-MAIL TO ME AT:
[email protected]
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998
From: Terry Price [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Bay III filter convertion

In a box of used filters in a camera store I found a Bay III x Kodak series VII adapter. It fits the kodak and other makes of series VII filters which are common and cheap. I think the adapters are still made by some outfit, maybe someone here knows. I've since found a couple more of the adapters plus ones that fit my Super Ikontas, my Miniature Graphlex, my Retina IIa, my Leica Summarit lens and several other cameras. I even found a couple of nice lens shades to fit the series VII adapters. Terry

From: John Pass [email protected]
Subject: Response to BayI filters
Date: 1998-07-06

Your local dealer is in error. The B&H catalog lists plenty of Bay1 (also called Bay30 (I don't know about Bay35??)). However, they can also be found used: http://members.aol.com/gdwnphoto. Amy sold me a minolta autopole that I'm very happy with for my Yashica 124. She has alot of other Bay1 stuff as well last I checked.

Good luck.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: T Loizeaux [email protected]
[1] Re: Monster Filter (Pentax 67 55mm)
Date: Sat Jul 11 1998

Large filters are certainly available...but maybe not at your local photo store.

The most common size of filters for modern motion picture work is 6.6" x 6.6" !

Tom

rec.photo.misc
From: Stan Chang [email protected]
[1] Re: What kind of filters are recommended for sunrise/sets?
Date: Sat Jul 11 1998

Depends what you wanna do and if you are using B&W or color film. Assuming color film, and you want to modify the color balance, you could use a 812 Tiffen warming filter or orange filter to boost the warm colors, or a cooling filter to eliminate the warm tones. Polarizer to cut reflections 90deg from direction of the sun, star filter to turn specular highlight into star shapes, orange graduated filter to put fire into a lackluster sunset. See Kodak Workshop Series on "Using Filters". Kodak publication KW-13. Gobs of ideas. Also Cokin has a booklet that is usually included with their filter holders showing their offerings. Just some ideas.

Stan

rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected] (Mr 645)
[1] Re: What kind of filters are recommended for sunrise/sets?
Date: Sat Jul 11 1998

The only filters I use regularly for sunsets is First, a warming filter. Put it over the lens to add to the warm tones already there, OR put a warming filter over your flash and when you print for the skin tones, you will actually be cooling down the scene.

And Second, a graduated ND filter to tone down a bright sky

Jon

From: "Eke Vinberg" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Drop in filters
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998

You mean like square filters? There are a few different systems, I'll try to list them here:

- Cokin, size A and P, and the new big size (120+ mm wide)
- Lee
- Lindahl
- Hitech
- (more?)

Then there are a number of filter manufacturers that make filters in sizes to fit the above systems.

- The above
- Tiffen      
- B+W
- Singh-Ray
- (more?)

Cokin holders are plastic, a good budget alternative.

Cokin and Hitech make resin (acrylic?) filters

I have seen glass filters from Tiffen, B+W, and Singh-Ray. Glass is in general significantly more expensive than resin, but does not scratch as easily.

I will leave it to other posters to contribute from here on.

Ake

From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: ? about polarizing and warming (Makina 670)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998

If you want to polarize and warm you need a warmtone polarizer.

Heliopan offers this type and all Heliopan polarizers have calibrated rims. The calibrations indicate the axis of polarization of the filter and allow you to look through it and rotate till you see the desired effect. Look at the rim and see what number is on the top. Mount the polarizer on your camera and rotate it until the same number is on top.

Works every time./ I use them with a Contax G2.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

From: Tony Harrison [email protected]
Subject: Response to filter holder for pentax67
Date: 1998-07-10

I am interested to hear that Joel is switching to Cokin P filters for his P67. I use the P-series holder with my Pentax, and fit HiTech rectangular (84mm?) filters made here in Britain. However, theyre barely big enough to use with the 45mm lens if taped on, and even with the front slot cut off I get slight vignetting with that lens. I shall either get one or two more B+W glass filters, or invest in the considerably more expensive W/A large resin filter system by Hi Tech or Lee. You might care to know that HiTech (or Format Filters as they seem now to be called, they change their name every couple of months it appears) make an interesting thin-filter which is barely thicker than gels but much more robust, and cheaper than resin.

Like Joel, I too have the 165mm lens, which is an excellent performer - it works very well for tabletop product shots, using the #1 or #2 extension tube.

Also like Joel, I have 35mm Nikon gear - its perfectly true that no one format will do everything, and with my new F90X (why is America the only country in the world which chooses to call this the N90S?) and 80-200/2.8 I can do things that havent been possible with the Pentax or with my much-loved Fuji GA645.

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998
From: "Thom Hogan" [email protected]
Subject: re: filter numbering

The full list of current Nikon filters, what they are, their filter factor, and the sizes they come in is in my book, page 38. To answer your question:

A is for amber, B is for blue, and the number indicates (sort of), the intensity (2 is a quarter stop, 8 is two-thirds of a stop, 12 is a full stop).

L37 is for UV Haze, L1B is skylight, and the C after them indicates they're coated.

Y is for yellow, and O is for orange, and again the number is an intensity indicator (44 is 2/3 stop, 52 is a full stop--don't ask me why this is different than A and B).

Other filters you'll see are ND#, which are neutral density, X#, which are green, R#, which is red.

Thom Hogan
Executive Editor, BACKPACKER Magazine
author, The Nikon Field Guide (Silver Pixel Press)

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998
From: Ake Vinberg [email protected]
Subject: Re: filter numbering

In addition to Thom Hogan's post about Nikon filter labeling, I believe that the B/W filters and the UV/skylight filters are named after wavelength:

L37c cuts light below 370 nm
L39 cuts light below 390 nm
Y44 cuts light below 440 nm
Y48 cuts light below 480 nm
O56 cuts light below 560 nm
R60 cuts light below 600 nm

I hope this is accurate information, please correct me if I am wrong.

Eke Vinberg

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: Brian Ellis [email protected]
[1] Re: Help w/ B&W filters please
Date: Tue Jul 14 1998

I use the Lee lens shade and filters and have been pleased with the results. With the Lee system you buy one shade (costs about $100) and it attaches to the lens by means of adapters for each lens diameter. The filters slide into the end of the lens shade. Given your small range of lens diameters, you could easily buy just the 62 mm Lee adapter and then put step down rings on each lens in the appropriate size. This would be cheaper, and take up less space, than buying a separate Lee adapter for each lens (though you could certainly do that too if you wanted - as I recall the adapters run about $30 each). I use the orange, green, yellow, and polarizer Lee filters. However, Cokin's filters will fit the Lee system and are somewhat less expensive I believe. The only major downside I have found is that the Lee polarizer filter is extremely expensive (about $140) and at the time I was buying mine (two or so years ago) no one else made a 4x4 polarizer filter. If you need a polarizer you might look at systems other than Lee for this reason (or perhaps someone else now makes a 4x4 polarizer). Otherwise I would recommend the system.

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: "David W. Swager" [email protected]
[1] Re: Please help!! Hoya or B+W circular polarizer?
Date: Wed Jul 15 1998

B+W makes an Uncoated and Multi Coated Circular Polarising filter. They also make a slim one similar to the SMC Hoya and a Wide angle one that has glass larger than the filter threads of the lens. Actually, upon pricing these things I have found that the B+W and Hoya are pretty close in price. Except if your going slim. The Hoya is definitely cheaper. Comparing multicoated CPs the B+W was $141 and the Hoya was $134 (B&H Photo Video).

The thin mounts can help prevent vignetting. This is only a concern with wider angle lens of 28mm or less. And really not a big issue down to about 20mm unless you are stacking more filters on a lens. Hence if the polarizer is the only filter, then a regular CP typically will not create significant mechanical vignetting until the focal length falls below about 24mm. This varies from lens to lens. If the glass extends out to the edge of the barrel very close to the filter threads, vignetting with the appropriate size filter is more likely.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Albert W. Chau" [email protected]
[1] Re: Nikon Filters
Date: Wed Jun 24 1998

Charles,

My new Nikon L37C filter is coated.

You can tell whether your polarizer is circular or linear easily. Try looking through it at some reflections from your window. It is a linear polarizer, if you can cut down the reflections on both sides of the polarizer. Since a circular polarizer is a linear polarizer with a 1/4 wave plate behind it, you will only see the polarizing effect when you are looking through it from one direction. In another word, if you can flip a polarizer over and it loses its polarizing effect, then it is a circular polarizer. Don't forget to rotate your polarizer along the axis of your lens when you are doing your checking.

Hope this helps,

Albert

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Bill Powers" [email protected]
[1] Re: flourescent light
Date: Sun Jun 28 1998

Fuji Reala does help !

I have also used 30cc M with success on some tubes

...bp
Marc S. Fogel

>How do you get rid of the greenish color while shooting under
>flourescent lights?  I am using a Ricoh GR-1
>
>Thanks
>Marc.
>

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (-Chen,J.L.)
[1] Re: Why did Tiffan abandon multi coated filters
Date: Tue Jun 30 1998

>I just read a notice at The Filter Connection that Tiffen no longer makes
>multi-coated filters.  Anybody know why?  I have used their 812 filter in the
>multicoated version and have been very happy with the overall results.
>

The Tiffen TMC filters are extremely difficult to be kept clean. The one TMC filter I bought did not even came clean. But don't worry, you can buy the B+W multi-coated filters for not too much more. Get a copy of the professional souce book from B&H and enjoy the lower prices on B+W filters.

Julian

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
[1] Re: Enhancing filters
Date: Sun Jul 12 1998

[email protected] (Phcate) wrote:

>I am thinking about buying an enhancing filter for my trip to thesouthwest.  I
>don't know much about them so would appreciate any advice, info etc.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Tricia

Tiffen sells one of the cheapest, but not the best.

The one from Galen Howell (sp?) is much better AFAIK, and the same goes for TopShooters. The first even sells a Cokin-P compatible polarizer/enhancement combination. Add some Velvia and you're gonna hurt your eyes....;-))

Lee and HiTech also list one, both selling a red- and a super-enhancer. Recently, Hoya and B+W also joined the pack, but like Lee and HiTech, I don't know anything about their performance.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "David W. Swager" [email protected]
[1] Re: Enhancing filters
Date: Wed Jul 08 1998

That would be Galen Rowell I believe. And he buys some of his filters from Singh-Ray at www.Singh-Ray.com. They make one called the Color Intensifier that does not pump the reds quite as much, but leaves the greens and adds much less cast to the whites.

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filter Search
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998

"Steve Shapiro" [email protected] wrote:

>My Vetran photo pal suggested I find a "Minus Blue" filter from the old
>military flight deck days.  The Cooke Aviar was best filtered with a minus
>blue, which was a yellow #15 if I can remember our conversation that night.
>
>Anyone know from their Marine days what is a Minus Blue filter?
>
>Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA

Jargon. Any Yellow filter is minus blue. It means a filter which subracts blue light from white light, the result is yellow. The Wratten #15 is a currently made filter and easy to get. They used to be known as "G" filters. It is a dark yellow or light orange color. They have considerable haze cutting ability without resulting in the very distorted tonal reproduction of a red filter (which nonethess is even better for haze penetration). This was one of the standard aerial photography filters.

Used for outdoor pictures the #15 will result in dark gray skys and somewhat exagerated clouds. I like the effect for a lot of pictures.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998
From: Alex Cruickshank [email protected]
Subject: Nikon (Brand) Filter Comprehensive List

>I would like to know if there any site with a Nikon Filter list w/prices &
>detailed info.
>
>Julio.

Try the Newhouse page www.newhouse.com.au

Alex

Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] rollei List Digest V1 #799

Heliopan makes all types of filters in the mount for the old 40mm. It is variously called Bay 8 or Bay 103.

Since this size is also used for several current lenses we sell quite a few of these filters. We also have this size lens hoods in stock.

Any of these items can be ordered from any camera store.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

From: "Ron Walton" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Essential Filters
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998

>David W. Swager wrote:
>> To multicoat or not.  The best option is single coated filters. They are
>> typically much less expensive and almost as good at transmitting light.
>
>Sounds reasonable. However, looking at the B&H catalogue, I
>don't see any "single coated". Perhaps some brands' "standard"
>are, in fact, single-coated?
>
>Which circular polarizer would you choose (52mm):
> Tiffen std $35
> B+W std    $56
> Hoya std   $30
> Canon      $60     [50mm lens itself is $75!]
> Nikon      $60
>

None of the above. As many are finding the standard polarizers can produce vignetting when using some of the wider angle lenses. If yor forsee the possibility that you will want a 28mm or wider in the future check out some of the thinner polarizing filters such as the ones made by Hoya or B+W. The Hoya Ultra Thin is an HMC that is only 3mm thin. The 52mm size is $60 B&H price.

Also, you could buy a larger standard type pol filter and a step up adapter. The 58mm pol filter I bought for my 28-105 zoom causes slight vignetting at the 28mm focal length, but when I use a 52-58 step up ring on my 28mm 2.8 there is no vignetting.

Ron Walton

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998
From: Vincent H Chan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Rollei Bay III filter convertion

> Some time back I used a Rollei TLR 3.5 with the Rollei infared filter.   Today I
> am using a 2.8D.  The Rollei filters in this size are harder to find  and more
> expensive.
>
>      Here are a couple of possibilities a ran across:
>
>                 Heliopan is said to make a Bay III to 49mm adapter,
>                         #308, special order from HP Marketing,
>
>      Anyone use other solutions?
>

Hi Rich,

I picked up an bay I to series V converter a while back for a few dollars, to which I noticed that the outside diameter was close to the inside diameter of a 49mm filter. So after popping out the glass of an old 49mm filter, I was able to "slip" the filter ring over the outside of the series V filter holder.(with the use of some emory cloth and my fine adjustment hammer) Thus creating a bay I to 49mm adapter.

--
Vincent Chan e-mail: [email protected]
University of Victoria web: http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~vhchan/

From: "Michael K. Davis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: ? about polarizer and warmer for MAKINA 670
Date: 8 Jul 1998

[email protected] wrote:

: Hi,

: I've got this great camera. It's a Makina Plaubel 670. The problem is that
: it's a rangefinder and as such, I'm not sure how to use a polarizer for it.

I use a polarizer on my rangefinder by just sighting through it, handheld, while rotating it. When I've achieved the affect I want, I carefully move my head without moving the filter so that I can see where the reference dot is on the side of the filter. I mentally note it's position as 5 o'clock, or 7:30 or whatever, then thread it onto the rangefinder lens and spin it to the same position. It's ready to go for that scene.

: I have a Leica M-4...it has a "swing up" style polarizer.
: Is there one for larger (58mm) mounts?

: There was an accessory pack for Makina that included a grip and five  filters.
: Does anybody know anything about that?

: What's a good filter to warm up chromes?

I like the 812 warming filter better than the 81A or 81B. The 812 seems to warm things up without affecting the color cast of the entire image. I'm not sure how it does that, but the 81A, B and C impart a uniform tint to the whole image that has become recognizable and for me at least, dull.

The bigger problem with chromes is contrast reduction. I have just purchased, but not yet used a Tiffen Ultra Contrast 2 (It comes in grades from 1/8 to 5 -- the larger values yield greater effect.) This filter won an Technical Achievement Award from The Motion Picture Academy. It is very popular with videographers, evidently. Looking through it, I can only see the slightest milkyness -- barely detectable, not at all like a fog filter. With the grade 2 at least, it almost looks as clear a clean UV filter. Tiffen literature states that on film, there is no introduction of halation or glare at all and no reduction in sharpness. It manages to avoid these negative effects while pulling light from bright parts of the image to elevate luminance of the shadow areas. This would be a wonderful tool, but I'll be slow to tolerate any reduction in apparent sharpness if there is any.

They also make two other similarly graded filter series called Low Contrast and Soft Contrast. Their literature openly states that these introduce glare, while compressing the luminance ratio. I can't remember which is which, but one of these elevates the shadows while leaving the highlights alone and the other brings down the highlights while elevating the shadows as well.

If you can do intentional double exposures, pre-exposing the film with a -3 stop out-of-focus exposure of your 18% reflectance grey card is probably still the best way to reduce contrast (elevate the shadows) in the field. Better still is to pre-expose with a Wallace Expo/Disc attached to your lens -- also turns your TTL-metering camera into an incident light meter. This is a translucent neutral-density filter with a very uniform transmittance equal to an 18% neutral grey card, without the hassle of having to tilt the card just so to avoid glare off the its surface.

Mike

/---------------------\
Michael K. Davis
[email protected]

Editor's note: the posting below highlights the potential of using sheet polaroid material, rather inexpensive (circa $10US for surplus sheets), for a home-made polarizer instead of costly large polarizers.

A step-up ring makes a good starting point to hold your sheet material and screw into the lens filter-ring. You can make a permanent or temporary setup as desired (or as you have rings to work with ;-). Some silicone tacky-stuff for hanging wall posters may work fine to hold your circular cutout materials in place for a temporary setup (or removable glue for permanent ones).

If you don't have a step-up ring, you can trim sheet materials to fit into your lens thread mount. But the step-up ring is a better protected, flatter design. You can also use a similar setup with gelatin based filters, as well as sheet diffraction gratings and other filter related materials! As noted above, star filters and the like can also be easily made in these large filter sizes.

An additional advantage comes from using the right step-up rings, matching each lens filter thread but with the same final size (e.g., 95mm, 105mm or whatever the largest lens filter size is..). You can use the same homebrew filters on both your telephoto and wide angle lenses.

Polaroid and other sheet material is very thin stuff, but much cheaper than special thin glass filters. Before you spend large sums on a large thin glass filter, look into these low-cost alternatives that provide similar results for much less!!!

As an alternative to front mount filters, look into putting filters on the rear of the lens mount. While less practical for a rotating filter like most polaroid filters, it may be a simple way to use less expensive color filters you already have.

The key factor is how much clearance is available at the rear of the lens. Even in the worst cases, you can probably mount a thin sheet material at the rear of most lenses. Side lobes (ears) of sheet material can be used to mount onto the projecting rear of the lens (e.g., with rubber bands).

If there is lots of clearance, consider the benefits of mounting a metal filter ring (glass removed) at the rear of the lens. With care, household cement can be used to mount the metal filter ring, yet it can be dissolved and removed prior to resale if desired. Now you can screw in matching filters of much smaller size and lower cost...

The savings can easily reach 100-fold if you can use low cost, small surplus gelatin or glass filters in place of the new, rarer large glass ones...

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Basics
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998

[email protected] (CWood 7000) wrote:

> The 55 f.4 for the P67 is designed for 77mm filters.  This has proven
> convenient for me as the 35mm for my P645 is also 77mm as are the 20-35, 28-70
> Tokinas and the Canon 300 f/4 I use with my Canon A2.  This  interchangability
> has proven immensely helpful in the field -- carrying fewer filters!
>

I buy filters in the 77mm size. Step up rings from 52,62,67,72 to 77. Very few filters to carry. The 55 3.5 blows that out of the water though!

> I have not seen the original 55 f3.5 for the P67 but when I first purchased my
> used P67 I was told by someone I trust the earlier lens was not as sharp.
> Perhaps the wise thing to consider would be to sell the older lens and take the
> proceeds along with what a news Heliopan /adaptor ring would cost, and  buy a
> clean used 55 f/4.

I hear about as many favoring the 3.5 as for the 4. I got a great deal on the 55 3.5. I'm also thinking about building the polarizer from a 6x6 sheet ($10-15) and the 100mm UV that I purchased or with an extra slip-on lens cap I saw advertised. Still in the planning stages though...

From: [email protected] (PMurrayMPV)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resin vs. Glass Filters
Date: 9 Aug 1998

Glass Tiffen filters is the way to go.

Not Hoya, they use dyes for color. Tiffen uses gels in the glass which as they say do not fade.

Dont forget, glass filters are easier to clean, dont scratch as easy and most importantly are easer to shade from stray light. ie. lens hood.

Cokin and Ambico have special effects that can be fun but for the basic filters buy screw on glass type. Hope I helped.

From: Deacon Dave Shrader [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Color enhancing filters, which are best?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998

RocknL wrote:

>  I have noticed a color shift which, at times, is unacceptable.  Are there any that do
> not cause the color shift ?  The Tiffin seems to add a yellow tinge to
> vegitation and it also shifts blue sky towards violet...The shift comes 
> close to duplicating the effect of the enhancing filter.
>
> If anyone can help please do !!

Any filter will add some 'color' to an image. That's why they are called filters. That's what they are designed to do. Even most ND filters will add a tint. My ND add a slight amount of dark, dark green. An A1 will add a slight 'pinkish' tint,etc.

Most filters today are epoxy based. Trace elements will absorb light differently. Also, some inexpensive filters are uncoated, Tiffens are single and double coated depending upon quality. The presence or absence of surface coatings will also effect image.

I guess the message is: "Use filters sparingly. Understand their limitations."

I have several B&W UV's on Nikon glass that seem to work well. B&W', I believe are ground glass not optical grade epoxy.

--
In the Love and Mercy of Jesus,

Deacon Dave

From: "Jim Williams" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: polarizer on rangefinder cameras-practical way
Date: 11 Aug 1998

Leica makes a swinging polarizer for its lenses, if you don't mind spending about $250. You just swing the polarizer out so it covers the viewfinder, turn it until you see the effect you want, then swing it back in so it covers the lens.

Contax recommends the following procedure for using a polarizer on its G1 and G2 cameras. Almost any screw-in polarizer will have a dot or mark on its mount that indicates the axis of polarization. Look through the filter and turn it until you see the effect you want; note the position of the dot/mark; mount the filter on the camera; and turn it until the dot/mark is in the same position.

Many people use a polarizer just to get blue skies as dark as possible. If your RF camera has a through-lens meter (Leica M6 or Contax G series) you can use this trick: put the polarizer on the camera, look through the finder, and turn the polarizer until the meter indicates its lowest reading. At this point the sky should be at its darkest.

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: polarizer on rangefinder cameras-practical way
Date: 11 Aug 1998

I find it much easier to carry a second polarizer so I don't have to constantly attach and remove the one on the camera, if I'm doing several shots all with a polarizer. Just find the proper angle with the loose one, and turn the one on the lens to the same angle.

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Polarizing filters for B&W

>  Hello
>
>  I often see written ( and I have used)  to use a polarizing filter to
>increase color
>  saturation of the blue sky and decrease sun glare on objects when you use
>  color film.   But what about  b&w film?    Is there any use for the
>polarizing filter
>   with this ??
>
>   Bob

There certainly is:-) First of all you can use the polaroid filter for reducing reflections from non-metallic surfaces as is done in color. It can also be used to darken skys where the other effects on the gray-scale rendition of color produced by colored filters is undesirable. For example, it doesn't result in washed out skin tones in outdoor portraits as does a yellow or orange filter. It can also be used in combination with a color filter to get very dramatic skys. Again, the combination of a Polaroid filter with a medium yellow filter will result in very dark skys, as you would ordinarily get with a red filter, with less distortion of gray values than the red filter would give.

Polaroid filters can also be used to reduce reflections from water for both B&W and color.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

[Editor's Note: Several sources, including an article in Shutterbug, describe how their tests of different filter brands, and with and without filters, failed to show significant differences for the average pro or amateur user...]

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Gene Crumpler [email protected]
Subject: Response to Filters and Step-Up Rings
Date: 1998-09-02

I have run lens resolution tests with all of the Tiffen filters that I own and can see no difference in the resolution (52mm filters on a 55mm micro Nikkor and 77mm Filters on a 80 -200 f2.8 AF-D Nikkor) whether the filters are on or off the lens. I can't speak for the others. I was thinking about "up grading" to nikon or hassey filters, which prompted the testing. I kept the tiffens.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Bill Clarke [email protected]
Subject: Response to List of NICE Used Rollei Equipment Available
Date: 1998-09-02

I have found Hadley Chamberlain to be a very reliable source for accessories for my Rollei SL66. I recently purchased Mannheim's "Bible" on the SL66 from Hadley along with one of his custom made BayVI to 67mm filter adapters which allows me to use lower priced Hoya,Tiffen, etc. filters. I save some money from the Rollei Bayonet filters without sacrificing any quality.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Brian Ellis [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed Sep 02 1998
To: Thomas J Balfe [email protected]

I vaguely recall seeing some photo magazine do a test of various filters within the last year or two and the test found no visible difference between any of the major brands (B+W, Tiffen, etc.) except perhaps in some extreme flare situation. I use B+Ws, Nikons, Tiffens, Pentax, and one Hoya for black and white work I've never noticed any difference among any of them. The idea that "if you spend money on a whole set of Tiffens and then later try one B+w you'll want all B+W" is difficult for me to believe. I would be amazed if out of a group of photographs made with different filters, anyone could consistently tell which photograph was made with which filter in a blind test.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[1] Re: The best filters
Date: Wed Sep 02 1998

T h a n k y o u ! ! ! ! Finally some sense in this! ;-) Choose the filter for the rim-design/materials/glass-colors you like, cuz you sure won't see any difference on the film from the make of the glass! (Except, maybe, for el-cheapo filters which have been known to be unflat on occasion..., and Tiffens, which seem to spontaneously fog, but which are OK if you remember to clean them before use...). Also, I dare anyone to detect from the photograph that a filter has/has-not been used (under most conditions), or that it was uncoated/coated/multicoated...

I thought audio was full of myths, but......;-)

David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
[1] Re: The best filters
Date: Wed Sep 02 1998

Actually you may be thinking of the test and comparison of polarizing filters done in the final issue of Camera and Darkroom before it was sold to Outdoor Photography.

They found significant differences in color between the polarizers and went so far as to put all of them on a light box along with a Kodak ND gel. The photograph clearly showed the differences in color. But if that wasn't enough, they also ran sensitrimetric values on each filter as well as that ND gel and published the R,G,B values. There was clearly a difference between the various brands. If you go to a library or contact Outdoor Photography you may be able to find a copy of that article.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Brian Ellis [email protected]
[1] Re: The best filters
Date: Fri Sep 04
To: Bob Salomon [email protected]

No, the article I had in mind tested filters typically used for black and white work. I'm familiar with the article you refer to. It was written by Joe Englander and published in the September, 1995 issue of "Camera and Darkroom." The article made two principal points:

(1) that the filter factor usually given for polarizers (2.5) was too low, and
(2) that contrary to popular belief, in color photography polarizers are not neutral (i.e. that polarizers in color photographs have an effect on the color of the scene). I have no idea whether the usual filter factor is too low or not and I don't do enough color photography to have any opinion as to the neutrality of polarizers in color photography.

In my original post I was responding to someone who said that if you bought Tiffen filters, and then used one B+W filter, you would want to use all B+W filters. I stated that, based on my experience in black and white work (not color), I didn't think there was any such obvious difference among the various brands of filters.

I find nothing in the "Camera and Darkroom" article that would support the idea that there is such a difference. With the color photographs published in the "Camera and Darkroom" article there were color differences (usually very slight) but the author didn't contend that any one brand was superior to all (or any) of the other brands -he just claimed that there were some differences among the brands and therefore concluded that polarizers were not neutral..

Based on the photographs he published, I would agree that polarizers aren't neutral in some color photographs but I don't see anything in the photographs or the article showing (or even purporting to show) that (1) the differences are great (in fact they can be detected in most cases only by knowing in advance to expect a difference and then making a careful side-by-side comparison of the photographs), or (2) that one brand of polarizer is superior to the others.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Harry Nowell)
[1] new cokin system for large MF lenses
Date: Thu Sep 03 1998

Cokin is coming out with a new system that will accomodate large lenses. It will be called Pro-x or X-Pro. I have a Pentax lens with diameter of 100mm. My questions are:

1. When will it be on the US market
2. When will it be on the  Canadian Market
3. How big a lens will it accomodate
4. Does anyone know how to get in touch with anyone that knows
         ie Cokin

Thanks
HN

From: [email protected] (HRfoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resin vs. Glass Filters
Date: 12 Aug 1998

> Re: Resin vs. Glass Filters

>A piece of gelatine, inbetween two pieces of glass, are 6 boundaries,
>unless the gelatine is sealed in an optic glue with the same refraction
>index as either gelatine or glass.
>
>A single in-the-mass colored filter would contain 2 boundaries.

The Tiffen method of sandwiching a colored gel between two pieces of glass is a method of making filters dating back to the infancy of photography. Virtually all filter manufacturers have gone to the modern, dye in the mass glass to manufacture their filters. The filters with the highest regard for quality, like Heliopan and B+W use this method, and Tiffen's claim of superiorityhas to be considered as advertising hype.

One of the major problems in manufacturing a high quality filter is to keep the inner and outer surface parallel. With Tiffens method there are four instead of two glass surfaces to keep parallel. If their filters were made to the same exacting standards as B+W, Heliopan or even Hoya, shoudln't they be more expensive? I don't mean to say that the Tiffen filters are necessarily bad, but I do have to question their insistance of perpetuating and obviously outdated method of filter manufacture.

Heinz Richter
HRphotography

From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Color enhancing filters, which are best ?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98

>I am considering getting the Tiffen Enhancing  Filter which is supposed to
>enhance warmer colors (red, oranges).  I plan on shooting a lot of rock
>formations in Grand Canyon and Utah area so I thought this might be useful.  If
>anyone has any experience with this let me know.  I wonder how much it will
>change sky colors.  I see some photos where these rocks look redder but the sky
>also has a pinkish hue.  Is this is the effect I will get?
>
>Thanks,
>Mike Johnson

Tiffen makes the cheapest, but AFAIK not the best, with too much effect on other colors, including blue and green.

Check manufacturers like Sing-Ray/Galen Howel, Hoya, TopShooters, Lee, HiTech and B+W....they all have one in their programm. Sing-Ray even a conbination of Cokin-P compatible polaroid/enhancer combination.

Some call it a color-intensifier btw, and some also distinct between red-enhancer and super-enhancer.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

From: T Loizeaux [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Color enhancing filters, which are best ?
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998

Color enhancing filters are made with a special glass that basically supresses green. Though it apears to be a magenta filter, it is a little more than that. Reds and oranges, as are blues are "enhanced"! Greens definitely seem darker, while whites remain somewhat normal.

You could great colors in red rock areas by using an 81 series warming filter to enhance the stone and a polarizer to deepen the skies.

Tom

From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: hoods and filters
Date: 13 Aug 1998

Are they always recommended or are they best used for outdoors? If outdoors only, on sunny days only?

Every 35mm lens I own (except my 12mm fisheye) has a UV filter and the manufacturer's matched hood. Every medium format lens I own has the manufacturer's matched hood or a bellows lens shade & I'll add a UV filter if I think there's any chance for danger.

I use the hood all the time -- every frame, indoors or out. Always.

===============================

regards,

Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]

From: "Christopher J. Christian" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: hoods and filters
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998

I'll second what Henry wrote except I'll add five things:

1) When I'm really lazy, like shooting evening/night events (carnivals and the like), I will sometimes take off my hoods. BUT I REALLY SHOULDN'T! (There's always the lights set up for the evnts, even if the sun is not present!)

2) I have a UV filter on ALL my lenses, 35 AND MF! Makes the job of cleaning, and possibly scratching, the front element, almost nill!

3) I've bought them all from Henry (ok, not personally) so he should be happy. (B&H Photo)

4) I use B&W filters almost exclusively. If you buy an expensive lens, why put a piece of a coke bottle in its way?

5) I need a few more and will be ordering them from B&H tomorrow, Friday, or Sunday. That'll make one personal trip and one mail order all in the same week! (I think I'm personally paying Henry's salary!)

From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Advice on filters needed.
Date: 13 Aug 1998

Have some Tiffen 77mm filters that have NO threads. Can anybody tell me how these are used?

I suspect they're not 77mm, but Series filters which, once upon a time, would have been mounted via an adapter ring sandwich.

===============================
regards,
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "TravGlen" [email protected]
[2] Re: taping wratten filters inside a camera
Date: Sun Sep 06 1998

This sounds lame to me. Do what everyone else does and get a couple of cheap uv or skylight filters and sandwich a Wratten between them. KEEP the inside of your camera as clean as possible!

Steven Lam wrote

>Hi all,
>
>    I was wondering if anyone has any tips on how to tape/secure a Wratten
>filter between the film guides of a 35mm camera.  I have a Nikon F601, and
>I've noticed my idea of putting my Wratten 87 filter in a Cokin holder is
>more trouble than it's worth.
>
>LMK,
>Steve

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998
From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters, an overview (nikon-digest V4 #34)

Cande wrote:

>I've been struggling to understand the zillions of filters (I have a
>basic understanding) and their uses/purposes, but have not been very
>successful. I'd greatly appreciate if anyone could refer me to some
>good resource(s) (such as books, documents, etc) that CLEARLY EXPLAINS
>each filter and their uses/purspose. Thanks, in advance.

Cande,

I believe Kodak (www.kodak.com) has a publication regarding filters. Another source is the little strip of paper that comes in the box with each Tiffen filter. You might contact them and ask if they'll send you one.

Generally:

YELLOW through ORANGE through RED (there are several values of each) are for subtraction of blue. This aids the black and white photographer in getting more realisitic sky tones. Since panchromatic film is most sensitive to blue, skys often look too bright, or washed-out. Yellows yield 'normal' skys, oranges make them more dramatic, and the reds make very dark skys. This also varries the contrast between the blue sky and the clouds.

There are several shades of reddish orange and blue filters that are intended to allow the use of tungsten-ballanced film under daylight (reddish orange) and to allow the use of daylight-ballanced film under tungsten lighting (blue).

There is a green filter that is supposed to render better skin tones with black and white film.

There are various 'skylight' and 'UV' filters that are supposed to warm the colors of outdoor scenes and cut through atmospheric haze, respectively.

The polarizers are for cutting glare. They can be used to reduce reflections when shooting at the surface of glass or water. They will also cut haze, darken skys and increase color saturation (through haze reduction). They are normally used with color film, but can be used with B&W as well.

Most of the above filters require exposure increases.

There are also some special effects filters. I will not discuss these, but rather will suggest that you get a filter catalog from your dealer.

Best regards,

Stew
- ---
Photo WEB site: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/

From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Subject: Re: How bad are cheap filters on good lenses?
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998

Good filters which are truly optically flat, which have good mounts and which have good antireflection coatings help to minimize flare and reduce the degradation that putting another piece of glass in front of your primary optical system is bound to occur. Whether they are cheap or expensive is just a first order way of determining that they are quality filters, but generally you get what you pay for in optics and the good ones cost more.

There's no such thing as a "standard" filter size, really. There are a lot of 49mm, 52mm, 55mm and such because several manufacturers standardized their lens lines on these sizes for many years. For Leicas, B+W and Heliopan generally have all the correct sizes and are not too terrible to find, only to pay for. Tiffen, Hoya, and a couple of others all make good filters, but B+W, Heliopan, Nikon filters have always been my choice when i can afford them.

Godfrey

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: How bad are cheap filters on good lenses?
Date: 25 Aug 1998

You might save yourself money and hassles in the long run by buying a step-up ring for each of your lenses to some larger, more common, thread size. That could save you enough on filters to pay for the rings and then some -- especially if you can find good used filters in the more common size.

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998
From: Peter Chigmaroff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.misc

> The problem with cheap filters is mostly with consistancy.  This is  important if
> you have a favorite soft focus disk, loose it and get another one and it sucks.
> this is common with plastic junk like cokin.

I use Cokin (cheap plastic), Sinar (very expensive plastic), HiTech (moderately expensive plastic), B+W, Helliopan, Nikon, Fuji and a few others. Over the years I have gathered a small fortune in filters. Except for a few (very few) cases I can't tell when I've used a cheap filter or an expensive filter.

Peter Chigmaroff

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998
From: Paul cavka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: How bad are cheap filters on good lenses?

I have a Nikkor 28-85 zoom. I was so disgusted in the optics that I just put it away. I loaned it to a freind one day who loved it. He said I should realy replace that bad UV filter. Stupid I know, but I just didn't think a UV filter could soften an image so much. It was only noticable when the lens was wide open at the wide angle end.

Paul

From: J Greely [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: How bad are cheap filters on good lenses?
Date: 25 Aug 1998

[email protected] (Frank van Wensveen) writes:

>So.. If I use a $5 Japanese filter on a $1000 Leica lens... will this
>seriously affect image qualiity?

If you're going to use a cheap filter, you should use a lens hood to reduce the chance of flare. However, if you're using a lens hood, do you really need the cheap filter anymore, or is the hood supplying at least as much protection as the filter would? This line of reasoning had me leaning towards removing the UV filters from all of my lenses, and then I happened to notice something one day: when I looked through a non-multicoated UV/Skylight/Haze/whatever filter, I could see my reflection; when I looked through a multi-coated filter (Kodak, in this case), it looked like there was no glass there at all. Off came the UV filters.

I left a few of the Kodak multi-coated filters on some of my older lenses, whose own coating probably isn't as good, but the rest are gone. I still make regular use of a Tiffen Warm Soft/FX filter, but always with a hood.

-j

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Tony Harrison [email protected]
Subject: Response to Filters and Step-Up Rings
Date: 1998-09-04

I think most of us semi-pros and keen amateurs (and not a few pros)tend to use step-up rings sometimes, especially given the condiderable cost of good filters. What really prompts my contribution is Robin Smith's unusual suggestion that Hoya are the "prime" filters in the UK, and that B+W are not only less well thought of here, but cheaper too! Hoya have a dominant position, and they're pretty good, but B+W are less prominent purely because they are extremely expensive. I think they're the best - and our other MFD correspondent should know that B+W too use Schott glass, Schott being part of the Carl Zeiss group, which is why Hassy filters are made of Schott glass...

Photographers in both the US and UK should know they're being ripped off, though, since B+W filters are considerably cheaper in Germany, which is where I buy mine. In fact, I get them at a price which beats the UK prices of Hoya, just from a regular pro dealer with branches in major German cities. B+W filters are the best I've used, bar none.

Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Using UV blocking filters with Rollei lenses

Folks:

Still today, a lot of people are buying an UV-blocking filter for their new lens to protect the image from "dangerous UV rays". This is really a marketing success by Hoya and the photo dealers without any justification to get more business. If a filter is bought to protect the lens against dust and scratches in a non friendly environment, this is a good investment. However, the filtering of UV light from modern lenses is not necessary because the used glasses and antireflection coatings do not let UV rays pass through the lens. This is fact unless you do not buy a very cheap plastic lens for 10 bucks! It is also fact, that any filter - how expensive it is and how perfect it is antireflective coated - degrades the performance of high quality lenses. So with any UV-blocking filter you cannot improve image qualtity of modern lenses.

However, there is something to discuss this in relation to the lenses for the Rollei 35 and TLR!

There has been a statement given by Rollei that the Planar, Sonnar, and Xenotar lenses definitely do not need an UV-blocking filter. I can confirm this. I used cameras with these lenses on glaciers at an altitude of 15000 feet and on beaches of South Florida to take slides without any filter and did not get any problems. Sometimes the beach or snow had been very blue (under a blue sky), but this is not an UV problem. There was a lot of blue light, and the lens just transfered this onto the film. So those have been just natural photos.

But it has been strongly recommended by Rollei to use such a filter for the Tessar, Xenar, and Triotar lenses in an environment with high UV radiation (i.e. at the beach, in the montains). The explanation was that these types of lenses do not absorb enough UV light. The UV could pass them and meet the film. UV light is invisible. However, the films are sensitive to UV light and on colour films this gives an intensive blue colour. And, nevertheless, the UV makes not only the images more blue than in nature but also reduces sharpness because the lens has no correction for the UV light thus having another focus point (equal as if you use the Infrared mark on the metering scale of a lens with infrared film). So for these lenses Rollei recommended the UV blocking filter called "Rollei H1" filter.

My question now is:

Has somebody experience using Tessar, Xenar, and Triotar lenses of Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, or Rollei 35 with or without H1 filters? Is it really proven that you need the filter? Are there experiences with photos in the mountains, ond glaciers or at the beach with or without filter?

Please do not start a discussion about reducing blue colour in photos. I really like the blue colour when it comes from the visible light. I you are on a glacier and you have blue sky, the snow appears blue,too. That is fine. I don't want to fight this by using a conversion filter to remove the blue.

Please do not refer to the marketing statements of Hoya for their skylight filters. I am only interested whether someone really has experiences with these Rollei lenses and UV radiation effects under extreme situations.

From time to time it is also said, that modern colour films (negative and slide) also using UV blocking filter layers. If it is so, you would not need to use an UV blocking filter on your lens, even if your lens is not UV blocking. Has somebody information about that?

Greetings,
Dirk-Roger Schmitt

From: J Greely [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: How bad are cheap filters on good lenses?
Date: 25 Aug 1998

-j

From: Stan Chang [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Filters for Tokina 300 2.8

Sounds like you have the same dilemma I faced, but Kirk Enterprises had a solution.......but it costs $300. Kirk Enterprises came up with a geared rearfilter holder for polarizers to fit 39mm NIKKORS. Maybe they have a 35.5mm to fit your Tokina now. See

http://www.kirkphoto.com/polarizers.html

Stan

AB wrote:

>  I am contemplating the purchase of the Tokina 300/2.8 II ATX APO but
> I notice the (rear) filter size is 35.5. Where might I get a circular
> polarizer for this?  I checked B&H - they have B+W filters in that
> size but NOT polarizers.  The Filter Connection has polarizers in that
> size, but not CIRCULAR polarizers. If I have to go with linear
> polarizer can I still use but meter without the lens, add the lens,
> and set 2 stops above manually? HELP! Thanks. AB

From: [email protected] (Kendall Helmstetter Gelner)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Filters as clear lens covers - opinions?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998

In reading through various material on filters, I've found a number of references who seem say that even though a UV filter seems to have little effect on a photograph, they leave these filters on all the time as a sort of clear "lens cover". Do other people here think that's a good idea, or in general should you have as little in front of the lens as possible?

I ask because though at first the idea sounded sensible (keep scratches off your expensive lenses). But today I was talking to John Fielder after a slideshow (well known landscape photographer) and he said he doesn't leave any filter on the camera, if the lens gets a few scratches on it they'll be invisible in a picture anyway (though you might get some lens flare you wouldn't have otherwise at a bad angle). Note that he said he still cleans dust from his lenses. :-)

Thoughts?

From: "John Stewart" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters as clear lens covers - opinions?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998

You have the two sides to the argument in a nutshell. Purists want nothing in front of the lens unless needed, and a lot of us (especially non-pros) like the protection.

As a former store clerk, I can say that the UV "protection" filter pitch was also used to get a badly needed extra $10 out of a sale. But in many cases, the reasoning was sincere!

John

From: [email protected] (Geir Eivind Mork)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Filters as clear lens covers - opinions?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998

I was taking a closeup of a male grownup chicken whatever it's called in English but after a couple of shots this pretty little creature decided that he needed an enemy and hit the lense so hard that the UV filter got a nice crack - I think the protection was in handy. Glad I didn't use anything expensive like a polarizer .. or nothing at all.

From: [email protected] (Richard Cline)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Filters as clear lens covers - opinions?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998

If the extra piece of glass were always a good idea, the lens manufacturer would provide one for starters. They might call it a replacable front element. The filter is normally unneeded. In most situations the lens is not at danger of being scratched. However, if you were going out in a sandstorm it might be smart to protect you lens with the filter element.

Dick

From: [email protected] (Karl Snyder)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Filters as clear lens covers - opinions?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998

Kendall,

If you look at 99.9% of John's Fielders pictures, you will discover that they are taken within a few minutes of sunrise or sunset. He does not need to filter out UV light as he relies on the atmosphere to do the UV filtering. Also, winds that stir up the dirt are usually nonexistent at dawn or dust.

Please note that all film, particularly pan (B&W) and color film are very sensitive to blue light. It is not possible to cut off this sensitivity at 400nm (the limit of human light visibility). Before you attempt a test of UV type filters, you should be aware of different filters ability to filter the UV light:

Filter          UV Light Absorption
UV              22%
Sky 1A          45.5%
UV 15           81%
UV 16           86.5%
UV 17           97%
Haze 2A         Virtually all UV light

[Source: B&H's "The Professional Photo SourceBook", page 360, Tiffen Filters.]

Based on this table is obvious that a UV and Sky 1A (the most popular filters for standard lens protection filters less UV light than most believe they should filter. This is why my standard filter for all my lenses is the Haze 2A.

I have taken pictures of the same mountain scenes (Colorado high country--10,000 to 14,000 feet) with and without my Haze 2A and the difference is very noticeable. The filters effect is less noticeable when the sun is below 30 degrees to the horizon. Anytime the sun is below 30 degrees, I refer to this as "magic light" as it is warmer in tone that high noon as the atmosphere filters a lot of blue light.

To determine the sun angle for your latitude, try the "Sun Position Calculator" at: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~simonw/sunpos/

Hope this helps,

Karl S.

P.S. As John uses lama to haul his photographic equipment around the mountains, could the weight of an addition filter be the one that "breaks the lama's back?"

Date: Sat, 1 May 1999
From: Ufuk Tureli [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: differences Haze, UV, 1A vs 2a etc. Re: protective filters

Rob,

Thanks for the info. HOwever, note that some manufacturers used different lettering for the same filter. For example, I believe Vivitar sold UV filters as Haze. There is an equivalence guide to filters in Carl Shipman's book for Canon Cameras (F1/A1/AE1/etc, 1978)

Maybe a slight explanation may be necessary.

Thanks,

...

[Ed. note: yes, certainly different manufacturers may have used different values or cutoffs than tiffen ;-) Here's a test - hold filter against clean pure white sheet of photocopy paper. If the filter looks clear, then call it a UV filter. If there is a slight straw or salmon or other coloration to it, it is filtering out some visible color (blue..) and can be called a "haze" filter ;-) ]

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Gregg McCroskey [email protected]
Subject: Response to softar filters
Date: 1998-09-08

This is a great discussion! It takes some effort to find the softening effects that work best for us- each with their own special technique. Among the photographers (about 200 wedding/portrait shooters)here in the SF Bay Area there is quite a spread of techniques. Some of my favorites:

- an 80a with a light spray of MacDonald's matte spray (use a penny to create a clear center)

-black nylon- what could be more affordable? (various patterns of holes)

-an 80a with a light smear of lanolin (best source is the bridge of your nose)

"real filters by Sailwind, Nikon, Lindahl,BW, Vivitar,Tiffen... The best of these are always made of optical quality glass.

In my bag are the laquer-sprayed filter, the NikonII, and all three Softars. The SoftarI is always out for portraits...esp good for smoothing out minor blemishes and wrinkles. The II comes out for a more idealistic, less realistic portrait. The III is great for fantasy effects. I have even added them together to really much an image.

The filters are in both my 35 and Hasse bags even though they are very expensive.

Gregg

rec.photo.equipment.misc
Date: Sun Sep 20 1998
From: "John P. Koch" [email protected]
[1] Re: Cokin filter system and ultra wide lenses

Noname wrote:

> I would like to learn to use graduated filters and the most convenient
> filter system that comes to mind is Cokin.  But before I spend my money
> on it I would like to know whether I can use Cokin P filters on my 20-35
> zoom (77 mm filter size) without vigneting.
>
> If you have any experience with Cokin P on ultra wide lenses please send
> you comments.  Thanks in advance.

It will vary according to specific lens manufacturer. My Nikon 20-35 f2.8 (w/ 77mm filter size) vignettes with the Cokin P filter holder at settings wider than 24 mm. However, supposedly you can saw (or otherwise cut off) the outer two holder slots on the Cokin P and eliminate the vignetting. I haven't yet tried this field modification so I can't say that it works for certain.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (DWA652)
[1] Re: Filters stuck together
Date: Wed Sep 23 1998

Yes, this sometimes happens. But I have found that if I curl my fingers around the polarizer so as to grip as much of the circumference as possible, it will come right off. The problem occurs if you try and grip it 180 degrees apart with 2-3 fingers.

Hope this helps.

Don Allen
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "SATCHMO" [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters stuck together
Date: Wed Sep 23 1998

This won't help much with a rotating filter, but is really helpful with others. Remove the lens from the body and install the rear lens cap for protection. Press the stuck filter flat and firmly against the sole of your shoe (rubber preferred). While pressing tightly, twist the lens to unscrew it from the filter. Works every time. Also, 'sandwich' stacked filters between two shoe soles with hands inside shoes, press together, and twist 'em apart! Doing it this way helps to prevent distorting the filter rings, which makes it so hard to do with the fingers. Joe Arnold

[Ed. note: W.J. Markerink is well-known as a fisheye and Infrared photographer with many diverse interests...]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
[1] Re: Q: taping wratten filters inside a camera
Date: Wed Sep 23 1998

>How about a sharp-cut red filter, like a Nikkor...? You can see
>through this, and it generally works about as well for IR B&W
>daylight photography as the IR filter... (BTW, if you do place
>an 87 gel on the film rails, I wonder if it would shift the
>film plane about enough to compensate for the IR focus shift...;-}
>[though film scratching and dust projections may be a problem])

A 0.4mm thick piece of #87C has been sitting inside my EOS-1 for 2 years now. Attached with only two thin pieces of clear office/household tape. Note: *between* the film rails, not on top....and those rails are 0.5mm tall in the EOS-1....never had any problems with dust or scratches, amazingly considering the dark load requirement (in a cramped dark loading bag).

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand

[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

and a followup posting:

Gelatine filters are not the best solution for IR in specific, there are two polyester alternatives available (#87 0.1mm thick & #87C 0.4mm thick....also #12 (medium yellow for Kodak EIR), #25 red, #29 red and #89C deep-red), see my homepage for details:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: tdhieger [email protected] [1] Re: Stacking filters?
Date: Wed Sep 23 1998

...

A good way to avoid vignetting is to use filters of a larger diameter than your lens, and attach them to your lens with a step up ring. I use a polarizing filter and an 81B together quite often. I prefer to mount the polarizer on the outside because I find it easier to rotate (adjust) in that position. I don't know if that is the technically correct way of mounting them, it's just what seems to work for me. If anyone knows the technically correct sequence of mounting, I would like to know also.

Tim

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (DWA652)
[1] Re: Stacking filters?
Date: Wed Sep 23 1998

Yes, the polarizer on the outside is technically correct.

Don Allen
[email protected]

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: "Owen P. Evans" [email protected]
[1] Re: A question relative to stacking filters
Date: Wed Sep 23 1998

The rule of thumb in using more than one close-up filter is to place the strongest or most powerful one closest to the lens.

That being said, I don't recommend stacking these filters because of flare; lack of sharpness and most likely, vignetting.

If you wish to find ways of getting high magnification, I recommend that you read a book called: " Closeups in Nature" by John Shaw

Hope this helps,

Owen

From: [email protected] (AP KD6FLM)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: filter question
Date: 20 Sep 1998

Just purchased a Canon Elan IIE and wondering what type of filter(s) I should buy specifically for the many bright, cloudless days where I live. I take a lot of pictures of family and friends on the beach, etc. Btw, I use a 28-80 and 70-210 lense.

I like Tiffin Filters and have some Hoya. Coken I have not been impressed with. Try a 81A warming filter for mid day. Keep the clouds out of the picture if there are any. They will have an orange tint to them. Not good. There may bee some vinyeting with the 28-80 set at 28. If so try a thin ring filter.

Aaron
Pelouze Photo
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (KINGALF)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is a "enhancing filter" ?
Date: 22 Sep 1998

Check Peterson's Photographic Mag. Oct. 1998. It boost the reds for flowers, autumn etc.

From: Brian Ellis [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filters/hood for large format
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998

I use the Lee hood but I also use the Lee filters. Seems to work fine (I do only black and white so my filters are fairly basic - none of the exotic color filters). The only disadvantage I found was when I went to buy a polarizer. The Lee polarizer costs about $150 and I couldn't find another 4"x4" polarizer made by anyone else at that time (about two years ago). Maybe someone makes one now. The Lee filters run about $30 each if I recall correctly. Some Cokin filters will also fit and are less expensive. Except for the experience with the polarizer, I've been pleased with the system. Brian

Barton Bean wrote:

> Great group!
>
> I am just getting started in large format and want to invest in a
> filter and hood system that is easily adaptable to different lenses.
> I will be using it for BW and color.  What is your experience with
> the best system?

[Ed. note: standard thickness filters are usually designated at 6 mm thick; half thickness or thin filters are circa 3 mm thick...]

From: [email protected] (Tomi T. Salo)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 17mm,20mm and 28mm lens
Date: 24 Sep 1998

[email protected] (Karl Snyder) writes:

> Also, remember that anything below 20mm will not be able to take a
> filter with vignetting and if it's between 20 and 24, you will need to
> buy the untra thin 3.5mm thick filters.

Tokina's 17mm (AT-X version) takes one full-thickness (6mm thick) filter without vignetting. IMHO, a lens that has filter threads but can't take at least one full-thickness filter is a poorly designed lens.

[email protected] / Time flies like an arrow
Tomi T. Salo / fruit flies like a banana

From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 17mm,20mm and 28mm lens
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 98

[email protected] (Karl Snyder) wrote:

>Also, remember that anything below 20mm will not be able to take a
>filter with vignetting and if it's between 20 and 24, you will need to
>buy the untra thin 3.5mm thick filters.

Even the Cokin-P system will still work with a 20mm, but you might have to file off 1 or 2 slots on the front, if you need to use the holder in 'portrait' mode (ears on the side, for ND-grad's, in landscape orientation of the camera itself).

Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

From: [email protected] (Scow38)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 17mm,20mm and 28mm lens
Date: 24 Sep 1998

>Also, remember that anything below 20mm will not be able to take a
>filter with vignetting and if it's between 20 and 24, you will need to
>buy the untra thin 3.5mm thick filters.

That's one way to avoid vignetting but part of what makes photography so great is how many ways there are to skin one cat! I use a 20mm 2.8 Canon -- 72mm filter size. Two of my other lenses are 77mm, so I've put an inexpensive "step up" ring (72 to 77) on and, thank goodness, no vignetting even with a thick C.P.L.!!!!

And I agree with most of the other posters, 20mm has the angle of coverage, close focusing capabilites, and lesser distortion than 17mm. I've found that I can actually move my feet and get the composition I usually want with the 20 -- real interesting concept, moving the photographer instead of using a zoom!!!

Enjoy.

From: [email protected] (Bill Potter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Unsticking filters, etc.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998

I have another solution that is non-destructive that one may want to try first.

Tear of a piece of gaffer's tape long enough to go around the edge of the filters plus an inch or so left over. Tear the tape into two strips about 3/8" or so wide. Wrap a piece around the rim of each stuck filter without overlapping the other filter so that the tape goes all the way around and leaves a little tab. Wrap the pieces in opposite directions, counter-clockwise as you face each filter. Pull each tab in the direction the tape is wrapped to unscrew.

If this doesn't work, then get out the hacksaw and the spanner.

Bill Potter

From: [email protected] (BK2057205)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Favorite Tricks
Date: 26 Sep 1998

Don't know anything about the double polorizers except if you get them at right angles to each other you will have no light coming through the lens. The panty hose thing works and it is also used to reduce the appearance of zits in portraits.

If you use a piece of window screen on a neutral density filter you will get a four point star burst effect. Outdoor shoots will look more vivid if you rate your film an half its speed, a full stop over exposed will saturate the colours nicely.

Bernie

From: [email protected] (WKato)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Cokin filter system and ultra wide lenses
Date: 27 Sep 1998

>>> But before I spend my money
>>> on it I would like to know whether I can use Cokin P filters on my 20-35
>>> zoom (77 mm filter size) without vigneting.

I've tried to use them on my P645 35mm lens with 77mm filters. I knew it vignetted with the holder so I just held them up to the lens. It sill vignetted slightly. But the worst of it was the color rendition of the ND grads. Everything turned out brownish on my Velvia slides and the ND was no really Neutral but some other color. I hear the Singh Rays have the most neutral ND grads but haven't bought any yet.

If you aren't using ND grads, I know of a trick that avoids the necessity of cutting off the filter holder--just turn it 90 degrees and the offensive plastic pieces are at the top and bottom and do not vignette.

From: "John R" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Sharper images without filter?
Date: 27 Sep 1998

I bought a used Vivitar 24mm f2.8 (K mount) in mint condition cheap. I wanted a wide angle and figured the lens was probably okay to experement with, but nothing spectacular. I put a skylight filter and on vacation I went. After returning and processing the slides, I examined them under my microscope and found that the quality was not bad but nothing spectacular. I then went shooting without the filter and found the lens performing equal to my best lenses - very crisp.

I wasn't aware that filters made that much difference in sharpness. Yes, I am aware that adding more flat glass surfaces in the light path does no good other than adjusting color and lens protection. Has anyone experienced this with their wide angles? What about telephotos.

For now, I'm keeping the filter off the 24mm but, the filter stays on my 400mm for fear of scratching the big front element.

Thanks, John
--

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998
From: [email protected] (Rudy Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sharper images without filter?

I think what you noticed may be a case of unexpected refraction, caused by the filter.

With such a wide angle lens, the acceptance angle for light rays is such that a lot of the light strikes the filter element at a shallow angle and gets refracted.

From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sharper images without filter?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998

If the filter was at least average quality (Hoya, Tiffen, Vivitar), and not defective, you should be unable to detect ANY image sharpness degradation anywhere in the frame resulting from using the filter (particularly with short FL lenses...), even with careful testing. I suspect a defective filter, and I suggest trying another one... (metal-rimmed Hoya's are good...).

David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] lens hood for 6000 schneiders...

Is there a compendium hood that will fit the 95mm filter size schneider lenses for the 6000 series cameras? The shades made for the 50mm and 180mm schneiders do not allow you to use 4 inch (100mm) filters only 95mm screw thread. Rollei makes a compendium hood but it's made for the zeiss (bay VI) lenses, and that hood allows the use of 75mm filters. It seems that Rollei has neglected to think this one out....

Also is there a groundglass back available for the 6008 body?

Thanks,

Brian

rec.photo.technique.people
From: [email protected] (David L. Glos)
[1] Re: Soft filter
Date: Tue Oct 06 1998

This subject seems to come up a lot, and you quickly find out that everyone has an opinion on the subject. Recently, I picked up a Nikon Soft 1, and decided it was time to waste a couple of test rolls to find out how some of my other soft filters looked in relationship to my new toy. The following are some general comments

My test bed was a Pentax 645, with 150/3.5, and Kodak E100SW. Shot outside, with soft, rear 3/4 lighting.

Nikon Soft 1: Nice combination of highligt flare (halation) and sharpness. Effect did vary some with aperture, although it still looked good wide open. Some seem to attribute magical powers to this filter, but I didn't see it. It simply seemed to provide a little more highlight flaring, than some of the others, without loosing all degree of sharpness. Too strong for shooting the guys. Although I have yet to try it, I expect it would be too much for 35mm, with the higher magnifications required for printing an 8x10, unless stopped down to f/8 or beyond.

Tiffen Soft FX/1: You really have to look very carefully to even tell a filter has been used. It evened up the skin tone more than it provided a true soft focus effect. Would be a great filter for shooting guys that have some complection problems without obvious softening. Looks good in 35mm too.

Tiffen Soft FX/3: Too soft, for my tastes in 35mm, but looks pretty good with the 645. Just a touch softer than the Nikon, with a little less flare.

Hoya Softener A: I had heard good things about this filter, a Softar clone. All I thought was 'mush.' Complete and absolute crap. Looks like you missed your focus point. They indicate that the effect doesn't change with aperture, and indeed it didn't..........it sucked at any setting.

Cokin Soft 1: Surprise, surprise. The true budget winner in the bunch. It wasn't better than the Nikon, but it would be my second filter of choice. Generally effect was somewhere between that of the Tiffen Soft FX/1 and FX/3, although, the amount of softening was more strongly related to aperture.

Hope that helps someone. Wish I could scan and post the test, so that everyone could make up their own mind, but I don't have access to a medium format scanning solution.

David Glos

Univ. of Cincinnati
513.558.6930

[email protected]

rec.photo.technique.people
From: Jeffrey Novick [email protected]
[1] Re: Soft filter
Date: Tue Oct 06 1998

Why don't you try out Mamiya's 150mm soft focus lens. It might be a good investment if you like that sort of look. For less expensive solutions you might try black nylon stocking over the lens, very thin coating of vaseline on a skylight filter, Nikon soft filters, Zeiss softars, Tiffen soft fx filters, and, on and on. You might also think about getting sharp negs and softening up the prints in the darkroom with the above tools. This is a method that I prefer instead of having a soft neg.

Jeff

Larry Brusso wrote:

> Hi gang,
>  Up until now I have been using a piece of bridal veil over my lens to
> soften the image. I want to buy a regular filter for that purpose, but I
> noticed that they come in different grades. Is there a standard grade
> that most folks use for portraiture?
> If it makes any difference, I'm shooting Fugi NPH 400 through a Mamiya
> RB67SD / KL90 lens "77 mm".
> Thanks
> Larry
> PS I'm sorry, but you'll have to remove the anti spam crap out of the
> reply line if you intend to reply directly, otherwise I'll just watch
> the group.

From: pat jerina [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Filtering Flash for Tungsten Lighting
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998

HMMMM...

How is this for a suggestion to combat some of the crazy filtering going on. Shoot with either Fuji or Kodak 64T slide film. On your 283, put on a CTO gel. A 20x24 inch gel costs about $5.50. Cheap. The CTO (Color Tempature Orange) is designed for filter day light to tungsten balance film. Since your ambi light is "tungsten" and the flash will be balanced to tungsten, everything should be kosher.

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] lens hood for 6000 schneiders...

Bob,

There is no compendium hood for the 95mm size to my knowledge, but I do have a hood for the schneider 180/2.8. It's a 104mm bayonet, but it only covers about 2" deep. You can, in fact, almost use this hood for the schneider 90. You'd have to cut out the corners, otherwise, you'll get some vignetting at the corners. I always use the hood w/ the 180. It's made of brass and heavy.

--Jim

You'd figure wih the premium prices you pay for rolleiflex lenses that rollei would make an equally capable compendium hood to work with those lenses. It seems like they only went halfway with their efforts to provide for the best possible image quality as an effective compendium hood, with lens masks as well and the ability to use 100mm filters, would greatly reduce, if not completely eliminate lens flare. Lens flare will have a tremendously detrimental effect on image quality and lens performance. Rollei's attitude that these lenses are "so good that you don't need a lens shade" is incomprehensible coming from a supposedly professional camera company.

brian

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rollei filters

Bob Shell wrote:

>I don't think Zeiss ever manufactured filters.  The filters with the Zeiss
>name on them have come from Heliopan for as long as I know about.

Zeiss certainly made its own filters into the early or middle 1960's; those marked "Carl Zeiss U.S.A." were subcontracted, many from Tiffen and Kodak, hence, the premium in the collector market on non-USA Zeiss filters.

I believe Heliopan only picked up the production around 1970. And "Zeiss Ikon" filters, while generally from Zeiss, also sometimes emenate from other sources though never, to my knowledge, from JSK.

And Zeiss supplied all filters to F&H until the middle War years: these filters are clearly marked CZJ and the factory records are certain on this point -- see Prochnow's Rollei Report I, for instance, for a relatively in-depth discussion. When Zeiss became unable to supply sufficient quantities in the middle War years, JSK briefly picked up the slack, though only until 1946 or 1947. F&H did market its own filters for some years, some marked with older Zeiss markings such as "28.5" well into the 1950's. I suspect these were sub-contracted, but do not know off the top of my head, and am too lazy at the nonces to look it up.

Marc

From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin Filter system
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998

I use the Cokin system for medium format. The major problem is that the filters scratch easily and need to be handled with more care than filters made from optical glass. So be careful with them. The other bit of advice is to buy everything in the larger Cokin filter size-I forget it's model designation. You'll want that as your lens collection grows. Good shooting.

Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin Filter system
Date: 16 Oct 1998

Hayashi [email protected] writes:

>I'm new to photography, and I'm planning on buying some filters for my
>lenses (mostly 52mm filter ring size).
>
>Since I'm starting from scratch, I was wondering if people who have
>experience with the Cokin filter system could give me some advice.
>
>Is it a good way to go?  From what I've been able to figure out, there are
>two Cokin filter sizes (A and P), and the holders can be made to fit any
>lens with the appropriate adapter.

I use a mix of cokin and screw-in filters, depending on the camera and the filter.

I would definitely suggest the P-size filters if you get Cokin filters -- besides fitting larger diameter lenses, they avoid vignetting on wide-angle lenses.

The one thing Cokin P filters are not is compact -- for the camera that spends most of its life on my bicycle, I use thread-in filters for compactness. But if I'm riding some place that I know will be photographically interesting, I take the better lenses and bulkier filters.

Not every filter is available in Cokin-sized resin, but there is a good range available, both from Cokin and from third party manufacturers. Other companies make larger resin filters that can be carefully cut down to Cokin sizes, and if there's a filter you can't find any other way, Cokin does make a gel holder, too. (Compare the price of a threaded 72mm no.87 infrared filter to the price of a Cokin adapter ring, holder, gel holder, and gel, and the whole system pays for itself with one filter.)

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013 "My other bike is a car."

http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: "Kari Tuomi" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin Filter system
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998

Buy the P-series from the very beginning! A-series filters are too small for wideangle lenses (wider than 35 mm). I have used P-series for quite some time and I am extremely happy with it. The filters are inexpensive so if you scratch them accidentally it does not cost a fortune to replace one. I have been happy with the Cokin polarizer too. It is made of glass, not of resin like the squared filters.

If your lense(s) has rotating front element it will cause some trouble, but you still can use them.

Kari

From: Boon-Li Ong [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin Filter system
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998

I concur with Kari. I've only recently started using Cokins. As a starting point, I opted for the P series in anticipation of getting lenses with diameters of at least 72mm. The only practical difference between the A & P series is the size. I'd rather carry something marginally bigger than to have two sets of the same filters. Same goes with screw in filters. I ended up with either duplicates or various step-up/step-down rings, which became rather bulky to carry.

From: [email protected] (William Reid)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad, What to buy?
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998

John, If you are tempted by the older 40mm, be forwarned that it takes a Bay 104 filter.I'venever seen a polarizer in this size and the price would be very high if you found one.

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: greg [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
[1] Re: Cokin filter system and ultra wide lenses
Date: Sat Oct 24 1998

cutting off the 2 outer filter slots will prevent vignetting with a 43mm lens on a mamiya7- which is the equivalent of 20mm (roughly) in 35mm format. it also works with my 20mm eos lens which is 72mm filter size.

i used a dremel too.

greg

From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens Cleaning
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998

>Sean Quiriconi wrote:

>> Why would you not use a filter on a lense?  Doesn't this protect the lense
>> from being damaged.  For example using a UV filter...
>>
>> Please elaborate...

>Because any filter will degrade the lens' performance to
>some degree in sharpness, flare or more.

Ummm, while theoretically true, in practice it is rarely possible to see it, with any decent-quality filter. The protection offered the lens glass by the filter is worth far more to me than the essentially never-experienced image degradation from using the filter. A $10 filter can very well protect-but-not-degrade a $1000 lens...

David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether

From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Filters: Does brand matter?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998

Will wrote:

>I'm looking to buy some good filters for my Nikon AF lenses (UV,
>polarizer, soft image,  and some special effects for wedding/portraits)
>wasn't sure who make it?  (Tiffen, B+W, Hoya, Cokin, or Nikon
>filters.)   If I'm going for ...  Quality (if the higher cost
>justified), Cost (am I'm sacrifying too much of quality) or
>in-between?   Hope someone can give some inputs.  Thanks.

Hoya metal-rimmed single-coated filters are fine, about the best you will need, and they are inexpensive...

David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether

From: "Fred Collins" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin Filter system
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998

I have a fairly extensive collection of Cokin filters and have always been pleased with them,

The difference between the A and P sizes is the front diameter of the lens each will cover. A-series cover lenses with a front diameter of 72mm or less, P for any size. If I were going to use them with a Cokin adapter, I would probably buy P series lenses.

Instead, I use the A-series lenses in a Lindahl matte box. Lindahl has adapters available that hold the Cokin filter and allow you to use it in the slide in filter holder. It works well.

BTW, the Cokin Diffuser #1 is my favorite for portrait work, and I also own a set of Lindahl SoftRings and Tallyn diffusers. The Cokin filter is 1/10 the price of the others.

Hope this helps.

Fred

From: [email protected] (Wai Lun Alan Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin Filter system
Date: 16 Oct 1998

I did went for Cokin A series many years ago, then gave up and buy HOYA screw-in filters. Most Cokin filters are resin which are almost impossible not to scratch them. To clean them, the only way I know is to wash them with soap. Any rubbing will result in millions of scratches. I have also found some of them filters aren't perfectly flat too. Today, the only Cokin filters I use are grad. filters.

=== regards, http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~wlac/ ===
=== Alan Chan [email protected] ===

From: Michael Roberts [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Photography under flourescent lights
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998

Unfortunately, no there is no "best" filter for working under flourescents. Because they aren't a burning light source, flourescents lack a full spectrum of light and are a bitch to balance. There are two ways to proceed: balance the film to the light or balance the light to the film.

BALANCE FILM TO LIGHT::

Try either an fld (short for "flourescent daylight") filter. The "d" means daylight film, not the lighting condition under which you're shooting. (If you were using tungsten-balanced film, you'd need another kind of filter designation.) An fld will probably get you close to good balance, but is unlikely to be precise.

The best (although more complicated and costly) way to balance is to (a) find out which kind of bulb is being used. (There are several kinds of flourescents, each with its own balance.) Then see if Fuji makes a color compensation chart for your film under that bulb. If Fuji doesn't, check out a good camera instruction book to see if it lists such a chart. A chart would show you the recommended filters.

If you can't find a chart, a good starting point is a CC30M (color compensating 30 magenta) filter. That should get you in the ballpark, but you'll need to add other color compensating filters to get perfect balance. It helps to have a camera with a Polariod back that you can shoot tests with filter combinations to see which gives best balance.

Another option is to forget slide film altogether and shoot Fuji's Reala print film. It gives excellent color rendition even under flourescents without the need for filters.

Still another option is to turn off the classroom flourescents and use strobe.

BALANCE LIGHT TO FILM

Movie crews and still photographers who have the budget for it put specially-designed color compensating film over the flourescents (actually inside the light fixtures between the bulb and cover) to adjust the light to a daylight color. You would need to have enough film to cover all lights in the classroom and enough time to install the film. I've never used such film, so I can't advise you on the particulars of using it.

All in all, shooting slide film under flourescents is a pain in the butt. Good luck.

Mike

From: [email protected] (Darrell A. Larose)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Photography under flourescent lights
Date: 28 Oct 1998

The film I find that works really well under flourescent lights is Fuji Reala, uncorrected. There is something about the fourth cyan-green dye layer (unique to this film) that fixes flourescent.

Darrell Larose | http://www.newforce.ca/darrell | [email protected]

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Photography under flourescent lights
Date: 28 Oct 1998

Personally, the only film that really works well under fluorescents is black and white, but if that's not an option, an FL-D filter balances average fluorescents to daylight. But it's just a ballpark, since there are so many different types of fluorescent light with so many different color temperatures and wierd spectral spikes from their phosphors. If you can take a test roll first, you could start with an FLD and add various CC filters while shooting a color test chart, and see which stack comes closest.

Any way you can get away with a strobe bright enough to make the fluorescents insignificant? The average classroom isn't all that brightly lit in my experience, so you might get away with a standard on-camera flash, rather than big studio strobes.

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013 "My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: [email protected] (kingsnake)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Photography under flourescent lights
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998

We don't have enough information here. Fluorescents vary greatly, even between MANUFACTURERS of the same so-called "color"!

A 30M should be OK for "Cool White", while Daylight tubes might require a 40m+40y or 40M+30Y. Some tubes will even give off a cyan cast. Avoid "Colortone" and "Advantage X" lamps; they are a bitch to correct for, unless you are willing to shoot a lot of test frames

Play around with the FLD and FLB filters, too. A Tri-coor meter would be of great help, if you don't know what type of tubes are up there in the fixtures ( you can always take one down and look (g) ).

Then, there is always the option of lots of flash.

You will probably have to get a good book on filters and read it.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Michael A. Covington" [email protected]
[1] Re: Best filters brand?
Date: Sun Nov 08 1998

The good brands are Hoya SMC, B+W, Heliopan, Nikon (= Hoya I think), and Zeiss (= Heliopan I think).

The cheapest ones are Rolev, Tiffen, etc.

You can tell a lot by looking for a good anti-reflection coating. Lay the filter down on the glass counter at the camera store and compare the light reflected from the filter with the light reflected from the plain glass.

--
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.mindspring.com/~covington

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (ERNReed)
[1] Re: QUERY: Making a diffusion filter
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998

>>I have some skylight filters that I don't need and that are of no-name
>>brands, and I thought it might be fun to doctor them to make diffusion
>>filters. Have any of you ever done this

I made two by spraying the filter with semi-matte spray (intended for prints). One received heavier spray than the other, so one has more diffusion than the other. Results look pretty good (I think).

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: " Dante A. Stella" [email protected]
[1] Re: QUERY: Making a diffusion filter
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998

Hairspray is ok too. You can clean it off with alcohol if you screw up. For more permanent changes, you might try etching with Fantastik cleaner.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (ACodron748)
[1] Re: QUERY: Making a diffusion filter
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998

I have made a neat diffusion filter w/ clear nail polish painted in a circular pattern w/ the center of the filter left clear. It is kind of like one of the commercially available clear center spot filters. I actually like it better

[ED source for series filter adapters for TLRs etc.]
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei TLR Filter Solutions?

I do not have a current Harrison and Harrison catalog, but the most recent price list I do have (1995) lists the Bayonet I adapter ring at $7.00 (Series V) and that for Bayonet II and III (Series VI) at $9.60. Lens hoods are $10.65 for Bayonet I/Series V and $14.00 for the other two. Thus, a Series V adapter ring and lens hood for Bayonet I will run $17.65, and those for Bayonet II and III are $23.60. Quite a difference from Heliopan or B+W!

Marc

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 98
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Harrison and Harrison catalog

Do you have a telephone number or address for Harrison & Harrison handy?

Marc sent this to me yesterday:

Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers
Unit "E"
1835 Thunderbolt Drive
Porterville California 93257

or

Post Office Box 1797
Porterville California 93258-1797  
voice telephone: 209/782-0121
FAX: 209/782-0824

Godfrey

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] filter adapter?

> Just wondering if there are adapters out there which will allow Bay II cameras
> to use screw in filters?

Heliopan carries Bay II to 49mm and Bay II to 52mm filter adapters. I believe the list at about $80@ when last I checked.

Godfrey

From: phil taylor [email protected]
[1] Re: Windex window cleaner to clean lenses???????????
Date: Tue Nov 17 1998

Michael A. Covington wrote:

> No problem with Windex as long as you don't do it every day.  Almost  nothing
> will remove the lens coating unless you do it too often.  Unlike  eyeglasses,
> camera lenses only need cleaning very infrequently (like once in 2 years).
> If your lens gets dirty often, put a clear UV or skylight filter in  front of
> it and clean that.

I would disagree with the once every two years. I clean my lenses when they get dirty and I use a brush first, then a bit of distilled H2O (like condensed breath) and one of those Microfiber lens cloths like pentax puts out. I do not clean them everytime I use them and I try to keep them clean when I use them but I will not let an oily fingerprint to eat into the coating and I will not let sand or grit get a foothold. Of course the more you use the lens the more you will need to clean them.

I only use a skylight or UV filter if I am going to be in situation that may place my lens in danger, such as a rain storm, on the beach or something like that. One exception is with my 400mm f4.5 apo. It has a clear filter on the front element that was made for it. I leave that on the lens, but for the others I leave naked and use a lens hood instead.

You can use denatured alcohol as a lens cleaning agent and I have used it . But put it or any solution on your cloth not the lens.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu Nov 26 1998
From: "L. J. Powell" [email protected]
[1] Re: Series 6 filter source?

"Robert W. Brown" wrote:

> I've had pretty good luck with the newsgroup before so let's give it
> another try. I have a Crown Graflex that I really like and would like to
> get some series 6 filters and get back into B&W (you know, the basic
> yellow, orange red, light green ones). Do they still make these in the
> Series 6 size? If they don't, is there a good source out there? I've got
> the adapter and a lens hood, but the only filters I obtained with the
> camera are for studio color temp. and flashbulb correction. This will
> never do.
> Any help would be appreciated....
> Thanks in advance...
>
> Bob...
> (hopelessly addicted to antique 4X5's)

I use Cokin contrast filters on my Crown Graphic - they can be purchased at most well-stocked camera stores. I found an old 40.5mm filter at a flea market, removed the glass and epoxied the filter ring to the back of a Cokin filter holder that I bought at the same flea market. (Don't waste time looking for an odd-sized Cokin adaptor ring to fit old 4x5 lenses - while the Cokin book says they exist, I have concluded that they only made a total of three.)

If you prefer the series screw in jobs, try Tiffin. They still list series sizes and can make up just about anything for you.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Louie J. Powell, APSA
Glenville, NY USA

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Maison/7881/

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Boon-Li Ong [email protected]
[1] Re: Cokin "A" & "P" filters ?????
Date: Mon Nov 30 1998

A and P deals with the size of the filters. P filters are designed for wide mount lenses of up to 82mm, and suitable for wide-angle lenses up to 18mm. A filters are designed for smaller mounts, up to 68mm. P filters can be used down to 52mm (or was that 58mm)?

and so to answer the pertinent question, a P filter will be most suitable for your Tamron.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Yeti Man)
[1] Re: Cheap filters vs expensive filters
Date: Mon Nov 30 1998

I have a "no name" polarizer that was on a used lens I bought. It only says made in Japan - circular pol on it. I have shot it side by side with my Tiffen, and I cant see a difference. I use them interchangebly for general knocking around shooting.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Moreno Polloni" [email protected]
[1] Re: Which filter holder?
Date: Fri Dec 04 1998

>I am about to get into a large filter system. So here's the troll question:
>Which holder would be the best? Cokin X, Hitech, Lee..
>I know, there's many factors for `best':
>
>- Size
>- Features (rotation, etc.)
>- Compatibility
>- Extendability

Both the Lee and the Hitech systems are good quality, and are useable with many wide angle lenses. I went with the Lee system, as their grads are a bit longer than the Hitech (4"x6" for Lee, 4"x5" for Hitech), the Lee system seems a bit more comprehensive, and the Lee products are readily available locally.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Rod Alley [email protected]
Subject: Response to Best Lens Hood/Bellows Shade?
Date: 1998-12-02

I'm not aware of a Cokin-P-compatible version of the Lee system. I briefly owned the Lee 4" system with bellows shade. It seemed very well made, but I couldn't use it with my Horseman VH-R. There wasn't sufficient clearance between the lens axis and the bed of the field to use the Lee bellows. I now use two rubber lensshades, one normal and one wide-angle, instead.

Horseman makes, or at least lists on the Horseman webpage, its own bellows shade for the VH, VH-R and similar 4x5 field cameras. That might be worth a look. I don't know about the other alternatives you list.

Good luck,
Rod Alley

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] filter adapter?

If anyone is looking for adapters, a gentleman names John Aungst sells a variety of Bay 1, 2, and 3 adapters. They are not perfect (Made in India) but do work. I have a Bay1 to 49mm adapter and for $13 it was a bargain. John sells Filters and adapters and can be reached at (610)926-2655.

Peter K

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: nikon-digest V4 #153 [v04.n154/19]

....

>I am currently in the market for some new equipment, one (minor)
>item of which is a 62mm Nikon circular polarizer, I also want to get
>a lens cap to fit. Not knowing the outer thread size, I just stated
>the requirement and let the potential suppliers come back. These
>are the responses:
>
>B+H : Not available
>Adorama: $8
>M&M: Visit Wal-Mart and check out the tupperware pot lids.
>
>Comments?

The outer threads of all Nikon pol filters are non-standard sizes. I believe the outer rim of the 62mm filter is 70mm. I know the outer rim of the 52mm circ pol is 60mm. What I suggest is buy the filter and the matched HN-26 hood and follow M&M's advice (which I first heard suggested long ago at a Nikon School) & go the Tupperware route. For instance, I keep Nikon hoods on all my Nikon lenses and rather than unscrew each at the end of every job simply to add lens caps, I have a Tupperware cap (from their 8 oz tumbler set) on each, except on the hood of my 20/4 which uses either a Pringles cap or the lid from a can of tennis balls.

By the way, M&M is no longer in business. Manny (the "M" from M&M) has joined B&H's staff.

regards,
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (FOR7)
[1] Re: Filter quality vs. price
Date: Tue Dec 29 1998

>Before you pay too much attention to those snazzi and way too
>expensive multicoated stuff, pay attention to the thickness
>--vinegette problem--  may just ruin your day.

Maybe so but if you are concerned with quality I would be concerned about getting a multicoated filter instead of one without. Often you can see a flare difference right in the viewfinder! The best thing is no filter at all which is what I now do. Call me crazy but my pictures look noticeably better now.

[email protected]

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Doug Hughes [email protected]
Subject: Response to Bay I to 49mm filter adapter
Date: 1998-12-10

You can find Goodwin at http://members.aol.com/gdwnphoto

They have both Bay 1 (to 49 and 52) and Bay 2 to 52 - I just ordered a Bay 1 to 52 for my Rolliecord.

In the same vein - how about a source for Bay 3 to 52?

Doug

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V2 #61

Don't you think this list should include the US factory service center - Marflex?

And Heliopan is the manufacturer of Rollei filters for the factory. Not only do they have all Rollei bayonet filter sizes I, II, III, IV, VI and VIII/103 but also adapter rings to screw mount sizes from Bay I, II, III, VI.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Gene Crumpler [email protected]
Subject: Response to UV filters....leave them on, or take them off.
Date: 1999-01-09

I have used filters to protect the lenses on both 35mm and MF in the past and I usually removed them to shoot. Currently, I've aquired lens hoods for the 8 or so lenses that I use with any frequency and these provide a great deal of protection, so I don't use the UV's any more. I'm also very careful about the use of lens caps.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Jeff Spirer [email protected]
Subject: Response to UV filters....leave them on, or take them off.
Date: 1999-01-10

I have never seen a problem with sharpness when using a high quality UV filter, but flare seems to be much more of a problem. I use them when shooting in dusty conditions or in the rain, but otherwise don't bother, without any ill effects.

I agree about Adams - there have been plenty of photographers other than Adams and what they do or don't do is just as relevant (or more so, if you aren't interested in dry landscape photography.) The constant quoting of him really doesn't lend any more validity to what he said.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Pawel Fludzinski [email protected]
Subject: Response to UV filters....leave them on, or take them off.
Date: 1999-01-10

I would suggest that if you are careful with your equipment and use your lens cap (and a lens hood), then the UV filter may be redundant protection. When I purchased my first 35 mm outfit 15 years ago, I took an intro course and the instructor suggested UV filters for protection, which I did. However, in all those years, I have yet to scratch a UV filter or replace one. Subsequently, for my MF equip and LF equip (with much more expensive glass), I do not use them, and have had no problem. (My equipment is also insured, however!). It seems counterintuitive, (almost - I do understand the purpose behind UV filters) to buy a $2500 lens, only to put a $50 filter on it!

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Scott Eaton [email protected]
Subject: Response to UV filters....leave them on, or take them off.
Date: 1999-01-10

Agree with everything Andrew said 500%.

I'm a fanatic about image quality with my MF gear, by I've learned that a good UV filter should only have to be romeoved if shooting in to the sun, bright lights or areas of potential flare. In fact, even a high quality filter can be deadly under those conditions and wreak images.

//scott

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Wratten X1 green filter
Date: Tue Jan 12 1999

[email protected] (JGATHOME) wrote:

>My Green Series 8 wratten filter has an X2 on it with no other numbers or
>letters . The Yellow series 8 wratten filter has a K1 marking   on it. I  have
>no idea how old these are...did they standardize these at some time?>
>>Wratten lists it as a yellow filter. The X1 is #11 and X2 is #13.

K2 and X1 are Kodak (Wratten) type indicators. These letter and number combinations date back to the first filters and have little rational basis. Other filter manufacturers used other letter and number designators (although some adopted the Wratten system), like Y2 for K2, lists can be found in many old handbooks. Some filter makers simply named the filters, i.e. Medium Yellow.

The number only system became a standard about the mid seventies sometime. Other systems continued to co-exist for many years. The newer system is consistant amoung manufacturers so a #11 is the same thing regardless of who makes it. That is not to say the quality or exact spectral transmission will be the same but it will be a medium Green filter and not something completely different.

There have been a tremendous number of filters offered commercially over the years including a great many special purpose filters and some pretty close duplications. Many of these have disappeared due to little volume or the use of un-stable colorants.

The most commonly used filters for B&W are:

Old Wratten No. New type no.    Color

K1              #6              Light Yellow
K2              #8              Medium Yellow
K3              #9              Dark Yellow
X1              #11             Light Green
X2              #13             Medium Green
G               #15             Deep Yellow or Light Orange
A               #25A            Medium Red
C5              #47             Blue

There are dozens of others. This system is used only for monochrome filters, not for color correction filters.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (Michael Gudzinowicz)
[1] Re: Wratten X1 green filter
Date: Tue Jan 12 1999

JGATHOME [email protected] wrote:

>My Green Series 8 wratten filter has an X2 on it with no other numbers or
>letters . The Yellow series 8 wratten filter has a K1 marking on it. I have
>no idea how old these are...did they standardize these at some time?>

Wratten lists it as a yellow filter. The X1 is #11 and X2 is #13.

The K1 is the #6 filter, which should have a factor of approx. 1.5. The filters would be difficult to date - I'm not sure of their production dates, but it was over a number of decades.

The book I used ("Wratten Light Filters" was published by EKC in 1945, and it refers to filters by both the letter and numerical designations. The correspondence was more or less standardized by that time, though manufacturers seem to use their own "systems". For instance, I have K2 filters which are designated as K2, Y2, K2(Y) and Y(K2); X2's called an X2 or Green 2, etc. Also, B&W has its own numerical designations which appear to be cross-referenced to Wratten numbers. Usually the spectral curves are very similar in shape, however, the density (and exposure factor) may vary between manufacturers.

[Ed. note: series filters are often found and used on older lenses, besides Hassy (and Kowa, Bronica...) you will find them on some older long telephoto preset lenses (400mm f/6.3) from the same time periods...]
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999
From: "J. Benedict" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 50mm Distagon lens

>There may be some kind of ring attached. Mine had one. Once I took the ring
>off I got down to the real 67mm threads. I didn't see a function for the
>ring except perhaps to protect the front edge of the lens.

I have a few Series filters that I got from my father. Theses are older types and have no threads. On the Distagon 50 C, these Series filters dropped into the lens and the ring held them in.

Jeff

---
Jeffrey E. Benedict * [email protected] *

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999
From: norman kushner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 50mm Distagon lens

...
Jeff is correct there is a ring screwed to the front of the 50mm. The purpose of this ring is to act as a retainer for drop in filters. If you go back into Hasselblads older catalogues you would see filters without threads. Theses filters sit between the lens and the retainer. To use other filters simply unscrew this ring and you have plain old normal 67mm threads. Hope this helps.

Norm Kushner

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Malcolm Stewart" [email protected]
[1] Re: UV Filters - quality important?
Date: Thu Jan 14 1999

Get the best. If a filter isn't flat it will act as a lens and may prevent you focusing a long lens on infinity i.e. it's acting as a close-up lens with a focal length of 20m. I know - it's happened to me.

Making glass truly flat is probably more difficult than grinding a spherical surface.

Hoya have been OK in this respect.

Filters with poor coating can reflect image forming light reflected from the film back onto the film and you may see the image quite clearly if you have the sun or a bright lamp in the picture.

Malcolm Stewart Bucks., UK.

Doug Pearl wrote in message ...

>When purchasing a UV filter for a "nice" lens, how important is it to get
>a high quality one?
>
>Could a crappy filter degrade image quality to a noticeable degree, or can
>you just slap on any piece of glass to protect the front of the lens?
>Would a crappy filter possibly increase flare?
>
>Thx, Doug

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (WKato)
[1] Re: Polarizing filter: How do I know if it is circular?
Date: Thu Jan 14 1999

>If the polarizing filter doesn't indicate if it is linear or circular, is
>there any way to tell?  Thanks for you help.

Circulars will always say so because they bring a premium price. If this fails, look through the circular/linear to a mirror. The linear will show no difference when flipped over but the circular will.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (John Lull)
[1] Re: Polarizing filter: How do I know if it is circular?
Date: Fri Jan 15 1999

> If the polarizing filter doesn't indicate if it is linear or circular, is
> there any way to tell?  Thanks for you help.

Hold it backwards in front of a mirror, & look through it. If the reflection is gray, you've either got it backwards, or it's a linear polarizer. If the reflection is black, it's circular & you've got the lens side toward the mirror.

Regards,
John

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Boon-Li Ong [email protected]
[1] Re: [Q] - Cokin or Tiffen?
Date: Thu Jan 21 1999

Dimas wrote:

> Boon-Li Ong 
>
> >depends. if you want graduated filters, then go with Tiffen. screw-mount
> >graduated filters are a joke....
>
> I think you meant to go with with Cokin for graduated filters, because
> Tiffen makes them screw-mount.

yes, you're quite right. i meant - get Cokin graduated filters. i was in a rush composing my original posting.

> You can buy both. A Cokin holder is $8. So get graduated Cokins, and 812,
> diffusion, etc - Tiffen or Hoya.

i like the Cokin diffusion filter. can't say much about Tiffen or Hoya.

> Another thing to consider is the fact that it is not recommended (by Cokin)
> to use Cokin A filters with lenses 28mm or wider. Vignetting may  result. And
> Cokin P filters (bigger than A) are more expensive.

given that most people these days have a wide angle lens, i think the continuation of the A series is a bit of a joke. besides, the size difference between the P and A is not that significant and weight wise, it's quite negligible. anyway, the A series is there for people who thinks they'll never need a P series.

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999
From: Eric Armstrong [email protected]
To: [email protected] Subject: Re: 50mm Distagon lens

Hi John -

I have the same lens. You should be able to find at a used gear place or a swap an adapter from series VIII to 67mm or perhaps even series VIII to bay 70. Then you could use more standard modern equipment on the front end of your lens.

You'll just have to hunt around.

On the other hand, you might look around for Series VIII filters made by Hasselblad. These are discontinued items and can often be had for a song. I have a complete set of ser.VIII (all grades of color correction, plus b&w filters plus a full set of diopters -- at least 20 filters total). I got the set for less than $200 US, I'd bet.

hth,
-Eric

John Sullivan wrote:

>I am trialling a 50 mm Distagon lens but have discovered a drawback. It has a
>screw mount for the filter instead of the bay mount. Apparently the pitch of
>the thread is unnusual as well. This makes it difficult to purchase a Cokin
>adapter from 67mm.
>
> How do other users solve this problem? Should I reject the lens?
>
> John Sullivan
>
> Managing Director

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (Jimhooper1)
[1] Re: Filters for Large Format??
Date: Sun Feb 07 1999

Wellllll, grab onto your wallet. First buy a $300+ compendium lens shade from Calumet and a buttload of gel filters (not cheap either -- but least they're flimsy & don't forget the $50.00 box to keep them in); they slip in and out behind the shade and before the lens . Got the picture. Acutally, it makes great sense but they ain't cheap.

Stepup rings are an alternative but they can cause problems with wide angle lenses.

Jim

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: Brian Ellis [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters for Large Format??
Date: Sun Feb 07 1999

There are various systems and ways of using filters. I use the Lee system, which consists basically of a lens hood into which you can insert various filters. The hood attaches to the lens by means of a circular adapter, one adapter for each lens diameter (or you can buy just one adapter for your largest lens diameter and then use step down rings on your other lenses). It's not cheap but it isn't $300 either. The hood costs around $100 and the filters vary in price but probably average something like $20. The adapters run around $30. All of these costs are from memory of what I paid several years ago - you should check current prices to be sure. B&H carries the Lee system. All in all I'm pleased with the system. I did have some vignetting problems with my 90 mm F5.6 Super Angulon but Lee now has a wide angle adapter that should solve that problem.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (SWIRAL)
[1] Re: Filters for Large Format??
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999

I use a gel filter holder on the back side of the lens that clips around the barrel of the lens from calumet. Runs about $20. I use the 3x3 filters from calumet at under 10 bucks each.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Sherman Dunnam" [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters for Large Format??
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999

You can get a universal adapter from Cokin for 16-20 bucks that uses three thumbscrews to attach to your lens. Then just put on the Cokin filter holder to use their filters. This adapter is made for both the A and P series of filters and the A series might be more appropriate.

---
Sherman Dunnam
www.flyfishingjournal.com

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (VILNTFLUID)
[1] Re: Filters for Large Format??
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999

I have taken to prudent purchases of used glass filters, especially multicoated. I don't know how many lenses you have or if you use one more frequently than the others, but in the field I find that screwing in a glass filter is relatively convenient and not that cumbersome. I have ended up with a few 72mm and 52mm filters of very high quality that can be easily adapted to my LF and 35mm lenses.

The other question is what do you need filters for? Unless you have got a very specific purpose, not that many are required. The cheapest system I have seen is the new Lee filter holder that attaches to the lens with a rubber band (elastomeric fastener!!). Uses cheaper 4x4 resin filters.

Keith

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: Mark Noble [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters for Large Format??
Date: Tue Feb 09 1999

I use gel filters mounted in the calumet cardboard frames. No holder is needed - - I use them behind the lens, on the diagonal, and just wedge them in the folds of the bellows.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Soft focus lenses for landscapes/cityscapes
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999

[email protected] (Jimhooper1) wrote:

>Interested in exploring soft focus lenses for landscapes; portrature is less
>important.  I need to know what lenses might be on the used market that can
>provide a certain lumonisity to highlights.  I don't think, from what I have
>read, that any of the newer soft focus lenses are what I am looking for --
>convince me.  Also, can any older enlarginging lenses be used for such.   Budget
>is important but information on classic lenses is also appreciated  (maybe I'll
>get luck and discover one).
>Regards,
>Hoop

You might want to explore the use of diffusers used in front of the standard lens. Diffusers can be made from all sorts of materials, loose weave cloth, like Silk or Cheese Cloth work well. The effect will be different for black or white cloth. You can use layers or use a diffuser which has a hole in the center. That will give you an image with a sharp "core". Many other materials can be used. Cloth gives "stars" around highlights, crumpled plastic gives halos as does as sheet of clear plastic or glass with Vasaline smeared on it. Experiment, all sorts of ideas will come to you.

A simple matt box made of cardboard mounted on the lens will serve to hold the diffusers. The cost is practically nothing.:-)

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

rec.photo.technique.misc
From: Len Cook [email protected]
[1] Re: How-to: Flourescent Lighting
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999

If you want to make significant use of available light under these circumstances, try using an FL-D filter on the lens and add a green gel over the flash for fill. Lee http://www.leefilters.com and Rosco www.rosco.com both supply a variety of tough gels in shades good for all-around fluorescent environments.

The idea here is to make the flash approximately the same color as the fluorescnet light, then use the FL-D filter to bring them both close to the daylight film in use. Be carefull to keep the flash down to FILL levels, though, or the whole point will be lost in black backgrounds with a bright foreground.

David Potter wrote:

> I need some pointers on how to shoot more flattering pictures of
> subjects while under flourescent lighting.  In these situations, I
> have no control of the lighting (other than flash).
>
> What filters, films, subject placement, or other techniques are
> typically used in these conditions?
>
> Thanks,
> David Potter
>
> ----------
> David E. Potter
> [email protected]

rec.photo.technique.misc
From: "Patrick Bartek" [email protected]
[1] Re: How-to: Flourescent Lighting
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999

Regarding How-to: Flourescent Lighting, David Potter wrote:

> I need some pointers on how to shoot more flattering pictures of
> subjects while under flourescent lighting.  In these situations, I
> have no control of the lighting (other than flash).
>
> What filters, films, subject placement, or other techniques are
> typically used in these conditions?

Flourescents vary greatly in color rendition depending on what type of lamp it is, how old, the type of light diffuser used, if any, etc.; but, in general, the most used is the cool-white type.

So, with that in mind:

1. Shoot negative film. It has more latitude for corrections, both color and exposure. I recommended Fuji's NSP (or is it NPS?). It has a special 4th color layer that compensates for the green you see in most shots done under flourescents.

2. Use a 30 magenta filter at the camera. Don't bother with those FL filters. Just buy a 30 magenta.

3. Use a 30 green filter over your flash. Rosco Industries makes all kind of filters for use over lights. The one you want is call Window Green. It balances daylight to cool-white flourescent light. You can usually get the stuff from theatrical supply houses.

4. Set your camera's exposure for the ambient flourescent light. Use your flash for a very gentle fill: set it so it will underexpose the scene by about 1 1/2 stops. I just set the film speed 1 1/2 stops higher. Be sure the f-stop on your lens and on your flash are the same.

Good Luck....

--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Cleaning a lens
Date: Sun Feb 07 1999

[email protected] wrote:

> Charlie Wolfe [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I am always anxious about damaging the lens element coating when
> > attempting to "clean" an expensive lens.
>
> > What is the "proper" method for cleaning the front lens element?
>
> Always have a UV filter in front of it so that you never have to clean the
> front lens.

Bad advice. No matter how good, a filter always degrades the image some and changes focus slightly. I tell my students NEVER put a filter on a lens unless it is needed to modify the image in some way. UV filters are only necessary at very high altitudes, and should never be used at other times.

The only time you will see a clear filter on one of my lenses is when I am on the beach or in the desert during a dust storm.

Bob

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Michael K. Davis" [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters for wide angle lenses
Date: Thu Feb 11 1999

Hi!

H. Han [email protected] wrote:

: Hi,
: I'm about to buy one of Nikkor wide angle lens, either of 20mm or 24 mm.

: My question is about filters. B+W is selling two types of filters for
: wide angle lenses, larger diameter ones and slim(thin) ones. B+W filters
: are
: a bit more expensive than others like Tiffen or Hoya.
: So, I'd like to hear some opinions of wide angle lens users.
: Do you think I need to buy special filters for wide angle from B+W?

I (and many others) would advise that you get a step-up ring to a filter size that is at least 30 percent larger than the lens threads. This should permit the stack of two normal thickness filters and that should handle just about any situation. While you're at it, build a set of filters at a diameter large enough to meet the needs of all your current lenses and any you suspect you might actually buy in the future. Put step-up rings on all your lenses and lens caps of the same size as your filter set. Consider a Cokin P holder with an adapter for each lens and Singh-Ray filters as a candidate for the *best* solution.

:  Is a cheap UV protector  fine just for protection?
: Any other cheaper solution?

I prefer to shoot filterless and use the lens cap for protection - take it off, put it on, take it off, put it on. It's not so bad. A neglected UV filter starts taking its toll on image quality after awhile.

: Even if I bought special filters I might have problem with lens cap.
: Right?
: I might need bigger snap-on cap for larger filter or non snapon cap for
: slim
: filter since slim filters do not have front screw thread where I can put
: snap-on
: cap. What the others do in this situation?

My favorite caps are those made by Tamron. They have center-squeeze tabs that are easy to actuate intentionally and difficult to actuate accidentally. The caps are very well made, inexpensive and can be ordered from B&H Photo. Who cares if they say "Tamron"? Go for the functionality.

Mike

--
Michael K. Davis
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (CANTABENE)
[1] Re: Filters for wide angle lenses
Date: Thu Feb 11 1999

Any other cheaper solution?

Have you ever taped a piece of gelatin filter behind the lens? This practice agives you a variety of filters that far exceeds what is available in glass and at a fraction of the cost. For protection, buy just one lens cap.

Harry

[Ed. note: Mr. Bob Shell is the editor of SHUTTERBUG - the #3 top selling photography related publication in the USA and a noted professional photographer...]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Source for Rollei 35 filters

...

>Using some filter with a good Zeiss lens it's like buying some "cheap" 20$
>tires for your Ferrari...

Personal opinion: The best filter is no filter at all. I'm always amazed at people who buy really good lenses and then put a cheap "protective" filter on the front.

The only time a protective filter goes on a lens of mine is when shooting at the beach. The rest of the time I shoot filter-free unless I want to create a special effect.

Bob

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Source for Rollei 35 filters

...

Any filter, even the best, will degrade the image slightly and change the focus slightly.

I always tell my students not to use filters except when absolutely needed if they want maximum image sharpness.

BTW, we tested a lot of filters several years ago and found no relationship between price/brand and optical flatness.

Bob

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
From: William Kyburz [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] B+W filter source?

Larry wrote:

>Looking for a place to purchase a B+W 95mm Bay circular
>polarizer filter for use with Schneider lens. Suggestions?

The Schneider lenses (180mm 300mm, etc.) use a 95mm threaded mount, not a BAY mount. From my experience in USA, most dealers including Wall Street and B& H have very limited (to no) in-stock inventory of 95mm filters.

Order times very by mauf. (B+W, Heliopan, Tiffen, etc.). I've also used a smaller filter specialty company called, The Filter Connection in Conn. Their phone number is (800-882-2832). If you are considering the purchase of a polarizer AND will be using the filter outdoors, particularly, if you're using the 50mm Schneider SA lens, you may want to consider a combination Polarizer + warming filter. I bought the B+W Kass. version, but Heliopan may make a combination Pol/warming filter as well.

Regards,
Bill Kyburz

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Source for Rollei 35 filters

snip

> However, Rollei was recommending to use UV-Blocking filters (Rollei name:
> "H1-filters") with Tessar and Triotar lenses at the beach or in the
> mountains because it was said that these lenses have too much UV light
> transmission which could affect colour pictures. It was declared not to be
> necessary with Planar, Xenotar or Sonnar lenses. I never verified this. But
> maybe this Rollei statement is worth to be double checked as a lot of
> Tessar (or Xenar) type lenses are still used.
>
> Dirk

snip

Could this have been done as a courtesy to all their loyer dealers who all make an additional 10% on the price of a lenses when they also sell a filter. Its the dealers who are the main propagators of the protective filter scam. But sure, with salt mist in the air they would have a point. I could use a little salt mist right now.

My Tessar gets a yellow green for any of those sitiations. It's a real bonus to a picture.

Mark Rabiner

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] polarizer

According to a test of "Photo Magazin" (German Photo Magazine) from 1996 or so each Polarizer (like other filters) degrades the optical performance of a lens. In a test comparing different Polarizers best rating (with nearly no detectable lens degradation) got the B&W Kaeseman Polarizer. Second rating got the B&W Standard Polarizer. Poorest rating (don't use if you have a good lens) got Hoya.

The test were made with a >Leica lens as reference lens.

Greetings,

Dirk

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] polarizer

Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected] said:

>According to a test of "Photo Magazin" (German Photo Magazine) from
>1996 or so each Polarizer (like other filters) degrades the optical
>performance of a lens. In a test comparing different Polarizers best
>rating (with nearly no detectable lens degradation) got the B&W
>Kaeseman Polarizer. Second rating got the B&W Standard Polarizer.
>Poorest rating (don't use if you have a good lens) got Hoya.
>
>The test were made with a Leica lens as reference lens.

This is the first time I've come across a response that actually points to tests revealing differences among brands. In *all* the U. S. magazine tests I've seen, the conclusion was that there were no differences among filter brands; that all were of about equal quality in terms of parallelism, clarity and stability over time. Perhaps if you are feeling generous [grin] you might consider serving us larger portions of that test programme?

Best regards,

les clark
[email protected]

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Source for Rollei 35 filters

>I see the effects of not using a filter: washed out skies or
>underexposed negs to prevent washed out skies. In other words using a
>filter to make things look normal. Film loves UV more than our eyes do.
>Mark :-) Rabiner

The optical glass and cement used in most lenses filters out so much of the UV that you only need to think about adding UV filtration at very high altitude, and then only with some lenses.

One of those well kept secrets of the top pros is that they rarely use filters, and never just as a "clear lens cap".

Bob

[Ed. note: filter prices - yikes! ;-)]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
From: jchow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B+W filters for Schneider lenses

> Looking for a place to purchase a B+W 95mm Bay circular
> polarizer filter for use with Schneider lens. Suggestions?
> Thanks/.

Larry, I use the 95mm B+W kaseman circ PL (the filters are normal threaded ones, not bayonets). They are expensive (about $250 a pop..all the 95mm filters cost a fortune...but it's better than paying $500 for the Rollei 95mm circ. PL :-) ).

The rims are thin enough so that it works with the schneider 300/4 w/ lens hood extended (while I was told by Wall St Camera that the Rollei/heliopan PL wouldn't). The only problem is that the knurled part of the rim on the portion that threads into the lens is a little small, so I've gotten my filter stuck a couple times. The part that your fingers can mostly grasp is the part that turns, which doesn't help.

Now, whenever I use it, I just thread it in enough (not all the way tight), which does the trick. I also use this filter on my Fuji 617 panorama. It's large enough that you just hold it up to the lens; you could probably also use this method on a Leica M rangefinder and view the polarization through the viewfinder simultaneously. :-)

--Jim

From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Large Filter and Mount
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999

>Hi,
>
>Could anyone suggest where I can get filter and filter mount larger than
>82mm.  I have tried Cokin but 82 is their largest.  This mount will be for
>Rollei Lens.  Thanks very much.
>
>Ed

Heliopan makes filters up to 160mm. The largest size you could need for a Rollei lens is Bay 8/104 or a 95mm screw-in. All are available from Heliopan in any type of filter.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: filters for Yashicamat EM
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999

Your camera uses Bay I filters.

These are available new from Heliopan from any of the stores in the Bay area.

From: Bob Flood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: filters for Yashicamat EM
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999

...
I use a Bay 1-52 mm adapter to fit my 52 mm filters from my 35 mm system onto the Bay 1 mount on the lenses. Sure beats buying another set of filters. These adapters can be purchased at camera shows or from people who contribute to this newsgroup. Can anyone provide a contact?

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: filters for Yashicamat EM
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999

...
The e-mail of a reliable source is: [email protected]

--
Salut!
Leopoldo F. Araujo

From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: UV Filters - quality important?
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999

Could a crappy filter degrade image quality to a noticeable degree,

Probably not. The only requirement for a filter is that it be flat. In this modern era I suspect all the UV filters are flat enough that they won't impair the optical system. This wasn't always true but I haven't run across a UV filter that caused image degradation in about 15 years.

Would a crappy filter possibly increase flare?

It's possible but not likely. In my experience, if I see flare in a photograph taken with a modern filter I will also see flare without the filter. The filter is a pretty small addition to an optical system that could have upwards of 15 elements and as many places where elements meet. If flare is really a concern then you can avoid it much better by staying away from zoom lenses and other designs with many elements than you can by worrying about what kind of filter you are using.

Ever wonder why some of the lenses that have earned legendary status for sharpness are the way they are? Fewer elements. The Zeiss Tessar, a four element design and the Nikkor 105 f2.5 with five elements are just a couple of many similar lenses that produce crisp, contrasty images. The major reason for this is simplicity. Lenses today are more complex-partly because of the love affair with zoom lenses and partly because of the desire to produce faster lesnes. These lenses take a toll in more flare (less contrast) as a result.

In a nutshell, worrying about the brand, coating or cost of a UV filter is a pretty small concern compared to worrying about lens design-if you are picky about optical quality, of course. In other words, a UV filter isn't going to make much optical difference.

Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Lenses, Filtering, and Coating

Jeff,

You are 100% right on coating and the light tranmitted & amount filtered. The only comment I gave is that there is really no way to cut down on rear element lens reflection in a lens design using a filter. This has been discussed on several groups. Once designed the lens is designed and built it will disperse reflections as it was intended internally. Some lens designs are better at handling internal reflection and will generate a better image even without coating (the Zeiss Tessar is a good example of this as are several Leica lenses). Other lenses really need the coating to improve resolution by reducing ghosting and flare and improving light transmission (the Zeiss Planar is one such lens that is a poor performer had it not been coated).

While coating does improve a lens, a multicoated filter will only better filter the light into the lens. Even the best filter inserted into a converging beam of light will shift the image away from the lens by an amount equal to about a third of the thickness of the filter. This is negligible, and better multi-coated filters will provide better light transmittal but that's all. They will not improve the internal reflection of the elements inside a lens.

BTW, even so I advocate filters and use one on almost all my lenses. Primarily because I like to have the photos a tad bit on the warm side.

Peter K

From: [email protected] (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: warming vs. enhancing filters
Date: 3 Feb 1999

Is there a huge difference between the warming and enhancing filters? Which would be best for nature photography?

There is a noticeable difference between them, but I would not say huge. I own both and use the enhancer for very specific purposes to snap up the colors on a red barn for instance. I use my Tiffen 812 warming filer about twice as much (it is a warming filter like an 81A with a bit of red added in.) This is a great filter on those cloudy days when the colors in general go blah. I also own an 81A warming filter but don't use it much since getting the 812.

Kent in SD

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters
Date: Tue Mar 30 1999

Tiffen = no for high-resolution work (like 35mm). If you want to see what the problem is, take a Tiffin filter and look at a piece of newsprint as you turn it sideways. The problem is a thick filter with a gel in the middle. It's too much. Plus, no coatings, except on TMC skylights and UV.

Hoya = better. Hoya is the largest optical glass mfg in Japan and cranks out inexpensive, high-quality glass. You might have problems with the newer mounts if you are allergic to aluminum, but there are plenty of old brass-mount Hoyas in fine shape. Plus, the B50 and B60 sizes are much cheaper than B&W.

B&W = hard to tell. Very high quality mounts, but I'm just not seeing the difference over Hoya HMC in glass quality. In fact, old B&W filters (pre-Schneider) don't seem to be that hot. But they have cool chrome rings. B&W has also cut back significantly on its available sizes - so watch it if you have a non-standard size. I have attempted to order four sizes listed in their current catalog only to be told they weren't available.

Lee = if resin were that hot of an optical material, our lenses would be made of it. Good for large-format, where resolution is not such a big deal. Same thing with Cokin and Hoyarex.

CheersM
------------
Dante Stella

On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Eric Stral wrote:

> You may want to look into Lee filters.  They have a great mounting system
> and are of high quality.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (AL52818)
[1] Re: Filters
Date: Tue Mar 30 1999M

Hi Mark:

I've used 'em all and I'll be damned if I can see any difference. They're all great. One comment though: If you are looking for speed when changing your filters, check out the Lindahl lens shade system. Real nice. Filters drop into slots cut into the lens shade. Real fast when the action gets hot. Good Luck !

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (xx)
[1] Re: Filters
Date: Tue Mar 30 1999

I use some B+W and some Hoya, mostly HMC in the Hoya. I can't see a difference. In terms of construction I think Hoya's are fine filters and definitely better than Tiffens and other "lesser" brands.

I was doing some resolution testing of Nikkor lenses with a 1951 Air Force chart and tested some lenses with and without filters on. I tested common filters like Cr-Polarizers, 81A, K2, etc. As a generalization, with Hoya and B+W there was (1) no loss of resolution in the center with either brand (2) There was a drop off of resolution, about equally, with both brands at the edges.

Rick

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Brian Ellis [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters
Date: Wed Mar 31 1999

IMHO, anyone who thinks they can consistently identify which black and white photograph was made with a B+W filter, which was made with a Tiffen, which was made with a Hoya, etc. is kidding themselves. With color different brands of polarizers impart different color casts and once you learn the color casts of the different brands you can identify which photograph was made with which brand (there was an article about this by Joe Englander in one of the final issues of "Camera and Darkroom" several years ago) . I don't believe that this can be done with black and white filters however.

I use B+W, Tiffen, Hoya, and Lee filters for black and white work and I couldn't begin to tell you which brand was used on which photograph. There are construction differences among the different brands that might lead you to select one brand over another. For example, Tiffens (I believe it is) are a little lighter than B+W because of the metal used in the rings. One of my Hoyas isn't very well constructed. The glass has come slightly loose from the metal ring and wobbles around inside the ring. It doesn't affect the photograph but it reeks of shoddy construction. and I wouldn't buy another Hoya for that reason. Bob Salomon makes a good point concerning the rings on Heliopan filters. However, these are construction differences, not differences that affect the photogjraph. In my opinion the quality of your black and white photographs won't differ one iota from one brand of filter to the next..

From: "Brad The Dog" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen vs Cokin filters
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999

it really depends on your situation as which are better. I use them both and have for many years. I prefer cokin for the following things:

1) Wide Angle shots. When stacking filters under wide angle conditions cokin have less of a chance of vignetting the edges. I use the P series with a step up ring.

2) I like cokin because the system is very modular at lower cost than tiffen. While they are lower cost because of the material they are made from. The most common damage I have had to cokin also is the most common damage to my tiffen filters (Idrop and break/scratch them) I found it is much cheaper to replace the cokin several tines than it is to replace a tiffen

3) I can easily change cokin filters while the camera is on the tripod. This is especially helpfull in the studio when working with models. Not bad when doing wedding or when in the field on a tripod.

4) The thing I like most about using cokin P series is the fit all my cameras (2- Nikon f3, Nikon f4, Nikon n70, Pentax PZ-1P, Minolta XTsi, Mamiya 645, Mamiya 7 ii, not to mention sony handicam, sony digital, and a panasonic palm corder) I can't say that about tiffen filters.

Things I Like about tiffen:

1) High quality glass resists scratching, but seems to break more easily. I have bad arthritis in my thumbs so Dropping them is a common and expensive problem.

2) On zoom lenses stacked filters work great, how ever at wide angle the tend to show up and vignette the photo

3) They are great for working for working in areas where your lens itself might become scratched. I have a clear and a uv for every lens I own. This proved rather useful when working in death valley last year and in yosemite a few years back during the fire season. Soot, sand and embers where coming into contact with the lens. A $50 tifen filter was much easier to replace than a $1250 lens.

As a note I also like cokin holders for using gels which I use a lot. I just wish they made one the would fit my twin lens cameras (mamiya c330 pro)

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (KFritch)
[1] Re: Odd filter sizes: 30mm, 37mm, 40mm, 43mm, 46mm, 48mm
Date: Sat Apr 24 1999

40.5mm - Nikon Rfdr 50mm f2, old 135mm f3.5, konica III rfdr f2, MamiyaTLR 105mm chr, Petri Color 35, zeiss 50mm f2 sonnar.

43mm - Nikon rfdr 50mm f1.4, 35mm f3.5, Konica IIIM with f1.8 lens.

46mm - Mamiya TLR 55mm lens; early Asahi Pentax 135mm f3.5 preset.

48mm - Mamiya TLR 80mm (Black); late Canonet Rfdr cameras (early ones took 55mm)

Obviously this is not an all inclusive list and represents only equipment I'm familiar with through use.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
[1] Re: Odd filter sizes: 30mm, 37mm, 40mm, 43mm, 46mm, 48mm
Date: Sat Apr 24 1999

A couple of additions... the III/IIIA Konica RF with the f/2 lens takes 35.5mm screw-ins, not 40.5

------------
Dante Stella

37mm push - Ikoflex, Super Ikonta, Konica III/IIIA (48/2) 39mm - Leica summicron 50/2 40mm - Canon screw-mount RF lenses

> 40.5mm  -  Nikon Rfdr 50mm f2, old 135mm f3.5 MamiyaTLR
> 105mm chr, Petri Color 35, zeiss 50mm f2 sonnar.

+ Graflex XL 100/3.5 tessar + RB67 40mm lens (rear)

> 43mm - Nikon rfdr 50mm f1.4, 35mm f3.5, Konica IIIM with f1.8 lens.

??The Konica is 39mm.

> 46mm - Mamiya TLR 55mm lens;  early Asahi Pentax 135mm f3.5 preset.

+ Rollei XF35 rangefinder

> 48mm - Mamiya TLR 80mm (Black); late Canonet Rfdr cameras (early ones took
> 55mm)

+Canonet 28 +Canodate E

Dante

[Ed. Note: Thanks to Jim Franz for sharing this nifty and low cost filter tip!]
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:38:46 EDT
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: re: filters

An economical trick is to email Lee Filters (see their webpage) and ask for their swatchbook in the "Cinematographer's edition". This is what is handed out here in Hollywood - the samples are about 3X3 1/2 inches and fit (with a little trim) nicely into a Cokin filter holder - you can get fancy and mount them in a cardboard holder or buy the Lee gel/filter holder or the Cokin one-- the swatchbooks are FREE - you can play without spending a fortune. They have a large selection of colors and a variety of semi-opaque materials that will have the people at your local film lab shaking their heads. Some of the other gel companies - Roscoe, GAM, Cinemoid offer large format swatchbooks from time to time, but Lee is the only one that regularly has them. (Lee is also the best from a Lighting Technician's-User's [me] standpoint - holds up to heat when mounted on lamps) You can also buy the sheets by number when you discover what you want and clip the colors onto lamps for special effects. The "filters" are optically clear and work nicely.

Have Fun - Jim Franz ([email protected])

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [BRONICA] Lee filters

I Run The Same Problem With My Sq-50mm. I Didn't Know Lee Made A Wide Angle Hood With Filter Slots. Can You Give Me Product # On That Item?

The Lee system offers two wide angle hoods with filter slots. With a single slot, it's Lee # WALHS; with a 2-filter slot, it's WALHS2.

They also offers wide angle adapter rings in sizes from 49mm to 82mm.

See http://www.leefilters.com & http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/filters/resin/lee/navigation.html for additional details.

regards,
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filter difference?
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999

> >You do have to have adapters for your different systems and
> >lens, but that is not as expensive as buying several sets of
> >filters.
>
> Amen!
>
> Especially if any of them are 72mm. >
> >BTW, cokin is just a cheap system, there are much better
> >drop in filters to get.  Cokin is plastic but you can get
> >optical glass filters, some costing over a hundred each.
>
> Any comments on particular kinds?  I am not 100% satisfied with the
> cokin filters.  They definitely fit my budget, but make for more of a
> gimmicky photo.  (by that I mean I don't think they are as sharp, so I
> use them only in situations where the effect is more important to me)

I believe most of the major filter makers have standard square filters available too.

Also, I bought some adapters, plastic rectangle pieces with set screws to hold my series 8 filters that I already had. I think I paid $20 bucks for three? its been awhile. But it worked out cheaper to buy the adapters and round filters than to get square ones.

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999
Subject: [Rollei] polarizer
From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
To: [email protected]

> does anyone have any ideas about rehabilitating Rollei Polarizers?

> I have been searching around for these filters for my 2.8F and 3.5 Automat

> Rolleiflexes....however, it seems that most examples suffer from separation.

> It has been noted in earlier threads that B and H have B + W linear

> polarizers in Bay 3 mounts, but it seems they are quite expensive and lack

> rotating reference numbers. Heliopan has, I am told a numbered polarizer for

> a rather princely sum.

> I was staring into my french roast this morning.....musing as to the

> feasibility of "opening" an optically ill rolleipol, and inserting a new

> piece of glass. Since I do not have a specimen to observe, I don't know if

> this is possible. Has anyone tried this?

> I like projects like these on rainy days...

The manufacturer's suggested list price for a Bay 3 Heliopan Kaesmann linear polarizer is $245.00. Dealers usually discount from this price. You should

expect to pay around $160.00 for the filter at your LOCAL camera store. Also you should note that while Heliopan makes the filters (including the

polarizer) for Rollei they have a more useful mount. Most Heliopan Bay 3, 2 and 1 mounts have a front bayonet for stacking filters. The mounts that

Heliopan uses for the filters sold under the Rollei name do not have the front bayonet.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO

Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999
Subject: [Rollei] pols
SFrom: "Bob Salomon" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]

> I think the Rolleipols separate because the sandwiched glass is held in
> the mount with some black stuff that appears to work a very slow solvent
> into the sandwich, eventually causing the sandwich to come unstuck.
> Probably this is hastened if the Rolleipol is subjected to a warm climate.
The black stuff seals the sandwich. Separation is usually caused by the
"black stuff" losing its seal (as small as a pin point area) and that allows
moisture to enter the sandwich creating the separation.

On filters from Germany from one manufacturer about 20 years ago till about
12 years ago there was a big separation problem caused by the adhesive
losing its sealing ability. This came about when that manufacturer was
forced to change the adhesive they used due to environmental concerns. These
filters were sold as third party filters but not as Rollei labeled filters so
it is not the same problem as you outlined. The problem for that
manufacturer was that their new adhesive simply lost its seal after a few
years and let moisture in. That is why it is almost impossible to find a non
separated polarizer of that vintage from that manufacturer.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO

Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof,Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999
From: Dan Nelson [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] 28-105 and filter vignetting

Will the new Nikkor 28-105 vignette with a standard 62mm B+W multicoated UV filter? When mounted the filter is 5.5mm thick (about 1/5th of an inch). It is thicker than the standard Hoya filter, by about a millimeter.

I see that their standard multicoated filter sells for $39 and their slim multicoated sells for $96. If the standard filter vignettes, at that price difference I'm tempted to buy the standard version and carefully file down the filter threads.

Thanks,

Dan

From: Brad Mitchell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lee filter holder system
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999

Susan,

Have you tried cutting off the first two filter slots on your Cokin holder? I've done this with mine and have no problem with my Canon 20mm (72mm filter size). I can still use a round filter (i.e. polarizer) and a rectangular filter (i.e. grad split ND) at the same time.

Just a suggestion,

Brad Mitchell
[email protected]
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/Photo.html

Susan S. Cotti wrote:

> I am switching from the Cokin to Lee Filter holder system because of the
> vignetting I am getting on two of my lenses.  One thing that Lee does
> not make is a lens cover that attaches to the adaptor ring - in size it
> would be somewhere between a 72mm and 77mm.  Does anyone using Lee
> Filter holders keep their rings on in their camera bag?    What
> protection do you use for the lenses?
> 
> Susan

From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bay Filters - What's the Difference?
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999

Bay 0 - Rollei 16
Bay I - Rollei 3.5 lenses (Tessar and Xenar) as well as copies like the Yashica
Bay II - Rollei 3.5 Planar and Xenotar as well as the 2.8 Tessar
Bay III - Rollei 2.8 Planar and Xenotar
Bay IV - Rollei Wide TLR
Bay VI - Certain Rollei lenses from the SL 66 and SLX/6000 series
Bay VIII - Certain Rollei and Hasselblad lenses for 6x6 SLR cameras

Then you have the bayonets for Hasselblad, Bay 50, 60, 70 and the bayonets for Zeiss, Bay 56, Bay 95, Bay 96, etc.

Hope that helps.

--
[email protected] http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/ HP Marketing Corp. Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi-Plan-T, Kaiser, KoPho, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000

----------
"Jeff Rester"
[email protected] wrote:

> I have a Yashicamat 124G and I have heard that it uses bay 1 filters and
> hoods. The instruction book says that it uses 30mm filters.  Are bay 1 and
> 30 mm filters the same mount? Also what is the difference between bay  1, 2,
> and 3 filters and can you give examples of the types of cameras that use
> each filter size? I also have a Rolleiparkeil filter that is 28.5 and was
> wondering what mount it would correspond to. It fits on my Yashica 44 but
> not on the Yashicamat. Any answers and insight are appreciated.
>
> Jeff

From: Jean-David Beyer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rear mount filters
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999

Michael Chambers wrote:

>    Nothing is less intrusive as a filter in the optical path than a
> gelatine filter behind the lens.

In a discussion of where to put filters, in L.P.Clerc's "Photography, Theory and Practice", the author examines possible locations for filters.

  1. Between the source of light and the object to be photographed
  2. Between the object and the lens of the camera
  3. Between the components of the camera lens
  4. Between the lens and the sensitive plate
  5. In front of the sensitive plate, almost in contact with it.

He then discusses each location.

1. This position, generally used in micrography, has sometimes been used for three-colour reproduction of color transparancies. But it is impractical to have all the lights in a studio entirely covered by light filters. [Even more difficult outdoors.]

3. This location should be rejected on principle, except when using gelatine screens of negligible thickness, which can be placed against the iris diaphragm after unscrewing one of the components of the objective. Every filter of appreciable thickness, being equivalent to two-thirds of its thickness of air, would produce very nearly the same effect as if the separation of the lens had been reduced by a third of the thickness of the filter. This would seriously interfere with the definition unless the filter formed an integral part of the lens and was placed in position, with due regard to its effect, by the lens designer.

5. The fact that a filter, when used close to the sensitive film, can be of mediocre optical quality without disadvantage has been put forward in favor of [this location]. Unfortunately, any local defect in such a filter manifests itself on the image as a spot. Further, a focal plane filter of indifferent quality is at least as expensive and immeasureably less workable than a lens filter of satisfactory quality, or, better still, a plain gelatine filter.

Usually the only two positions which need to be considered are, therefore, those in front of [2] or behind [4] the lens of the camera.

In the circumstances usually occurring in practice, a filter placed in front of the lens does not alter the focus, which is a very appreciable advantage in the case of cameras whose focusing relies on a graduated scale. On all cameras this position of the filter lends itself most readily to taking on and off with the minimum of trouble. The filter can either be mounted on a ring, which is fitted over the lens like a cap, or provided with threads which allow it to be screwed into the lens hood [he means the front of the lens mount]. Most convenient when used with interchangeable lenses are bayonet-mounted filters. These are quick to fit or to detach, yet are secure when in position. Camera manufacturers are increasingly adopting this type of fitting. [Written in or before 1970.]

In all cases where the object to be photographed is more than twice the focal length from the objective, the filter in front of the lens, in the case of thick filters, is least likely to introduce disturbing abberratioins into the image.

[I call attention to the case where the object is less than twice the focal length from the objective: in that case, you may well prefer to put the filter behind the lens.]

--
Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. The answer is no.

Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999
From: todd [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Infrared Filter

Pablo,

Infrared and visible light are different in that you have to focus slightly closer to focus infrared for the same scene. This means that infinity is closer than what is marked on the distance scale on the lens. The Rollei TLR infrared filter is ground to compensate for this effect. With the infrared filter over the taking lens, when you focus the viewfinder lens on an object in the distance, the infrared filter is doing its infrared filtering and also compensating for the shift. Althought the infrared filter looks absolutely flat, it is not.

The actaul shift is quite small in practice, and the general rule is 0.25% of the focal length of the lens. Eg: a 100 mm lens would require a 0.25 mm extension. Most of this will certainly be covered with a small f stop of 8 or less.

Also even when the lens is correctly focused, the infrared image is not as sharp as the panchromatic one as most lenses are not as corrected for the infrared space as they are for the panchromatic one. Another subect that leads to unsharpness is that many biological infrared pictures are formed from details not on the outside of the subject. Infrared can penetrate to a very slight degree, the surface of many biological materials, so that the image formed is the cumulation of the outer surfaces of the subject. This leads to a blurring of detail.

You will be pleased to know that if you do macro work with infrared, the aperture will be incorrect as marked on the lens. But that's another story.

Todd

From: [email protected] (David L. Glos)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen vs Cokin filters
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999

....

>  [email protected] (WardCheese) wrote:
>> I'm getting sick of buying 81A for three lens sizes, circ polarizer  for all
>> three, etc.  Is the Cokin system a good alternative?  How much of a hassle is
>> it when you change lenses?  Any other advice?
>>
>
>I don't like cokin's... scratch easily, bulky, not optically as sharp as
>glass.
>
>Here's a better solution. Buy all your filters to fit the largest size lens
>you have and buy inexpensive "step up" rings for the rest. My largest  lens is
>a 20mm that uses 72mm filters... So all mine are glass 72's.

As much as I want to believe Cokins are inferior to top quality glass filters, I have not been able to prove that in the real world. I've shot many a roll of Velvia, 35mm and MF, tripod and handheld, with glass filters, Cokins filters and bare lensed, and have examined many of my better images under top quality (Leica, Nikon and Olympus) research microscopes, and really can't see any difference. I can begin to see a difference when using 2 or more of any filter. Yes, Cokin, and other resin based filter systems like Lee and HiTech, are easily damaged, and they don't have coatings, which I will readily admit makes them less desirable in flare situations. They are not something I use all of the time, but they work quite well when needed.

If you live in an area where the lighting runs towards the cool and yucky, like here in Cincinnati, you might just consider leaving an 81 or 81A on your lens at all times instead of a UV. Many rave about the B+W KR1.5, as an all purpose filter, but if you lay it on a piece of white paper, you will quickly see it is closer to an 81 than a typical Tiffen UV.

David Glos

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999
From: Mike Baranowski [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Blue Skies and filter stacking [v04.n345/3]

[email protected] posted

>I was shooting some landscapes with my N70 + 35-80 4-5.6 AF-D setup
>a while ago
>and saw that the whole picture exposed perfectly, but the skies got
>washed out.
>The lens already had a 1A Quantaray filter on it.

Amar:

I am not a pro, and I haven't had a chance to digest all the responses. My recent post asking for feedback on unmounted filters is related to your dilemma.

I may not be using the right terms here, but here goes... The problem may be related to the limited dynamic range that the film records. If you meter on your foreground, the sky may be washed out (too bright) if you meter the sky, your foreground may be too dark, or appear as a silhouette. I believe you need a Neutral Density GRADUATED filter. This will allow you to 'darken' the sky's and bring it with the exposure value of your foreground.

I am in the process of evaluating a line to standardize on. A number of manufactures make these. Some are glass, some are resin. Cokin may be the cheapest.

http://www.singh-ray.com/
http://www.singh-ray.com/srgnd.html
http://www.singh-ray.com/srgnd3.html

http://www.tiffen.com/filters.htm
http://www.leefilters.com/
http://www.calumetphoto.com/  (same as Lee I believe)
http://www.cokin.co.uk/

You can also do some research on the net. I have found a number of articles on other mailing lists about the problem. They are all solved by using a ND Graduated filter. I have heard that the .3 (1 stop) is worthless. Most go with the .6 (2 stops).

Hope this helps.

- -Mike Baranowski

From: [email protected] (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Odd filter sizes: 30mm, 37mm, 40mm, 43mm, 46mm, 48mm
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999

[email protected] (KFritch) wrote:

>40.5mm  -  Nikon Rfdr 50mm f2, old 135mm f3.5, konica III rfdr f2, MamiyaTLR
>105mm chr, Petri Color 35, zeiss 50mm f2 sonnar.
>
>43mm - Nikon rfdr 50mm f1.4, 35mm f3.5, Konica IIIM with f1.8 lens.
>
>46mm - Mamiya TLR 55mm lens;  early Asahi Pentax 135mm f3.5 preset.
>
>48mm - Mamiya TLR 80mm (Black); late Canonet Rfdr cameras (early ones took
>55mm)
>
>Obviously this is not an all inclusive list and represents only equipment I'm 
>familiar with through use.

Here's a few more;

43mm - Leica 50mm/f1.4 Summilux-M

46mm - Leica 28mm/f2.8 Elmarit-M, 90mm/f2.8 Elmarit-M

48mm - Nippon Kogaku 85mm/f2 Nikkor rangefinder lens

Joe B. (remove ".gov" for email)

From: [email protected] (Ejkowalski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Odd filter sizes: 30mm, 37mm, 40mm, 43mm, 46mm, 48mm
Date: 26 Apr 1999

....
48 mm was a very common filter size for Canon, including some FL mount lenses for SLR's (I had a 50mm that I sold to a friend that took a 48mm filter), the Canonet / G III series of the 70's, and some of the early better Canon Autofocus Point &Shoots with the faster lenses (f 2.8 and f 1.9).

The rangefinder cameras made by Aires mostly took a 43 mm filter. They were fairly well-made little cameras with fast nonremoveable lenses.

EJK

From: [email protected] (David L. Glos)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lee Filter System
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999

>Susan,
>
>I'm curious. What lenses are you useing? I've used the Cokin P on my 24mm
>without problems. The reason I'm asking is I am about to purchase a 20mm and
>would hope to retain the Cokin system.
>
>Steve

You may have to pull the old trick of taking a P holder--they are cheap anyway--and cut off the outer two slots.

From: Leigh Silvester [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin filters
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999

What are the opinions on the cokin range of filters.

Good range of filters, but you have to be very careful handling and cleaning then as they pick up scratches and general crud very easily. I tend to wash mine periodically (without using a scrubbing brush) in photo-flo (Triton X-100 non-ionic surfactant) and leave them to drain in an old vinyl singles rack. Even with careful handling you can tell which of mine get heaviest use by the scratches on them - obviously when they get too bad they are replaced (think I am on my fourth light grey grad, while my purple grad looks to be in pristine condition after four years).

I am thinking of going over to another manufacturer for the more commonly used ones.

So can someone help me here.

Would Cromatek, Lee or Hoya be a better bet and do they fit in the Cokin adapters ?

Or is there another manufacturer of resilient filters who is much overlooked ?

--
Leigh Silvester
[email protected]
http://users.breathemail.net/leigh.silvester/

From: [email protected] (DWA652)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens Cap For Lens w/ Close Up Filter?
Date: 16 May 1999

>I have a 72mm zoom and often use a B+W close up filter on it. The  problem is
>that the lens cap won't fit on it with the close up in place due to the
>convex surface. Gotta unscrew it each time...
>
>Any ideas?

Yep. Find an old cheap 72mm filter and remove the glass, and then put it on the cap. You now have a screw-on lens cap!

God Bless,

Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Nikon filters

> I am looking for informations on nikon filters. I searched the web but
> I did not find anything, not even in Nikon Corporate sites. Links, tables
> or whatever (even sent to me directly) would be very appreciated.

Nikon make many filters to fit their lenses. Not all filters are available in all sizes. Nikon only makes filters in sizes to match their lenses (52mm, 62 etc), they do not make other filter sizes such as 49mm or 55mm.

All nikon filters have very thin mounts to reduce vignetting with wide angle lenses, and are multicoated.

More information about filters can be found in the General Photographic Accessories catalogue.

FILTERS FOR COLOR AND B&W FILM:

NC - Neutral Color filters serve only as lens protectors
L1BC - Skylight for cuttng UV light, pale pink color
L37C - UV filter for cutting wavelengths shorter than 370nm
L39 - stronger UV filter, pale yellow color

Circular Polarizing filters - screw-in and slip-in for telephotos

Neutral Density filters
ND2 - reduces light by 1 stop
ND4 - reduces light by 2 stops
ND8 - reduces light by 3 stops
ND400 - reduces light by 8.6 stops

Soft focus
No. 1 for portraits
No. 2 for stronger fog-like effects

FILTERS FOR COLOR FILM

Amber
A2 - mild warming filter
A12 - stronger filter for tungsten film when used for outdoor shooting

Blue
B2 - mild cooling
B8 - medium blue
B12 - strong blue

FILTERS FOR B&W FILM

Y44 - mild yellow, filters UV and blue light wavelengths shorter than 440nm
Y48 - medium yellow
Y52 - strong yellow
O56 - orange, subracts UV, blue and green wavelengths shorter than 560nm
R60 - subtracts UV and all colors except red light shorter than 600nm

X0 - mild green
X1 - strong green

From: The Lens [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Need help with Soft Filters
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999

Hi Sanjay.

I'm a full time working professional - member of Professional Photographers of Canada and Master of Photographic Arts.

I'm about to save you some money and give you great results. Go to a local fabric store and ask for a small piece of black 'tulle' material. It is a veil like material with a honeycomb pattern - but it must be black.

Double it over to two layers for a greater effect, and simply stretch it across your lens with a rubber band. I think you'll be more than pleased with the results. I've tried lots of soft focus filters, and I still like the tulle the best.

Randy J O'Donnell MPA F/PPABC
BensonView Photographic Arts
Nanaimo, B.C.

Sanjay Rajasekhar wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am seeking some advice on selecting a soft
> filter. First, since a soft filter is supposed
> to "soften" a sharp picture, is there any reason
> for spending big bucks on the B+Ws and Heliopans
> or does a decent Tiffen suffice?
>
> Second, what is the recommended softness level
> for portraits (outdoor)? I want the softness to
> be more noticable that just to hide the wrinkles,
> blemishes, etc.
>
> Please email to [email protected]
>
> Thank you,

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Bob)
Subject: Re: Best Lens Filter Manufacturers ?
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999

There are a lot of crappy Japanese filters and lenses out there just as there are some terrific optics coming out of Taiwan and Korea (Canon and Nikon to name two). Country of origin has nothing to do with quality. Quality comes from good design, good materials, workmanship and quality control not the piece of land the factory is built upon.

Having owned both the Tiffen and Nikon filters; if you are an amateur or the filter will see a lot of abuse, save your money and buy the Tiffen (or better yet buy a Hoya), if you are a serious amateur or pro, absolutely buy the Nikon (or a B+W).

One tip on the Nikon, you can probably pick one up used but stay away from the older Nikon Standard Polarizers from the 70's~80's as they delaminated easily. Also be aware that the Nikon's require a dedicated Nikon lens shade whereas with the other polarizers you can use a screw-in hood but will probably not be able to use a slip-on type hood because of the rotating ring flaring out.

One more caveat in case you're not aware of it there are two different types of polarizers; standard or linear and the circular. Autofocus camera (and cameras with certain types of meters, i.e. Olympus OM-3 and others) require the circular polarizer as the linear interferes with the focus sensors.

From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Series VI Filters
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999

(JCPERE) wrote:

> Does anyone make new black and white use filters in Series VI size?  I couldn't
> find any in the B+H catalog.  Looks like B+W comes in something called  Series
> 5.5 or Series 7.
>
> Chuck

Heliopan supplies all filter types in all series sizes. So there is no confusion drop-in series size filters are available in the following series sizes:

series 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 93, 103, 107, 119

All you need do is have a camera store order them for you. We keep the UV, KR 1.5 and the Kaesmann linear polarizer in stock. Black and white filters are special order and will take 4 weeks for delivery (unless they are ordered during the annual German summer vacation).

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

From: [email protected] (SElli73713)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon Filter Identification
Date: 28 May 1999

Earle, PMFJI, but I dug the following out of some stuff I'd saved a few years back. Maybe it'll help:

L1BC   =  skylight
L37C   =  UV
Y44    =  light yellow - #6
Y48    =  med yellow - #8
Y52    =  dark yellow - #9
O56    =  orange - #16
R60    =  red - #25
X0     =  light green - #11
X1     =  dark green - #13
ND2,   =  1 stop neutral density
ND4,   =  2 stop neutral density
ND8,   =  3 stop neutral density
ND400  =  8 stop neutral density
A2     =  light amber - 81A
A12    =  dark amber  - 85
B2     =  light blue  - 82A
B2     =  light blue  - 82A
B8     =  medium blue - 80C
B12    =  dark blue  -80B
CC30R  =  30% red color comp filter (can be used in place of FLD).

I'm sure a more extensive list could be obtained from Nikon USA. Their home page is http://www.NikonUSA.com. Or the Nikon Corporation home page is (or used to be) http://www.klt.co.jp/Nikon/ HTH.

-- steve

"Earle Conway" [email protected] wrote:

> Thank you Henry.  But if I want to order B+W filters rather than
> Nikon, what ids do I specify???
> Earle.

[Ed. note: handy tip for those expensive oversize filters!]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999
From: John Stafford [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Another Cheap Medium Format Option (filters)

Robert, most of this relates to Pentax 67. Is it appropriate to your area of interest? I will just give a brief here and provide more details if you find it useful.

General: Great source for LARGE high quality glass filters for large diameter lenses: Military Surplus filters intended for military aerial lenses. Limited to Yellow, Orange and Red. (Have not found Green yet.) Size of round filters: 111mm. Other sizes and shapes available, but this is the most common I've found.

Cost? $5 each. New. Never used. In original packing. Wow! (can provide source, and I will as soon as I buy a few more sets.)

A specific application: This will knock the socks off of users of the Pentax 6x7 55mm F3.5 lens which ordinarily requires 100mm bayonet mount filters (apparently made of Unobtanium and priced on the dark side of the moon.) The 111mm (4.25") filters mentioned above will DROP INTO THE FRONT OF THE STANDARD (pentax brand) LENS SHADE and SNAP INTO the recessed area at the bottom (close to the lens.) God only knows what that special area was ever designed to do. I suspect it is cosmetic, but by pure serendipity it works perfectly! If you are as fussy as I am, you can drill two tiny holes into the side of the shade for retention screws. There you are, an instant $5 solution!

Hope this helps.

John J. Stafford

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999
From: "Tran, Karen" [email protected]
Subject: [BRONICA] Creative Filters

This is more of a general photography question as opposed to just a Bronica question. Does anyone have any suggestions of fun filters (diffusers, etc.)? I mean the homemade kind. For example, I cut a hole in some bubble wrap on my last wedding and it was a very nice diffuser. I was trying to think of some ways to get some interesting effects. Any thoughts?

Karen :-)

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999
From: budd gottesman [email protected]
To: send�to�list [email protected]

Regarding filters; there's all sorts to try/play with. With black plastic you can create masks (mats) for multiple exposures (note: check them on ground glass with diaphragm closed down to working aperture--the effect changes with f/stop.) When I started shooting candids, oh soooo long ago, guys were using filters with petroleum jelly; but the Lord created a 'creative photographer' who said, "Why not use clear or slightly tinted nail polish. With this you can leave an area where a face(s) would be in a portrait clear and all around (more and more toward the edges) clouded (smeared) up. Play with colors, densities, etc. Just make sure you check the effect CLOSED DOWN. And guess what.....YOUR POCKETS/HANDS/CASES STAY CLEAN OF PETROLEUM JELLY. It is true that you can 're-shmear' for each individual use with the jelly, but it's a good trade off, especially since most of the time you're redoing it because it got screwed up in the handling. Don't forget to clean your hands if you choose the jelly. By the way, another possiblity, using plastic as a frame (or in other ways) cut into the shape of an 'empty' box and stretch black screen (or 'rip-stop' nylon over it for an even better type of diffusion. Also, as close to the lens front as possible a plain glass filter with a line (maybe 1/8 inch across) running across it...which does not have to be straight...(may effect exposure)....for outdoor photos (usually) at 'more open' apertures (4, 5.6) focused closer up, like for portraits and the 'out of focus, background lighlights' will all have the line running thru them. Vary the line and the effect changes. Have a nice time.

Budd

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] fitting filters on both lenses of TLR

Try talking (e-mail) to the folks at "SRB Film Service"; for advice. They've been quite helpful to me. I wanted an adapter to utilize a collection of Cokin filters, and they provided it, after I was about to give the whole concept up. Their E-Mail address is: ([email protected]). Snail Mail is: (SRB Film Service, 286 Leagrave Road, LUTON BEDS LU3 1RB). Tel: (01582 572471).

G'luck, Charlie T.

Ed note: A handy tip from the Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SERIES FILTERS: HARRISON & HARRISON

At 09:17 AM 6/28/99 -0700, Jonathan Prescott wrote:

>Do you have an address or number for Harrison & Harrison?  I'm looking for
>filters for my Grey Baby, and already have a series V adapter.

Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers
Unit "E"
1835 Thunderbolt Drive
Porterville California 93257

Post Office Box 1797
Porterville California 93258-1797

voice telephone: 209/782-0121
FAX: 209/782-0824
[email protected] FAX: +540/343-7315

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Steve1chsn)
[1] Re: Age old question
Date: Mon Aug 16 1999

>Do you guys keep UV filters on your medium format lenses at all times to
>protect them ? If so, do you remove them when you use polarizers, soft focus
>filters, etc ?

Fact is, the UV is about the only filter I don't use. So what I do is simply leave the last filter on that I was using, whatever that might have been, until I need a different one. Essentially my portrait lens has a Softar#1 for protection.

**** steve ****

From: [email protected] (William Jameson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Problem on Cokin P System Filter with Ultra Wide Zoom
Date: 26 Jul 1999

Jeff HUI ([email protected]) wrote:

: Hi netters,
:
: I have problem using Cokin P system and need some insight on using it
: with the 20mm - 40mm (diam. 77mm) zoom on a 35mm camera.  At 20mm, I
: loose about 1/8 of the picture on the left and right side of the view
: finder.  These 1/4 of darkness turn out to be part of the filter holder.
:
: My question is:
: Am I mounting the filter wrong?  I followed the instruction manual
: closely.
: Which other filter company who provide Cokin's quality and variety with
: a wider holder and filter?
: Has the problem happened to people with 70-200 (diam. 77mm) lens?

The problem is the wide angle. You can lessen the problem by being sure you're mounting the Cokin adaptor ring to the lens and not to a filter on the lens. Cokin suggests cutting off the front two slots on the filter holder (which will lessen the thickness of the holder).

Cokin has started making a larger size than the 'P' series for wide angle lenses but it's very pricy. Given that the holder costs about eight bucks, I'd just cut off the front two slots.

Bill Jameson

From: [email protected] (RMMM9999)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does a UV Haze fltr degrade sharpness?
Date: 30 Jul 1999

I always use some sort of filter on the front of my lens, UNLESS I am shooting into the light and detect flare or extra reflections, or unless I detect some visible loss of contrast.

The better (multicoated) filters are much less likely to cause the above mentioned problems.

Though they protect the front lens element, their real value for me is in protecting the filter threads. I have dropped cameras several times, if my photographic process was too frantic (mostly because of straps getting caught!).

The filter has saved my lens once or twice, the lack of the filter has doomed at least one expensive lens.

Richard
Baltimore

[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted Leica, Zeiss, Rollei... authority! ;-)]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: UV filter

Austin Franklin wrote:

>[Austin] Agreed, and I have not noticed ANY image problems with  them...so I
>was curious why someone said (was it you?) not to use them????  I would
>NEVER use a lense without one....I'd rather doink a filter than a lense....

This gets thrashed about on the Leica Users Group frequently. While there are a few hardy souls who absolutely insist on using filters as protection, none of the professionals on the LUG do so. To the contrary, there are a few pros who simply never use filters of any sort.

Both Leica and Zeiss do not recommend the use of filters as protections. With the modern hard-coating technology (first, of course, developed by Alexander Smakula while at Zeiss Jena in 1935), and with modern glasses, there really is no reason not to just clean your lenses when they get dirty.

I leave my lenses covered with filters and lenscaps when in the bag. Outside of the bag, I almost never use filters, though I might turn to a mild decamired filter on some occasions.

Marc

[email protected]

[Ed. note: another pro says...]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UV filter

Austin Franklin wrote:

> I never put them on my old C lens, but now with the new CF yes. Its amazing
> the junk I have cleaned off a UV filter, so glad that junk was not on the
> real lens element.
>
> [Austin] Agreed, and I have not noticed ANY image problems with  them...so I
> was curious why someone said (was it you?) not to use them????  I would
> NEVER use a lense without one....I'd rather doink a filter than a lense....

I'm hard on my stuff. I've never doinked a lens front element. Any crud on a lens can be cleaned off. You'll find most pros don't use UV filters. They are a gimmick camera sales people have to increase their revenues.

Mark Rabiner

Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UV filter

Austin Franklin wrote:

>(Snip)
> [Austin] I am a pro, and I know dozens of pros...ALL of whom use a UV
> filter for protection.  I am also very hard on my equipment...as I do a LOT
> of location work that requires me to climb up, down, around, under etc.
>  It's not dirt on the lense that I am protecting from, it is damage to the
> front element.  It is no gimmick, (an insulting statement), it really
> works, period.  I know enough about my equipment to decide what  equipment I
> need, not some store salesman.

I'm not telling you what you need this is my opinion. I am also a pro. All the pros i know don't ritually put UV filters on their lenes. When there lenes get real dirty they clean them off. They don't obsess over their gear. How would the front element get damaged don't you use a lens hood? In terms of the camera store biz I think they are a gimmick. There is no reason for these people to be putting UV filters on all their Lenes as they walk out of the store and with no hoods. In many cases they are being told that the filter will act like a hood. Seeing UV filters INSTEAD of hoods on nice lenses is a real shame in my opinion. Especially when the Lenses like the 80 2.8 are a recessed well protected front element. Macro's tend to be even more well protected. A real shame to put a UV filter on those.

Mark Rabiner

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Re: Take UV Filter Off?
Date: Thu Oct 07 1999

>Does anyone have experience photographing birds with -and- without the
>filter?

ANY filter increases the risk of flare. Esp. if you are shooting into or toward the sun.

On a cloudy day it may not make any difference.

Personally, I NEVER use a protective filter but I don't want to re-start this debate. If I did, 950 others here would immediately post long notes confirming that such filters have saved their $10,000. lenses from destruction.

OK, I exaggerate, but not much.

Peter Burian

for SHUTTERBUG magazine
see also www.shutterbug.net

From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filter recommendations--Non OEM!!
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999

Unfortunately your test probably can't determine if there are any problems.

If a filter will create a problem it will be more noticeable on very long lenses rather than short or normal or short tele lenses. Using a test chart properly with a very long lens is difficult for most.

Proper filter testing is done with collimators and surface inferometers for this reason.

--
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000

[email protected] (xx) wrote:


> I did some limited filter testing using slide film and the Edmund
> Scientific version of the 1951 USAF test chart, I wanted to be sure
> those nice B+W filters I have (polarizers) are better then the
> Japanese copies.  They weren't.  I think Hoyas, especially SMC, are
> every bit as good.  All good filters were fine in the center, lost
> resolution at the edges.  You can't go wrong with Heliopan and B+W.  You
> can save a bit of money by going with Hoya,  I'm am not recommending
> lesser brands like Tiffen or Cokin.
>
> Rick

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999
From: "G. Young" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] 50mm 1.8 flare
I purchased a 50mm 1.8 due to its many rave reviews, but I'm finding that it has a little more flare than I had expected. I have noticed, however, that when I remove the filter about 75% of the flare goes away. The filter I'm using us a UV haze type, and while not brand now appears to be in perfect condition. I'm sort of wondering if the large distance between the outer element of the lens and the filter makes it more susceptible to flare, if the filter I'm using may be bad, or if maybe this lens just has more flare than I expected.

Thanks for your comments,

grant-

....

[Ed. note: filter caps screw onto either side of a stack of filters (male/female) and being metal, protect stack of filters in your bag - neat!]
From: "DanielOC" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Looking for filter screw caps
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999

I've purchased the caps from Porter's mail order catalog.

http://www.porters.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] close up lenses

> Does that mean that when people are talking about a 'Bayonet VI' that it
> means that sort of lenses
> will fit on my camera, that I don't just have to use lenses made for the Rollie SL66?

The bayonet used on the front of most Rollei SL66 as well as most 6000 series lenses is unique to Rollei. Some other companies offer filters to fit them, but I've nevers seen any other lenses with this bayonet on the front.

BTW, you can get an adapter from Tiffen, B+W, Heliopan and maybe others which fits into the Rollei bayonet and lets you use 67mm screw-on filters. These filters are much more common, much cheaper, and come in a wider variety than supplied by Rollei.

Bob

[Ed. note: RE: how circular polarizers work..]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] polarizer

It's something of a misnomer. The "circular" polarizer is actually just an ordinary plane polarizer, just like every other polarizing filter. The difference is that it is backed by a special glass plate which then depolarizes the light.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] polarizer

> From Andre : polarizing light was done with an optical material
> ....where does circular come into play?

As far as I know from experiments in Physics courses, a circular polarizer is a device composed of a regular, linear polarizer, plus a quarter-wave plate properly oriented. The quarter-wave plate transforms the linear vibration into a circular vibration. The advantage in photography is that the circularly polarized light on output will be weakly sensitive to additional Fresnel reflection or refraction effects when the light falls on a photocell or a silicon detector. When a linearly polarized light reflects on glass or silicon oxide (or refracts into) sometimes one linear polarization (say : horizontally polarized) can be blocked whereas the other (say : vertically polarized) can be 100% transmitted, thus giving incorrect readings to the photocell independently of the intensity of incident lignt.

Now what is the interest of circular polarizers in photography ? When incident day light coming from the sun, is scattered by air molecules in the atmosphere, the scattered light will be partially polarize, and almost lineraly polarized when you look at the blue sky at 90 degrees from the sun itself. This allows to darken the sky in color pictures. By simply turning the polarizer, you can adjust the degree of darkening. But with a regular linear polarizer, you'll get incorrect photocell readings. The additional quarter-wave plate cancels this parasitic effect while preserving the interesting darkening effect.

Circular polarizing filters are also supposed to enhance the contrast by filtering out hazy effects in landscape color pictures taken with a long focal lenght. This was advertised in a Leica brochure I read 15 years ago. So at the time I trusted the German Masters of Optics even if this photographic effect is still unclear to me.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Take UV Filter Off?
Date: 14 Oct 1999

>The filters are left on for all outdoor photos to stop UV haze.
>I found these filters to to be very important for all my photos in the
>tropics and certainly with our high seasonal UV in NZ they are also
>pretty important.

Have you tried a polarizer (or a red filter with b&w film) side by side with the UV filter? These are more effective in cutting through haze.

My theory is: Use a filter for a specfic reason and then use the one that is most effective for the job. I don't find a UV filter really effective.

OK, it protects the front element as some people said, but I would still take it off when possible to minimize the risk of flare. Sure, flare is a problem with ANY filter, and sometimes I do need to change my shooting position when using a polarizer.

Peter Burian
(also a Contributing Editor with Australian Photography.)

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999
From: Jeffcoat Photography [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which Softar for the CF180?

Kec: This is not the answer your looking for ,but it works. For $2.95 go buy a pair of small Black Panty Hose. you stretch the side of the leg area over the front of the lens and secure with a rubber band. The more you stretch the less you soften the less you stretch the more you soften. If you want a consistent effect make up some panels that you can hang from the front of the pro shade, by stretching and gluing the hose to black foam core cut outs. Not real glamorous but it will give you your very own look.

Cheers Wilber

kec wrote:

I am extremely pleased with the overall performance of my recently purchased 180CF, but find that family and friends who have volunteered as subjects for portraiture are less than enthusiastic about having every facial wrinkle and imperfection so perfectly resolved. I also occasionally use the 100CF for portraits as well. I would like to purchase either the Softar I or II, but would appreciate any recommendations from experienced users on my choice. The 180 will likely be used more often. Thanks much!

Kirt E. Carter

From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000
From: Alexander [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Re: Telescopes

>  Alexander wrote:
> >I have some light poluution filters, but it still doesnt do the job as well.
> Alexander
>
> Hey what colour are those pollution filters? 
> Terry

Terry, they are 'light pollution filters', they are for minimizing the effects of stray light from entering the viewsing frame of the telescope. is that what you are asking?

The color is almost orange.

- --
Warm Regards,
Alexander

Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya TLR lenses for C330f

"ABF" [email protected] wrote:

>
>>.......Regarding shooting
>>ability, either will do with a good lens shade, you need that shade in
>>bad or at all quentionable lighting conditions with either lens type
>>IMO. I use Cokin modular shades on my lenses, they are stackable to
>>the length of your lens and are reasonable to buy.
>
>>David Grabowski
>
>So what kind /size Cokin modular shades would you use on the 65mm lens?
>I'm finding it really hard to track down a genuine shade in my neck of the
>woods.

Buy the Cokin starter kit with a 49mm. addapter ring, then two of the shades. The kit runs around $12-$15 and the shades about $7 each( actually I think Cokin refers to them as Modular Hoods). I keep a ring on each lens and have half dozen or so hoods. The hood just snaps on and then each one consecutively snaps into the other, I store them stacked in lengths for each lens , though I don't go more than four long for the longest of my lenses and all works well. With the hoods, will come a chart for suggestions on how many of these to stack for a given focal length lens and how this correlates to a 35mm. system ( the A kit is actually for 35mm. but the medium format sets would be too large for the Mamiya TLR). I never stopped to figure out light angles but just stack the things till there is either vignetting and then back off one hood or just put on enough to to shade without fear. In the case of the 65 two hood work well but it may take three without vignetting.

You should be advised that this is a larger rig than the taking lens, it is a system for 3 in. square filters and the hoods are slightly larger yet. I trim the top of the holder and the hoods protrude into the view of the viewing lens. The hoods have no back and are not cone or funnel shaped they are just square plastic frames. The result at worse is a little softer viewing, but the image results are worth it and it's versitile , though outragous to look at. You might want to stop by a camera dealer that sells Cokin and have a look, to see if this is something you want hanging off the front of your camera.

I use this system for more than one reason, though most commonly for shading. I have some square colored and diffusion filters as well as vignettes that fit the Cokin holder. I have one ring that is 55mm. and a step up ring for the 49 or 46mm. for one TLR lens, but the 55 fits most of my 35mm. gear, so all this is interchangable between my medium format and 35mm. equipment. I am not advocating that this is for everyone, but it's worked well for me. I'm one that uses very little filtration in my shooting, especially in MF but the square filters are nice to work with when I do.

If you can't find a shade and if you don't like this Cokin concept ( many people do not), people have made shades from dixi cups painted black for various TLRs. All this takes is a little futsing to get the right length for the lens and to cut a whole that will let it slip on to the lens snug.Then there is always rubber hoods or your hand.

Regards,
David Grabowski

Postscript:
Sorry about that, I left out the A. You need to buy the Cokin A starter kit.

Grabowski

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Bay1 to metric threaded filter adaptors

> From Pete : ...a source for adapters to use threaded filters on my
> 3.5, bay1 rolleiflex?

SRB film service in the UK sells those. I recenty got one BAY 1 to 46mm adaptor. Price about 14 pounds / ~ 21 US$ .

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/adaptors.htm

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Hazing

Jon wrote from Deepinaharta, Georgia:

>     Isn't this related to the way circular polarizers
>function? They use a quarter-wave retarder. Or am I
>dead wrong (as usual)? I am no optical engineer or
>theorist. Far from it. But, I am curious.

Kind of off the hazing topic. Yes a circular uses a quarter-wave, but it is the second filter.

The "how and why of a circular polarizer":
A circular polarizer is actually two filters in one. The front filter is the same as found on linear polarizers and does the filtering work on the glare. The second is the quarter-wave filter you mentioned. It converts linearly polarized light (surviving the linear filter) into circularly polarized light. This allows it to interact with semi-silvered mirrors as if it is random linear polarization. It's what keeps meters and auto-focus devices found behind semi-silvered SLR mirrors from being fooled because the semi-silvering is another form of linear polarizing filter. If you use a linear polarizing filter and turn it so that its polarization is perpendicular to the polarization of the semi-silvered mirror, the meter and/or auto-focus behind the mirror will receive much less light than it ought to.

-- John

[Ed. note: Mr. Marc Small is a noted expert on Leica, Zeiss...
H and H is Harrison and Harrison Inc. of Bakersfield California]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter sizes

Mark Rabiner wrote:

>Hoya makes glass for Leica and actually uses colored glass and they have
>a high end multi line now. I'd go Hoya over Tiffen if I had the choice.
>But I love B+W and Heliopan filters the best!

Well, be careful. Hoya apparently has a much higher complaint rate than does Tiffen. Nor does Hoya "make glass for Leica": Hoya contracted with Schott to make certain Schott formulations, which Leica buys. If you want, YOU can buy the same lens blanks, and post, "Hoya makes glass for Rabiner".

I picked up an H&H Series adapter for $10 or so, and use H&H Series filters, on the rare occasions when I use filters at all. These are inexpensive and quite nice: they are the standard filters used by Hollywood, Tiffen's hype to the contrary. An H&H adapter and lens hood is going to cost around $25, and the adapters, unlike those horrid Kenko things, are actually quite well made.

Marc
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 F 2000
From: Dave Wyman
Subject: [Rollei] Bay I filter adaptors

Thanks to everyone for suggestions concerning Bay I filter adaptors. Here's the best solution - for me - that I've come up with:

http://www.camerapeople.net/

The Camera People have Bay I to 49 & 52mm adaptors. They cost about $15.

Dave Wyman

[Ed. note: not an endorsement, but of possible interest?]
From: [email protected] (Suvro Datta)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Filters Filters Filters - Great Stuff at Low Prices
Date: 23 Feb 2000

If you are looking for a filter for your lens, you may find it here at http://home.fiberia.com/suvro/filter.htm

There are many filters of different sizes (49mm, 52mm, 55mm, ..) and other accessories like lens hoods and close-up sets. The prices are very low. The filters will be packaged securely and shipped promptly.

Please e-mail [email protected] to order the filters. Thank you for your interest.

http://home.fiberia.com/suvro/filter.htm

--
Suvro Datta

[Ed. note: here is a neat solution to those filter ring deficient older folders and other nifty cameras - using my favorite invention - velcro!]
From: Bertrand Wilt [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Ikonta C
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000

Mark Anderson wrote:

> I just got a Super Ikonta C, (531/2) that'll soon be taking photos
> again, as soon as I replace or repair the bellows.
>
> > a dark red filter hand-held over the lens and the shutter
> > tripped with a cable release.
>
> What filter system or adaptors is usable on it. (3.5/105 in Compur
> Rapid)

I have a "B", and the answer for that camera is "none". However, I took a Cokin ring and velcro'd it over the lens. Now I can mount any of the filters I already have.

From: [email protected] (William Mutch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Ikonta C
Date: 25 Feb 2000

....

Tiffen used to market nice machined aluminium pressfit adapters which worked wonderfully well on a Super Ikonta B (532/16), 27mm to series 6. The size to fit the 3.5/105 in Compur is probably different. Older dealers like Cent. Cam. Chicago, Olden or Brooklyn Cam. may still have one

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000
From: Lisa Horton [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin or Lee Filters

I'm assuming you mean Cokin P filter size? If so, both Tiffen and HiTech make square and/or rectangular filters to fit the Cokin P holder. Lee makes (sells) a bellows type lens shade that will fit Cokin P as well.

HiTech also makes a line of larger square filters to fit their own filter holders. These are much nicer and more rugged than the Cokin holder, but at quite a bit higher price.

Lee's system is similar to HiTech's, but at an even higher price point.

I recently went through a similar decision process and solicited input in the newsgroups. Summarizing, paraphrasing and otherwise mangling what they told me...

Holders and filters are separate issues. The Cokin filter holder, while cheap, is functional. They are cheap enough to carry a spare or even two, mitigating reliability issues. A $150 Lee filter holder is going to be a lot nicer and better than an $8 Cokin holder. But they do both hold filters.

Cokin filters on the other hand seem to be at the bottom of the quality spectrum. Noteworthy are their Grey (ND) grads, which have a distinct color cast rather than being truly neutral.

Tiffen makes square glass filters to fit Cokin and I believe Lee and HiTech. They seem to be decent quality. They also make some filters in a PXL size, which is a longer rectangle that will fit the Cokin P holder. This is very useful for any grads.

HiTech resin filters cost less than Lee, but seem to be held in high regard. They have a good range, and some nice dual colored grads if you like that sort of thing. The whole range is available in their own size or in Cokin P. Their grads are rectangular. There is a bellows hood available for the HiTech holder.

Lee filters are pretty pricey, but held in very high regard it seems. I don't think they make filters for the Cokin holder, only in their own size. A couple of different bellows hoods are available, including models that mount directly to the lens (without the filter holder) and hold one or two filters in the hood.

Another brand of resin filters that is very good is Singh-Ray. They make filters to fit the Cokin P holder, I don't know about other sizes. They make a high quality circular polarizer to fit Cokin P.

I went with the Cokin P holder and the Lee bellows shade. I felt it was enough for my needs, and cheap is nice. For filters I went with the HiTech. I've found them to be very sharp, using them with good lenses.

If you know what filters you're going to need, you might want to check out which brands have them, how much they are, and go from there.

Hope this helps,

Lisa

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: Dave [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens hood mounting

Greg,

I have faced similar problems with many of the older process lenses I use. I have made various shades that just slip over the barrel of the lens. I have used some basic geometry to make sure the shade doesn't create any darkening of the image corners. Compendium shades are one answer (although they seem expensive). However, the compendium style is nice because you can adapt them to any lens you use. You have to be careful with them as well, because they can easily cause dark corners if they aren't adjusted correctly.

In order to solve the filter ring problem, I have used epoxy to bond an adapter ring to the barrel of some of my lenses. If you are careful and use a dark colored epoxy it comes out quite nice. This will allow you to use any threaded filter you would like.

The other advantage to a compendium is that some have filter slots for gel type filters. If you have a lot of lenses then the compendium would probably be the best all around deal. Since all the various lens sizes a person might collect will often require different sized threaded filters the compendium might even be cheaper in the long run......one set of filters and one shade and it is universially adaptable to all your lenses. The initial investment for one shade and several filters will probably be at least $200.00.

Regards,

Dave

Reply:
dpayne at pacifier dot com

[email protected] wrote:

> I have an older 210mm LF lens that I would like to put a lenshade on.
> Unfortunately, it is "filter thread challenged". (it has no filter
> threads)  I have an old Tiffen adapter for my smaller 165mm lens and
> would like to find something similar for the 210mm.  I called Tiffen
> and they no longer make these adapters.  A quick call to a few of my
> favorite mailorder shops also turned up empty.  The OD of this lens is
> 62mm.  Anyone have a good solution short of a bellows to add a
> lenshood to this lens?
>
> Thanks
> Greg

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
From: "Caron, Dan, Cam" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Filters

I heard that if you sent away to Lee Filters and asked for their samples, "cinematographer's edition" they will send you a few hundred samples of filters, I did and they did! anybody know how to adapt into a cokin filter system?

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000
From: Jon Hart [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Bay I filter adaptor

--- "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected] wrote:

> Dave,
>
> You can special order Bay I, II, and III adapters
> made by Heliopan (HP
> Marketing is the distributor) which will allow use
> of 49mm filters

Dave,

Personally, I would take Marc's advice and use Series 6 filters. If you have several medium-format cameras, as I do, you will be able use the filters with most if not all of them using appropriate adaptors. I now own a slew of them and they are all interchangeable on most of my larger antique cameras. They are plentiful and cheap, even the coated versions. Now, instead of a logistical nightmare when taking more than one medium-format camera out in the field, I take one set of filters with one or two doubles in case I need the same filter with two cameras at the same time (not often, but often enough to justify bringing them along). The hardest thing to find for Series 6, in my experience, is the most essential "accessory" of all. Lens hoods. Whatever system you go with, make sure you can fit hoods on it.

Jon

From Rollei Mailing List: (Mr. Shell is editor of Shutterbug...)]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Enhancing filter

Yeah, they ain't cheap. But they are made up in small batches which drives up the price.

A while back I worked with Bob Singh to develop a special enhancing filter which would make skin tones rosy and bright while having little effect on other colors. We had planned to marked it as the Glamour Enhancing Filter. Bob did some glass melts and made some prototypes, and they worked great. But then we did our math and realized that we would have to sell them for a couple hundred dollars each to make any profit. So that was the end of that.

Bob

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000
From: Frank Bailey [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Inexpensive color filters?

Does this look like it?

http://www.arborsci.com/Product_Pages/Light&Color/light&color_products.asp

130 filters, and $12, but it sounds awfully close. I've ordered one to try out.

Frank Bailey
Dallas Texas

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999
From: "Tony & Kerry" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Rectangular Glass/Resin Filter question

Glen

Scott is quite right. Cokin make a grey coloured graduated filter which affects the actual colour of the final picture. A real Graduated Neutral Density filter doesn't affect the colour, but rather the exposure value for the affected area.

Both may look grey but Cokin simply colour the resin grey, where as Lee, Singh-Ray, Schneider, etc.. treat the resin or glass so that only the exposure is affected and not the colour of your output.

Regards,

Tony

From Rollei Mailing List
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999
From: roland [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei: Re: Filter Adapters

David Bellmoff stocks and sells filters and adapters for Rollei Bay 1, 2 & 3. He is reached at:

        Damar Photo Supplies
        105 Bordeaux Lane
        Sacannah, GA 31419

        912 925-9808

I have no email address for him. Since, I am referring to a listing that is 18 months old, I may not be aware if he now has one.

Roland Smith
Oakland, CA

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000
From: Ronald Turner [email protected]
Subject: Re: SV: 40mm CF and polarizer

Hi,

I have and use the Lee holder, They make an excellent screw in adapter ring (in aluminium) to fit the 40mm CF. They also make a special filter holder which clamps to the 350mm f4 TCC or F lens, (this is quite a monster of a lens). Lee will also make adapter rings for special sizes to special order.

I use a number of filter holder configurations, one for most jobs and used with the 60mm, 80mm, 120mm, 180mm & 250mm lenses, another for the 350mm which clamps right on to the lens without an adapter ring, and the one I use for the 40mm CF, this has fewer slots to avoid vignetting. I use filters of different makes and thicknesses, my monochrome contrast filters, neutral density, colour light balancing and colour correction filters are all HiTek. For soft focus or difusion, filters by Tiffen, Harrison & Harrison plus a multitude of other grads etc. I also make 4inch panels to which I fit some screw-in or bayonet filters that are not available in 4inch square. The Lee Self supporting hood which fits to the front of the filter holder is also excellent.

The great thing about the Lee holder is that you can configure the slots to suit your way of working, the thickness of filters you use, how many need to be used together and the lens you intend fitting it to. i.e. with wide angle lenses you are restricted to fewer slots.

The same filter holders are also used with my Contax RTSIII's, the one I use for the 40CF gets used for the 18mm and 25mm on the Contax's. I have standardised on 4 inch filters as they fit every lens I own - regardless of format.

The B+W (Schneider) True-Pol Polarising filter in the 4 inch square is superb and works very well with the 40CF. This pola is widely used and well thought of by the motion picture industry.

Ron Turner
from Welsh Wales, which is rather wet and windy at the moment!
----------

>From: Colin Monteith [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: SV: 40mm CF and polarizer
>Date: Wed, Feb 2, 2000, 1:26 am
>

> I have heard that Lee filters will make a special 93 mm Hassy adapter  for
> their filter system. I have a Lee filter holder which I use and it does not
> cause any problems on the widest lenses. The beauty of this systems (like
> the Cokin) is that you can use it on multiple formats. At one time I had
> from a 4X5 with 47mm lens, Rollei MF and Nikon all with the same Lee filter system,
>
> www.leefilters.com
>
> ULF SJ�GREN wrote:
>
>> Hi Ross
>> I can't answar the entire set of questions but I can tell you that the
> Coquin system is of little help for you. I have it and like it and use it
> but not for any focal length less than 50 mm. It is not usable for my SWC
> due to vignetting and the diff. 38 - 40 mm I don't think will help you get
> rid of that problem. Still I am able to use the other Coqin filters with
> that special camera if I hold them in place with my hand....... Maybe it
> doesn't look so "professional" as having everything attached to the camera,
> on the other hand that can't be seen on the final picture (if you are
> careful.....;)  ). And in my opinion that is what counts. For the 50 mm
> lens I have a 63mm (I think it is) Hoya -yes it is an older lens- and that
> works good.
>> Of course there is a solotution for this and it can't possiply be the pro
> lens shade that is a really good thing per se but using it with a 40 mm
> lens is ....... nearly ......... no idea (to express it as p�litely as possible).
>> Ulf Sj�gren
>> Sweden
>> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>> Fr�n: Ross Warner - Information Products [email protected]
>> Datum: den 1 februari 2000 11:44
>> �mne: 40mm CF and polarizer
>> >I just bought a Zeiss 40mm CF lens, new in the box, at a pretty good
>> >discount vs. a 40mm CFE. I will be using it with a 503CW camera and mostly color
>> >film.
>> >
>> >I bought this lens for landscape use, and I often use a polarizer for this
>> >application with my 35mm gear. However, the design of the 40mm lens seems
>> >to make using a polarizer difficult. Filters are unthreaded and drop in,
>> >and are held in place by the screw-in lens hood. The dealer told me  that the
>> >only way to use a polarizer with this lens is to get the pro lens hood, which
>> >costs about $500 over the price of the (already expensive) 93mm polarizer.
>> >I wouldn't expect to use the pro lens shade with my other lens (an 80mm).
>> >
>> >Has anyone out there found a way to use a polarizer with the 40mm, without the
>> >pro lens shade? Is the Cokin system an option?
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >-Ross

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999
From: "Robert G. Welch" [email protected]
Subject: soft focus techniques

Quigg,

As to your question "What are the best ways to achieve a moderately soft focus when shooting with a hasselblad" the answer is found in your other question, "What are softars?" Softars are generally regarded as the best - and most expensive - soft focus filters available, and since Hasselblad doesn't make an actual 'soft focus' lens (such as the ones made for Mamiya and Pentax cameras), filters are your main best option to get that effect.

I've found that the Tiffen soft/FX filters are reasonable lower cost alternatives (I use both the Tiffen and Softars), the other alternatives are home made ones like the vasoline techinque you mentioned. Two more (and less messy) techniques which seem to be popular are using stocking material and stretching it over your lens, or using clear nail polish and putting drops or smearing it on a filter (NOT on the lens itself, of course!!!), preferabley a cheap UV filter because once you put the nail polish on there you've commited the filter to only being used that way. I can't say much about the stocking idea, except that it seems to be rather popular, if a little clumsy. I've tried the nail polish techinque with some success and recommend it because it is cheap and easy, though results vary wildly. My advice is to just put a few small drops randomly around the filter - but covering the filter some what evenly - let them dry and then shoot some slides to see how it works. If you want more effect then just add more random drops so that you build up the over all area covered by the polish. If you just smear it around then the effect will be very strong and likely to be unusable in most cases. The other nice thing with this techinque is you can just apply the drops to the outside edges of the filter and leave the center clean, giving a blurred vignetter effect if you will, so that the edge of the picture is soft but the center is sharper. I've done this for ring shots at weddings, and it's fun! My advice is to get a Bay 60 to 67mm filter adapter from B&H (or Bay 50 if you have older lenses) for this since the 67mm filters are cheaper (I like to buy used ones for this, usually about $10 each without too many scratches) and you can make a bunch of different ones until you get the effect you want, since it will take a few tries to really get what you want, all for probably less than even one Tiffen Soft/FX in a Hasselbald mount.

Good luck,
Robert

Date: 27 Mar 2000
From: [email protected] (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Graduated ND Filters

in a similar note: has anyone compared the different brands? I know the Cokin is not grey and have heard the SR is supposed to be neutral (but I'm skeptical of anything endorsed by Rowell). What about the Tiffen or Hitech grads for the Cokin P?

I have the HiTech 2-stop ND soft edge and love it! It sure seems to be neutral to me, and I shoot it against snow sometimes. No way I would spend the money on a plastic filter just because it said "Galen Rowell" on it. The HiTech is so relatively inexpensive, you could try it first and see what you think.

Kent in SD

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei filter on tessars

I don't use color filtration except on VERY rare occasions when I want a surrealistic effect. If I want warm, I use a warm film. If I want neutral, I use a neutral film.

If I am using Zeiss and Schneider lenses I do not want to degrade their sharpness with any filters.

Bob

Date: 23 Oct 1999
From: [email protected] (KevinONeil)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Grad Filter Q's

Here are several sites that extensively discuss the proper use of split ND filters and answer a lot of the questions being asked:

http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil/nd.html

http://www.singh-ray.com/srgnd3.html

http://www.singh-ray.com/srgnd2.html

Hope these help.

[email protected]
Nature Images and Articles on Techniques at:
http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil

Date: 24 Oct 1999
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Grad Filter Q's

>f that's the case, then the lens need to be stepped down to the desired
>aperture before positioning the GND. Is that how others use this filter? Kind
>of
>difficult in dim light.

George Lepp has one method of metering with a Neutral Density Graduated filter that I use too.

He takes the meter reading from the foreground, without the filter, excluding the bright sky. Let's say that calls for f/16 at 1/125 sec.

He sets that in the Manual mode of the camera.

Then, he adds the filter and recomposes, shooting the scene at f/16 at 1/125 sec.

The land is well exposed and the sky is not excessively bright as the darker half of the filter covers that.

Peter Burian

Date: 23 Oct 1999
From: [email protected] (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Grad Filter Q's

When it comes to something as unimportant as my pictures, a $60 savings for "almost good enough" seems to be a false savings. Have one photo enlarged at a good lab, and you'll have already spent that.

I have had enlargements made from both slides (type R,) and print film, and from 35mm and 645. The HiTech aren't "almost good enough," they are indeed good. They seem to be made of the exact same material as the Sing Ray. I'm not paying extra because of the brand name.

Kent in SD

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000
From: Guido Cova [email protected]
Subject: R: [Rollei] Sun W/A?, Tele Adapters for RFlex

Da: Dave Huffman wrote:

>Are the Yashika Bayonet I or II?... compatible w/Rolleiflex or RCord?
>Huff

Bayonet I (someone in the seventies also called it bayonet B30).

But, due to the different tolerances used, not every accessory made for bayonet I fits on bayonet I cameras, and vice-versa.

I have a Yashica orange filter that I cannot use on my Automat B or on my 'Cords, and a Rollei light green that doesn't fit on my 124G. But a Walz lens shade works well on every Bay I camera I have, albeit fitting a little loose...

Ciao
Guido Cova

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (John J. Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentex 6X7 lens

"BBK" [email protected] wrote:

> What is the difference between old 55mm F3.5 and the new 55mm F4
>
> Any difference in contast, resolution, filter size
> please comment

I can only comment upon the old 55mm F3.5 because that is what I use. The lens is very sharp. In fact, it is awesome. For example, when shooting architectural work I can pick out more detail in the negative than I can possibly see when I make the picture. (details in mortar between bricks of a shot at near-infinity, for example) In fact, I can capture more detail than I can print on 8x10. Good contrast, too.

Downside? Filters. Without a doubt, this is the biggest drawback. The Pentax filters made for that lens were a one-of-a-kind, 100mm bayonet mount, so they have become rare and expensive. Typically, they go for $100 or more each, used in good condition.

Skip the rest of this message, if you require color-correction filtering. For that you may have to go to a professional matte box or simply get the later 55mm lens.

For B&W, I have managed to find _great_ alternative filters which work just as well, if not better. And rather than $100 each, these filters are only $5 each and _better_. (imho)

Let me elaborate. First you need the standard lens shade Pentax made for the 55mm F3.5

Then go to www.surplusshed.com

Look under filters, or cameras and instruments, for their glass filters. You want the 4.25" filters. They typically go for $5 each, and at one time you could buy a three-part set for $15 with wooden box. These are super high quality photographic filters intended for military aerial applications. Never used. You paid hundreds of $ for these via taxes. Get those buck back. Buy surplus. :)

You take the lens hood made for the 55 f3.5 lens (no other works properly), and simply push the filters down inside the hood, from the front of the shade into the detent just in front of the lens. They literally 'snap' into place, as if the hood was made just for these filters. (To be perfectly paranoid about retention, you can drill a tiny hole in the side of the shade and put a pin in there to hold them in.)

That said, I don't know if surplus shed still has these kits because I bought mine some time ago and have mentioned this tip on usenet before. They might have had a run on them. Regardless of whether you find them in their online catalog, ASK: write to them via their web email address. The chap who takes care of the orders is just terrific. He knows the stock and has found things for me they don't advertise (like hard to find military shutters.)

Best of luck, and let us know what you find.

(and my usual nagging - FOCUS those wide angle lenses even at what may appear to be infinity! It's a 55mm lens regardless of film format and an object at 200' may have to be focused to be perfectly sharp.)

From Bronica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
From: Ken Lee [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] What to use as lenshoods

I almost purchased the Lee filter holder and bellows hood.

However, the sales person at my local shop suggested that I go with a Cokin P filter holder and add a bellows hood (made by Lee) that attaches to the Cokin holder. This combination along with 2 adaptor rings for my lenses came to about $125Cdn. It works much better than the Bronica Pro lens hood and folds to a more compact size. I even use it with my Canon gear.

roland tcheng wrote:

[munch]
>
>         Now another basic question. I didn't encounter nor did I expect flare
> because it was overcast and the 75mm nikkor has a deeply set front
> element.  But I am starting to get other focal lengths. What do old
> (cameras, not the photogs) Bronica shooters use for lens shades/hoods.
> The original lens specific hoods seem to be very rare...
>
>         Also,  one of the reasons I got a Bronica S2A was because I was
> interested in the ability to "lens hack" with these bodies.  But finding
> a BODY CAP with which to start converting  lenses also seems like a
> mighty rare find.  Any sources out there?
>
> Roland the Bronica S2A Newbie

--
Ken Lee
mailto:[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleisoft Questions

Because of the type of work I do I've made a study of soft focus and diffusion filters over the years. I must have 40 or more different ones in my collection. I never liked the concentric ring style very much. The Softars are good. So are the Glamour Soft line from Sailwind. Black mesh stretched over an embroidery hoop also gives a nice effect. Tiffen makes some nice ones which couple softening with warming. Whenever I get a new type I shoot a set of photos at all of the usual apertures to see how much they vary with aperture. ALL do vary with aperture, but to varying degrees and in different ways.

These days I don't use them much. I prefer today to shoot sharp and do any softening in Photoshop.

Bob

....

From: "Patrick Bartek" [email protected]
Organization: NoLife Polymath Group
Date: 7 Aug 99
Subject: Re: Shooting transparencies under flourescent lighting

Regarding Shooting transparencies under flourescent lighting, xx wrote:

> I know the best way to shoot transparency film under flourescent lighting is
> to use a good color meter.  I don't have one and want to have something in my
> bag to get me in the ballpark.  I've heard that a .30M is a good way to go.
> What about the Hoya FL-W or FL-D?  Has anyone experience shooting specific
> films with filters under typical retail store flourescent lighting?
>
> And flourescent lighting flickers at 60HZ.  Do you shoot 1/60 or faster or
> 1/60 or slower?

Most flourescent lighting is of the cool-white type, and most times a 30M filter does the best job, but be careful of reciprocity failure. If your exposures with most daylight transparency films is longer than 1/2 sec, you'll start to get color shifts and loss of film speed. The exception to this is Fuji Astia 100, which can be exposed up to 30 seconds without reciprocity failure, and 60 seconds with only slight, but correctable, failure.

If you need to make longer exposures, use something like Fuji 64T, which is a tungsten balanced film and is designed for long exposures. Just remember to add an 85B filter to your 30M, since cool-white flourescents are most daylight balanced.

Don't forget to correct the exposure due to filter light loss: 2/3 stop each.

--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (Helge Nareid)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Solar eclipse and ND filter factors

Per Gunnar Jensen [email protected] wrote:

>ND filters are often labeled ND2, ND4, ND8, etc. The numbers refer to
>the filter factors, which are often confused with aperture or shutter
>stops. Filter factors and exposure stops are NOT the same!

There is also another type of labelling which may cause some confusion, namely the logarithmic scale, used for e.g. Kodak Wratten series 96 filters. For those filters, the attenuation is given by the (base 10) logarithm of the filter factor.

For those filters

ND 0.3 equals 2x - 1 stop
ND 0.6 equals 4x - 2 stops
ND 1.0 equals 10x - 3 1/3 stops
ND 2.0 equals 100x - 6 2/3 stops

The advantage of this type of designation is that the filter factors are additive - two 0.3 filters adds up to a 0.6 filter, a 1.0 and 2.0 filter adds up to 3.0 density.

So a ND 2.0 filter may have an attenuation of 100X - and, yes, I do have one of those filters.

-- - Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35S - Folding Lens Hood

> From Colin Haywood : .... a folding rubber lens hood attached to a
>  screw-in metal ring ....

Here is my a suggestion. In the old times, most filters and rubber lens hoods were attached by a clip-type system instead of the threaded mount. In those good old days, lenses had a small diameter and many had a diameter close to R 35. (either T or S). So you could easily find those rubber hoods in a flea market or so. On a Rollei 35S, the thread is 30.5 mm, a standard still in use for filters attached at the back of fish-eye or ultra wide-angle lenses. Also the Pentax auto 110 had the same 30.5 mm thread in front.

So I would suggest to separate the problem of attachment from the problem of the hood, i.e. trying to find a clip-type rubber lens hood in a flea market and clip it on your R35 UV filter. A refinement would be to find a spare UV filter in 30.5 mm and permanently glue on it a clip-on rubber hood. For this I would suggest to try first a reversible glue not too strong that could be dissolved in aceton. Of course an expoxy glue will be more reliable but not reversible.

You may by lucky enough to find an original Rollei 35 rubber hood, may be from somebody on this list.

Hope this helps,

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: UV Filters

Mark Palmer at SF x4221 wrote:

> Just my 2 cents worth.
>
> Who really cares? I think the consensus is that either doesn't degrade
> sharpness noticeably (i.e. two 16x20s look the same) or doesn't degrade it
> at all.
>
> Anyway I thought the Hasselblad UV filter is marked as a 1A UV-Sky. Not just
> a plain UV. It does seem to have a slight effect on colour when you look
> through it. Though I have never bothered to test it outside.

A skylight 1A filter is notorious for it's detrimental effect on skin tones in black and white. That's why the switch was made to UV and people were careful to get them.

I don't there is a consensus possibly a majority of people who think that the effect of the UV filters being negligible. The fact was there were Naysayers such as myself and the whole topic interested some people to question and discuss it. Were opinions changed? Possibly not.

Mark Rabiner

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: coating on 'blad pol filters

I got this from a techie friend at Hasselblad USA:

Hasselblad polarizers are not multi coated. Reason being:

Polarizers can both have and not have coating. The choice is a cost issue. A polarizer is a sandwich design with the polarizing film cemented between two glass plates. To make the sandwich flat enough and with parallel surfaces it is common to grind and polish the sandwich after cementing. Additionally you have to seal the edges to prevent humidity penetrating into the sandwich and ruining the filter.

A complete filter is then difficult to coat as it contains of different materials with different expansion properties and different possibilities to cope with heat. Normally coating is made by heating the glass substrate and evaporate a number of different layers onto the glass surface. This technique is not possible with polarizing filters. Instead you have to use a so called ion-bombardment deposition of the coating layers. This is done without heating the substrate but the associated cost for this type of equipment is huge. Also the yield when coating is lower meaning an overall substantial finished filter cost increase.

Sorry for the detailed answer but I hope you understand why our polarizing filters are not multi coated. As you also know flare is normally not related to surface reflections but to reflections in internal lens mechanics. Anyhow you always should use a polarizer together with a lens shade if shooting in difficult light conditions.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: filters, and lens/filter cleaning query

Andy,

I've heard this, too, that something in normal household air, like dust or some other air pollution, get on the lenses. Might be a myth, but it works for me. I've been buying UV filters fromn the salesman for a number of years, and have been pretty happy with the arrangement. Aout the only problem with cleanliness I've had was an oily fingerprint on the rear element of a Canon FD 35f2 causing significant loss of sharpness in the result.

Peter

"Andy Peters" [email protected]

Argument in favor of filters: go hiking in the desert when it's windy. (Yes, I know, dirt in the camera itself is a problem, too.)

What's good to clean filters and lenses with, anyway? I normally leave all of my cameras and lenses on a couple of shelves in a closet, but I left a camera w/lens attached in the bag recently. (No silica gel in the bag, either.) When I pulled it out, the filter was covered with a thin film of some kinda weird oily stuff that did not come off with a lens-cleaning cloth by itself. Even the stuff our optics shop uses to clean lenses and mirrors wouldn't clean it, and I ended up just pitching the filter.

-a

From: "David Hargreaves" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: solar filter suppliers
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999

ABELexpress - Astronomy Division, 100 Rosslyn Rd., Carnegie, PA 15106. (412) 279-0672

Celestron International, 2835 Columbia St., Torrance, CA 90503. (310) 328-9560

Hands on Optics, PO Box 10025 Rockville, MD. 20898 (301) 482-0000

Edwin Hirsch, 29 Lakeview Dr., Tomkins Cove, NY 10986. (914) 786-3738

Meade Instruments Corporation, 16542 Millikan Ave., Irvine, CA 92714. (714) 756-2291

Pocono Mountain Optics, R.R. 6, Box 6329, Moscow, PA 18444. (717) 842-1500

Rainbow Symphony, Inc., 6860 Canby Ave. #120, Reseda, CA 91335 (818) 708-8400

Roger W. Tuthill, Inc., 11 Tanglewood Lane, Mountainside, NJ 07092. (908) 232-1786

Telescope and Binocular Center, P.O. Box 1815, Santa Cruz, CA 95061-1815. (408) 763-7030

Thousand Oaks Optical, Box 5044-289, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359. (805) 491-3642

Khan Scope Centre, 3243 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6A 2T2. (416) 783-4140

Perceptor Telescopes TransCanada, Schomberg, Ontario, Canada L0G 1T0. (905) 939-2313

Eclipse 99 Ltd., Belle Etoile, Rue du Hamel, Guernsey GY5 7QJ. 001 44 1481 64847

American Paper Optics, Inc. 3080 Bartlett Corporate Drive, Bartlett, TN 38133. (800) 767-8427

From: Phil Stripling [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: welding lens Date: 01 Apr 2003 > I am still going through these boxes of dads , In his camera bag I found 2 > colored welding lens one is shade 12 the other is shade 8 so what the heck > would he had used these for , maybe nothing they just happened to be in > there since he did not weld I just could not think of why he would use > them in photography As Jeff suggested, one likely use would be photographing the sun, especially during eclipses; however, I recommend _not_ trying this yourself. Please see http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/safety.html for information on eye safety during eclipses. Welder's glass is not recommended for use with optical devices because of the focusing effect of lenses. Retinas are burned by infrared wavelengths, which are outside the visible spectrum -- so even if the sun is darkened in a filter and not apparently bright, if the filter passes infrared wavelengths your eyes may be permanently damaged. The URL points to a page by Fred Espenak, which has references to other pages on viewing and photographing the sun. Louise and I saw a total solar eclipse in Guadeloupe in 1998. If you ever have the chance, I recommend it highly. Another use is infrared photography. So check his photographs and see if he had infrared photos or photos of the sun. (Did he have a telescope or very long lens?) -- Philip Stripling

[Ed. note: the 81b or 812 is one of my favorite filters for colder (bluer) ektachrome films (ASA 200) and portraits (can't be tooo warm! ;-)]
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: "Alan Young" [email protected]
[1] Re: Warming Filters
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000

Dear Dale,

The effect of the 81a is very sutle. You maynot be able to see the effect. Generally, the 81b is used if you you are taking pictures in open shade/overcast/higher altitudes. 81c seems to be less used...typically for overcast conditions--little too much for my tastes.

I use either a 81a, 81b, or tiffen 812 (warming plus pink) as a protective filter at all times. You can carry an extra 81b just in case you need the extra warming (too much blue light...eg 8000feet and above) I also like the warming polarizers. I have a very expensive one from singhray but I use it constantly. Polarizers to me atleast, seem to cool the image.

Alan

"Dale Goninon" [email protected] wrote

> Most of my work is landscape using Kodak E100VS. I have seen some
> photographs that use these filters and compared them against corresponding
> images that did not use these filters. I then had a look at some of my own
> images and find them to be similar to those without the filters.
>
> I like the look of those shots that use the filters but I can not be sure of
> the (subtle) differences as shown in the printed magazine images. Having
> said that, I therefore can not be sure of the differences between the 81A
> and the 81B and when to use them.

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Re: Warming Filters (81A/81b)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000

>I also like the warming polarizers. I have a very expensive one from
>singhray but I use it constantly. Polarizers to me atleast, seem to cool the
>image.

Yes, they do making the warm tone polarizer great.

---------------------------

I too have discovered the Tiffen 812 (warm and also a slight pink tone) and it's now my favorite.

Peter Burian
PHOTO LIFE magazine
Toronto

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: Ron Addison [email protected]
[1] Re: Warming Filters (81A/81B)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000

Will you be shooting a high altitude. I found that I needed an 81A or B when shooting at 7,000 to 12,000 feet last summer. EV100 tended toward blue especially in shade or overcast. The only real test is to test here first. I know prof. photographers who always use a certain filter. I have met a few who never take off a polarizer. Seems like to old old saying that if you have only a hammer every thing looks like a nail. I did not need a filter in the sun in Denver.

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
From: "Edwin Leong" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] re:Nikon lens or other brands

Keep in mind that B+W has two lines of filters, one in aluminum fittings and one in brass fittings with the aluminum being a bit cheaper so that may account for some the price discrepancy between local stores and B&H since as far as I know B&H advertises the brass fitted filters only. A few of the local stores stock only the aluminum fitted filters to keep the prices down. The glass however should be the same high quality type used in the brass fitted ones. Leo's and Lens and Shutter are also good bets for the higher quality and more expensive brass filters.

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Grad Neutral density filter on photoshop

Hi Oon,

I asked our Digital Guru, David Brooks, and here is his reply.

Bob

- ----------

>From: Oon Chin Hin [email protected]
>To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
>Subject: [CONTAX] Grad Neutral density filter on photoshop
>Date: Wed, Apr 19, 2000, 6:43 AM
>

> Hi all,
> I am just starting to fiddle with Photoshop. Now I am wondering is there a
> function that is more or less equivalent to a graduated Neutral density
> filter as we know it on cameras?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oon

Bob,

The function of darkening one part of an image that is accomplished with a Neutral Density filter over a camera lens can be replicated in PhotoShop editing of a photograph by a number of methods. The most direct is to first create a mask layer of the image and then use the Graduated Fill tool from the ToolBox to apply a graduated mask density through which the image can be lightened or darkened using the Image/Adjust/ Levels dialogue by sliding the center arrow (midtone location) left or right.

Actually this most direct parallel to the graduated neutral density function is not the most efficient or effective method of achieving a desired selective lightening or darkening of an image. Using masks is time consuming and something I'd employ only if there is a reason to do complex editing to the mask.

For instance, if you want to simply darken a sky, the Selection menu tool Color Range allows you to select just the blue of the sky. Once it is selected then you can use Levels or Brightness/Contrast dialogues to alter how light or dark it is.

If the area you want to lighten or darken contains more than one basic color, I find using the Lasso selection tool is most efficient to create a selection area within which to use one of the Adjustment dialogues to lighten or darken. This has the advantage of the option of adding a soft edge to the selection to graduate the outer edge of the lightening darkening affect. It also has the added capacity of deselecting an object within the selection area like a cloud in the sky, and to draw the selection around an irregular skyline for instance. If a soft edged (feathered) Lasso selection is used and the selection will be to the edge of the image, which you don't want to feather, it is advisable first to increase the Canvas Size of the image. Just click on Image/Canvas Size, and add say 300 pixels to each side and the top and/or bottom of the image. Then when the edges of the picture need to be included without feathering you can take the selection out to the edge of the canvas.

Without screenshots for illustration this is a little hard to describe, but

I hope it helps.

Regards, David

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000
From: Randy Holst [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Optical Glass

Bob Shell wrote:

> When we tested filters some time ago for a PhotoPro article we found
> Hoya as good as anything else, and some pricey filters not as good.
>
> Bob

Thanks for the confirmation, Bob. Been using them for years and recommeding them to others. Never found anything wrong with them.

Randy Holst
Boise, Idaho

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Optical Glass

What we discovered in our tests for flatness and parallel faces was that price had little relation to quality, with some cheap filters equalling or bettering some expensive ones. Hoya makes filters under their name and also makes the filters for Japanese camera makers like Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Contax, etc.

Bob

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: John Adler [email protected]
[1] Re: Tiffen 812 and CC10M?
Date: Fri Apr 28 2000

No, a Tiffen 812 is very close to a combination of 2 filters: an 81 color temperature filter and a CC025 Magenta.(That's why it's called an 812.)

Or, if you wanted to use all CC filters, it would be a CC04 Magenta combined with a CC03 Yellow. Since these values aren't made, it's easier to use the 81 + 025 Magenta.

John Adler

LEE Filters USA

Upper East Side wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Is a Tiffen 812 approximately the same color and strength as a CC10M?
>
> Thanks.

From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Cokin Filters and vigneting

Rafael Alday wrote:

>Thank you Jim, but .....Calumet or Lindahl filter holder compatble with
>Cokin filters?. I used the P series of Cokin (8x8 cm) not only for hassy but
>35mm camera too. Theses filters are cheap and the quality is not bad but I
>don't know if I am loosing sharpness.

I personally do not use Cokin filters because they are a mass marketed plastic filter aimed at amateur photographers. I refuse to degrade my $1500-$5000 Zeiss lens by making it look through this kind of filter.

The HiTech, Calumet, Lindahl, Sinar, B+W, Heliopan, and Tiffen, resin and glass filters, are at least marketed specifically to professional photographers and are held to a professional standard. I cannot define this standard except to say that these are the filters that the majority of professional photographers use. B+W, Heliopan, and HiTech are my personal filters of choice. I do have a few Tiffen "effect" glass filters which seem to perform at a professional level.

Any filter will degrade the image. So you should only have a filter on your lens when it is going to "improve" some aspect of your photograph. Color grad, polarizer, color balance, soft focus, etc. A UV filter, for instance, has no possibility of improving anything and a very good probability of degrading some part of the image.

Jim

[Ed. note: Mr. Brick is a noted expert on cameras and lens technology, AF design etc.]
From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Filters

Rafael Alday wrote:

>Furthermore Jim:
>There is controversy about the usefulness of the UV filter. Some people
>agree with you but other think that Uv filter not only reduce the UV rays
>but also protect the lens (especially hasselblad lens that are expensives).
>What do you think about this?

The first part of the question is answered by Zeiss (and all other major lens manufacturers) as they have all of the UV inhibitors built into both the lens glass itself and the cement between the elements.

The second part of the question is totally up to you. If you cannot sleep at night worrying about what might happen to your front lens element, put something over it. I suggest a lens cap. That is what I use. When taking photographs, I use no filter unless the filter will enhance the photograph in some way.

You cannot protect your camera by having a filter on the lens. Dropping or otherwise banging a camera will damage the camera, not specifically the very front of the lens.

If you have a filter in front of your lens and bash the front of the filter, what do you suppose will happen. This I have seen. The filter breaks and the shards of glass are gashed into the front of the lens, ripping big gouges in the lens coating.

I live in the same area that Ansel Adams lived. I have spent time with him, while photographing along the California coast. He was a very nice person and used lots of filters. But never a UV filter. Not on his view camera lenses, not on his Hasselblad lenses, not on his Conterex lenses, and not on his Leica lenses. He used filters ONLY to enhance a photograph. Quite often a deep red to darken the sky against the white clouds.

Why don't Large Format photographers use "protection" filters? A large view camera on a tripod is far more unstable than a Hasselblad. They don't use them because they know better. And they have not been sold a "bill of goods" by the camera stores. Camera stores make a maximum of 5% profit on camera and lenses. They make up to 100% profit on filters.

I have taught several Leica workshops for a professional camera store in San Francisco. I was told specifically: "DO NOT TELL THE PARTICIPANTS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BUY UV PROTECTION FILTERS." I said "why." And they answered "because they are a high profit item that adds to the total profit when we sell a lens."

This whole UV protection filter game is a gimmick.

Modern lens coatings are extremely hard. You can clean your lens every day with a microfiber cloth and never damage the coating. Some lenses before 1960 (specifically some Leica lenses) had soft coatings. This is why you will sometimes see a Leica lens advertised saying "cleaning marks." These are old lenses. You cannot damage a modern lens, unless you specifically try to damage it. Like putting a filter over it and then smashing the filter.

If you are lackadaisical when driving your car, you can expect to be involved in fender benders. If you are lackadaisical when handling your equipment, you can expect to damage something. Usually the finder, film back, side of the lens (f/stop ring, shutter ring, focus ring), but it would take a certain talent to zero in on just the front element. In fifty years, I have yet to see this happen. I've seen many dented cameras and lenses that won't focus. But no smashed front lens elements.

Someone told me that they knew of someone that bashed the front element of their lens, so this is why they have a "protection" filter on their lens. I told them that I know two people that dropped their camera in a lake, and one in the ocean. I also know a person that dropped their camera out of an airplane during some aerial photography. Does this mean that I should put a flotation jacket on my camera when near water, or a parachute on my camera when doing aerial photography? No. There isn't anything that someone, somewhere hasn't done. Does this mean that you are going to do it? Most likely not.

Use a lens cap when not photographing. Take the lens cap off to take photographs. Use filters to enhance your photographic result when possible.

When no enhancement is possible, use no filter.

I use filters a lot! But I am very careful of where, when, and why.

But above all, be true to yourself. If you really feel that having a UV filter over your lens gives you the piece of mind to not worry about your lens, then by all means, use the filter. Just be aware that there are numerous photographic situations that filter cause a marked degradation of image quality. You should be knowledgeable of these situations because any filter, not just a UV filter, will degrade your image.

Jim

PS... Dan, you knew this was coming since the question was asked... :-) Anyone can rebut this as they please. I will not comment further as my position, history, and knowledge, is clearly stated above.

[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted expert on lenses (Zeiss, Leica..) and related photographic technical issues...]
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Filters

Jim Brick wrote:

>When taking
>photographs, I use no filter unless the filter will enhance the photograph
>in some way.

I agree completely with Jim's comments. I keep a lens cap and UVa filter on my lenses WHEN THEY ARE IN THE CAMERA BAG. Once out of them, I take the filter off. Sometimes, in my more sober moments, I then take off the lens cap, as well.

But, comedy aside, Jim is absolutely right. Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Minolta,Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji all say the identical thing: no 'protection' filters.

Years back, I worked a camera show with that noted, wise, and experienced authority, Charlie Barringer, co-author of THE ZEISS COMPENDIUM. Charlie was selling a rather rare prewar Zeiss lens. Right before the doors opened, he picked up the lens and began scrubbing away at the front element with an old diaper (none of Ted Grant's underpants for HIM! Charlie is much too toney for THAT!). I was horrified, and reminded him the lens was worth thousands of dollars. He shrugged and advised me that optical glass is HARD.

Do you folks put filters over your windows?

Marc

[email protected]

FRom Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000
From: Jean-Claude Berger [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleipol Bay II with a problem

The French magazine Chasseur d'Images did a similar test and came to the same conclusion. The worse filters were the Nikon and Leica ones that presented a warm dominant. In terms of sharpness or contrast, all filters were excellent and none produced a significant degradation of MTF tests. One could only see some slight variations in color saturation.

All the best,

--
Jean-Claude Berger ([email protected])
http://www.jcberger.com

> I reckon an old (Dutch) test report on comparing
> pol-filters and they came to the conclusion that price makes no
> fifference at all.
>
> Wim van Heugten

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000
From: Joseph Chiang [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Cokin P

Christophe, About 4-5 years ago, I was in a similar situation regarding filters. I had tried the Cokin P system and what I didn't like about it was the fact that the filter holder popped off of the lens quite easily; it wasn't very secure. The Cokin P system will also vignette with 20mm and wider.

I eventually switched to the Lee Filter Holder system, which holds filters up to 4" in width and obviously any length. This width and use of the wide angle lens adapters (for 77mm wide lenses), allows you to go to 20mm without vignetting, perhaps even 17mm, but I don't have personal experience as to anything wider than 20. I know it won't vignette at 20. The Lee filter holder is also more secure on the lens. I also settled on the Singh-Ray filters in the 4" x 6" size. Quite expensive but worth it. If you go with the new Cokin X-Pro system, you'll be carrying huge filters and correspondingly larger filter holder. Not worth it in my opinion. Not unless you're also going to be working with medium format big glass that requires such large filters. Although there have been many a circumstances where I'd like to have been able to use an ND split field grad on my 300 f2.8.:-)

As far as the filters themselves go; the Singh-Ray filters are optical resin, like that CR-39 stuff they use in shatter proof eyeglasses. Cokin advertises optical resin, so I imagine it's probably the same thing. Tiffen makes glass ND filters that are cheaper than the Singh-Ray's, but they use a plastic film sandwiched between glass, so the optical quality may be worse because of the several layers with their corresponding interfaces. I don't have enough data on that. Anyhow, the Singh-Ray's seem to work fine, I use them all the time with my Lee Filter holder.

Joe

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Long lens and filter question

Filters and telephoto lenses are not a marriage made in heaven. As you know, a filter on any lens will slightly degrade the image. Just more so with a telephoto. The APO 180/3.4 R lens will simply not work with many filter brands. I have read this numerous places and know it from "personal" experience. It is my understanding that filters on a telephoto MUST be absolutely aligned with respect to the optical axis and that the glass surfaces must be precisely flat and parallel. This means expensive filter, such as B+W or Heliopan. This is possibly why, other than the size factor, many telephotos have filter slots within the lens.

Even in the expensive brand filters, there are samples that do not meet the criteria for use on some telephotos.

IMHO,

Jim

John Collier wrote:

>I have little personal experience with this but have read of it several
>times. Dick Gilcreast mentioned this effect in his excellent LHSA Viewfinder
>article on the 135/4.5 Hektor.
>
>> From: Peter Niessen [email protected]
>>
>> today I noticed that, when using the series VIII yellow filter on my  4.8/280
>> Telyt, the infinity position had changed from infinity to a little
>> above the 100m on the distance scale. The filter itself is approx 4mm
>> thick. Is this result compatible with what others have observed?

From: John Beaderstadt [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy.solar,sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Inexpensive Solar Filter
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000

I just put up a page on my web site, explaining how I made a solar filter for my 8" dob for about $10. Some of the pictures are a tad dark, but I think you can see everything.

http://homepages.together.net/~beady/filter.htm

From: [email protected] (Dan Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Date: 11 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Skylight filter as lens protection?

[email protected] (Tony Spadaro) wrote

>  UNfortunately the rest of the world tends not to give your valuable
>lens the same doting respect. Look at any camera store collection of
>used lenses. I bet you can spot the ones that were left un-protected.
>--

....

Look closely at those lenses and you will see that far and away the vast majority of damage is done by moisture...not scratches. Probably second to moisture damage would be grime and crap in between the elements. Here's the thing, I used to sell cameras for a living. We used to use the "protect your lens" thing for a quick add-on sale. The relative frequency of situations where a filtre will actually protect your lens element (like a sandstorm for example) is far less than when a filtre will actually harm your lens (such as trapping humidity between the filtre and the front element, causing moisture damage). Dropping a lens with a filtre on it is actually WORSE than dropping one without a filtre, as usually the filtre smashes and little shards fly into the front element (scratching and chipping the lens). This same impact without a filtre usually means a repair to the filtre thread and not much more. I mean really, when you place a lens front face down on a table does the fromt element touch the table? Then why do you think this will suddenly change if the lens is dropped?

If you feel like using a filtre to "protect" your lens...go ahead. I'm just doing my best to dispel a myth so commonly believed it's taken on the aspect of fact. Photography is expensive enough without spending bucks unneccessarily on a filtre......

From: [email protected] (Todd Bannor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: 04 Jun 2000
Subject: Cokin Filters-An Eye Opening Experience

Greetings from one who usually lurks,

I had an interesting experience with a Cokin filter today that I thought would be helpful to others.

I am kind of a filter minimalist, however, occasionally I'll use one if I think the situation calls for it. I've used Cokin's acrylic filters in the past and have never noticed that they cause a problem.

Today, I was out shooting wildflowers at a place not too far from my home (it's one of my Favorite Places, he, he). The day was fairly bright but overcast, and I was shooting with Sensia II. I like this film, but on a cloudy day, it does look a bit too cool. So, I popped a Cokin 81B filter on the lens, in this case a 100-400 IS L. I had the thing on a tripod (IS turned off), racked out to 400mm and was manually focusing on a thimbleweed flower, a type of anemone. The viewfinder image looked visibly soft and the darn thing just would not pop into focus. Finally, I took off the filter. Bingo, sharp image. I put the filter back on. Yep, it was soft, even if I tried refocussing. I checked the filter and it was clean. Then I zoomed the lens back toward the short end. It was a lot harder to see any difference between using the filter or not. Since I'd never used this filter at 400mm before, I'd never noticed a detrimental effect on the image.

I've been photographing for years, but this just goes to show, you learn something new everyday. You can bet that I'm going to switch to a line of filters of better quality.

Todd Bannor

[Ed. note: interesting trick on mounting filters to large lenses?...]
From: Hip [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy.solar,sci.astro.amateur
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Inexpensive Solar Filter

Hey John...

I've been telling folks to try the hat-box trick for awhile now, and it's great to see someone else thought of the same thing. Works like a champ, and you can get just about any size you need. My telescope is a 10" with a 12" tube...

Just FYI - I ran a foam sticky-back strip(weatherstripping) along the inside of mine to make it fit to the 'scope very securely.

Oh, the hat-boxes make great telescope end caps too. Painted up, they look pretty slick.

-- hip

From: John Shakespeare [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy.solar,sci.astro.amateur
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Inexpensive Solar Filter

Hi,

It's really easy to build a solar filter with the Baader AstroSolar film (full aperture or off-axis). I've now made two, one with the D5 film mainly for visual use, and the second with the D3.8 mainly for photography (using eyepiece filters on the camera adapter). The D5 has transmission of .001%, the D3.8 has transmission of .016%. Both solar filters are full aperture on a 10" Starfinder EQ.

Instructions in english are at

http://www.astronomie.de/baader/bauanleitung_e.htm

Best Regards,
John.

From: [email protected] (mart)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.people
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: soft focus techniques for wedding photos

If you have a clear glass filter, smear a bit of vaseline on it. Leave the center clear Also using netting is good, just put a small opening in the center of it, so as is not to soft. Black net will give a nice darkening around the edges, and a white net would give a bit of a light fogging. Just remember to put a small hole in the center.

Also an old trick we used years ago when we smoked, was to take the cellophane off the pack, crinkle it a bit, nice diffusion,

However, whatever you do, I would try all the techniques BEFORE you do the wedding. Use up a role of film first and see the results before venturing to the wedding. That way you can make adjustments Also remember this, as your F stops vary, so will the diffusion, so PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE

Good luck

Marty

namron [email protected] wrote:

>A freiend asked me to take photos of her wedding. I would like to add
>minor soft focus to a few of the photos. Any filters (reasonably priced)
>or techniques filters anyone can recommended. The only filter holder I
>have is an Ambico, which is similar to the Cokin system. What about
>pantyhose netting stretched over the holder? Any styles or brands that
>are popular?

From COntax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Filter

Alexander,

All of the ones I have seen clearly say "Made in Japan" on the package and on the filter. Rodenstock doesn't even make filters, much less make them in Japan.

They're Hoya.

Bob

...

From: "B. Buckles" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Online Cokin Filter Table

Have you tried the Cokin web site? I don't know if they have exposure factors, but the examples are good.

Bob

http://www.cokin.co.uk/gallery.htm

Jennifer wrote:

> Is there somewhere to find an online Cokin Filter table with examples?
> --
> Jennifer
> http://www.jessnjenn.net

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Cokin Filters (was Usability of step-up rings)

Mark,

George Lepp and others I have read about use a Dremel tool to cut the outer 2 slots from the Cokin P holder. You can now only fit one filter in the holder but they say it will no longer vignette with wider angle lenses. I know mine vignettes with my 28-70 AFS. I have been thinking of cutting mine as I have a 17-35 AFS and have heard it works for that lens I believe. If it does, I only need the P holder for one filter, say the graduated neutral density, as the placement of that filter is critical and any other filter I may want to use in conjunction such as a color intensifier I can handhold. By the way, Bob Singh is making me a warm polarizer that is mounted in the round adapter that fits in the Cokin P holder to use on my 17-35 AFS. George Lepp, Galen Rowell and several other pros are now using this setup.

Good luck,

Dave

From Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000
From: tom [email protected]
Subject: Re: Article on filter quality says BEWARE of Cokin!

Jo�o Nuno Moreira wrote:

> Hello
> I don't remember who, but one of those well known photographers (Galen
> Rowell?) says that he doesn't use Cokin ND graduated on account of
> distortion, and the only ND graduated filters he trusts is Shing-Ray. I
> also don't know if he has some kind of interest on that company.

Well, there's a series of filters put out by Singh-Ray called the Galen Rowell ND grad filters, so probably. ;)

Having said that, they *are* good. But so are Hi-Tech, and for about $60 less per filter.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: One remarkable Kasemann photo

....

A Kasemann polarizer is simply a hermetically sealed and guaranteed optically flat polarizer. As with a non Kasemann, you can get a warm version. But the bottom line is that it is simply a standard polarizer. No special "polarizer" properties. Just sealed and flat.

Jim

[Ed. note: Thanks to Rod for passing on this astrophoto filters tip...]
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: photo filters to astro use guides?

[email protected] writes:

I have curves for, or which might be useful for blocking mercury vapor light etc ;-) regards bobm

HI:

Sadly, you aren't likely to find photo filters that will do much in this regard. Some green filters can, however, enhance the OIII lines, though.

Peace,
Rod

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: WAS; UV filter and 21mm now 15 mm! and now 19mm

The "normal" looking 19mm R lens (and performer par excellence) has NO filter threads. So you UV protection folks had better never buy one. Because you'll actually have to take a photograph through an "raw" lens rather than a windshield.

Jim

Ted Grant wrote:

>Here is a question regarding filter use. How would you folks handle this
>situation?
>
>You just purchased the  Super-Elmar 15 mm f 3.5 lens for a cracking
>$5000.US or higher. The front element stands out like a bulging bug eye
>with funny looking cut away (more cut away) than covers by appearance
>lens shade. How would you attach a filter, of any kind, to protect the
>front element?  And not have it interfere with the viewing coverage.?
>
>Seeing we folks always have such "wild and woolly" discussions regarding
>filter use for protection I thought this might give it a slightly
>different twist.  Hopefully this will create imaginative answers. And
>please guys and gals, lets not get into semantics, nobody learns from that!
>ted

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: UV filter and 21mm ASPH lens - do they fit together?

Vick Ko wrote:

>Does anyone out there shoot with a Leitz UV filter on the 21mm ASPH lens?

Good grief no!

>I'm from the school of "scratched or dirty filter is cheaper than
>scratched or dirty front element".
>
>TIA
>Vick

Your school is about 40 years out of date!!!

Doesn't anybody understand the simple part of the optical physics of light/glass/lens design?

I mean the obvious, hit you in the face, pretty hard to ignore, potential problems with the use of ANY filter.

And you are thinking of sticking one on your lens and leaving it there?

Filters are great when used in appropriate conditions and appropriate places AND when they can ENHANCE the photograph.

But go right ahead. Makes no difference to me if you want your beautiful 21 ASPH to always peer through a windshield.

Ever drive down the road and get glare on your windshield from bright lights or the sun?

Since there isn't a filter in existence that has the very expensive and rigorously calculated flare suppressing coating that your raw lens has. What do you suppose happens when you point your camera toward bright lights, high contrast, or the sun skips past the shade and catches part of the always present "filter" ???

FLARE!

But hey... you do what you want. I really could care less. So why am I writing this? Well, it's in my genes. Or is it jeans? Who knows. The words just come out without me doing anything.

Anyway... happy UV filtering. May you keep your back to the sun.

Jim

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From: Paul Bartosek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens hood and Filters for the 28 -135

Hi Again

Regarding my earlier message on this subject, Adorama refers to the 77/72mm (the first number being the accessory filter size, the second the lens filter thread size) ring as a "Step-Up Ring", not a "Step-Down Ring" as I mistakenly referred to it as in my previous post, so be sure to specify that item name if you buy it from them.

Regards again,

Paul Bartosek
Chicago, USA

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Skylight vs UV Filter

A UV filter is clear to slightly yellow. It works on B&W or color film. Stronger UV filters are yellow and are for B&W only.

Skylight filters are for color film and are salmon colored and add warmth to the scene while also cutting UV. They are available in several strengths for color films. The strength used depends on altitude, time of year, environment, uncorrected flash tubes etc.

If you like you can request a Heliopan filter brochure which will describe the use of all filters types. It also shows spectral responses of the various filters and has a nomograph to aid in deciding what filter is best.

www.hpmarketingcorp.com for links to our suppliers

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000, Tetenal Ink Jet Papers

From Minolta User Group List:
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Minolta polarizer problem

I recently bought a Minolta circular polarizer. I had never seen one in person before. When it arrived from B&H I was surprised to find it has no front filter thread and thus I have no way to mount a lens cap when the filter is mounted. Any suggestions? By the way the filter diameter is probably about 65mm while its thread is 55mm.

Jack Walker

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: Michael Hohner [email protected]
Subject: OT: Re: Polarizers ...?

Karl Snyder wrote:

>>Can anyone please tell me how can we identify a polarizer i.e whether its a
>>linear or circular polarizer . What different effects are craeted by each ?
>>
>>Thanking in anticipation.
>>
>manoj jayadevan
>All of mine that are circular have "Cir" on the outside of the filter.
>Other than that you can not tell unless it fails to focus or
>Autoexpose correctly.

Sure you can!

a) Look through the polarizer from the wrong side (filter front towards your eye). Look at a reflecting surface that would normally show the polarizing effect quite nicely. Turn the filter. When there's almost no change, it's a circular polarizer. Linear polarizers show the same effect no matter whether you look through it from the right or wrong side.

b) Take another polarizer that you know is a linear polarizer. Hold both filters so that light first passes through the unknown polarizer and then through the linear polarizer. Turn both against each other. When there's a position in which almost no light passes through the filter pair, then both are linear polarizers (or you're holding them face-to-face, which makes this test fail). With one linear polarizer and one circular polarizer turning them would have next to no effect.

Michael Hohner
Internet: [email protected]

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: Steven Van Dyke [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polarizers ...?

As it happens, I do know a trick to identify a circular polarizer.

Look through it at a mirror. From one side, it's hardly there. Flip it over and it will turn dead black. On one side you're seeing the reflection after it runs through the 1/4 wave plate that makes it 'circular' so there's no real effect. From the other you're looking at the polarized reflection so pretty much nothing gets through.

Or, you can look at the edge of the filter and see if it says something like 'CPL' on it.

Enjoy!

Steve :-)

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters !!! which one to buy

Go to www.leefilters.com and ask for the "Cinematographers/Designers" swatchbook (large format) - they will send you a color swatchbook of the lightweight acrylic (gel) color filters that is about 3 X 3 1/2 (inches) in size - this will easily fit in a "Cokin-A" holder (with a little trim) - you can experiment and try - the Color Temperature Oranges are similar to the 81/85 series (I did a list once, email me when you get the book and I'll email it to you if I find it...) and the Color Temperature Blues are very close to the 80/82 series. The other colors are for "playtime" (wheee!). Low cost, low maintenance (when they get dirty or scratched, throw 'em out and get a new swatchbook) and you can figure out which you REALLY want to buy (save $$$).

Jim ([email protected])

From: Q.G. de Bakker [email protected]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cokin P too small?
Becca Stephens wrote:

>I am considering a purchase of a Mamiya press camera, and am trying to
>determine if the Cokin P system (3") is sufficient for a 55mm lens, or
>if I should instead consider one of the 4" filter systems. I've read
>opinions at photo.net that the "P" series holders are often too small to
>avoid vignetting with most wide MF primes. Does anyone agree/disagree?

There is, besides the A and P series, a third Cokin filter system: the System X-Pro. Filters are 170 x 130 mm (approx. 6,7" x 5.1"). Prices are "larger" too ;-)

They should be useable on wide MF lenses.

Of course you could use any of the 100 mm / 4" systems as well. Lee filters, Cromatek, Sinar all offer excellent filters. Perhaps even better than Cokin?

From: [email protected] (MPS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Cokin P too small?

[email protected] (Becca Stephens) wrote:

>Yes, but that doesn't help me to determine whether or not the Cokin P
>system is sufficient for use with the Mamiya 6x7 press cameras. Do you
>know if it is?

No, I don't, but here's the specs:

Cokin "A" series- is for 35mm cameras with lens adaptors from 36-62mm + Hassleblad (R)

Cokin "P" series- is for 35mm, MF and LF with the following adaptor rings: 48,49,52,55,58,62,72,77,82mm + Hassleblad (R) which supposedly works on most medium format lenses from 20mm to 200mm.

That's according to the Cokin manual that came with my "P".

Now, my Q. Does anybody know where I can get a 67mm adaptor for Cokin "P"? A local dealer says it doesn't exist, but I find that very hard to believe. I guess if I have to I'd be willing to go the two adaptor route if any know of one that goes from one of the larger (than 67mm) Cokin sizes down to 67mm.

Thanks,
MPS

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Graduated Neutral density filters.

Because of the complexity of manufacturing, most grad ND filters are optical plastic. Even the ones made by Singh-Ray are made of this material. Some companies go to the extra step to add an anti-scratch coating which makes them somewhat more rugged, but you will eventually scratch them. Plan on using for a few years and replacing.

When I visited Schneider last month I saw their facility where their B+W grad ND filters are made. Theirs are made from thin plastic sandwiched between two plates of filter glass. This makes them much more resistent to scratching, but more easily broken if dropped. These are made to very tight tolerances, primarily for professional cinema use. You can figure on paying around $ 500 each and up for these.

I know of no relatively inexpensive ones made from glass.

Bob

- ----------

>From: Oon Chin Hin [email protected]
>Subject: [CONTAX] Graduated Neutral density filters.
>Date: Mon, Jul 10, 2000, 10:35 PM
>
>Hi,
>
>I find myself using Graduated grey filters a lot. At present, I am using a
>cokin one. So I thought since I am going to use it more often, I ought to
>get something better than that piece of plastic. Any recomendations out
>there? I understand there are glass filters which are suppose to be better,
>any ideas on those as well as their prices? I would prefer a square type as
>opposed to screw in type as they are more versatile.
>
>Thanking you guys in advance.
>
>Oon

From: [email protected] (Rod Mollise)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: 07 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: photo filters to astro use guides?

>Are there any guides (on or offline) which suggest which photographic
>standard filters are similar (not necessarily identical) enough to those
>used in astronomy to be used for observing? While I've used Schott filters

Hi:

Any optically good colored filter will work just as well as one sold for astro use. That is, a Wratten 80A filter sold for one of my old Leicas works identically to one of my filters designed to screw onto an eyepiece. The usual problem is figuring a way to conveniently mount one (I've been known to just tape one over the eyelens with a bit of masking tape).

As far as the "swatch books" go, yes, these can be fun. I have a book of spotlight gels that I use occasionally with interesting results (my brother is a theatrical director, and got me one of these books). Naturally, these "gels" are not as good as optical glass filters, but they do work, and you can have any color you want at hand asap.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Mobile Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index7.html

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 35S - Folding Lens Hood

> From Colin Haywood : .... a folding rubber lens hood attached to a
>  screw-in metal ring ....

You may by lucky enough to find an original Rollei 35 rubber hood, may be from somebody on this list.

Hope this helps,

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

[Ed. note: series filters live on..]
From hasselblad Mailing List:
From: Tony Oresteen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hasselblad bayonet to thread adaptor

"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:

> Does anyone here know if there are adaptors available that will allow the
> use of the Hasselblad ProShade on lenses with screw-in filter thread?
>
> Thanks in advance.

Yes. Put a Series 8 filter adapter on your lens. Use the 63 size ProShade Ring (for the old 50mm f/4 Distagon & 38mm Biogon). Hasselbald 63 is Series 8. They should all fit. I do this with my old style Pro Shade.

--
Tony Oresteen
see my home page at www.avana.net/~aorestee

From: David Littlewood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Hoya filters

Only me... davebg@[nospam] writes

>"Ivan Jekic" [email protected] wrote 
>> I would like to buy hoya polarizer & skylight filters.
>> However, those filters are available in two variants: normal and HMC (Hoya
>> multi coating) which reduces flare and ghosting.
>> Is this true? Is it worth to spend extra 10-20$ on HMC?
>
>
>    I would recommend buying coated filters, definitely, as uncoated filters
>can cause bad flare, thus reducing the performance of your lens.  Always use
>a lens hood too.
>
>    I was sure that Hoya's polarisers were not coated though...    maybe I'm
>wrong.

They do several (at least 3) ranges.

Standard range is uncoated.

HMC range is multi-coated.

SMC (super-multi-coated) has 7 coating layers, and a quoted transmission value of (I think) over 99.7%. They are said to have better transmission than the leading camera makers' own filters (and certainly have thinner mounts than the Canon ones), and are *expensive*. I know the latter to be a fact, as I forked out UKP 152 for a 77mm SMC circular polariser yesterday! (The Canon one was even dearer, but not much - I think UKP 157).

--
David Littlewood
London
Energy Consultant and Photographer

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000
From: Ellis Vener [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Graduated Filters

I use the Sinar 100m wide optical resin filters and holder. Since Sinar has gotten out of the filter business my recommendation is that you try Hitech or Lee optical Resin filters. All three systems are remarkable alike as they are based on the same set of patent. The graduated filters are 100 x 125mm. I wouldn't go near Cokin filters, especially the "Graduated gray filter" as it is not truly neutral, just cheap and nasty. With my 6x17cm V-Pan and a 90 mm & 150 mm lens, I find I use the 2 stop ND grad filter the most. Hitech is distributed in the US by Visual Departures: http://www.visualdepartures.com

Ellis Vener
Houston, Texas

p.s. All this is assuming you are not asking about a center weighted filter for evening out the exposure from center to edge of the frame.

Peter Miller wrote:

> I find the need for graduated filters for the Fuji GX 617.m

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Graduated Filters

Ya, sure, Peter, I use graduated filters on that thing a lot. And boy, oh boy, they have really made a difference; several photos in my new book involved the Fuji 617 with 2 or 3 stop ND graduated filters. I use the Tiffen Glass ones; they cost about $125 each a few years ago. They're rectangular, so one can slide them up and down without getting the edge of the filter in the frame. This does limit their use when doing verticals, though, because the filter only barely fits inside the "roll bar" and so the horizon of dark and light is stuck in the center then. But hey, it works. Some of those verticals need a little cropping anyway. The nice thing about glass is that it's a lot harder to scratch than resin is. Also, these are a nice neutral gray compared to some of the green or amber "grey" that I've seen on the market.

Liz Hymans

Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000
From: "David Glos" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Accessories for a Russian Moscow 4

I don't know about yours, but my Moskva-5 doesn't have threads on the front element. I have, however, taped cut up Wratten gels, that I get used very, very cheaply at my local pro store, to the front with good success. You could also carefully cut a ring of Velcro, and bond it to the front lens ring, and put a bit of matching material on whatever filters you find. That would allow you to put a hood on the front threads of your filter ring. Eventually, I am going to machine a little Delrin adapter, that will press onto the lens ring, and have a female filter thread in front. BTW, a company called SPI (swiss precision instruments) make an inexpensive glass filled nylon dial caliper. At around $20, it is a very handy measuring instrument for the photographic and technical set. Makes figuring out filter diameters and screw sizes very easy.

Regards,
David Glos

C & R McBride wrote

>Hi to all,
>
>I just picked a Russian Moskva-4.  This camera is a copy of of the Super
>Ikonta.  I would have liked to purchase the Zeiss but can't bring myself
>to pay the price.  It seems like a nice "carry around" camera.  I was
>wondering if anyone knows what the filter size and would a lens shade be
>available?  I know that most of the discussion in this news group is
>about Hasselblads and other top-of-the line cameras.  I thought that
>this would be a good source of information.  There are not any camera
>stores in the immediate area so I cannot just try different sizes at the
>store to find out what would fit.

Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000
From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Accessories for a Russian Moscow 4

Go to a camera show or a camera store that has been in business for a long time and ask if they have slip on filter adapters. These are a friction slip on filter holder that takes a series 6 filters. Series 6 filters can be found used very cheaply but places like B&H often carries them. Even the expensive Super Ikonta took slip on filters. I can't tell you what size, I have one but I can't find any markings on it.

I have two Moskca's, and they are very decent cameras. The later ones have a coated 4 element Tessar that is pretty darn good, certainly better than the pre-war Super Ikonta Tessar's. With a 6x9 negative you'll be very pleased with the results.

And I don't think there are too many 6x9 cameras around that you can slip in your coat pocket.

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000
From: "lam" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cokin vs. glass filters

>One other possible problem with Cokin and similar filter systems is
>vinnetting caused by the holder.  This can be a bigger problem when the
>Cokin A system is used with wider angle lenses.  One guy even once wrote
>that he cut down his Cokin P system holder to the first two slots. (The
>rotary one and the first rectangular filter slot.)  So be careful with your
>90mms and wider.  Particularly when open wider and or movement engaged.
>
>Todd

here's a tip i learned from a pro

you do not need the system holder

just use blue tack and stick the filter to you lens

Lam

[Ed. note: "blue tack" is the silicon based silly putty like stuff used to hang posters without marring up the walls, available in most stationary and office supply stores. This approach is a quick way to temporarily hold a filter right up to the lens, without any holder, thereby minimizing vignetting and the need for oversize filters or rings etc. Beats having to hold and shoot unless you have more hands than I do ;-)]

From hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000
From: LEO WOLK [email protected]
Subject: Re: Step-up rings

Well there's Good News and Bad News on the Hasselblad Bay 50 filters...

The Bad News: They're considered "obsolete" by Hasselblad

The Good News: They're considered "obsolete" by just about everybody, and can be picked up at BARGAIN prices. At one time Midwest Photo in Columbus was selling them New in Boxes for $10 each in sets of 4 or 5. I picked up a set just because they were SO cheap! You might check them, they had scads, and probably have a few left. Even though I don't like KEH, they probably have boxes full, too. You can often find these lightly used at Camera Shows, and sitting around "new unsold" in the "miscellaneous" bins at Hassy dealers for a song. I have picked up several by just digging around a little, and have NEVER spent more than $15 each....for "genuine" Hasselblad filters.

I don't know where you live Paolo, but if you start scrounging the local camera stores, you WILL FIND them. NEVER pay more than $10-$12 each for the black & white filters (red, green, yellow). If my failing memory serves me, there's two shades of green and yellow available, strong and light.

Good Luck, Leo.

To: [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] Date: Sunday, September 03, 2000
Subject: Re: Step-up rings

>Paolo Pignatelli wrote:
>>I have been reading the archives about step-up and step-down adapters for
>>filters, but am still a bit confused.  What would the illustrious company
>>here recommend for an adapter ring for Hasselblad Bay 50 lenses
>
>I would suggest a Harrison & Harrison Bayo 50 to Series adapter and lens
>hood, and a set of their filters.  These are much less expensive than B+W
>or Heliopan or Hasselblad stuff.
>
>Marc

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens Flare

> Once in awhile a will get lens flare from my single coated non-AI
> Nikkor lens. I know this is to be expected under the circumstances
> that I sometimes shoot in. My question is, is there any filter that
> will at least cut down on this flare? I do use a hood at all times.

The short answer is No. Any filter will *increase* the chance for flare because the extra air/glass surfaces cause extra reflections. If you are shooting into the light, it is best to remove all filters.

Good multicoated filters, such as Nikon's minimise the increase in flare, in most situations you won't notice the difference, but they will not reduce flare.

A filter can reduce flare only if flare is caused by a particular type of light (eg a certain color, or polarized) which the filter can remove. This is pretty unlikely in normal shooting, most flare is from unpolarized white light.. The best solution is to keep using your hood, and if that isn't adequate, use your hand or some other object to shade the lens (don't include it in you picture!) When shooting close to the sun flare is a problem, often I have solved this by shifting my position slightly so a shadow of a branch or post falls across the front of the lens.

Sometimes flare looks good. Consider movies such as Star Wars and Babylon 5 where the space scenes are rendered digitally. In shots which pan across the sun have you noticed the flare? These images are not produced by a lens so the flare is no accident, it is put in intentionally to make the image look more natural.

[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted expert and author on Zeiss lenses etc..]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Accessories

For heavens sakes, folks! Check these guys out:

Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers
Unit "E"
1835 Thunderbolt Drive
Porterville California 93257

or

Post Office Box 1797
Porterville California 93258-1797

voice telephone: 559/782-0121 
FAX: 559/782-0824

REALLY high-quality gear, and most inexpensive. They produce Bayo I, II, and III adapters to Series filters. You need to buy a Series lens hood and an adapter, but, there you are, at less than $25 for the hood, and the filters simply fit internally between the hood and adapter.

These guys are HUGELY recommended.

Marc

[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
From: Fred Greenspan [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] TLR Filter question

I use a Bay III to 42mm step up ring, with a 42 to 46 mm step up ring mounted onto that. With these I can use the 46mm polarizers and any other filters that I already have.

How I use it. I have a white dot painted with nail polish on the outside edge of the moving outer ring of the polarizer. I mount the whole setup - step-up rings and polarizer - on the viewing lens and adjust the polarizer to where I want it. Then I move the entire setup down to the taking lens, watching that the white dot maintains its orbital position. HTH!

Fred Greenspan
Traditional Puppeteer
http://home.earthlink.net/~greenspan/

Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 From: "Carol Leigh" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen 812 and 81a

An 81A filter has a very slight brownish cast to it; it's referred to as a "warming filter" and is the first in a series of warming filters that get gradually darker and darker (81B, 81C, etc.) brown. These are good for making blue, shadowy light a bit warmer and more viewer-friendly, i.e., if you're photographing fall leaves on the ground in the shade. They can also warm up the already-warm adobe walls of California missions, tone down bright white buildings, warm up already-warm-colored wood such as at Bodie Ghost Town, and, in a pinch, can be used as a sunset "extender."

The 812 filter is a sort of peachy-gold color, not the brownish/sepia color of a warming filter. You can use it in the same instances as you would a warming filter, but it will give a slightly reddish cast to the scene. (Not outrageously red -- it's really quite subtle.) The only way you can tell if you should use one over the other, frankly, is to hold them up to the scene and see which effect you like the best. I've used the 812 filter sometimes at Mono Lake to put a bit more punch into a quickly-fading sunset.

Carol Leigh, Publisher, "California Photographer" Newsletter
http://www.calphoto.com
California discussions at http://www.egroups.com/group/calphoto
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"EliotN" [email protected] wrote

> What is the difference between a Tiffen 812 and an 81a filter? It is my
> understanding that you would want to use an 81a or stronger with blue light
> (very overcast, shade, high altitude) but that some like to use them routinely
> mid day or with flash. Where does the 812 then fit in? I tend to shoot Fuji
> Superior at 400 and have skylights or UV filters on the lenses routinely. Any
> thoughts on the best uses of either or both filters would be appreciated.
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot

From: Tony Spadaro [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: Tiffen 812 and 81a

An 812 is somewhat darker and warmer than an 81a. I'm not sure if it's warmer than an 81b though as it's been many years since I've seen one of those.

I got an 812 and an 81a a few years ago in a pile of used filters I bought. I ended up keeping the 812. The 81a warmed things but not much. The 812 does take the blue out of skin tones in the shade. This is the only use I've found for it. Some people like to add warmth to everything, but I find it rather artificial looking.

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: polarizer for Hassy

It is not always auto focus that dictates a circular polarizer. Some cameras, such as the Leica R cameras, require a circular polarizer because their meter is behind a partial silvered mirror which, in conjunction with a linear polarizer on the lens, will result in an incorrect reading.

Jim

....

rec.photo.misc
From: Henry Forson [email protected]
[1] Re: Filters
Date: Sun Oct 15 2000

Try http://www.tiffen.com/camera_filtersby_ira_tiffen.htm

-Henry

Dave Richardson wrote:

> Anyone have a source for information on filterswhat does what, that I
> can screw onto my Nikor lenses?

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Bay III Filters: removal of glass

you wrote:

>Richard
>
>I have examined ALL of my Bay III filters and all of them
>have a line of separation forward (outboard) of the knurled
>ring.  This is by examination with a 60 year old microscope!
>I will try to unscrew the fwd (smooth, not knurled) ring
>using a sheet rubber surface to turn it while holding the
>knurled rear portion with plastic ring pliers.
>
>Wish me luck.
>
>Jerry

I just looked again. You are right, the front part is smooth. That's the part that unscrews. You can probably get the ring off without using a wrench by laying the front flat on a sheet of sticky rubber. A surgical glove (clean off any powder) works. My favorite thing for this is the flat rubber thingies they used to seel to grip jar lids. I haven't seen one for several years. Be careful where you grip the fixed part of the body. Most of these things are thin enough so that you can work against yourself if you grip it where the threads for the ring are.

I found that at least two other Rollei filters come apart easily. One is a push-on type, evidently quite old. This one unscrews from the back. The back has a couple of holes for a pin type spanner wrench but came apart with the glove. It is similar to the Bay III holder in that it has a glass filter and a spring washer.

I also looked at a filter marked as being for the Automat. It has both bayonet and push on fittings. It also unscrews. I also have a filter for the Automat which is exactly like the Bay III filter. Another is held in with a spring clip, again easily removable.

The filter glass appears to be about the same diameter as a Series V, i.e.33mm

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Bay III Filters: removal of glass (Rolleipol)

I had a spare polarising glass from a cheap (but very well doing its job!) 49mm filter grinded to size in the shop where I got my glasses. They did it for free. I'm still searching for a washer to fill up the difference in thickness with the original glass.

Wim van Heugten

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000
From: "Mark Peterson" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Buying Used Filters

Mon, 09 Oct 2000, [email protected] wrote:

>Has anyone ever bought used filters?

I do occasionally. Just bought two used circular polarizers this week.

>What has been your experience and what do
>you recommend (should I or shouldn't I)? I am
>thinking of picking up a circ. polarizer for my
>28-105 lens. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!

One can find great deals in the used filter case at many larger photo shops. For instance, one of the filters I bought the other day was a Tiffen thin-mount 82mm circular polarizer. B&H lists this filter for $99.95. The one I bought I would consider to be in mint- condition -- one very small scuff on the mounting ring, perfect glass. I paid $15 for it, and it even came in its original jewel-case.

Often used filters are rather grungy in the shop. The good thing about used filters is that they're WYSIWYG ("what you see is what you get"). If there's a problem, you're going to find it if you look closely. I just ask the shopkeeper for some lens cleaning solution and paper. Never has a shopkeeper denied me the opportunity to clean a soiled filter to verify its optical clarity. Of course you need to beware of scratched filters, and you'll probably find a lot of used filters that are unacceptably scratched.

I also check to make sure that the threads aren't stripped and that the glass fits tightly in the mounting ring.

I occasionally find real gems, like the one I've mentioned above, that are in nearly new condition for a small fraction of their original selling price. I normally seek out Nikon filters, but I couldn't pass up this Tiffen as a reasonably-priced 82mm CircPol for my 300mm f4. I'd say it's worth a look!

Happy shopping,
Mark Peterson

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Bay III Filters: removal of glass (Rolleipol)

you wrote:
I had a spare polarising glass from a cheap (but very well doing its job!) 49mm filter grinded to size in the shop where I got my glasses. They did it for free. I'm still searching for a washer to fill up the difference in thickness with the original glass.

Maybe the spring washer from a junked Rollei filter.

I think the foil is probably cemented with optical cement. This was Kodak's method of making glass filters, a gelatin filter was cemented between two blanks of optical quality glass. Old filters were cemented with Canada Balsam, like lenses. I suspect that current synthetic optical cement would work fine. There are several kinds of cement. One needs curing at 150F but there are also room temperature curing binary cements and UV curing cements which would not subject the filter material to heat.

The problem would be in getting the thing apart again. These cements must be boiled at about 350F in a special solvent.

For some reason old Polaroid filters seem to be more vulnerable to separation than regular color filters. Perhaps its the nature of the foil or perhaps the cement that was used. Old Kodak Polaroid filters often seem to have bubbles in them from the separation.

Canada Balsam also needs to be cured with heat, actually more than the newer synthetic cement, so I expect rebuilding old Polaroid filters is practical, apart from cost.

...

>Phew!  So now I have two spotlessly clean glass pieces, a very good
>condition filter ring ......and no polarising material. Hmmmm......what now?
>I recall at the end of August there was some discussion re the  refurbishment
>of Rolleipols, but I cannot remember the consensus as to whether it is
>better (possible?) to obtain replacement 'foil' or to have some polarised
>glass cut to fit (along with the possibility of being the incorrect
>thickness for the holder etc.
>
>Has anyone solved this problem since that discussion a few weeks ago?  I
>guess the 'foil' option appeals to me, rather than the replacement glass,
>but I am open to suggestions.
>(SNIP)

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000
From: David Thiessen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Great third-part lens site - BUT...

you should mention in your posting of the Kiron 28-85 lens that it takes a whopping 87 mm filter! These are next to impossible to find and horrendously expensive when you do find one. Excellent website, though! Have gained so very much knowledge and have read it for hours!

___________________________________________________
David Thiessen
604-850-1462
[email protected]

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Want to obtain Fluorescent flash filter

you wrote:

>I need some practical information.  I am looking for a flash filter to
>match the (average) colour temperature of commonly used fluorescent tube
>lighting.  To keep it on within the subject of Nikon gear, I will add that
>I intend to sue it with my SB-28!

[snip]

>With the Rosco site thay have a large selection of filters, but it is not
>clear to me whether they are just sheets of gel, or plastic clip on ones,
>or what?  And they have so many colours, but don't appear to designate one
>in particular to match the colour of fluorescent lights.  It is confusing
>as they do theatre lighting as well...  So, if anyone is familiar with
>their 'fluoro green' gel, please quote the reference number of the colour,
>and describe what form it comes in and where I might be able to buy it over
>the internet.

Rosco sells sheets and rolls of gel materiel, but you don't need to buy a sheet. They offer (for free) 1.5x3.25" sample swatch books and a single swatch can be yanked out and taped to the face of your flash. The swatches are clearly labelled to make selection of the proper one simple. If you have access to a Rosco distributor, ask for the Cinegel Color Correction Filter Sampler (8808).

To filter a flash so the flash output matches daylight, you need a minusgreen.

         3308 minusgreen converts US cool white or daylight to 5500K
         3313 1/2 minusgreen = CC15 Magenta
         3314 1/4 minusgreen = CC075 Magenta
         3318 1/8 minusgreen = CC035 Magenta
         3310 Flurofilter converts US cool white or daylight to 3200K,
              (for tungsten film)

To filter a flash so it produces a light similar to flourescent, so you can then filter all your light with an on-camera FLD, try these:

         3304 = plusgreen/windowgreen = CC30G balances daylight to US cool
                white type flourescents
         3315 1/2 plusgreen = CC15 Green
         3316 1/4 plusgreen = CC075 Green
         3317 1/8 plusgreen = CC035 Green

FWIW, similar filters gels are available from Gam, Bogen, & Lee. The Gam swatchbook is 3.25x4" and contains more info per filter than the others. Bogen has the least info.

See:

http://www.rosco.com -- particularly their excellent Technotes section, which answers many of these questions in greater detail than I have time or room for here.

http://www.leefilters.com
http://www.gamonline.com/

>The Stofen site advertises the Omni bounce in white, green and gold.  Can
>someone with experience of using these comment on whether the green one
>works well for balancing fluorescent ambient light with flash?  For that
>matter, I would like to hear if people who use the white diffuser are
>pleased with the results.  As for the gold, is it just a slighly warming
>diffuser or could it be used to balance tungsten lighting with flash?  Do
>either of these colours have a designated colour temperature which refers
>to the Wratten system?

While I have never used the green one, I have some experience with the brand, having used their Twin-Panel Bounce Adapter for years. My few experiences with the Omni units was not satisfactory. They reduced output significantly, and the flash's auto circuitry was unable to compensate. The gold is a basic warming effect, insufficient for color correction.

>The Kodak site seems to have no reference at all to their Wratten
>filters...  Can someone help me on that?

I went to Kodak's home page and used "Wratten" in the search window and got 342 returns. Try http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/programs/student/handbook/filtration1.shtml for an overview.

>They (Lee) also make a Tungsten/Fluorescent filter kit.
>  Is this for use with tungsten balanced film in fluorescent light?

The Lee Day-Flourescent set includes seven filters:

FL3600D
FL4300D
FL5700D 
Plusgreen = Rosco 3304
1/4 CTO = Rosco 3409 5500K->4500K
1/2 CTO = Rosco 3408 5500K->3800K
Full CTO = Rsocs 3407 5500K->2900K
See http://www.leefilters.com/Tech_f.htm
[snip]

>Are there any other manufacturers or products that I have overlooked?

See above.

>Lastly, I would like some feedback about the use of small, portable and
>effective flash diffusers/reflectors.   Please tell me
>about stuff that has worked well for you, with enough info about how to get
>it myself too!

One of the photo mags (PopPhoto, maybe) did an article on these a year or two ago and their basic determination was that the effectiveness was minimal. They pointed out that the softening effect of flash modification requires that the flash source seem as large as possible in relation to the subject. Most on camera flash modifiers are small to begin with and the camera-to-subject distance renders them minuscule. The ideal on-camera flash modifier would probably be a Chimera Mini (12x16") with the flash + soft box mounted on a tall bracket.

I use the StoFen Twin Panel Bounce with my Vivitar 283 and the larger Lumiquest ProMax Pocket Bouncer with my Metz 60CT1. At a distance to shoot head shots, they're better than straight on. Whether they'd be useful/effective for you depends on what you're shooting, what lens you're using and most of all, your flash-to-subject distance. The closer you are, the more the effect.

Hope this helps. Sorry I didn't snip more of the original.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: 21 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filters for Hassy 40mm

Bach,

If you follow this thread, Bob Salomon of HP Marketing, (formerly Rollei distributor) has reply that Heliopan carries the 93mm filters. Yes, they are a viable source and also an excellent choice.

If you have any access to a local Rollei dealer, try out their 40mm lenshood. Meaning the latest version fr their 40mmFLE lens. I beleive that it is 86mm screw - in (on the camera lens front portion) and at the filter end, it will allow you to mount a 95mm filter. This filter size is more widely available and it also allows you to use the Lee filter system of resin filters or gelatins. ANother option is to buy into a step-up ring from 86mm to 95mm. It is wide enough to allow a polarizer without any vignetting. I am currently using the Hasselblad 50mmF2.8 lenshood on my CZJ Flektogon 50mm F4.0. and I found no vignetting at all using my Kassemann polarizer. Rest assure, you do not have to sell your 40mm on EBay because you coudln't find the 93mm filter. You do have options on using a exotic mixture of apparatus to bring you up to the 95mm filter.

Please keep me abreast of your finding, if you want to, please contact me offline.

EvanDong

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: polarizer for Hassy

you wrote:

>There can't be much difference in price between the Hassy polarizer and a
>Kasemann polarizer.

All filters are Bay 60 linear polarizers for comparison sake, and all prices are $US.

The Hassy & the B+W Kaesemann are within $10.00 of one another and both are above 225.00. (The B+W is unfortunately out of stock.)

The Tiffen & Hoya are both under 75.00; the Heliopan (also out of stock) is under 150.00.

Will the 225.00+ Hasselblad outperform the ~75.00 Hoya?

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From hasselblad mailing List:
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: polarizer for Hassy

[email protected] writes:

After all, who wants to pay $2000-$3000 (or more) for a Zeiss lens, only to have it degraded to a $75 lens by a lousy filter.

In my experience, the same person who doesn't consider that a $2000-3000 lens can be degraded to a $75 lens by a couple grains of grit left when when wiping the front element at the end of a long day, even after careful brushing and canned air. Me, in other words, once upon a time. The front element (only sold as a group) of a 50/4 C T* cost $1100 (about $400 less than I paid for the lens used), but is no longer available so the lens got sold for $500 as-is. Same thing happened to a Leica telephoto lens. One lesson evidently wasn't enough for me. Two definitely did the trick.

I use a variety of different filters, have had them all tested on a camera repairman-friend's collimeter. Oddly, Tiffen filters have the highest consistency of flatness, but the worst (i.e. none) coating. My favorite filters for UV are the Nikon L37C's which are multicoated, and the Hasselblads. The Hoya UV-O is not color neutral, it's very slightly tinted orange-brown. In polarizers, the only multi-coated one I've used is the Hoya. The coatings are very susceptible to scratching. Most of my polarizers are Hoya (double-coated) and B+W. I must be lucky because I've bought almost all of them used and they're all of equal quality, per collimeter. If you really want a good laugh, look at a resin filter through a collimeter. I now use Tiffen glass split ND grads.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Circular vs normal polarizers- when do you need circ ular?

Pretty easy. If the photo cell is behind a semi-silvered mirror, as the cells are in SLX and 6000 series Rollei cameras, then a circular polarizer is recommended. If the photo cell is "looking" into the back of the prism next to your eye, as in many 35mm SLR designs, then a regular polarizer should work fine. Some cameras have both, with the overall meter cell looking into the prism and the spot metering on the base of the mirror box. In those designs a standard polarizer works fine for the overall metering but will mess up the spot metering.

So far as I know, all TTL autofocus systems use semi-silvered mirrors and can be messed up by standard polarizers.

However, many people have found that their camera meters and autofocus work just fine with regular polarizers, so it is not a hard and fast rule.

Bob

...

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Circular vs normal polarizers- when do you need circular?

Bob Shell wrote:

>However, many people have found that their camera meters and autofocus
>work just fine with regular polarizers, so it is not a hard and fast
>rule.
>
>Bob

Good explanation on the semi-silvered mirror setup Bob. A semi-silvered mirror acts much like a linear polarizer to split the beam and its principles of operation presume randomly polarized light.

The reason some people have not experienced a problem with linear polarizers on bodies with semi-silvered mirrors is they have not yet used the linear polarizer at 90 degrees, or in-line to the mirror polarization. If the linear polarizer is not at, or close to, the null or node in conjunction with the mirror, it won't affect the metering much. It's when it is that it messes up the metering.

BTW, a circular polarizer _is_ a linear polarizer with a "quarter-wave plate" immediately behind it. The linear in front works just as with a linear polarizer at filtering out polarized glare if you have it rotated correctly. As the light passes through the quarter-wave plate, the (now linearly polarized light) is circularly polarized. To a linear polarizer (in this case the semi-silvered mirror), circularly polarized light is much the same as randomly polarized light. This allows the metering and AF through the semi-silvered mirror to work correctly. With most circular polarizers, the two are cemented together to get rid of two air-glass interfaces and keep the 1/4-wave plate aligned to the linear correctly, so they look like one piece of glass.

-- John

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Circular vs normal polarizers- when do you need circular?

Thanks for elaborating. You're certainly right about why some people have good results from ordinary polarizers on cameras for which they are not recommended.

I haven't used a regular polarizer since the 60s. I bought a Contax circular polarizer years ago in 67mm size and use it via adapter rings on most of my lenses. I did the same for my set of Softars.

Bob

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: Roger [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OUCH!

Somewhere on the 'net I read that you can take a UV filter and apply small drops of nail remover to create your own Zeiss-like soft focus filter. The more drops, the more softness, and you can vary the pattern so there are more drops (softness) towards the rim, leaving none or just a few in the center.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Circular vs normal polarizers

Stephen is correct. Although most manufacturers indicate you should use a Circ Pol with newer AF cameras, most of the time a standard Pol will work just fine. I have tested this with the Pentax PZ-1p, Minolta Maxxum (newer models like the 700si, 800si, etc.), and the Canon EOS, and find that a standard Pol works just fine. I particularly like the Warm Pol from Tiffen (I know its not a B+W but it works just fine) and it works well with these cameras.

Peter K

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen J. Dunn [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Circular vs normal polarizers

I noted some recent comments regarding the use of normal polarizers vs circular types. I also noted the assertion that if the camera has a TTL metering system then the CIRCULAR type was required. Not so as noted below:

"When using a camera with a split beam metering system (a metering system that employs a polarized half mirror) which is most of today's auto focus camera bodies, traditional linear polarizers will cause exposure errors due to their light absorption properties. Circular polarizers yield the same optical effect while not causing exposure problems with modern metering systems. For many years, polarizers have been used to remove reflections from non-metallic surfaces such as water and glass as well as being used to darken blue skies to increase contrast in scenic photographs."

The important item to determine is whether your camera has a split beam metering system and not the presence of a TTL metering system. They aren't the same thing.

Steve

[Ed. note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted lens tester and author on Leica optics and related topics...]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Degradation with filters

I conducted a numberof experiments to see if and under what circumstances the use of a filter could degrade image quality. In theory, when the surfaces are perfectly plane, the effect would be very small. Note that the Apo-Summicron-R 2/180 has a permanent built-in filter in front of the glass.

Here we have perfectly plane surfaces and the computation of the lens was done with the filter effect incorporated. Generally we can expect some stray light and obviously some secondary reflections. These latter effects I will neglect for the moment. Stray light and flare around specular highlights are the general degrading effects when using filters. These effects are stronger in situations with high overall contrast and strong light sources in the image and when the lens angle is greater as then the skew rays are more troublesome to correct.

In a coming issue of LFI there will be a lengthier article with comparison pictures to show the effect with and without filter.

Here I will keep it short and note that the image degrading effects of filters do concentrate around bright spots in the image (flare and halo phenomena) and will be stronger when using lenses of wider aperture and wider angle of view and when the object has high overall contrast and intensily bright spots.

On the other hand: a longer telelens at moderate apertures and objects without bright small highlights in dull or overcast weather will not show any effects at all.

Provided the filter is really good and multicoated. Really good means really plane surfaces that are very smooth as any irregularitiesdisturb the passage of the rays.

Erwin

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Siu Fai Au [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Bay III Adapters

Here is a company in the UK who has these adapters listed: http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/ There is no online list of their products but you can get it by regular mail. If I remmeber correctly. these asapter costs about 17 UKP each. They sell Bay I, II and III to both 49mm and 52mm.

...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Bay III Adapters

> from Rick : ...what is the minimum size I need to avoid any filter
> interference in the picture frame? What I mean is, a bay3 to 46mm or
> 49mm? Also, at what point does the filter adapter start interfering
> with the viewing lens?

In fact quite surprisingly you can block a substantial part of the viewing lens without noticing anything in the viewfinder. I have a bayo I to 46 mm from SRB, England that works really fine and does not block anything. I have adapted on it a rubber lens hood in 46mm which seems to interfere but is hardly visible in the viewfinder (except a slight vignetting) since it is so close to the lens : do not forget that minimum focus is something like .9 metres.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Dave Wyman [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Bay III Adapters

Rick Huber [email protected] wrote:

I am looking for an adapter for the bay3 on my Rollei to use normal screw in filters that I already own.

Although many on the RUG list don't like the adapters from India that allow screw-in filters, the are available from Koh's Camera, in New York. Try

http://www.kohscamera.com/.

I have one and while it's more than serviceable. I believe you can get them to take 49mm and 52mm filters, and possibly more.

Dave

http://home.attbi.com/~wymanburke/Rollei_Links.html (was http://people.we.mediaone.net/wymanburke/The_Rollei_Page.html) - All About Machine Age Cameras

[Ed. note: Mr. Brick is a noted photobook author, an engineer designing autofocus camera systems, and an expert on Leica and related optics...]
From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: filters on Leica lenses, part 1

A human looking through eyeglasses can SEE when the light source they are looking toward is producing flare in their glasses. You CANNOT SEE when a filter is causing flare when photographing with an M camera. R camera yes, M camera no. The image on the film will exhibit lower contrast, perhaps washed out, perhaps double image ghosting, and numerous other flare and bright light source high contrast afflictions, but you will never see it until AFTER you process the film.

This is why Leica says "don't use any filters when photographing a high contrast scene or into a light source." "These situations cause micro flare, macro flare, image ghosting, etc," all via the filter.

All of the surfaces of your lens, especially the Noctilux, are coated to kill these unwanted side effects. The Noctilux spends most of its life looking at high contrast such as night scenes, inside rooms with lights on and deep shadows. Leica has spent millions of R&D money perfecting lens coatings to transmit as much light as possible without unwanted flare properties. It takes machines costing millions to put the various coatings on the different surfaces of your lenses.

And then you want to nullify one of the reasons your lens cost so much, by putting a flat piece of glass (even good Schott glass) with coatings much inferior to Leicas, which WILL cause the flare problems that the Leica lens coatings are designed to prohibit. But with the filter there, it is too late. The light is already damaged before it reaches the lens. The poor Noctilux is looking through filter flare, just like your eye looking through eyeglasses flare. Take the glasses off and the flare goes away. Take the filter off and the flare goes away.

This is why Leica says:

"Don't use any filters when photographing a high contrast scene or into a light source." "These situations cause micro flare, macro flare, and image ghosting."

So those of you that run around and photograph anything and everything with UV filters on your lenses, are participating in a crap shoot. Point your camera toward a bright light (like the sun, or bright street light at night, or bright reflective white shirt, etc...) will have images with reduced contrast (or worse) due to some level of flare. A naked lens will ALWAYS produce a better image.

Part 2 tomorrow.

Jim (I didn't start this!) Brick

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] part 2

To begin with, I have to tell you that I use filters a lot. My bags have dozens of filters. Polarizers, ND, split ND, color grad, warming, cooling, red, green, yellow, high quality glass, high quality resin, you name it, I probably have it. Except for Cokin filters and UV filters. I don't like Cokin filters and UV filters have absolutely no use whatsoever.

I use filters when and only when using a filter will ENHANCE my photographic result.

Wouldn't it be really silly to use a filter when it has the possibility of DEGRADING my photographic result?

So why would someone use a UV filter on a modern lens, manufactured from probably 1960ish to present. Certainly not for the UV inhibiting factor.

This question is answered by Zeiss, Leica, (and all other major lens manufacturers) as they have all of the UV inhibitors built into both the lens glass itself and the cement between the elements.

The second part of the question is totally up to you. If you cannot sleep at night worrying about what might happen to your front lens element, put something over it. I suggest a lens cap. That is what I use. That is what they are for. When taking photographs, I use no filter unless the filter will enhance the photograph in some way.

You cannot protect your camera by having a filter on the lens. Dropping or otherwise banging a camera will damage the camera, not specifically the very front of the lens. For every 10,000 camera dents, lens dents, RF misaligned from whacks, other camera-lens mutilations as a result of dropping, whacking, banging, there might be one damaged front lens element (damaged without any metal lens housing being damaged as well.) But I can tell you exactly how to damage your front lens element without hurting the lens barrel...

If you have a glass filter, any glass filter (UV filters are glass) in front of your lens and bash the front of the filter, what do you suppose will happen. Ask Eric Welch. The filter breaks and the shards of glass are gashed into the front of the lens, ripping big gouges in the lens coating. Not a pretty sight. Do you think that something hitting the filter hard enough to break it is going to retract quickly enough to keep the broken filter glass away from the lens? No. If it breaks the filter, it is going to jam it right into your front lens element. How close is the filter to the lens. A millimeter + or -. If something hits the filter and doesn't break it, well, it won't break or damage your lens either, if the filter wasn't there. Front lens elements are mostly recessed. A filter sticks out. This is not rocket science. The BEST protection is to use your head, use a lens hood, and of course use filters when "appropriate."

I have been a photographer since 1950. I live on the pacific coast of California. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues (thousands over the past 50 years) have ever damaged a lens element. I have neither seen (other than the broken filter gouging the lens) nor known of anyone bashing only their front lens element. The salt air and sea/sand spray from the ocean winds have never been a concern either. I have spent thousands of hours along the seashore, photographing waves, rock formations, sunsets, seascapes, wildlife, etc. I still have and use some of the lenses I had at Brooks in 1960. They look today like they looked then. Pristine glass. I breath this air, and it hits my eyeballs constantly. No damage. If sand starts blowing, squint your eyes and take the lens cap out of your pocket and put it on the lens. But this is not going to keep sand and dust from getting into your camera mechanism and lens mechanism. To me, protecting the workings of my camera and workings of my lens is a much bigger concern than treating the front, recessed, small piece of glass as some sacred spot. You can pour water on the front element of your lens. Tip it over and pour it off. Wipe it dry. But don't do this with any other part of your camera.

Hasselblad is built in a factory located in an ocean side city. I attended Brooks Institute of Photography, Santa Barbara CA, and ocean side city. Do Brooks Students use "protection" filters? No. We were taught to only use a filter to enhance some aspect of the photograph. Brookie's spend an inordinate amount of time photographing along the beach, seashore, and in boats. Where's the damage? There is none.

Why don't Large Format photographers use "protection" filters? A large view camera on a tripod is far more unstable than a Hasselblad or Leica. I have seen view camera disasters. Falling forward while on a tripod. What is leading the fall. The lens. I have never heard of a view camera lens (the glass) being hurt. Camera standards yes, lenses no. LF photographers don't use UV filters because they know better. And they have not been sold a "bill of goods" by the camera stores. Camera stores make a maximum of 5% profit on camera and lenses. They make up to 200% profit on filters.

This whole UV protection filter game is a gimmick. UV filters do not "protect" anything except the store's bottom line.

Modern lens coatings are quite hard. You can clean your lens every day with a microfiber cloth and never damage the coating. Some lenses before 1960 (specifically some Leica lenses) had soft coatings. This is why you will sometimes see a Leica lens advertised saying "cleaning marks." These are old lenses. You cannot damage a modern lens, unless you specifically try to damage it. Like putting a filter over it and then smashing the filter.

Someone told me that they knew of someone that bashed the front element of their lens, so this is why they have a "protection" filter on their lens. I told them that I know two people that dropped their camera in a lake, and one in the ocean. The M3 that I personally have is a replacement, by Wetzlar, for an M3 that tried to swim in a lake. I also know a person that dropped their camera out of an airplane during an aerial photography shoot. Does this mean that I should put a flotation jacket on my camera when near water, or a parachute on my camera when doing aerial photography? No. There isn't anything that someone, somewhere hasn't done. Does this mean that you are going to do it? Most likely not.

Use a lens cap when not photographing. Take the lens cap off to take photographs. Use filters to enhance your photographic result when possible. When no enhancement is possible, use no filter.

I use filters a lot! But I am very careful of where, when, and why. Do what Leica says. Don't point a filter at a bright light source or high contrast, bright scene.

But above all, be true to yourself. If you really feel that having a UV filter over your lens gives you the piece of mind to not worry about your lens, then by all means, use the filter. The best quality money can buy. Just be aware that there are numerous photographic situations that a filter will cause a marked degradation of image quality and possibly lens damage. You should be knowledgeable of these situations because any filter, not just a UV filter, has the potential of causing you grief. Not using a filter can never cause you grief.

Jim

[Ed. note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted Leica lens testing expert and author of various articles and even a CDROM!...]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Degradation with filters

Here we have perfectly plane surfaces and the computation of the lens was done with the filter effect incorporated.

Generally we can expect some stray light and obviously some secondary reflections. These latter effects I will neglect for the moment. Stray light and flare around specular highlights are the general degrading effects when using filters. These effects are stronger in situations with high overall contrast and strong light sources in the image and when the lens angle is greater as then the skew rays are more troublesome to correct.

In a coming issue of LFI there will be a lengthier article with comparison pictures to show the effect with and without filter.

On the other hand: a longer telelens at moderate apertures and objects without bright small highlights in dull or overcast weather will not show any effects at all.

Provided the filter is really good and multicoated. Really good means really plane surfaces that are very smooth as any irregularitiesdisturb the passage of the rays.

Erwin

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Filters part 2

There has been some interest in the effect of filters in degrading the rendition of very fine details of pictures taken in more normal and not so critical situations. On the assumption that the filter is really good, the degrading effect is quite small, but not alway negligeable. The problem here is that there are so many different circumstances and lenses and filtes etc, that any attempt at generality would have to fail. Let me give you personal experience.

I made many test pictures from a street scene on tripod with several apertures and lighting conditions. In itself a very boring test: take a picture, add filter take picture, remove filter adjust aperture take picture etc. Then I looked at the set of pictures and could not see any difference that would be valid given the statistical variance of the conditions. Projection tests showed a small drop in the rendition of very fine detail, but again, small exposure variations could easily account for this difference too in a number of pictures.

To quantify, but do not see this as the last word on the topic, but as a intermediate result, I would say that the drop in resolution is less than 10%, so in stead of 77 linepairs/mm, you get 70. Or to use another comparison: if you overexpose by more than 1/2 stop from the ideal exposure, the very fine details are gone too.

I have tried quite earnestly to find situations where the degrading effect could be easily visualized (apart from the conditions mentioned i my earlier posts). On axis it is almost impossible and in the field you may see it when using the wider angle lenses.

I keep trying to find a simple setup to visualize the effects in a repeatable way, but till now I hav not found it.

Theory predicts a degradation, but in practice it is not so easy to see it.

Shooting obliquely into a strong light source with a filter is easy and gives the desired proof: flare and secondary images etc. and loss of definition.

In other situations the effect is much more subtle.

Erwin

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: ND Graduated Resin Filters

you wrote:

>All of the graduated filters that I know of are not square.

Tiffen has 3x3 & 4x4 square grad ND filters.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From: [email protected] (Modmed3)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: 02 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Wratten filter numbers

>>     Now the next question: The tables in the Rubber Bible are for
>> Kodak Wratten _gel_ filters. Will a Meade or Celestron #12 yellow or
>> #21 orange filter, e.g., have the same transmissivity in various
>> wavelengths as a "real" Wratten gel filter? How close is "close
>> enough?"
>
>If they use Wratten numbers at all, they should be practically
>indistinguishable.  Only a few companies actually make filters.  See also
>Kodak's book, which gives *all* the spectra.  Some brief characterizations
>of spectra, with Wratten to Schott, B+W, and Hoya cross-references, are in
>my book.
>
>
>--
>Clear skies,
>
>Michael Covington

Hi Michael -

Then you would probably know -- is there a blue filter available of density *between* the 80A and 82A? I've considered stacking 82A's, but then it's just more glass and more glass and...

Thanx,
Ed Todd

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: Kent Christensen [email protected]
Subject: re: Filter Fray and Hoods

FWIW (quoted from "Leica R-Lenses" Edition Summer 1983 ...following explanation of what a UVa filter does) ...

In the past, this was done with a UVa filter also on Leica lenses. Leica lenses of the current generation (from about 1965 onwards) absorb ultraviolet rays through the use of certain types of glass and above all through a certain method of cementing the lenses, so that basically a separate UVa filter is unnecessary. Cementing with an Absorban layer carried out according to a Leitz patent guarantees identical color characteristics in all lenses and therefore a uniform, neutral color rendering. Even at very high altitudes. The UVa filter on Leica R lenses today therefore merely serves as a protection for the front element of the lens.

It must, however, be mentioned here that even high-quality filters may create problems in certain situations. At high contrast, for instance, during sunsets, in night shots including powerful light sources in the picture and when bright objects are photographed through a dark arch, the risk of reflections even from optically flat and coated filters is very great. Double images or a general degradation of the contrast or partial lightening through stray light are relatively frequent. In such photographic situations all filters, including the UVa filter, should be removed. With ultra-wide angle lenses, too, filters may lead to inferior photographic results. Owing to the wider angle of field the marginal light rays must traverse a slightly longer path through the filter in front of such lenses than the light rays in the center. This may often adversely affect the picture quality, and is one reason why, for instance, no filter is offered for the 19mm ELMARIT-R f/2.8 lens.

Skylight and haze filters

These slightly tinted UVa filters were in the past recommended for color photographs of subjects with exceptionally high UV and blue content of the light, such as subjects in the shade or distant views through slightly blue haze. Their use with the current Leica R lenses is discouraged, because they will make the color rendering unnaturally warm.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Filter transmission measurements

Tina wrote in part:

"In room light, without the UV filter in front of the meter I get an f number of 2.89. With the UV filter, I get an f number of 2.86. Not much difference, it's true, but enough to matter when you are taking pictures in the dark!"

Let us first present some general principles. Most consumer measuring instruments have an accuracy within 5% as does the mechanical tolerance of the aperture stop. Restricting ourselves to the Minolta exposure meter, we should allow for a tolerance of 5%.

The calibration of the Minolta meter is for the 2800 Kelvin range.(tungsten light) The B&W data sheets show that for the red part of the spectrum (around 600 nanometers) the UV filter has a transmission efficiency of 97 to 98%.

Theortically then the transmission loss of about 2% would be within the 5% margin of tolerance and thus be not detectible with reliability. Further to be sure one should do a series of readings to see if there is statistical validity.

I did some tests myself with a UV filter and noted In tungsten light and without the UV filter, my Minolta Autometer V gave a consistent reading of 2.8 + 9/10 with 10 readings.With the filter on the measuring dome and without my hands around the filter (to avoid shadows from my hand) I noticed a drop of only 1/10. When I held the filter in my hand and positioned it in front of the measuring cell, I noticed a wider range of readings, within 1/3 stop, that changed a bit depending on the distance from filter to measuring dome and the angle at which the reading was done. Here we should find at first a very clear and repeatable lab situation. With a Minolta soptmeter, I did not notice any difference!

I am not inclined, based on this evidence and the theory, to assume that a UV filter will drop the transmission by 1/3 of a stop when photographing in ambient light with a higher than normal proportion of the red spectrum. Even if this were the case, consider the effect of it on the density of the negative.

On the assumption that a true 1/3 stop difference in exposure is real, we note that a full stop difference would change the density of the negative by a value of Log 0.3. A third stop would be a change in density of 0.1 (log scale). BUT this assumes a characteristic curve of inclination 1. Generally we develop to an inclination of 0.6. The density change would become 0.6 x 0.1 = 0.06. Such a density difference cannot be accounted for in normal consitions for developing and printing.

Erwin

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: polar filter

you wrote:

>  What is the kaesemann polar ?

Edge sealed. Pol filters are a sandwich of pol materiel between two pieces of glass. Kaesemann filters are sealed around the circumference to keep mayo and mustard out of the sanwdich.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: ND Graduated Resin Filters

[email protected] wrote:

>I have the Hasselblad proshade 6093T and I am looking for a drop in neutral
>density graduated filter (0 -2 ) to work with it, I believe the size is 4 x 4
>any ideas or recommendations.
>Thanks
>
>Mike

All of the graduated filters that I know of are not square. This is so that the line between clear and ND (or color) can be adjusted to match the horizon (or other line in your photograph.) You cannot move the filter in a 6093T. It holds 4x4 square filters with no movement capability. You'll need a HiTech or Lee filter holder to effectively use a split filter.

Jim

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: ND Graduated Resin Filters

Filters cannot be moved in a 6093T proshade filter holder. Which pretty much makes 4x4 graduated filters useless because it is rare that you want the grad line to be dead center. This is why good grad filters are either 4x5 or 4x6. So you can move them and place the "grad line" where you want it. I use a HiTech holder and HiTech resin grads and Tiffen glass grads. I use non grad squares in either my 6093T holder/shade or my HiTech holder.

Jim

Peter Klosky wrote:

>I thought the Cokin filters, the larger ones in the "P" mount, were designed
>to fit the Hasselblad lenses and included grad filters, both neutral and
>tinted.  Might not fit every hood out there or be of the highest optical
>quality, but the product is out there.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] effect of filters on sharpness

Erwin Puts just did a study of Filters on sharpness which he posted to the LUG.

I'd check out his website or email him if it is not up yet.

For me he is the last word on optical issues.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html

mark rabiner :)

http://spokenword.to/rabiner/

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: ND Graduated Resin Filters

Peter Klosky wrote:

I thought the Cokin filters, the larger ones in the "P" mount, were designed to fit the Hasselblad lenses and included grad filters, both neutral and tinted. Might not fit every hood out there or be of the highest optical quality, but the product is out there.

All series Cokin filters are the wrong size to fit the ProShade. But i don't believe any graduated filter available will. You will need a Cokin holder to make Cokin filters fit Hasselblad lenses. And if you are going for an extra holder, you might want to choose a better brand filters as well. Lee, Cromatek or Sinar too have all kinds of filters you might want, and are of the highest optical quality.

[Ed. note: Mr. Meyers is a well-known photo author of many articles and related resources in photography over a long career as a photographer and writer for various magazines (e.g., Pop. Photo..)]
From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Infra Red Filter for Rollei

If the filter is red, then it's not an infrared filter. Infrared filters appear to be opaque to the eyes. It only transmits the IR and not visible radiation. If you can't see through it, then it's an IR filter. I have one of these for my Rolleicord V. Ed

From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000
From: Dave Wyman [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: 'enhancing' filters

[email protected] wrote:

Has anyone shot foliage or landscape pix with their rollei equipped with the so-called "enhancing" filters ? Tiffen among others makes this filter with a special glass which enhances reds (think they have one for green too) and leaves the other colors pretty much as is.

Charlie,

I have a couple of these filters. One is a Tiffen 52 mm screw-in type that I normally use with my 35mm gear. I can use it on my Rollei cameras with an adapter. The other is a custom-made Bay I filter that I purchased directly from the man who apparently first marketed the filter, Mr. Howard Ross. He's quite a character, a retired scientist for Corning Glass. No e-mail or webpage that I know of, but he can be contacted a 25319 Stonycroft Dr. Southfield, Michigan 48034. The price was reasonable. Mr. Ross's phone number is 248-356-3918. Mr. Ross is not a fan of Tiffen, which I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you about in great detail. :-) He'll also tell you all about the enhancing filter's various properties.

I've only used the filters that enhance red. Mine work as advertised. Red and orange colors are enhanced, blues and whites and greens are pretty much unchanged. But if you're photographing something that already has lots of warmer colors, the effect is usually garish.

I've learned to use the filter sparingly. I have the "normal strength" versions of these filters, I believe they come in stronger versions.

For me, the filter works best when warmer colors are muted and I want to bring them out. Examples: autumn colors and sunsets that have passed their peak or never had strong color to begin with. Another example: In California, where I live, the aspens tend to turn yellow in the fall - ordinarily isn't a lot of red in them. An enhancing filter can draw out the reds in the aspen leaves, without affecting the rest of the scene.

(I'd post a few examples of photographs - with and without the filter - I made this past autumn on the east side of the Sierra Nevada mountains, in California. But we're painting the house and the pics are somewhere deep inside a box in our garage. Maybe I'll do so in a week or so. For now, if you'd like to see a fall photograph made with a Rolleiflex that looks like it was made with an enhancing filter - but wasn't - go to

http://cgi.linkclub.or.jp/~dmakos/imgsquare/index.cgi?read=1202

Dave Wyman

--
http://www.idrivebackroads.com - "The Backroads of Northern California" Pictorial Guidebook
http://home.attbi.com/~wymanburke/Rollei_Links.html (was http://people.we.mediaone.net/wymanburke/The_Rollei_Page.html)

Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000
From: Pam Niedermayer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Use of Kodak Gels

I asked this question some months ago, with the following assumptions:

1. Any flaw in the light path that falls behind the shutter, that is between shutter and film, is uncorrected; whereas any flaw that falls in front of the shutter is better corrected, thus making flaws less noticeable. (This is a good caveat for buying used lenses, btw. If there are cleaning marks and slight flaws in the front elements, they're less likely to muck up the photographs than are such flaws in the rear element(s).)

2. It's more of a hassle to fit and exchange filters when they're behind the shutter. In fact, the best filter holding device I've found that works behind the lens is the little thing from Calument, and to be practical, you'd have to get one for every lens as it mounts on the lensboard.

3. Filters are easily scratched. Thus it will be more likely that flaws will make their way to the film.

The answers were basically that most professional LF photographers put filters behind the lens because when in front of the lens they are more likely to experience and project flare, to just be careful to replace filters as they're damaged.

Seem to me that a compendium or appropriate shade with filter holder could solve this entire problem, could have a little 3" or 4" filter holder in the lens end of the compendium. This would allow easy filter exchange without lensboard removal and would protect the filter from light that would cause flare.

I did this for years with my SL66 (3" square filters held in the rear of the compendium), never had a flare problem; but I don't know whether LF is different due to the generally longer lenses and/or larger film format.

Pam

Don Wallace wrote:

> What a coincidence - I was about to ask a similar question relating to
> filters. I hope no one minds if I piggyback my query on this one.
>
> I have a few glass filters that fit into a little device that fits over the
> lens
> (i.e., they don't screw on). What is the best method of using filters
> in large format photography? Glass filters that fit on the front, gels,
> filters behind the lens? Sorry if this is yet ANOTHER stupid question
> from me but Christmas IS coming and family members have been
> pumping me for gift suggestions. Now is the time!
> ...

--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
http://www.pinehill.com

From: [email protected] (Phil Tobias)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 08 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Use of Kodak Gels

When I had a Xenophon filter holder ("the little thing from Calumet") a few years ago, I improvised a velco mount that allowed me to move _one_ little thing between all my lensboards.

Of course, as photographers do, I always worried that a miniscule piece of velco fiber would dislodge and become magnetically affixed to the most important place of some once-in-a-lifetime sheet of film. Thankfully, that never happened. [g]

A more real worry was that I would forget to check whether some filters were mounted behind the lens, and shoot a batch of film with a filter set meant for something else. Thankfully, that never happened either.

I never noticed any image degradation using good, clean filters behind the lenses.

Regards. ...pt

PS: Anyone got a cheap Xenophon thing they'd like to sell?

-------------------------------
www.philiptobias.com
means Business/Communications

From: [email protected] (Phil Tobias)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 09 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Use of Kodak Gels

Pam says:

Thanks, Phil. I figured that since the length of the rear of each lens would more likely be different than the same, every time the "thing" was moved to another lens the 3 "legs" would have to be adjusted.

You're right, of course, about the differing length of different lenses.

I rigged up the gel holder "thing" to accommodate my longest lens, then velcro'd one end of the thing. I put small squares of opposite velcro on the back of each lensboard. It made it real easy to change the thing from one lens to another.

Velcro is great stuff. I also use it to quickly change gels on my strobes.

What did photographers ever do before velcro?

Cheers. ...pt

-------------------------------
www.philiptobias.com
means Business/Communications

From: [email protected] (KEYSAL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 10 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Filter adaptor for dagor?

I have a C.P. Goerz American Optical Company, 10-3/4 inch F6.8 Gold Rim Dagor, that I would like to be able to put filters on. The closest match to its threads are 52mm filters, but they don't quite fit right, and only a thread or two will actually engage.

If there is enough lip space on the rim of the lens you could purchase a system that allows mounting adaptors outside the barrel instead.

I know for sure that Sinar and HITECH make "rear element" adaptors that slide over the outside lip of the lens and then have little nylon screws that tighten down and work just fine. HITECH has more "Outer diameter" sizes to choose from while the Sinar has longer screws to do the job of many different sizes per opening. I do have a Sinar filter holder with the three snap on plastic lens shade rings and a slip on adaptor ring for sale, but it is for smaller than 52mm diameter. The adaptors do regularly appear used at midwest PhotoExchange but you will need the one next step larger than mine.

Keysal

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT-B&W filter question.

Fred Greenspan wrote:

>I just took delivery of B&W 67mm 092 (89B) filter. Is it normal for the glass
>to be very loose in the metal ring?

This is normal for B+W filters. They are made that way to allow expansion and contraction of the mount and to prevent such temperature effects from breaking the filter glass. Or so B+W claims.

Marc

[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 90/4 apo makro Schneider: Filters revisited

I've used Rollei SLR cameras since the late 60s and have quite a collection of filters. That being said, I do not own a single bayonet filter. All of mine are 67mm thread and used with adapters. I never saw any reason to pay a lot more for bayonet filters. The advantage of having these 67mm filters is that they also fit the lenses for my 35mm Contax system.

When using a filter with the Rollei lens hoods, I just put the filter on and put the lens hood on afterwards. No problem except with polarizers. With them you have to take the lens hood off to rotate the filter. Or if you use one of the oversized polarizers you have to use a screw-in hood on the front of it if you need a hood.

Bob

> From: "Saturno, Javier" [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 
> Subject: [Rollei] 90/4 apo makro Schneider: Filters revisited
>
> Dear List, when you want to use filters with your great medium format
> lenses, do you use de bayonet or the threaded mount? do you mount the lens
> shade then, or do most of you use the Rollei compendium? And, last but not
> least, are you buying Rollei, B&W or other brands of filters?
> Gracias a tod@s, Javier

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 90/4 apo makro Schneider: Filters revisited

In threaded filters I only have 67 in my studio drawer. I use stepping rings on lenses of smaller diameter. Only needing one set of filters has obvious advantages in convenience and cost. Oh I do have a handful of odd sizes in screw filters for some of my collector cameras, but those are rarely ever used.

For the few lenses I have which need larger than 67 I have a few square and rectangular filters which I use in Cokin holders. And, now and then I need something in a gel filter. I keep a few common ones on hand.

Bob

...

> So you dont have anything larger than 67 mm in filter size?

Date: 30 Dec 2000
From: Alan Krantz [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: lens cap vs UV filter Re: Do pros use UV filters?

you wrote:

: let's see; a lens cap doesn't add any flare to your images nor vignette
: your wide angle lenses etc.
:
: a lens cap costs only a few dollarettes, even in 72mm and 82mm and larger
: sizes where UV filters can cost a substantial fraction of lens costs...

I disagree with this - I tell you why. For a long time I was of the sort UV filter for protection. I have some lenses 1 year old and others 20 years old. The 20 year old lenses were used daily (in highschool) but not so much since then. The 1 year old lenses are used mostly on weekends. Most of the 20 year old lenses have spotless uv filters (even though they were used daily by a kid - me - i.e., I wasn't that gentle - my viv series 1 90f2.5 has a few marks on the barrel). Two of the 1 year old lenses have pitted uv filters - even though I always use lens cap when not taking pictures. Why the pits. I *think* it is because I do a lot of outside city shooting in boston/dc (moved 6 months from dc to boston). What I mean by city shooting is little more than street photography/snap shots. However, at least boston has a fair amount of fine dust/sand like gravel in most places with a good breeze now and then. At night I often remove the filters (too much flare) but after examining a few in detail I decided I rather have pitted filters than pitted front elements. During photo shots I can pick up new multi-coated hoya UV's for 7 to 14 dollars each (depending on size and show).

So the question is - am I better off shooting through a clean filter or a pitted front element ?

Totally unrelated question - the mount on the viv series 1 90f2.5 is becomming a little loose - but the external screws are tight - should I be concern? (it has an om mount).

Alan

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: Kevin Ramsey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fluorescent correction filter....

James:

Just to add a couple of thoughts on fluorescent color correction to those already mentioned:

1) Many Kodak and Fuji technical sheets identify color correction filters for a variety of lighting situations, including fluorescent lights of different grades. I have found these recommendations an excellent place to start. Of course, only a color temp meter, experience, and testing will provide you with the results you want.

2) I'd recommend getting Kodak Wratten gel filters instead of the more expensive glass options mentioned. Get yourself a gel holder (Kalt makes the ones I use) place the relatively inexpensive Wratten filters in and you are set to go.

3) Fuji NPS does a good job of minimizing the greenish/yellow cast from fluorescent lights, especially in mixed light situations.

Best of luck,

Kevin

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: jjs [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: homebrew filters FAQ Re: Desperately seeking filter

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

> if you are on a budget, consider some of the war surplus B&W filters, for
> aerial photography (see surplus links at used gear dealer list at
> http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/albro.html e.g., under astronomy mail
> order etc.) - large glass filters in B&W types - orange, red, UV - up to
> 122mm are dirt cheap - $5-15 US each in surplus, but you will need to
> setup a mounting ring adapter to use them.

Indeed. I have a 210mmm filter from an aerial camera.

Do you have my tip on using military aerial filters for the Pentax 55mm F3.5? It uses a military surplus filter set available for $15 from www.surplusshed.com

But I've found a solution and in time will have it done. My area has many stained glass artists and restoration technicians. There's a fellow who can cut, machine and polish any glass. I will supply one of my dozens of beautiful military surplus filters and he will cut it to fit. I'll work around the filter ring problem with good old Gaffer's.

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Tiffen Green Glass

Here is the info source in fact it is the same link you gave me http://www.2filter.com/faq/facts.html

Some additional information on the various filter brands All screw in brands work with each other, as long as the size is the same. You can screw a Tiffen on top of a Hoya. The German brands use the letter codes E, ES along with the mm size to indicate the thread pitch of the various sizes. Tiffen and Hoya only use the size markings like 52mm etc. So a B+W 62E is the same as a Tiffen 62mm, in thread pitch they can work fine together. A little about the glass itself and the coatings Hoya has 6 different grades of filters in UV's. We do not carry the least expensive type called the EXCEL(XL) Green Series, because they are made with a type of glass known as green glass. The filters are clear when you look throu them, but from the side (edge) you can see a green tint in the glass The Hoya green series also does not have any optical coatings All the other Hoya filters use clear glass sometimes called water glass. They come in Mono coated (single anti- reflective coatings) Multi-coating (several layers of anti- reflective coatings) called HMC and Super MC (SMC) with 5 layers of Multi coatings + 1 layer of anti-scratch on each side. The SMC's have the best coating we have ever seen, 99.7% transmission of light. ULTRA series with a thin filter ring only 3mm high! This is done by not having front threads, an excellent choice for today's ultra wide lenses, but with only the UMC (Ultra's),no snap on lens caps or screw in hoods can be used the UMCs include a slip on cap. The newest Hoya product to be introduced to the market are the incredable Super Multicoated Pro Uv and Skylight filters. The Hoya Super-Pro's have not only, the now well proven super coating, but this is put on both sides of the new 1mm thin Hoya crystal clear optical glass. Finally no other ring we know of is this thin, 3mm and still double treaded

Marumi, of Japan a filter manufacturer, well sold in the USA for a very long time, but better known under many different private brand labels. We are very happy to offer the Marumi Brand here in the US, We have always found products marketed under the manufactures name be the best quality, they produce. Marumi is the only manufacture, we know of making available 28mm and 30mm Multicoated UV filters

Tiffen UVP (Uv-Protectors) are solid glass filters, with no optical coatings. All other Tiffen filters Uv-1's are laminated (2 pieces of glass, with the laminate carrying the color or effects) and no coatings. ALL Tiffen round filters are made with type of glass known as green glass, they do look clear when you look throu them, from the side of the glass, the edge, you can see the green tint. Tiffen only offers the "crystal clear glass" in their motion picture product line at a very much higher cost.

B+W filters are solid Schott Glass, water type, crystal clear. No B+W filter has ever been made with green glass. and they never will, I hope. Quality should always have its standards and the word quality should be more than just a word on a box. Most of all B+W filters have mono coatings on both sides (in some places called double coatings, the double = one on each side) The new B+W MRC coatings are the quality that B+W needed to offer their customers, the new B+W MRC coating is as good as it can be 99.5% transmission. the MRC coating is coming on all the Multicoated polarizers.

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: Peter Blaise Monahon [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tiffen filter? and Re: green glass

John Tanner wrote:

    >   ... I have seen places on the net that
    >  say Tiffen uses green glass for their
    >  UV filters ...

I sent Tiffen an inquiry, and here is their response regarding Tiffen optical filter materials, FOR YOUR INFORMATION WITHOUT COMMENT:

-------- Begin Original Message --------
Subject: Re: green glass
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Peter,

At Tiffen we do not use green glass for our filters. I see the internet rumor mongering crew is running rampant again with misinformation. It seems that any opinion posted on the web becomes fact, without research or serious thought.

Hoya, in a recent ad campaign, stated that some other manufacturers use common window glass in their filter manufacturing process. Let anyone beware who reads advertising, that there is not always truth in such ads.

The method in which we manufacture our filters bonding optically clear glass with a proprietary material that incorporates the actual filtering element into the bonding process, would not allow for glass of any color to be incorporated into such a design. NASA and Kodak, as well as most of the film and video industry use Tiffen filters for their scientific, precise, accuracy in the transmission of repeatable filter color or effects time after time, year after year, filter after filter. I do not believe that such a reputation is possible using common, everyday household materials. I invite any and all inquiries in response to this matter.

John Drew
Technical Services Manager

-------- End Original Message --------

Thank you, John Drew.

Okay, one comment - I've just had all the windows on my house and car multicoated - my drinking glasses, and the bathroom mirror, too! I feel much better now!

=8^o

Peter Blaise Monahon

From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do pros use UV filters?

I want to agree completely with SP. After 40 years of photography and 20 years of commercial photography I have never encountered a situation in which a UV filter has degraded an image. Or if I've had a contrast reduction because of it I didn't know it because there wasn't anything else to which to compare it. I know of no pro personally that doesn't use protective UV filters on 35mm camera lenses although I assume there are some out there. I always have a UV filter on every lens all the time except when some other filter is being employed. I have UV protectors on all the medium format lenses and some of the large format lenses as well. Some of the large format lenses even have protective UV filters at both ends because I often lose rear lens caps. Good shooting.

--
Fred
Maplewood Photography

From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do pros use UV filters?

"Jens Ratsey-Woodroffe" [email protected] wrote:

> I've just bought a new Canon 28-135 USM IS for a little over $500 for a
> Canon D30 that should be arriving any day now ...
>
> Should I put a UV filter on it to protect the lens or not?  It seems prudent
> to protect the lens, but I've heard from two professional photographers that
> they don't use them.  What's the concensus?

It seems there isn't a consensus. Like Bore vs. Gush, the electorate is apparently divided right down the middle. [g]

For what it's worth, I have a UV filter on every one of my Nikkors (currently twelve lenses in all). I usually remove each filter before using the lens, but there are exceptions; when it's raining, when I'm by the sea (salt spray) and when I just don't have time to remove the filter. I leave the filters on for informal street photography. I find that my "filter habits" keep front element cleaning to an absolute minimum, which I think is desirable in itself.

I have no idea whether UV filters significantly degrade the image quality, but I do suspect that adding two glass-to-air surfaces is not likely to *reduce* any tendency to flare. Just in case, I use (mostly) Nikon L37c filters which are multicoated. I have four lenses with B+W filters and two with Hoya HMC.

As Fred Whitlock rightly says, the brass mount B+W filters are always easy and quick to remove because their threads never seem to stick or seize. For other makes (including Nikon) a set of filter wrenches is a wise buy, in my opinion.

I have had the privilege to work alongside several pros in the past year. The photojournalists and sports photographers don't use any filters, but they don't buy their own lenses either. I know three landscape photographers who all fit their lenses with filters but two take them off when using their lenses, as I do; the other leaves his warming filters on at all times. The wedding/portrait photographer uses soft focus filters all the time.

I suggest that pros use lenses without filters because the life of a lens in the hands of a pro can be short compared to a lens in the hands of a careful amateur. At our local newspaper, the few lenses that are replaced before they are broken through being dropped (several times) or submerged do tend to have coating marks caused by too much cleaning, or careless cleaning technique. Very few lenses last more than 5 years; the average age of my Nikkors in October 2000 (before I bought several new lenses) was about 20 years.

As there is no single authoritative answer about the benefits and disbenefits of using UV filters, I suggest we should respect *all* the views that have been expressed in this thread. None of them are wrong, and there's a good chance that *all* of them are at least partly right !

[g]

--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Scratched 2.8 C lenses

IF however we place a filter in front of this surface then none of the above is true and the reflected light can be reflected once more from either the rear or front surface of the filter and re-enter the otical path and make its way to the film plane to cause all the mayhem that coating was intriduced to prevent.

That's my position exactly. I don't believe in so-called protective filters on lenses. I only put on a filter when I want to alter the image in some way.

Bob

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: filter adapter

You should have asked us. They have been available for decades from Heliopan.

But they are not at all popular so they are only sold on a special order basis.

Heliopan also makes a converter to use Bay 50 filters on 52mm lenses. This was a popular accessory for people that wanted to use a Bay 50 Softar on a Nikon.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

> Bob Salomon wrote:
>
>
>> Yes
>>
>> #317 converts Bay 60 lenses to 67mm
>> #333 converts Bay 60 filters to 55mm
>> #334 converts Bay 60 filters to 58mm
>> #335 converts Bay 60 filters to 62mm
>> #336 converts Bay 60 filters to 67mm
>
>
> Excuse my initial incredulity, but i was told, and told again, that these
> things don't exist. Amongst others by Hasselblad A.B. And i couldn't find
> them mentioned anywhere.
>
> Thanks again. You made my day!

--
HP Marketing Corp. US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun, CombiPlan-T, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet Papers, Wista

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000
From: Genesis [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: filter adapter

yes I just ordered one from B&H Photo A bayonet 60 mount to a 67mm Screw Mouunt.

I just purchased a Hasselblad 501Cm and wasn't about to pay $125.00 for a skylight filter for the lens...

gauntlet [email protected] wrote:

>anyone out there knows if there's an adapter to convert the bayonet 60
>filter mount to a thread mount?
>
>tia

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Scratched 2.8 C lenses

you wrote:

>Actually, the lens coating serves several purposes:
>
>1.- reduces reflections
>2.- reduces flare
>3.- increases light transmission
>
>all these effects plus much more can be achieved with filters. Of course
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As in my previous post, filters will do NONE of the above. A filter will have NO effect on reflections, no effect on flare, which is reflection, and will decrease transmission by whatever the loss if the filter and its surfaces are.

>Schneider, Zeiss and others will tell you that you should avoid certain
>filters (i.e. skylight) because their effect is negated by the multicoating
>techniques used in recent years. Besides, ANY filter placed on a lens will
>alter the focal length (by 1/3 of its thickness), and may also introduce a
>certain degree of other aberrations (that have been compensated in the
>original lens design).
>
>-_______________
>Andrei D. Calciu

The effect of a plane parallel plate in the light path depends of the vergence of the light going through it. When the light is parallel, as from a very distant object, the plane has no effect other than to extend the effective optical path by about 1/3rd its length (assuming glass with an index of about 1.5). When inserted in a path that is vergent (spherical waves)the plate will introduce spherical aberration and chromatic aberration, the amount depending on its thickness, the degree of vergence of the light, and for chromatic, the v value of the glass (or whatever it is).

Filters used on the long congugate, in plain language, on the subject side of a lens in ordinary photography, has negligible effect. A filter used on the image side can have considerable effect. Only very thing gel filters should be used there.

The 1/3rd value is from the ratio of the index of refraction of avarage glass (about 1.5) to air (about 1).

Probably what Zeiss is getting at is that the UV transmission of their coatings may cut off near enough to visual blue so that an additional UV filter is not necessary. The filter should not affect the coating performance.

Note that anti-reflection filters are also transmission filters.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: Scratched 2.8 C lenses

you wrote:

>Date sent:             Wed, 10 Jan 2001 
>From:                  "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
>Subject:               RE: [Rollei] Re: Scratched 2.8 C lenses
>
>>Aren't you actually polishing off the coating which is the first thing to
>>get scratched?
>Am I being a little simplistic in thinking that the coating on the front
>or outer surface of the first lens element is only opticaly significant
>if your using filters?
>All the best
>Larry Cuffe

Filers have no effect at all. Coating is to prevent reflection from the surface of the glass. The reflection is due to the difference in index of refraction between air and the glass. By putting a quarter-wave thick coating of something with an index mid-way between the glass and air the reflection is eliminated (theoretically) at the wavelength at which the coating is exactly one quarter wave thick, and substantially reduced at wavelengths on either side. Multiple coating extends the band of wavelengths over which the coating works.

Since there is reflection at _every_ glass-air interface the lens requires coating on every glass-air surface throughout.

Filters have no effect on this. In fact, if not coated, they add two more glass-air surfaces to cause reflections.

The amount of flare and the chance of ghost images goes up rapidly with the number of glass-air surfaces. For lenses with few surfaces the effect of coating is minimal, for more complex ones coating is vital.

Early designers tried to avoid glass-air surfaces by using cemented elements werever possible. However, this is a very limiting approach to design. Once effective coatings became available the whole approach to lens design changed. The Xenotar was one of the first designs to take advantage of using air spaces as lenses.

Most lens coatings are of Magnesium flouride although there are quite a few other materials used. Some coatings have an overcoaging of silica in some form to protect them. MgF2 is fairly hard and is quite chemically stable, however, the coating is very thin and somewhat delicate. Its interesting to compare the number of scratched un-coated lenses to coated lenses. The coatings seem much easier to scratch than glass.

Coatings can be etched off or polished off and replaced. Repolishing a lens requires changing its thickness to some degree. Some elements of some lenses are extremely sensitive to thickness changes so I am not sure of the utility of actual repolishing of the glass. Replacing coatings seems to be practical although expensive.

Those familiar with electronic transmission line theory or filter theory will recognize optical coating as identical to impedance matching via quarter-wave sections.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] polarising filters on Rollei 35S / 35SE

>From Roland Gilbert :
> ....Can anyone provide tips on how one assesses the degree of polarisation
> being achieved by rotation of the filter and how to translate that into
> exposure compensation?

In Short : try to open 2 f/stops

In detail. First the degree of polarisation strictly speaking is 100% on output of a perfect polariser but I'm not sure this is the answer you're expecting ;-)

If you put a polarising filter in front of anything, whether it is a linear type or circular (for a R-35 : both are OK, you may prefer a linear type which is cheaper) you first lose one f-stop because half of the light is blocked-off in the polarisation process. So for a "plain" subject emitting un-polarised light, you have to open one f-stop but you do not have any contrast enhancement. The filter then is a neutral grey filter, -1 f-stop.

Now the exact mathematical formula for the effect of a polariser is simple but IMHO useless for general photographic use since is assumes a 100% polarised light on input, which is never the case. Now if you stack two linear polariser you get a variable absorbing grey filter providing a "light tap" effect ; the theoretical amount of transmitted light through both stacked devices is I/I_0=0.5*sin^2(angle) where I_0 in the input (unpolarized) light, I the output light, and 'angle' the relative angle between both devices. In terms of f-stops take -log_2(I/I_0) or -3.3*log_10(I/I_0).

Now you actually want to use the polarising filter to enhance contrast by blocking-off some *additional* unwanted polarised light, e.g : reflections on glass or water, stray light scattered by the atmosphere at a 90 deg. angle from the sun, etc... Then you need to open slightly more. So in fact it is between 1.5 and 2.5 f-stops. As always it is more critical with slide film than with negative.

A last word on using a polarising filter on a R-35. I bought a nice clean 46 mm circular polar filter for Euro 25- in a photo fair. Then I got from Heliopan a step-up ring from 30.5mm (R-35S/SE) to 46mm. The bad thing is that the meter cell is partly blocked-off by the 46mm filter mount wich is too big for the R-35. I put the polarising filter in front of the viewfinder to check for the effect, (you can even check for exposure by putting the filter in front of the meter cell) then I screw it on the lens. The difficult thing is to maintain the same angle but it works.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: series 6 adaptor

bob wrote:

>I'm looking for a source for push on series 6 adaptors amd acessories
>for the 50mm Industar, Elmar-clone lens on my FED.  Can anyone offer any
>suggestions. Mainly I'm looking to mount some B&W filters and a lens
>shade.

Harrison and Harrison are your lads. They produce a full range of Series adapters and filters. Quite nicely made, and quite inexpensive.

Marc

[email protected]

[Ed. note: rollei TLR polarizers are pricey, so a fixer-upper may help save $$...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001
From: todd [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] New polarizing filter in old mount

Dave,

Yes, it is feasible to have a larger polarizing filter ground down to size to fit the Bay 1 mount. The Rolleipol glass is quite thick though, so your concern over a new filter not being thick enough is valid. The original glass in the Rolleipol is held in place with some very thick, black tar-like substance. Actually, I think this is one of the reasons many of the Rolleipols separate - the back stuff has chemicals that over the years leach between the glass sandwich - solubilizing the glue that holds the 'Pol" together. Especially if the Rolleipol comes from a warm climate.

If need be, you can repack the Rolleipol with a spring steel washer that is bent (bulged) at four points. Alternatively you can cut black plastic from a 35 mm canister and repack the filter.

Todd

=========================

I have a Bay I filter Rolleipol without the "pol" part - the glass is gone.

I'd like to cannibalize another filter - I have a few other polarizers in 49mm and 52mm mounts. Questions: Is this feasible (do I head down to Lens Crafters and have them somehow cut the larger filter to fit the smaller mount)? Also, I sort of assume that the thickness of these filters can very and that the larger filters I have might be two thick or thin to fit in my smaller Rolleipol mount - or are they all close enough?

Thanks,

Dave

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] New polarizing filter in old mount

I have done this with a Bay-1 Rolleipol and it works.

What you need to do is buy a standard polarizer that is the same diameter (or close) to the rolleipol glass.

I think it is a 34mm filter that fits, but I am going from memory. It will be thinner glass than the Rolleipol, but you can use the ring you remove from the new filter as a spacer.

Use acetone or nail polish remover to get the old glue off the Rolleipol and remove the old glass.

Use a spanner to remove the new glass and ring from the new filter. Place in the Rolleipol ring and use the Rolleipol ring to clamp down new glass. Don't worry about the numbers and glass lining up as it is really just a guide when moving your Rolleipol from viewing to taking lens.

Mine worked great!!! I believe the new filter cost me $25.

Peter K

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
From: "mario fazekas" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] LEE Filter System

I am currently using the Cokin 'P' filter system and I am getting vignetting with the circular polariser (on my Nikon 20mm f2.8) and with the blue/yellow polarizer (even on my Nikon 80-200mm AFS zoom). I am thinking of purchasing the Lee filter system as you can get a wide-angle adaptor ring.

I am wanting to use the polarizer with a split grad ND filter and noticed that the the LEE polarizer is square, which means that when the holder is turned both the polarizer and ND grad will turn together - this is crazy?! Can anyone please comment on the Lee system and whether it will solve my problem of using 2 filters on my 20mm wide-angle without vignetting.

Mario Fazekas

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] LEE Filter System

I believe that Lee makes a double holder that will allow you to rotate both filters independently - this should resolve your situation.

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
From: Adam Pierzchala [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] LEE Filter System

Mario wrote: I am currently using the Cokin 'P' filter system and I am getting vignetting with the circular polariser (on my Nikon 20mm f2.8)

Mario, I find this strange. I too have the Cokin-P and the 20mm lens, but had no vignetting with a graduated ND filter. I wouldn't have thought that a polariser would cause vignetting! Could it be that when the lens focused, it turned the holder and you got vignetting because the corners of the holder were no longer "square" to the lens?

Incidentally, last month's Outdoor Photography magazine in the UK had an informative article about the various filter systems, and described how some surgery to the holders allowed use of even two filters with a 20mm lens, and even claims success with 17-18mm. Basically, just cut off the front slots (one or two) to make the holder slimmer.

The article suggested that you first attach your Cokin-P holder to the lens with the adapter ring, get it square, then align the filter for the desired effect by eye, and then slide it into the rearmost slot on your holder. That way you keep alignment of the holder correct with respect to the lens.

- --
Kind Regards,

Adam
www.scenequest.co.uk
Adam Pierzchala Photography

From Leica Topica Mailing LIst;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Multi-coated filters vs single coated filters

Dave Saalsaa wrote:

> Oh Jim,
>     I knew when I posed this question it would indeed open the Pandora's
> Box.  Let me explain a little about the real world or as least my world.  I
> live in a world where sometimes I cannot control the elements.  How do you
> think my trusty Summicron got damaged in the first place.  I was
> photographing, maybe a bit stupid on my part, a mountain bike jump for a
> local company's catalog.  The situation required that I be quite close to the
> action.  I had no filter on my lens.  A small stone chip up and whacked my
> front lens element, chipping off a piece of the fragile Leitz coating.  Was I
> sick when I saw it?  You damn right I was!  Should I have used filter in this
> situation? You tell me.  What I can tell you is that given the same situation
> again, will I use a filter? You'd better believe it! So I was just asking the
> question if a multi-coated filter would be better  than a not multi-coated
> filter for my lens.  Because as they say,"Sh-t happens".
>
> Dave Saalsaa

Dave,

I am well known for making folks think clearly before degrading the performance of their wonderfully engineered Leica lens with an extra piece of useless glass.

Everyone knows that I use a lot of filters, but only when they will enhance the photograph. Polarizer, warming, YG for B&W, etc. UV filters have no redeeming value other than profit for the camera stores and filter manufacturer.

The rock that marked your Summicron coating is one of those "betcha couldn't do that again in a million years phenomenon." As you say, every once in a while, albeit rare, the planets line up and "shit happens." But what if you had a piece of glass covering your lens? Just for the record, filters break rather easily where lenses do not. Hit a filter with a rock and the glass will break. And where to you think the shards of filter glass are going to go? Not out. In, being pushed in by the rock. And the broken filter glass will gouge your lens coating. A scenario similar to this happened to Eric Welsh.

The stone that hit your lens may not have been big enough to break a filter. And the factory coating on a DR Summicron was old coating technology, therefore somewhat soft. So you were probably just the victim of those once in a lifetime circumstances.

And please note that I am not telling anyone how to live their photographic life. I'm just putting out some things to ponder.

Dave, instead of using a UV filter in this, or any other photographic situation, how about a useful filter? Polarizer? KR3? YG? Something that can add value to your photographs. I would suggest B+W or Heliopan multicoated filters, even if it is a UV. They are made from Schott glass and are what Leica recommends.

Anyway, happy photographing and I truly hope misfortune doesn't come your way again.

Jim

From Rollei Mailing LIst;
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] polarizing filters

> can you use a linear polarizer on a rollei 6008i?  i know certain cameras
> only recommend circular polarizers.

Not if you want to use the camera's meter. The meter cells are behind semi-silvered areas of the reflex mirror, so circular polarizers are necessary since the semi-silvered mirror areas act as polarizers themselves.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001
From: ross bleasdale [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] exposure compensation values for filters

> Does anyone know of an easy-to-understand list of exposure compensation
> values for the coloured Rollei filters (R1 bayonnet)?

According to a contemporary R F Hunters catalogue(1962) the following values apply to Rollei filters;

R1    (-0)            B1    (-0)
R2    (-0.5)         B2    (-0.5)
R5    (-0.5)         B5    (-1)
R11  (-1)            B11  (-1.5)

Light Yellow (-1)   
Medium yellow (-1.5)
Light green   (-1)   
Green  (-1.5)
Orange (-1.5 to 3)
Light red (-2 to 3.5)
Light blue (-0.5)
UV (-0.5)
Grey 2 (-2)       
Grey 4 (-4)
Rolleipol (-1.5)

Ross

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re:Viso Shots

If you want to see some outstanding Viso photographs, take a look at the current Leica Fotographie. The wildlife portfolio.

Also, in this issue, Erwin has an article on UV filter flare.

Thanks Erwin,

:-)

Jim

....

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: "LAWRENCE REISS" [email protected]
Subject: RE: filters for nikon lenses

One of the differences between filters of different brands is the coating: none, single, or multi. If you intend to stack filters, eg to use a polarizer with a warming etc, coatings and filter quality will be more important. If you shoot into the light, coatings will be more important. On the other hand, if the filter will be little used, it may not make sense to pay premium prices.

Another thing to consider, just to confuse things, is the filter thread size: are you better off buying the thread size for your largest intended lens and using adapters?

Lawrence

[Ed. note: thanks to David Grabowski for sharing these filter tips!]
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ideal Filter sys. for portraiture/weddings ?? Opinions?

"757Driver" 4books1dog@[cut-spam]nni.com wrote:

>Hi all,
>    Looking for opinions on the ideal filter system before I start investing
>in filters.
>    My camera:  Mamyia RZ67pro
>    My work:  mostly portraiture, studio and location.  Some weddings.
>
>I was looking at the Lindahl bellow-shade w/3" filters and vignettes.  But
>camera store guy said "nobody uses them, everybody uses Cokin".
>
>Any opinions out there from people with similar needs?
>>Susan

Susan,

I use both systems you mention, the Lindahl on my RB67 Pro S and the Cokin on my Mamiya TLRs. My needs were such that I wanted the shades that are associated with these systems more so than the filtration. I use the 2 slot Belloshade which works with the 90mm. or longer lenses, so if you are interested in wide angle with your shade go with the single slot. I have yet to need more than one slot anyway (not counting the outer slot for vignettes.

The Cokin system is an entirely different concept, here you have a filter holder attached to the lens and the shade system is stackable rather than a sliding bellows, you stack on as many modular shades as need be for the focal length lens you are using. Cokins filters are ok but there are better filters out there, I like the holder though and you can use other brand filters in the holder.

I really havn't found too much need for filters in my medium format shooting with todays selection of films for scenic shooting , maybe a graduated filter now and then. Rarely use a polarizer and for people shooting I mostly use the lab for filtering or Photo Shop. However I shoot a fair amount of adverse lighting where flare is a given, here tha pro shade excells and so thats more my need in a shaded filter system than the filters themselves.

David Grabowski

From: [email protected] (Gene Windell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Looking for Ambico 3x3's

...

The Ambico 3 X 3 filters are no longer being imported and marketed under that trade name. However, Spiratone still imports them directly from the manufacturer and sells them under their own trade name. It is exactly the same product, and Spiratone even uses the Ambico names and model numbers for the filters. Spiratone has a paper catalog you can request, and they have a Web site at this URL: www.spiratone.com

Freestyle Sales has some of the Ambico 3 X 3 filters at closeout prices. Send them an E-mail or call them on the telephone for availability and prices of specific filters. Sorry, you'll have to search for Freestyle's Web site.

The Cokin "Pro" sized filters can be cut down to fit into the Ambico 3 X 3 filter holder.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

Chris

There is NO benefit and some drawback to using an auxiliary filter to "protect" the lenses on your camera. Read what the camera manufacturers say - don't do this! they intone. If you're not careful, I'll ask Ted Grant and Jim Brick and Mike Fletcher to step over here a second to correct your approach on this!

Marc

[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

They are quite hard and have been since the late 60s. A filter, by definition, is used to remove something from what passes through it. Unless you want to remove something you need no filter. You find no filter on any of my lenses unless I am using it to accomplish a very specific photographic look.

The only time I use a "protective" filter is at the beach when near the surf, to protect against sea spray, and in the desert when it is windy. If I went way up in the mountains I might want a UV. That's it.

Bob

> From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH!  Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
>
> I've got an awful lot of wiping of my Zeiss, Leica and Nikor glass with my
> shirt
> tail when they get dirty out in the field. I huff on them first. On an old
> lens
> is guess you'd get "cleaning" marks.
> I've never gotten any. All my front elements are in same perfect condition as
> when i bought them.
> I think the coatings on lenses now are rock hard.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

you wrote:

>> I'm with you Mark.  Another thing filters do is change the focus.
>>  On an SLR
>> this is not likely to be a problem, but it may be a problem on rangefinder
>> cameras.
>
>OK, what do you have to back that up?  In all the years I've been on the
>LUG, and all the filter discussion that goes on, this is the very first time
>I've heard that one.
>
>If it did change the focus, I would be able to verify this by focusing with
>the filter, then checking focus without.  On my Hasselblad, there is no
>change in focus that I could perceive.

A flat plate of glass extends the distance by the ratio of the index of refraction of the glass and air times the thickness of the glass, about 1/3rd the thickness for average glass. This can be significant when a filter is used behind the lens, but is completely negligible when the filter is in front of the lens and normal pictorial distances are involved (meaning not macro or micro photography).

When the light going the plate is not parallel, i.e., when it is vergent, the plate introduces some spherical aberration and some longitudinal chromatic aberration, the amount depending on the steepness of the angle made by the light going through the glass. Again, not significant where distant objects are concerned and the filter is in front of the lens. It can be noticable when filters are used behind the lens, especially for short focal length lenses. For the most part filters of reasonably thin, optically flat, high quality optical glass will have no significant effect on lens performance when used in front of a lens. Good gelatin filters are so thin that they hardly have any effect even when used behind a lens, but they are delicate.

Uncoated filters have some flare so coated ones should be used.

While modern lens coatings are pretty hard there are some conditions where exposing the front of the lens to the environment is not a good idea.

Here, the use of a coated, essentially transparent, filter makes sense as a protector.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

....

Richard-

Thanks for the technical treatise...

I urge shooters to conduct their own before and after tests with and without even the finest UV filters... the differences are obvious and no DP or still shooter I have ever worked with would use a filter for reasons other than color correction or for a specific optical effect...

Eric Goldstein

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: David Morris [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

..................When the light going the plate is not parallel, i.e., when it is vergent, the plate introduces some spherical aberration and some longitudinal chromatic aberration, the amount depending on the steepness of the angle made by the light going through the glass...................

Is this why the f4 18mm Distagon for the SL35 has no filter thread, because a filter would cause significant aberations at the edges of the picture?

David Morris

David Morris ([email protected]@gn.apc.org)

FRom Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

....

Yeah, me and all the instructors at RIT, but what do we know?

Richard has done a nice, brief explanation, which applies if the filter is truly plano-parallel. Most filters arent, so the effect can be much greater than the theoretical one.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Tim Ellestad [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>> Uncoated filters have some flare so coated ones should be used.

Based on a lot of years of experience I think that this is the biggest concern of all with filter use. In particular, by putting a filter in front of the lens you've created a couple of air-glass surfaces that are particularly vulnerable to any light strike. If you look closely when adding a filter on the front of the lens, even a coated one, you'll likely be able to see the blacks in the scene veil slightly. Any filter up front should be well buried in a hood or matte box.

Tim Ellestad
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT focus shift

>...why doesn't this 'focus shift' show up ... Perhaps there IS a
> focus shift, but it is SO insignificant...

Richard Knoppow's explanation gives the answer ; in other words for two simple limit cases :

- plane parallel glass in front of the lens, object at infinity : no focus shift, but a degradation of image quality for wide angle rays.

I once experienced a *real* focus shift by trying to take in flight a picture through the window of a plane : I thought my lens (it was a telephoto) had been knocked, since the split image range-finder told me that the ground was not optically at infinity ! (yes it was only 30,000 feet away ;-) After carefully checking, back at home, I found that the answer was : the plane window acted as a slightly diverging lens, impossible to notice on board with the naked eye. In this case to get a sharp picture you should trust what your range-finder says, and not what the focusing ring indicates. This would of course be the same with a TLR although less noticeable with a standard lens than with a telephoto.

- plane parallel glass behind the lens or near the film plane : this shifts the position of the image by ~1/3 of the plate thickness and introduces various losses of image quality. But nobody cares if it is for a Polaroid back on a 6x6 SLR.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: minolta brand filters

According to some tests done by some technical Pentax users the best filters are B+W and Heliopan (and the real Pentax SMC). Hoyas are a visibly lower level although your results may vary according to the quality of the lens.

Most of the rest of the 3rd party filters are actually trash. They make good transparent lens caps but really need to be taken off prior to use. That's why I've actually seen some photography instructors taken a filter off a student lens and step on it. Some don't allow any filtered lenses in their classes.

Kent Gittings

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Filters

....

I shoot with Zeiss and Schneider. I enlarge with Rodenstock and Nikkor. No filters on any of 'em.

Lens hoods, now that's a different story. Every lens should have one on it when taking photos.

Bob

From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

> Degrade it it will,
> though often not by much.

Please, show me the degradation. In normal use, no one else has been able to. The only time it can degrade is when facing some 'light', it does appear to increase flare...and you just remove it for those instances.

I'm not arguing for or against, but the point is, there is no degradation in normal use.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

>Snip
> If it did change the focus, I would be able to verify this by focusing with
> the filter, then checking focus without.  On my Hasselblad, there is no
> change in focus that I could perceive.

A flat piece of glass in front of the lens redesigns the lens! It is now a different configuration with an extra element not part of the original design! On the front of a 75 1.4 or Noctilux the shift of the plane of focus would be a measurable reality which might be better avoided. And I've seen this written about for years!

mark rabiner

[Ed. note: curved filters - another thing to buy ;-)...]
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

I'm not getting into this discussion, although flat filters do degrade the image produced by a camera lens. This is especially true with wide angle lenses where the rays come from an extreme angle. Pentax tried to compensate for this a number of years ago when they introduced "curved" filters which seemed to work. But nobody really cared.

Use filters if you must, but don't used them if you don't need them.

Now I did get into this. Shame on me. I've been writing about this stuff for over 40 years. I keep forgetting that there are still some people interested in knowing stuff like this, and there are others who won't believe it, no matter what.

Ain't worth arguing about.... Ed

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

> From: Marc James Small [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH!  Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
>
> By 1960, it was contended that
> the inner UVa filter was sufficient for all but photography at extremely
> high altitudes, say 20,000 ft/6,000m or above.

I've been told by optical designers that the cement used in modern lenses absorbs practically all of the UV, making UV filters unnecessary except in extreme situations.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH!  Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
>
> (PS) Not just RIT but Brooks too subscribes to the no UV filter train of
> thought

Yeah. Probably all photo instructors worth their salary, too. I just used RIT because I know some of those guys.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Kingslake on filters

Well Marc, first let me say that I had eggs for breakfast this morning. ;-)

So people can make their own call on filter usage, Dr. Kingslake states:

"If a glass filter is inserted into a converging beam of light, it shifts the image away from the lens by an amount equal to about one third the thickness of the filter. Moreover, if the lens is of a very large aperture (F/2 or higher), the presence of the filter in the imaging beam may cause a slight deterioration of the image due to the introduction of aberrations. However, this latter effect is not large and can commonly be neglected."

"A glass or cemented filter may be slightly wedged, so that produces a small lateral displacement of an image when inserted into the beam of light. This effect is greatest when the filter is close to the lens, and zero when close to the object or image; however, it is usually so small that it can be neglected entirely. For all of these reasons, the photographer is recommended never to insert a glass filter into a light beam for part of an exposure and remove it for the remainder."

I think he cleverly said (and this is my interpretation) filters may cause aberrations, but they are small and should be neglected.

Of course, you can all make your own calls on this one. This is just my opinion.

Peter K

BTW, there is a new shampoo that has UV protetants in it, but I hear that modern hair has its own UV protection and thus the shampoo would only cause problems. :-)

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

Austin Franklin wrote:

>That isn't true for Hasselblad.  I happen to have a Hasselblad write-up from
>the early 80's on "Haze-UV and Skylight Filters", and it says, and I quote:
>
>"They are excellent, however, for lens protection.  As they do not change
>color noticeably, they can be left on the camera permanently, and for lens
>protection should be left on the lens at all times."  (note they mis-spell
>lense though ;-)

Wildi says the same in THE HASSELBLAD MANUAL (p. 202 in the third edition which, by the way, includes a shot from a Member of This List, and one who does not use filters for protection). What makes this position most odd is that Zeiss -- who made the lenses and the filters hawked by V. Hasselblad -- was saying exactly the opposite at this time, as was Rollei.

I guess this just goes to prove why Hasselblad will always be Number Two to Rollei, doesn't it?

Marc

[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kingslake on filters

Our dear friend Kingslake did not have extreme wide angle lenses of large aperture to deal with. I would guess that For "normal" focal length lenses and long focal lengths you would be hard pressed to see a difference. But with modern extreme lenses I believe a lowering of sharpness could be detected.

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kingslake on filters

Remember the good ol' days when fisheye lenses and some ultra wides had built-in filters on a wheel? The lens was designed with the filter as part of the optical path so it made no difference. The current Zeiss F-Distagon for Hasselblad and Rollei comes apart in the middle so you can insert a filter. My Kiev fisheyes and my Rubinar mirror lenses take filters on the back, and supply a clear element for when you want no filter.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

>[Snip] color correction or for a specific optical effect...
>
> I'm glad Richard had the time.
>
> I agree fully with your statements.  Unless you want to alter the image in
> some way you don't want anything but air between the front lens element and
> your subject.
>
> Bob

I found it interesting that Ansel Adams put his filters at the back of his lens. And those zone VI fanatics were into that.

My large format lens is a 210 Fujinon which takes a 67 mm front thread. Those are filters which i don't have; but i do have 49's which i got for my 135 3.4 apo Leica M, B+W multicoated.

So I'll screw those on the back of the lens and think I'm doing great.

But perhaps Richard has brought up some issues i should consider.

Ansel I'm pretty sure was using gels which are on no optical consequence.

Although high end B+W filters would probably be OK....

Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

> From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH!  Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
>
> I would like to hear from anyone who has actually measured a difference
> using a high quality glass plate on a good lens on an optical bench. If the
> plate makes a difference that can be seen it is measurable.

Richard, this is the important part. A "high quality glass plate" would be one which is plano parallel to a very high precision. Such a plate would have little effect. In the real world most filters, even some damned expensive ones, are not very flat or very parallel, and that makes a world of difference.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] glass filters

Let's face some facts. shops cut the price of cameras so much to compete with one another they end up making more profit selling you a filter or two than they make on the camera. They can sometimes get $16 for a filter that cost them $2.

This is just another fact to "filter" in the equation.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] glass filters

....(quote above)

An important fact, too. Most filters are really very cheap pieces of glass. The markup on filters is phenomenal, and has not changed. Back in the 70s when I had a camera store we actually made good money on the cameras we sold but we still got a spectacular markup on filters.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

> From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH!  Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
>
> Please, please, substantiate your claims!  You make these statements like
> they are supposed to be facts, yet you will not provide any test information
> that substantiates your claims!  If you really have a legitimate source for
> such testing information, I would greatly appreciate it, not just hearsay at
> some dinner meeting...

Austin,

I'm really tired of this.

My filter statement comes from personal testing done several years ago for a proposed magazine article. When the filters tested so badly the article idea was dropped. Some really cheap filters tested much better than some very expensive ones. Some expensive filters were good, but the price you pay is no guarantee of flatness or how parallel the surfaces are.

I speak from a lot of years of experience. If you aren't willing to accept that I know what I am talking about, then do me a favor and just block my messages.

Bob

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: "Henning J. Wulff" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] focus shift due to filter?

John Collier wrote:

>The references to this matter that I aware of is in the "Legendary Leica
>Lenses" articles by Dick Gilcreast in the LHSA Viewfinder. He mentions it in
>the article on the 135mm Hektor and here is the relevant quote:
>
>"The one caveat I should mention in using the Hektor is in the use of
>filters with the lens in rangefinder mount. In common with most other long
>lenses, Leica's as well as everybody else's, the glass in the filter will
>change the infinity setting very slightly, making the lens focus just a
>little beyond infinity at the largest apertures. It is well to either stop
>down to moderate apertures or use reflex focusing when using filters at the
>largest apertures at very long distances. I first noticed this effect with a
>200mm f/4 Telyt many years ago, and it took a while to figure out what was
>wrong. The effect in the Hektor is less than in the Telyt, but still
>noticeable at infinity with the lens wide open."
>
>I have not investigated this myself so I cannot confirm it.
>
>John Collier
>
>>  From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
>>
>>  A claim has been made (elsewhere) that using a UV filter will cause a 'focus
>>  shift', which, would be more critical for a rangefinder...depending on how
>>  shifted the focus is.
>>
>>  What are the facts around this claim?  I take a Hasselblad with a 110/2, and
>>  a magnifying hood...critically focus on something ~3' away, and I don't see
>>  a focus change with a UV filter on or off...and all my Noctilux and Summilux
>>  images are dead on focus wide open...and I do use UV filters, and I do a LOT
>>  of close up work...I would think I'd see it there.
>>  Perhaps there is some focus shift, but it is certainly not significant.

This is strange.

If the filter is optically correct; ie, homogenous and perfectly plane-parallel, there should be no problem at infinity. There is no opto-geometrical reason for this to occur. On a rangefinder camera, there is a theoretical shift of the object plane with respect to the measured distance, but this is a fraction of the thickness of the filter, so of no practical consequence. SLR's avoid even this miniscule error, of course.

A lot of filters aren't that good, especially w.r.t. being plane-parallel, and this will cause problems with well corrected lenses, especially longer telephotos. Very wide angle lenses also suffer more than normal lenses from bad filters.

If filter surfaces are not flat, they will act as supplemental lenses and change the focus characteristics. More common today are filters that do not have parallel surfaces. I had about 12 Harrison & Harrison filters in the 60's that all had this problem. At larger apertures with telephotos that caused a lot of problems. Most brands of filters that I have used, even Leica's, have had some samples with non-parallel surfaces. In the past 10 years, most filters have been a lot better.

- --
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:[email protected]
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: GND filters

Alex,

Skip the screw-in filters as they will screw you... ;^) Do yourself a favour and plunge up the money for the SinghRay filters. Super-good! I suggest 2 f-stop soft and 3 f-stop hard. For extreme pictures you can combine them as 5 f-stop.

They are longer than the Cokin filters and therefore it is easier and more flexible to adjust the graduation line.

The Cokin-P holder is fine and fun to use, as long as you bring some spare time. Ever so often I use the filters handheld.

Marcus

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
From: imx [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Filter measurements with MTF

MTF Measurememts on lenses with and without filters show: a drop in contrast of 1 to 2 % when the filter is of excellent quality. Such a drop is not visible in practice

A drop in contrast around 10%, when the filter is of bad quality. Such a drop is clearly visible in practice. A drop of 10% is equal to the image degradation that you get when a lens element is decentred.

Hopefully the filter discussion can be continued on a factual basis now.

Erwin

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Lense testing...

Erwin Puts just wrote an article in the current Leica Fotografie, testing the use of a UV filter. Also with the article is printed pictures showing exactly what learned people already know. A filter can cause flare where the lens alone will not. Pretty hard to argue with the visual proof. Which anyone who uses filters of any kind, and takes l-o-t-s of photographs, knows first hand.

Jim

[Ed. note: thanks to Terry Graham for sharing this dissertation on polarizers!...]
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001
From: - Terry Graham - [email protected]
Subject: Re: circ. polarizer [OT]

Vaczi Tamas wrote:

> I got involved in a debate at another list about the usability of
> circular polarizers on AF bodies. I'm sure there is someone here who
> knows the answer :-).
> Could anybody explain me what can be wrong with CPs on "beam splitters"?
> I learnt from physics that there is no (not even partial) polarization  of
> light during reflection from metallic surfaces, only from "dielectric"
> materials (non-conducting, like glass, water, plastic etc.) Is it also
> true that the F3 can live with linear polarizers?

Vaczi

This may not answer all your questions but it should help. I've posted this before so I hope that Todd doesn't mind.

If you've ever wondered how polarizers work, and why circular polarizers are needed with many modern cameras, here's a brief introduction to the subject.

Light always has a polarization direction, crossways to the direction it's travelling. You can think of it as being like arrows flying sideways, where the tip of each arrow is pointing in the polarization direction. (Actually, for this discussion, the arrows have tips on both ends.) For most light, the polarization direction is constantly changing in a random way, and we call it unpolarized light. When more of the arrows point one way than another, we call the light polarized. The _strength_ of polarization can vary - maybe there is only a slight excess of arrows pointing in some one direction, or maybe all of them point the same.

Most of the things you take pictures of are emitting (or reflecting, or scattering) _unpolarized_ light towards the camera. But some things reflect preferentially at some polarization direction. Light from these subjects may be partially or completely polarized, and the amount of polarization may depend on the positions of camera and light source relative to the surface of the subject. Reflections from water, glass, and many other surfaces are partially polarized. Skylight is polarized, with varying strengths depending on angle from the Sun.

A linear polarizer allows light that's polarized in its characteristic direction to pass through. Light that's polarized crossways to the polarizer's direction is absorbed. And light that's polarized in between is partially passed and partially absorbed. In this case, the part that passes through is weaker, but is now polarized in the polarizer's direction.

Linear polarizers are used to eliminate the parts of the light that are polarized in some direction. So you can, for example, eliminate the reflections from a pool of water, or darken the sky, by using a polarizer.

So where do circular polarizers come in? Modern SLRs, by and large, use components that are sensitive to polarization in both the light metering system and the autofocus system. So if you're using a polarizer to modify the photograph, you may wind up confusing the camera. This is particularly important in metering, since the strength of light reaching the film may be quite different than that reaching the meter. Autofocus systems will usually continue to work, but perhaps not at as low a light level as they otherwise would.

The solution is to use a circular polarizer. This is a sandwich consisting of first, a linear polarizer, and second, a quarter-wave plate. The linear polarizer does all the good stuff you want a polarizer for in the first place, but the light coming out of it is polarized. This doesn't matter to the _film_, but will confuse the camera body electronics, as explained above. The 1/4 wave plate solves this problem. It is able to take those arrows that are coming out of the linear polarizer, and start them spinning, so their tips move in circles, like an airplane propeller. That way, the camera's internal systems get light that, _on average_, is polarized in every direction equally, and for the camera's purpose this is equivalent to unpolarized light.

Circular polarizers are more expensive than linear ones because they have to include both the linear polarizer and the quarter-wave plate.

To tell whether a particular polarizer is linear or circular, you can use any source of polarized or partially polarized light. If you don't have one, try using a reflection from a glass window at about a 45 degree angle. Look through the polarizer at the source. Orient the polarizer so your eye is on the same side as the camera lens would be. Rotate the polarizer, and you should see the reflection darken and lighten as you turn it. Now turn the polarizer around so that you're looking through it in the direction OPPOSITE to the way the camera lens would look through. Rotate it again, watching the reflection. If the reflection still lightens and darkens, you have a linear polarizer. If not, you have a circular polarizer.

--
Take care
Terry
___________________________________________________________
Terry J. Graham - Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/gallery/tgraham/tgraham.html
Photography on the North American Prairies & Plains:
http://www.egroups.com/community/PrairiePhoto

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001
From: Peter Blaise Monahon [email protected]
Subject: Re: warming filters

--- [ warming filters thread ] ---

Hello Alan,

I hope this note finds you well

Regarding photographic filters, especially warming filters, I've noticed that some people want warmer or cooler images because of the lens or film or light or photo lob available to them - I'm the same way. I wonder why the color I get doesn't please me. You might try telling your photo lab NOT to color correct your images, and you might try including a gray card image as #1 photo on your film, or even try using a color gray card - see

GRAY CARD at
http://www.acecam.com/magazine/gray-card.html and

COLOR GRAY CARD at
http://www.acecam.com/magazine/fotowand.html

and there's always

Wallace Photo's neat ExpoDisc at
http://www.expodisc.com

for insuring your particular camera's metering choices with each particular lens aren't compromising your exposure happiness. Then you can have your photo developing and printing lab compensate their print exposure for ONLY the first image of a gray or color gray card, then have them leave the rest of your film strip set for that first exposure balance, and you should get the colors you thought you were after without someone making choices for you after the fact on each individual image! Philip Greenspun also has an illustrative web page at http://www.photo.net/photo/filters showing a few images with and without warming filters.

Conversely to warming an image up, when I want to compensate for an anticipated too warm image, such as indoors at night with a standard light bulb as the only light source, I use an incredibly dark 80A Blue filter to cool the image way down, and I use an f/1.2 lens - and a tripod!

Tiffen and Hoya: For a too cold image, such as the scattered blue of bright sunlit, hazy or overcast daylight, I use the Tiffen 812 and the Hoya/Tiffen Intensifier (see Tiffen's sample images at http://www.tiffen.com/enhancing_filter_pics.htm ), and of course, a Polarizer, but at least a UV filter - and a tripod! Follow up for Tiffen at http://www.tiffen.com/filters.htm and for Hoya at http://www.thkphoto.com and then click on Products and then Hoya, or go directly to http://www.thkphoto.com/catalog/hoya.html with no outer frame, then click on General and Colored (oh my!) and Special Effect to see their filters explained.

Here are the standard warming and cooling filters for us all to refamiliarize ourselves:

    Warming filters (red)

        KR Kelvin Red in order of strength
            KR 1.5
            KR 3
            KR 6
            KR 9
            KR 12
            KR 15
or
        80-odd red in order of strength:
            81A
            81C
            81EF
            85C
            85
            85B
and

    Cooling filters (blue)

        KB Kelvin Blue in order of strength
            KB 1.5
            KB 3
            KB 6
            KB 9
            KB 12
            KB 15
or
        80-even blue in order of strength
            82A
            82B
            80D
            80C
            80B
            80A

Does anyone else know of additional filter nomenclatures within the above series?

Don't forget FL filter for Florescent Light/Lamp correction to daylight film.

They are not exactly equivalent, the 80-odd/even series versus the KB/R series - they fall in between each other in their intensity or filtering strength. You can stack filters for stronger effects, but beware of vignetting and flare and reflections off the filter's parallel inner surfaces. But since they are all slightly different strengths, why not buy one of each in super multicoated and anti static coating versions for each lens size you have - see how the cost ads up? I use step up rings to 55mm and 72mm to help standardize and reduce my filter collection, so I only have a few odd filters in between those two sizes. I still have more than $500US worth of filters!

For an exhaustive and educative reference, I like the book

"The Photographer's Guide to Using Filters" Revised and Updated 1998 by Joseph Meehan

see it at Amazon US at http://www.amazon.com link at

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0817454527 - they also recommend

"Kodak Photographic Filters Handbook by Eastman Kodak Company"

and

"Using Filters (The Kodak Workshop Series)"

which are also linked from the Amazon site for purchase.

I especially enjoy the online resources from the film manufacturers. See

Kodak's Guide to Better Pictures
Lenses, Filters & Attachments
Filters

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/consumer/pictureTaking/lenses/lensFil7.shtml where they have 7 web pages on filters. I find their entire "... Guide ..." series at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/pictureTaking/lenses/lensFillMain.shtml worth rereading now and again just to remind myself of the basics - and there are a lot of basics! And see also

Agfa Photography: The Online Photo Course
Lesson 16: Filter fascination at
http://www.agfaphoto.com/library/photocourse/9902/index.html

and I enjoyed and keep going back to the entire Agfa Online Photo Course series at http://www.agfaphoto.com/library/photocourse/ for entire online courses on Color Photography, Black and White Photography, and Digital Photography - I found them to be very complete and inviting.

For purchasing filters, I like The Filter Connection, especially for their over the phone help - see his summary of the different filters available at http://www.2filter.com/faq/filterfaq.html and if you can buy from him, you're supporting a small business (a very small business, I understand?!?). I also buy filters from http://www.keh.com and others.

B+W filters: May I also suggest visiting http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/menu.htm and reviewing their filters there, especially the warming or red filters which they call KR at http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/list/1/uv2.html (Schneider Optics B+W is the original source of those often copied graphics of a series of color filters!) - and may I also suggest signing up for B+W mailing for those of us in the United States - they will send you their filter catalog that explains the whole range of filters and what they do. You can correct the incoming light to match the light expected by the film you are using, or you can enhance the incoming light to make the image more pleasing (or less pleasing, I guess) to you. Browse to fill in the form at http://www.schneideroptics.com/bw.html but if you are outside the United States, mailto:[email protected] and ask for a local distributor or ask for a brochure anyway!

Cokin filters: Who can discuss filters without mentioning Cokin at http://www.cokin.fr and their gallery of image samples at http://www.cokin.fr/icone8-p2.html and then start clicking on the right-pointing arrow head for additional samples. Cokin is distributed in the United States by Minolta, see http://www.minoltausa.com/cokin_frame.asp for a gallery of image samples and much other information.

See also http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/html/filters.html for references to Cokin, Heliopan, Hoya, Lee and others including Minolta filters for sale. And http://go.to/Cokinfilters and so on. And there's the SinghRay at http://www.singhray.com and get some of their anti static lens cleaner - works great on my computer monitor - no dust now for MONTHS!!! I am waiting to afford their Gold-n-blue polarizer for $160US at http://www.singhray.com/gnbp.html and look at their Circular Polarizer PLUS with SO-2 color intensifier for only $340US at http://www.singhray.com/srci.html !

There are many, many other links (63,900) at http://www.google.com when searching for "photographic filters".

Why warm up an image?

[Editor's note: see B. Moose Peterson site for Warming Filters (quoted here)...]

....

Anyone else want to share their photographic filter references and experiences?

Peter Blaise

--
Peter Blaise Monahon  -  mailto:[email protected]
APC American Personal Computing, PC Support in Plain Language since 1969
5426 A Roanoke Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia (VA) 22311 USA
Fax: 703-845-1894  -  Email fax: 208-955-3558
Local voice mail: 703-845-1556
Toll free voice mail: 800-MY-YAHOO (800-699-2466) # 703-845-1556
http://www.peterblaise.com  OR:  http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise

From: [email protected] (Rei Shinozuka)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Re: My "protective filter" adventure.

Jim Davis [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, "Joseph Meehan"
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>    It also makes you wonder why so many people think they need such a
>>filter over their lens if optical glass is really that hard.
>
>No, it makes me wonder why so many people worry about having expensive
>lenses, then bring them down to consumer level with a filter for
>protection. More flare, less sharp, more vignetting. What's a filter
>done for you lately?
>webpage: http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/

i remember reading fred picker saying something similar. but he suggested you take test shots with and without filter and check for yourself. back then, i was into testing stuff so i did this with a couple of lenses. i really couldn't see the difference in my negs so i continued to use the UV for the safetey factor.

i can't however claim to have tested for every flare-producing situation.

and i think the safety has paid off; i recently replaced all my B&W filters on my M outfit after 10 years because i noticed they all had tiny scratches in them. maybe i had been ham-handed cleaning a lens here and there, but i've taken these lenses on all my vacations and you gotta expect that. ( think it was arizona's dust that really did it-- i lived there for 1 year)

-rei

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Horizontal/Vertical -> The Golden Section

Roscoe makes an infinite number of very thin plastic sheets in every color in the rainbow. They're used over lighting for special effects and all. The size is 12 x 12 or thereabouts. Certainly enough to make a masks for a dozen Rolleis. They can be had in any large graphics/artists supply shop. In NYC B&H carries them as does Lee's Art Shop and Pearl Paint.

I chose the neutral gray color (there are about three (3) variants) for my mask material.

You might search for "Roscoe" and perhaps get directly to their website.

Vincent Gookin
[email protected]

From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Please help me identify some Rollei Filters

you wrote:

>Hi Everyone,
>
>I just purchased some used Bayonet 1 Rollei filters for use with my
>Rolleicord. Does anyone know what they would be equivalent to in Wratten
>numbers and their respective filter factors, Thanks
>
>Rollei H-1 is this a UV filter????
>Rollei Gelg-Mittel  (a medium yellow green)
>Rollei Hellrot 28,5 (a dark red)
>
>Regards,
>Craig Maxwell

Rollei filters are not exactly the same as any of the Kodak Wratten filters.

Here are filter factors from the little Rollei accessory booklet. The book does not give the designators in German but they should be easy to figure out.

Filter factors are for Panchromatic film.

Light yellow,     x2 or 1 stop
Medium Yellow,    x3 or 1.5 stops
Light Green,      x2 or 1 stop
Orange,           x3 to x7, or 1.5 to 3 stops (depending on the scene)
Light Red,        x4 to x10 or 2 to 3.5 stops
Light Blue        x1.5 or 0.5 stops
UV                x1.5 or 0.5 stops

H-1 is the UV or "skylight" filter.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any detailed information on using ND grads w/ rangefinders

yep, usually cited as a problem with ND use and rangefinders... Maybe not?

possible workaround?: given similar lens coverage in 35mm, and similar 2:3 aspect ratio, you could conceivably create a scale on side of your holder, and with some tests calibrate your positioning to match what you see on 35mm SLR with what is happening on the rangefinder (recall that the RF will be upside down etc.); probably not a lot harder than calibrating a polarizer? The effect you see on 35mm SLR 2:3 aspect ratio and at some (zoomed?) focal length should match, pretty closely. You would need to scale as the lens center to rim on the Fuji might be one inch, and the 35mm might be say 1/2" inch, so you would need a ratio of settings.

lacking a 35mm comparison, you could setup a few standard settings based on calibration shots, using estimated position of horizon/light band in shot? If you can open the back of the fuji and put a ground glass or wax paper at the focal plane, and check using eye or slide loupe, you can see the effect - but my impression is that the on-film results look different, so I'd recommend burning up some film in a series of tests. Don't forget to take account of f/stop, or standardize on a few settings?

this would be to much work with a lot of lenses, but with a single fixed lens rangefinder, I don't see why you couldn't figure out some standard settings. I am assuming a neutral density filter which isn't abrupt, but gradually lightens, so mislocating the transition a millimeter or two would not do terrible damage (err on safe (darker) side?

just a thought - let us know if you try this or find another workaround...

regards bobm

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001
From: Martin Taureg [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters

I don't know whether that is exactly what you were looking for, but Sinar sells a book-like folder, that serves to store some 30 of the 4x4" filters. Code no. 547.72

They also have a special cleaning fluid, code no. 547.79

HTH,
Martin

...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] square filters

>From Cassandra:
>
> Filters being hard to find for rolleiflexex and Yashica Mats...

Not so difficult to find. They are still on catalog for all bayonets I, II, III and even IV from various manufacturers. Most probably you'll have to mail order them. Alternatively, adaptors to standard thread sizes do exist as new. This has been discussed many times on the RUG list.

> ...square systems. Will these adapt well to the rollei lens? ...

Yes but then you'll need to find a bayonet-to-something adapter from a supplier, and the same supplier will offer bayonet-to-standard filter thread adapters.

> It seems to me that, as large as they are, they would cover both the
> viewing and the taking lenses.

Yes a good point. A good example of using a square filter system on a MF TLR camera is displayed on the paper catalog of SRB film service, UK.

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/adaptors.htm

SRB Film Service, Luton, UK, photographic adaptors

But surprisingly you can block off a substantial part of the vieweing lens without noticing it, if the filter mount or blocking stuff is very close to the viewing lens, and thus totally out of focus. Objects partly blocking the viewing lens (like a circular rubber lens hood on the takinglense) will generate some kind of vignetting on the bottom of the ground glass. But you can live with (ask people who routinely use long focal lengths or do macro work with a well-known classic Swedish camera ;-)

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001
From: Doug Brightwell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Unsticking filters (slight Off-Topic)

Coincidentally...

Yesterday, I discovered I had a filter that wouldn't come loose from a step down ring. I hadn't used the two in months. I fiddled and fiddled to no avail. Tried applying the slightest possible pressure (has worked in the past). Tried putting them in the freezer. Tried tapping them on a wooden table. Tried heating the step down ring (carefully) over a flame and with a hair dryer. (Never really got the metal warm enough due to fear of over heating the polarizing filter.)

Finally this afternoon, I went to a local camera store owned by a guy who does camera repair. He had two pieces of flat rubber, each about 6 inches in diameter, cut from a tire's inner tube. He placed them on either side of the filter/step down ring like placing two pieces of bread on either side of a piece of sandwich meat, applied pressure with his palms, twisted... and got them loose.

The rubber grabs the metal without damaging the metal or compressing the the threads in a direction that would cause them to bind.

I missed a couple of shots yesterday because I couldn't get the step down ring off the filter. I am soon gonna add an automotive inner tube to my photo tool kit. Who woulda thought?

Doug

--
Doug Brightwell
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001
From: super_angulon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Unsticking filters (slight Off-Topic)

...

I always use a pair of thick rubber household gloves and so far I've managed to separate all sticking filters with ease. Same principle but easier to get hold off

Serge

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Polarizer filter question

Max Perl wrote:

> I had a discussion with a collegue about how much light a polarizer  filter
> absorbs.
> I said that is was constant so e.g. using a Hassy pol. filter you adjust 1.5
> EV regardless of
> how much polarizer effect you have. My collegue said that the light absorbed
> could be between 1- 4 EV. Using my hand held meter it shows a constant light
> loss....e.g. 1.5 EV using a Hassy filter as written on the Hassy
> filter........so now I want to hear comments from some of the profs. out
> there.....just to be 100% sure.......

Polarizers lose light in two ways.

First, they stop half the light, and a bit, regardless of orientation. Due to its own colour, and, of course, the fact that it is a polarizer. This light loss is what accounts for the constant filterfactor of about 3x.

Second, in addition, they stop more or less light, depending on the amount of polarized light present and orientation of the filter. It will do so selectively, i.e. not evenly across the entire subject. But this is the effect we're after. If you would try to compensate for this as well, you would be defeating the reason for putting it on your lens in the first place. Anyway, just because the polarizer's effect is selective, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to compensate. Adding exposure to compensate will result in too much exposure in the unaffected parts of the scene.

Sometimes examples are given that show an overall (too) dark appearance of a scene due to using a polarizer, saying that adding extra compensation would remedy this. It will indeed, when dealing with scenes like lakes and ponds, dewy meadows, etc., all backlit, scenes that show a lot of polarized highlights. In these instances the effect of a polarizer can not really be regarded as selective any more, and one should consider if it wouldn't be better not to use a polarizer at all, or at some minimum effect orientation.

The scene will look rather unnatural, regardless of whether or not extra compensation is given.

So use only the fixed, engraved filterfactor, and forget about the rest.

[Ed. note: Thanks to Waldo Berry for sharing these Polarizer tips...]
From hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001
From: Waldo Berry [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polarizers - To Polarize or Not To Polarize

I always approach polarizer use in this way. If I want to shoot through glass or into a car and I want no glare, use a polarizer. If it is really sunny and there is a lot of sun reflecting off leaves and grass and such, use a polarizer. If there is water and I want it to look like water instead of shinny glass, use a polarizer. I am picky on using a polorizor for bluer sky, why, because you are removing something, all the light except that moving in the polorizers orientation. Thus, to much light is a good reason to use one. It's like adding nutral density in some ways, it cuts away some of the light the film recieves. Everyone knows light focused on the film is really a large number of circles of light. The angles at which they hit form circles of focus and confussion. The brighter settings can yeild undesirable results, the polarizer helps reduce and control the angles the light comes in at, thus reducing the confusion and often enhancing colors as a result. With the sky I have found it best to shoot oppisite the sun or in early mornings to get richer blues. Light moves from cool blue in the morning to reds and yellows by afternoon. if your stuck with no control over the time you shoot, a polarizer may be your only choice.

Waldo

I think if you are photographing scenics you should own a polarizer, but you should take exposures both with and without it, sort of like bracketing. I was at the Getty Center in LA a few weeks ago, and had my camera but did not have my polarizer. I took several archetectural shots with blue sky in the picture, and at the time regreted not having my polarizer. I was using Velvia, and when looking at the chromes on a light table, one would swear that they were taken with a polarizer. The sky was a very deep and saturated blue but not unnatural. Had I used a polarizer, the result would have been unnatural and contrasty. At the beach a couple of weeks ago, I used the polarizer and turned it to the maximum polarization to get a very dark sky, and when I looked at the chormes, I felt I over did it. On the other hand, I have used the polarizer and obtained results that looked pretty good. I suspect there is always a temptation (especially if you have spent over $200 on the polarizer) to "get the most out of it" by turning it to the max polarization, which can ruin a shot.

-Fritz

----- Original Message -----
From: "s c o tt h i c ks" [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001
Subject: Polarizers - To Polarize or Not To Polarize

> I have been reading that with the new films color saturation is  excellent
> and, therefore, Polarizers are not necessary.  What says the list?
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> s c o tt h i c ks

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001
From: Waldo Berry [email protected]
Subject: Re: Maximum polarization?

When you purchase your poleriser, make sure it rotates. I use drop in lindahls and I also have a screw on type. You veiw through the lens and rotate until you get the effect you want. I recommend you meter through the polorizor to get you adjustment. Different andgles yeild diffent readings. I always shot my film a half to a full stop over so I can take into account filter adds. You will notice the leaves get greener and less shiny and water goes from glassy to blue or green. Also, you can shoot people in cars or through plate glass. If your shooting into or out of a window, it can help there also.

Waldo

[Ed. note - Mr. Shell is a noted photographer, photo workshop instructor, author of many books and photo articles, former editor of Shutterbug...]
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Filter for Zeiss 18mm f4

...

The best filter is no filter, as discussed here many times.

It just happens that I have written a lengthy article on filters for BestStuff, which went up on the web site today. If you want to read it go to www.beststuff.com and you will see it as today's featured article. I'm pleased that we got to include the link in our segment on this morning's Today show on NBC.

This is a three part series, with the first part up today. Part two on special effects filters will go up next week. Part three on filters for black and white photography will go up at a later date.

Bob

From Russian Camera List:
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Series filters and sizes

Kevin Kalsbeek wrote:

>Yes there is quite a difference. The ser. 5 filter is about 32.5mm in  dia, while
>the ser 6 is 41mm in diameter.

Let's start clipping our message replies, okay?

Actually, Series Filters, being an American development, have real sizes, and none of this French Revolutionary Metric stuff, and thank you!

Series IV       13/16"
Series V        1 3/16"
Series VI       1 5/6"
Series VII      2"
Series VIII     2 1/2"
Series IX       3 1/4"
Series X        4 1/2"
Series XI       5 7/16"

All Series filters and holders in almost any imaginable size are available from Harrison & Harrison in California for a mere pittance. A Series V lens hood and Bayonet I adapter for Rollei, for instance, runs around $US 25, the filters being about $US 10 each beyond this. H&H make the filters for Hollywood, so they can supply a passel of types, over 100 I believe.

Marc

[email protected]

[Ed.note: source for filter adapters such as TLR bayonet mounts etc.]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Correct web address SRB company

> > From SRB, UK http...
>
> I'm sure Emmanuel intended to write: http://www.srbfilm.co.uk  ;; Bob. P.

Ooops sorry ; thanks for correcting me ; the adaptor page is

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/adaptors.htm

but SRB catalog is still on paper, for mail order.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Filter Question

Christopher Costello wrote:

>A while back,
>a Rollei list member mentioned that somebody was making filters some
>where in the West Coast of the United States of America. I have try to
>locate this in the Rollei  list archives but been unable find it in the
>archives. Can somebody give me the name of  the Company or person and
>phone number or their address of that lens  filter maker.

Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers
Unit "E"
1835 Thunderbolt Drive
Porterville California 93257   

or

Post Office Box 1797
Porterville California 93258-1797

voice telephone: 559/782-0121
FAX: 559/782-0824

Marc

[email protected]

[Ed. note: this is a handy tip on making your own filter adapters!]
From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another Rolleiflex Filter bayo II to 39

Why not make your own adapter ?

Just buy a rollei filter with bad glass,and a screw on filter with bad glass. Remove the glass from both of them and glue the holders together. Work on a good flat table so you can check that they are parallel.

In the past I have used a good epoxy glue with some black paint mixed in. If the filter rings are very different in size I cut a spacer from glass fibre board. Next time I will be try some of the epoxy putty materials as this may be easier.

Richard

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another Rolleiflex Filter bayo II to 39 (in fact : to 49)

> I deleted the post that had the address for making the custom mount.
> Could someone send it to me. I have a Rolleicord Va with bay 1 to 49mm
> adapter and recently acquiring a 3,5E with no filters, I am very
> interested in a bay 2 to 49mm adapter.

On this side of the Atlantic:

SRB film service, in the UK, offers standard adapters (alumin(i)um) and custom mount design and fab service.

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/ -> a copy of the catalog is now visible on line
http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/adaptors.htm

As standard, SRBfilm provides R-TLR-bayo [I, II, II] to M46x0.75

Check also what Heliopan, Germany offers, all adapters made in brass

http://www.heliopan.de/picts/Preisliste.pdf

ref# filter     lens
221  49 x 0,75  46 x 0,75  -> to use 49 filters with SRB standard adapter

Heliopan adaptors

ref#   filter        R-bayonet
305    30.5 x 0.5    B I/3.5   -> reminder 30.5 is same as Rollei 35 S/SE
306    35.5 x 0.5    B II/3.5  -> 35.5 this is odd but see adaptor rings below
307    40.5 x 0.5    B III/2.8 -> 40.5 this used to be very common (Bessamatic)
                                       and is still in use for view cameras lenses
308    49   x 0.75   B III/2.8 -> this is common

For R-TLR-bayo II users, Heliopan has the following 35.5-to-something adapters, which may serve most needs:

ref#   filter        lens
209    54 x 0,75     35,5 x 0,5
218    52 x 0,75     35,5 x 0,5
228    49 x 0,75     35,5 x 0,5
237    48 x 0,75     35,5 x 0,5
246    46 x 0,75     35,5 x 0,5
272    43 x 0,75     35,5 x 0,5
282    40,5 x 0,5    35,5 x 0,5
292    39 x 0,5      35,5 x 0,5

--
Disclaimer : I'm not affiliated with any abovementioned European companies ;-);-)

Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Filter (cooling)

you wrote:

>Does anyone know what filter series color will cool a photo?

82A, 82B or 82C are blue-tinted light balancing filters. They are not to be confused with the more blue 80A, 80B or 80C series which are color conversion filters.

>   Also will the same filter series make a black and white image a little
> harsh?

As with any filter when used with b&w film, a blue filter will transmit its own color and darken "opposite" colors. A red filter makes red objects seem white and turns a blue sky almost black. A blue filter will turn a blue sky to white and darken blue, cyan or green.

Traditionally the filter for more "rugged" looks, particularly with skin tones is a green X1. If you want a filter for overall use, with a bit of contrast boost, try the old standby -- a yellow K2.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon Mailing LIst;
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001
From: "Thom Hogan" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] re: warming filters

i'm interested in purchasing a warming filter for some of my lenses. B&W offers several "intensities" the standard 81A, 81B, and then two with more intensity as well. can anyone comment on what intensity they find the most useful? Moose likes the 81A and uses it on most of his shots, but i'd like to hear others comments on it.

Check pages 42 and 43 of Nikon Field Guide. You'll quickly see that the one-filter-fits-all notion isn't necessarily the way to go. I'd argue that a photographer should have at least the 81, 81A, 81B, and 81C handy, which would give him or her the ability to handle the full range of outdoor color temperatures (you might have to stack two to get some values). Note that it would take an 81D to bring shade values to the level of overcast daylight or overcast daylight to bright sun (well, okay, you'd be 3 MIREDs too high for the latter and 1 MIRED too low for the former, but the 81D is still the closest value to fully correcting the color shift).

That said, the reason why most photographers use an 81A is that it doesn't make much of a shift (it's just slightly more than the difference between bright sunlight and most flash units--another reason to use an 81A, to correct that flash color, BTW).

Thom Hogan, writer/photographer
author, Nikon Field Guide, Nikon Flash Guide, Nikon Coolpix Guide www.bythom.com

From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: "Stephen J. Dunn" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Magnar : one for sale in Paris

Marc wrote:

This is odd. My Duonar takes S62 accessories, but Prochnow calls for 65mm accessories at 24-501. I would opine, without much to go on, that Rollei's "65mm" is everyone else's 62mm. Could you check to confirm this?

Marc

It seems there was not a standardized method of designating the diameter of filters in the days of the Duonar. The diameter references could describe the outer diameter or the thread diameter. I'd wager measuring the OD of the S62 Rollei filter would mike out to 65mm. I've been through this before with the Kodak Retina filters. The IIIc I have takes Kodak filters marked 32mm. The filter thread diameter is smaller than that. Its the OD that measures 32mm. A throw-back to slip on filter adapters etc.

Steve Dunn

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: Kevin Ramsey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lindhal Adapter

Hi Tim:

Lindahl makes an adapter for the bay VI and for the bay 104 mounts on the Rollei. I bought mine through Photo Habitat in New York, but you should be able to get them through any authorized Lindahl dealer or from Lindahl itself at: http://www.lslindahl.com/.

Kevin

Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001
From: Garrett Adams [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which brand 81A filter is the "right" color?

The B+W 81A with it's yellowish tint is a dead match for the Kodak Wratten gelatin filter, which in the U.S. is (or was) a standard. Not sure about their 81A but Tiffen color correction filters normally are close matches to Kodak gels as well. However all of the 81A filters manufactured in the Far East that I have seen follow the amber tint you find in your Hoya.

The other popular color correction system, the decamired system has two comparable filters in the 81A and 81B range, the KR1.5 and KR3. These filters aren't as quite amber but lean more towards a reddish-magenta hue, similar to Tiffin's 812 filter. Confusing isn't it? Don't worry. If all you're after is adding a little warmth to a scene just use the tint you find most pleasing.

Garrett

>Just noticed that my B&W 81A filters seem to be straight yellow
>whereas my Hoya 81A have a bit of red in the yellow as well.

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: "Francis A. Miniter" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: filters

Hi bg,

My preference is for the old-style Kodak "Series __ " filters. They are glass and they come in various standard sizes - 5, 6, 7, 8 - and you get one adapter for each lens and pop the filters in and out as needed. It saves on purchases of innumerable filters for innumerable lens threadings. Some of the adapters screw in, some of them slide on over the outside of the front element. These filters are not threaded. The adapter has a back part which attaches to the lens and a front part which holds the filter in place.

Francis A. Miniter

bg wrote:

> I have switched from 35mm to 4x5 only recently, but thouroughly enjoy  the
> camera and change in working style.  I need to add filtration to my  system
> and wonder what method most of you more experienced folks use:  filter
> holder for resin or equivilent square filters (with or without  compendium)
> versus     glass threaded filters (with step down rings so one set fits  all
> lenses).  Opinions?
> bg

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
From: "F64" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: filters

I actually posted this in response to a Cokin question -- seems to apply here.....

The Lee system.... Definitely

I've been using it for years on my "real" camera (large format) lenses and (when convenient) on my "baby" camera (35mm) lenses. I haven't tried them on my "toy" (digital) camera since Lee doesn't offer a 28mm adapter... just as well, the Lee holder is a lot bigger than the toy camera anyway :)) .... but I do hold the filter in front of the lens with my hand

The Lee website could use some major improvement but you can get a clue as to what the system is all about. IMHO the Lee system is much easier to used than Cokin (much less fumbling around)

downside
4x4 filters cost more than most circular equivalents (as well as 3x3)

upside
you only need to buy 1 copy
not many lenses will have a vignette problem with 4x4 filters (equivalently, 100mm circular)

Polymer (plastic) filters vs glass filters plastic filters scratch easier than glass (use the appropriate cleaning solution) glass filters cost more than plastic and break easier (in case you're prone to dropping fragile items)

If you decide to go with a collection of circular filters, I would recommend oversizing the filters by a couple sizes (and using step-up rings). This will help avoid vignetting problems and will also offer some degree of flexibility when you purchase your next new lens

If you decide to go with Cokin, take mine PLEASE !!

Date: Sun Jul 15 2001
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Veerendra Chirala)
[1] Re: Newbie seeks advice on filters

Tony,

Searching in rec.photo.* newsgroups itself might yeild good results.

You can also try http://www.photo.net/photo/filters for some info.

And also http://www.photo.net/photo/filters

http://www.agfaphoto.com/library/photocourse/index.html

Veeren.

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001
From: "Terry" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen or Hoya: Do we have known tests of filters?

ThomasH [email protected] wrote:

> Usually there is the simple implication between price and quality,
> but among optics there are many hidden gems among the less costly
> products. What is the reputation and (even better) test reports
> of the Tiffen products? I do not want save $10 and spoil the results.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas.

Thomas,

I had this same topic with my photo instructor. I asked him if I should buy the high-end Heilopans or low-cost Hoyas from my 72mm Canon 28-135mm IS USM lens. He said to me, "Save your money, Hoyas and Tiffens are fine." In fact, he told me that no one has ever told him or his professional friends that they could tell which photographs where done with a Tiffen, B&W, Hoya, or a Heilopan. You just can't tell, is what he said. So don't worry. Also, since you'll most likely scratch, drop or ding your filter through the years, the Hoyas and Tiffens are much cheaper to replace then the exotic ones.

Good Luck,

Terry

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001
From: "Denton Mickelson" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Faking a Pro Mist Filter

Cut a 4" square piece out of white pantyhose and stretch it over the front of your lens. Slip a rubber band over it to hold it on. This will give you a mist or fog effect for very little cost.

Denny Mickelson
East Greenwich, Rhode Island

....

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001
From: adam forrester [email protected]
Subject: [CONTAX] "the best filter is no filter"

Austin, heres an example of a filter degrading the image.I shot a test using a Tiffin 6x6' coral filter on the front of a hasselblad CT* 500 mm(pre apo version) and also with a 86mm zeiss 81a filter.The tiffen shots were all soft the zeiss sharp.Using a rented CF 500 Apo both filters were good,but the zeiss still visable better.The reasons for this ?

1) tiffen filters are not made of high quality optical glass and are not ground flat.Schneider say tiffen don't even own an inferemometer(my spelling might be out here but its a machine that measures flatness,a crucial bit of kit.) and tiffen use cheap crown glass.If you look at the unsealed edge of a tiffen the glass is greenish color like a window pane!Quality optical glasses are clear.In general for film work I use 4x4 or 6x6 schneider filters which also are single coated ,tiffen have no coatings, although tiffen are fine for normal focal lengths with a good mattebox.

2)in general its a bad idea to filter the front of any lens 300mm or over. Most modern superteles have internal filter holders for glass or gels.In some cases this slot is part of the optical constuction and if no filter is used the supplied clear glass filter is recommended by the maker.

Gels are are also good for rear mounting on fisheyes and superwides(my canon 17-35 f2.8 zoom has a useful gel holder on the back baffle)

adam

From Rollei Mailing List;
d Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Search might be over (was klunker!)

Fred Greenspan wrote:

>Also, I'd like to get some sort of Bay III
>protective filter. The Parker User's Manual lists the UV as having a 1.5
>filter factor while it lists an "H1" as having none.

H1 is "haze". Avoid all such filters. The front element of the lens is quite tough, and the only thing you accomplish by using a "protection" filter is to degrade the final image on the negative. Use filters where necessary, but sparingly, and avoid them whenever possible. The Good Lord (or F&H, in any event) produced rapid-on, rapid-off lens caps for the very purpose of protecting your lenses.

And I hope you will send me your two lens and body serial numbers by private e-mail!

Marc
[email protected]

From: "Michael A. Covington" See www.covingtoninnovations.com for address
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Wratten filter numbers

> Then you would probably know -- is there a blue filter available of density
> *between* the 80A and 82A? I've considered stacking 82A's, but then it's just
> more glass and more glass and...

80C or B+W KB6. Half the strength of the 80A (KB12); about 4 times the strength of the 82A (KB1.5). This is in my book, p. 309. The KB numbering sequence is from B+W (Germany), www.schneideroptics.com -- excellent filters but expensive; buy from www.bhphotovideo.com.

--
Clear skies,

Michael Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
http://www.CovingtonInnovations.com/astro

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: "F64" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cokin filter system: worthwhile purchase?

The Lee system.... Definitely!!

The Lee website could use some major improvement but you can get a clue as to what the system is all about. IMHO the Lee system is much easier to used than Cokin (much less fumbling around)

downside

4x4 filters cost more than most circular equivalents (as well as 3x3) upside
you only need to buy 1 copy
not many lenses will have a vignette problem with 4x4 filters (equivalently, 100mm circular)

If you decide to go with Cokin, take mine PLEASE !!

Dallas wrote

>I was wondering if anybody could give me some advice on whether or not  this
>system would be worth considering or if perhaps I would do better to  stick
>with screw-in filters.
>
>I am just learning the medium format on a Bronica ETRS and I have 40mm, 75mm
>and 150mm Zenzanon lenses. All these have a 62mm thread. What I like  about
>the Cokin system is that they are more readily available than screw-ins
>here. Cheaper too, but that's why I'm asking...worth it or not?

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: filters

>Does anyone here still use the old 4" x 4" glass filters from Kodak  Wratten and
>Harrison & Harrison?  I believe this size is still made and mainly used  by the
>cinema industry but they seem to be about $100. each.  Oddly enough,  whenever I
>sell one it sems as if I can't get even a fraction of their true value.
>
>E. Nerves

I have a few which I use with an old fashioned adaptor for large lenses and for the compendium shade on my Calumet camera. I don't ever see them at camera sales although I do occasionally see 4x4 gelatin filters. The motion picture filtes are probably in what Kodak used to call "A" glass, that is, very homogenious optical glass ground plane parallel to some fraction of a wavelength. These things were around $50 even fifty years ago. Modern glass filters are also coated, multi coated if they are really good ones.

Optical perfection is a special problem in motion picture photogaphy because the final magnification is so great.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

From hasselblad mailing list;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: 150CF vs. 150CFi

[email protected] wrote:

>I plan to purchase a  150mm CF or CFi.  Does anyone in the group have info on
>significant differences in reliability or performance?  There is  obviously a
>significant difference in the market rates for similarly rated, used  versions
>of these lenses.  Thanks for your help.
>Art

The CFi lenses have new internal baffling which reduces internal reflections significantly, according to my local Hasselblad rep (and good friend.)

T* coating on CF and CFi lenses will keep the sun and bright lights from causing major lens flare. The problem is that many folks use a filter over their lens thus rendering the wonderful T* coating useless. Filters are not coated anywhere nearly as well as a Zeiss T* lens. If a filter is pointing toward a bright light source (windows or lights in a church, direct sunlight, high contrast subject, etc) you most likely will get flare. And the lens cannot correct it. All of these things falling directly on the front element of a T* lens, will cause insignificant flare. But falling on a filter, WILL cause flare.

I have a personal project of photographing a local field from the same point, every Friday morning at 7am. I'm photographing due east. The sun is a few degrees above the horizon and in the frame. I'm using my 40CFE and the photographs are wonderful. Clear and crisp. No flare. I've been doing it for about twelve weeks now and the crop went from seed to six feet high now. As the sun got higher each morning before June 21st, an overhanging tree grew longer so the sun is peeking through the overhanging leaves. Still no flare.

CF and CFi lenses are great, and if kept clean and are not looking through an inferior piece of glass, are very flare resistant.

Jim

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: UV filters don't- % absorp. etc. Re: difference between filters

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> Filter          UV Light Absorption
> UV              22%
> Sky 1A          45.5%
> UV 15           81%
> UV 16           86.5%
> UV 17           97%
> Haze 2A         Virtually all UV light
>
> [Source: B&H's "The Professional Photo SourceBook", page 360, Tiffen
> Filters]
>
> other brands vary a bit, but basically, UV filters don't ;-) - that is,
> they don't filter much UV, while the UV16 and UV17 do (like SPF in sun
> block creams ;-)

That might well be a too general assumption.

The UV filters i use have 0% transmission of any light shorter than 390 nm, 50% at 400 nm, and max. transmission of 80+ % at 450 nm.

An 81A filter of the same manufacturer fully absorbes light shorter than 370 nm, has 70% transmission at 400 nm, and then slowly slopes up to reach max. transmission of just short of 80 % at approx. 650 nm.

So though the 81A will have clearly more effect changing colours from cool blues to warmer tones than the UV filter, it however does transmit considerably more UV light than the UV filter.

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: difference between filters

FMW wrote:

> No, nor does it change when filtered by a UV "filter."

That would depend on the amount of UV light transmitted by the lens in use. Film will register UV light, so if and when it is transmitted, it will certainly have an effect on colour.

Transmission by the glasses used in our lenses drops rapidly from 90% to 0% going from 360 nm and 313 nm wavelengths. So we only have the band between 360 nm and 390 nm left. How much of this is transmitted depends on cements and lens coatings, but transmission usually is very low. But not 0%! So when large amounts of UV light are present (when using strong UV sources, or when there is less filtering by the atmosphere at high altitudes) some UV light will indeed reach the film, and effect colour. So an UV filter absorbing all wavelengths below, say, 390 nm will indeed be able to change colour.

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Push on filter adapter for 203mm Ektar

[email protected] (Tan) wrote:

>Does anyone know if one exists (ready made, not custom)? I am looking for  one
>that I can screw modern filters on to.
>
>Also, what kind of (push on?) hood do I need?
>
>I had stopped using this lens a while back for lack of these accessories.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Regards,
>K H Tan

The 203mm, f/7.7 Ektar and #77 Kodak Anastigmat (same lens uncoated) use a 1-5/16" or 33mm push-on adaptor for Series VI filters, same as used on the 127mm f/4.7 Ektar. Kodak made a lens hood which screws into the filter adaptor and becomes the filter retaining ring.

There are Series 6 screw in filters which thread into the push-on adaptor. These filters are threaded on both sides so that the lens shade can be threaded onto the front of the filter.

Non-threaded Series 6 filters drop into the adaptor and are held in by either the retaining ring or the lens shade when one is used.

The threads on all of the push on adaptors seem to be the same. I Have Kodak and a couple of other makes and parts for all thread together.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (Nik Nikiforou)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Push on filter adapter for 203mm Ektar

The 33mm (1 5/16") Series 6 push on adapter fits perfectly on my 203mm Ektar. I then took took the outside filter retaining ring off the series 6 adapter and epoxied a modern step-up ring to the front of it, allowing me to use my set of 58mm filters with it. If you do this, you need to be gentle in handling the epoxied ring, as too much pressure will break the bond.

Hope this helps,
Nik

...

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
From: "Tom Coates" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Push on filter adapter for 203mm Ektar

I just learned that Series 7 is 54mm, not a standard size for filters. But www.2filter.com has a 54-52mm stepdown. I needed a Series 7 hood (they said those aren't being made any more) so I ordered a 52mm and the stepdown ring. They had it in two versions, very expensive and under $10.

Are there still any specialists in new old stock filters and accessories? EBay has more than a hundred current auctions for series filters.

Tom

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001
From: Rod Leavitt [email protected]
Subject: Spreadsheet

Here's the spreadsheet.

Density Percentage of light Increase in exposure Filter factor

Transmission in f-stops

0.3 50 1 2

0.6 25 2 4

0.9 12.5 3 8

1.2 6.25 4 16

1.5 3.125 5 32

1.8 1.562 6 64

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: 27 Apr 2001
From: Patrick Bartek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Heliopan Circular Polarizer filter factor

kwow wrote:

> I've recently face problem with exposure on the above-mention polarizer.
> It is marked on the filter ring with a filter factor of 2.5, which
> should be about 1.25 f/stops.

I never put much trust in filter factors for polarizers. The amount of polarization used directly affects the amount of light that passes through the filter, which of course affects overall exposure. And this effect is not equally proportional: shadows, the sky -- of course -- and reflections of skylight are affected more by polarization than directly illuminated objects.

> I would normally perform metering the subject without the polarizer &
> fix it on, then adjust the compensation required, without further
> metering again. The result is that some of the shots are not exposed
> consistently. It should not be my metering method, as I don't face this
> problem on shots that do not use the polarizer.

The filter factor is not gospel. If the scenes are consistently dark, open up more. Do tests, if you want to do filter factor corrections.

Also, if you're considering metering through the filter, even a circular polarizing one, it is reflectance metering, which by its very nature has problems obtaining a "correct" exposure.

> It makes me question the filter factor consistency under different
> lighting condition. I would appreciate if anyone can advice me on proper
> usage of the Heliopan circular polarizer, by the way, mine is the
> single-coated type.

Here's how I correctly expose a scene using a polarizer: I read the scene with a INCIDENCE meter; open up the lens 2 stops (filter factor of 4) as a correction for the polarizer, then bracket plus/minus 1 stop in half stop increments. I'll get 3 shots out of the 5 that are good: one a darker rendering; "normal", and the other a lighter one -- all acceptable. The remaining 2 shots are trashed.

--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Filter and focus point change.

you wrote:

>> > The focus would shift 1/3 the thickness of the filter you
>
>>   The significance of the shift depends on where the filter is.   On  the
>>   outside of the lens, in normal work, its of no significance at all.
>
>What are the calculations for the focus shift (on the front of the  lense)?
>Certainly it is not 1/3 the filter thickness when the filter is in front  of
>the lense.

It is about that given the average index of refraction of the glass. The index is literally the speed of propagaton of light in a medium compared to a vacuum. The index of a vacuum is defined as 1. Average glass has an index of around 1.5, meaning the speed of light in it is 1/1.5 that of a vacuum.

Since the speed of light in air is very nearly that in a vacuum the speed in the glass is about 1/3rd of that. The glass is effectively longer than its physical size, enough to add about 33% to its length. So, the filter makes the effective path longer by about 1/3rd of its thickness. Now, remember that the thickness of the filter is part of the path length. If we had a filter with an index of 1 and put it into an optical path it would make no difference. When taken out the path would remain the same length. However, since the glass filter is optically thicker than its physical dimension, it does add some distance to the path.

Another way to put this is that if a filter is put in front of a focused lens the focal plane for sharp focus must move back a little to accomodate the slightly longer effective subject to lens distance. The amount of change is relative to the thickness of the glass vs: distance of the object. Obviously, for a normal filter the change is going to be undetectable for object distances down to several inches. For a gelatin filter even closer. Gelatin BTW has an index similar to glass.

This whole thing is covered in any book treating on optics. One of the best is an old one and maybe not so easy to find. _Lenses in Photography_ Rudolf Kingslake, the second edition is better.

The effect is there whether the light going through it is parallel (collimated) or not. It introduces aberrations only for vergent light, that is light going through it at an angle.

By distant I mean far enough so that the light is effectively parallel. For optical purposes that is around 20 times the focal length of the lens, maybe less.

>> Where the light is collimated, as it nearly is from very
>> distant objects, the effect is insignificant.
>
>Can you define 'distant'?
>
>Also, I would assume the wider the angle of view, the larger the overall
>effect would be, with no shift in the center, but will increase out  toward
>the edges?

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001
From: Peter Rosenthal <[email protected]>
To: Hasselblad forum <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: plastic filters

There is an easy test for filters. It's very easy to see optical
abberations, if any. Hold it out at arms length with the filter at a 60�
angle from your eye. The greater the angle the better. You want to look
through lots of glass. This amplifies any problems making it easier to
evaluate. View a building at some distance with strong contrast vertical
and horizontal lines. Using one eye and looking at the building through the
filter, move it around in little tight circles. Also rotate the filter
around it's center point while maintaining it's angle. If there is ANY
movement or distortion of the lines, throw the filter out. These same
distortions are manifesting themselves on your film to one degree or
another. If you see no movement of any part of the building, good
purchase!!

I've checked every filter that's come into my shop for the last 20 years
(thousands and thousands) just for fun and enlightenment and here are some
conclusions. Tiffen and Hoya have shown a nearly perfect record with only a
couple of defective ones. B & W have shown a surprising defective rate (10
or so in 20 years) although they are beautiful. And those stunning, heavy
brass rings....!! Korean filters have shown to be just terrible. I've seen
all sorts of distortions just looking straight through them. Most are
nothing but badly warped, uncoated, PLAIN glass. As far as the Cokin filters
go...not one has ever let any light pass without major flaws. Wedge (not
parallel faces), ripple of every conceivable magnitude and amplitude,
concavity and convexity are some of the flaws they exhibit. Remember...if
you can see the distortions, then the film can "see" them too. Putting one
of these beasts on your Zeiss is like hooking a milk wagon up to your race
horse. Use at your own risk!!
Peter

--
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair

Bronica Classic Camera Home Page

From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filters to achieve "dark" skies
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 

Billy wrote:
> 
> meme wrote:
> >
> > Hi ive seen photos that have very intense clouds and vivid colors of the
> > sky, without using photoshop, how can I achieve such effect??
> 
> Polarizer?
> --
> -Billy e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly

Coloured filter with complement coloured flash. The flash eliminates the
effect of the lens filter at close range, but things far away get
coloured. At least Cokin advertises the trick.

-- Lassi

From: "Steve Lewis" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cokin on Hassy
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 

A cautionary note for the future based on experience. You will find that the
Cokin P series holder will cause vignetting with the wider angle lens, say
65mm or lower. I only mention this as you may want to consider buying a
larger filter holder as a form of future proofing. Of course, if you do not
intend to use wide angles lenses, then apologies for the presumption.

HTH
Steve

www.stevephoto.co.uk

meme wrote 
>Hi what kind of adapters I need to attach the Cokin filters onto Hassy?
>
>Also how do I use the lens shade if the Cokin filter mount is in place?
>
>Thanks
>
>

From: "Andrei Calciu" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Bay 4 adapters
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 

guys,

Following Marc's sage advice, I contacted SRB film about the bay 4 to 49mm
adapters. here are the prices they gave me. Please keep in mind everything
is in British Pounds, thus a dollar price will be about 1.7 times the Pound
price

Delivery in one week. Shipping is additional cost
Qty    Price
1 off    90.00 GBP
2 off    75.00 GBP each
6 off    60.00 GBP each

Delivery within several weeks, at SRB's convenience!!! Shipping additional
Qty    Price
1 off     45.00 GBP
2 off     37.50 GBP each
6 off     30.00 GBP each

I am interested in buying 4 of them. Anybody else game for some?

From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New Rollei TLR
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 

Martin Jangowski wrote:
> 
> Train Man [email protected]> wrote:
> > I just purchased a Rolleiflex Automat 4 TLR, SN 1276997. How do I tell
> > what type of Bayonet filters etc to purchase (bay1, bay2, bay3)? The
> > taking lens is a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar with a red T (if that means
> > anything)... With the Bay1 to 49mm atapter fit this camera? I don't want
> > to spend the $20 to find out it won't.
> 
> All f3.5 Tessar/Xenar/Triotar Rolleis have the Baj I, the Rolleiflex A with
> a 2.8 Tessar and all f3.5 Planar/Xenotar Rolleis have Baj II and all
> 2.8 Planar/Xenotar Rolleis have Baj III. You'll need the plentiful
> available Baj. I filters.
> 
> Martin

The Japanese TLR manufactures also used the same bayonet and called it
B30, because the filter diameter is 30mm. AFAIK, the red T just means
the lens is coated, like any other after-WW2 lens.

Judging by the serial number, the camera should celebrate its 50th
birthday just about now. Lots of other Rollei trivia is available at
your nearest search engine :-)

-- Lassi

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
To: [email protected]>
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] Re: 49mm CC filters for XPan?

you wrote:
>Does anybody know where a 49mm Red 10cc filter can be had?  The only thing 
>I can find is a B+W for $85.00 and a three month wait!

Hoya & Heliopan don't offer CC filters. Tiffen lists a Red cc20 in 49mm, 
but not a cc10. B+W's is mucho $$$, as you note.

Tiffen used to offer Red cc10 in 52mm, but it's discontinued. If you can 
find one, that plus a step ring might do.

Kodak offers 3x3" cc10 Red gel filters for a very modest price. Then, all 
you'd need is a 49mm gel filter holder. :-)

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From: eric boxall ericb@abc_fenris99.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Gelatin filter newbie Q
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 

Tom Westbrook
[email protected]> writes
>I just received 4 spanking new Wratten gel filters from B+H. I had no
>idea they were so _thin_! I feel like I shouldn't even touch the things
>or they'll dissolve or worse. Is there something I should have purchased
>along with the filters to protect them from me, or are the resin ones a
>better idea? Maybe someone can point me to a good source of info on the
>web about types of filters and care and feeding. I did buy a Lee filter
>holder (way overpriced, if you ask me) for the things, but I'm worried
>that just the act of inserting them into it will destroy them. And there
>is the temperature warning (keep at less than 78F). Will these melt at
>warmer temps? I'm using these with a Mamiya RB67, if that matters. My
>idea with the square filters was to save some money over a lot of glass,
>but maybe this is false economy.
>
Hi Tom,

I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings but gelatine filters really
are a PITA to use.

I tried some out many years ago for _laboratory_ applications. We found
that the only way to handle them was when wearing surgical gloves
because they take finger marks very readily and are virtually impossible
to clean. I tried laminating them between two large microscope cover
slips, using mounting medium, which at least gave protection from finger
marks and dust. However, the assemblies were very fragile and we broke
'em all within a week, writing off the filters completely.

Theoretically, being so thin, they have the very least possible affect
upon the optical properties of the lens and the spectrum of the light
transmitted can be controlled very accurately. They wont melt at
temperatures a little higher than 72 deg F but they do soften and can
warp, impairing their optical properties. If you are doing experimental
work and are concerned about the precise details of the transmission
spectra then gelatine filters are justified but IMO, for ordinary
photographic applications, they are more trouble than they are worth. 

We went over to using the more-conventional dyed-in-the-mass glass
filters and I was never able to detect any difference between these and
gelatine filters. Good quality glass filters from a reputable filter
manufacturer are optically flat and seem perfectly acceptable, are
cheaper in the long run and are infinitely more robust. 

I'd try to use the gelatine filters for as long as they remain
serviceable and then replace them with glass filters.

Sorry !
-- 
Eric
Email to:beric@fenris99(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk 

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: "R. Peters" [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Restoring a Bayonet III Rolleipol

I read the info posted here recently on removing the separated Rollei
polarizer and replacing it with another.  

Here's a little of what I learned:  I picked up a Hoya 43mm Polarizer.  The
glass was easily removed by taking out a "snap" ring.  

The retaining ring in the rolleipol unscrews easily with a lens spanner
wrench (available from Micro Tools (formerly Fargo)  The glass in the
Rolleipol is bedded ("set") into a kind of black mastic ("gooey stuff").  I
cleaned that out and set the 43mm filter into fresh black caulk.  

The 43mm filter is just a smidge small.  I think next time I'd try a 43.5.
 I used a black silicone caulking compound to set the filter into.  Then,
as mentioned, the Hoya filter is thinner and the retaining ring won't screw
down into the Rolleipol enough to tighten against it.  

I used a 1-3/4 inch rubber O ("oh") ring  from the plumbing section of the
hardware store to act as a spacer.  

I think when the caulk dries, this will probably work. But! I could still
push the 43mm filter out the front of the Rolleipol even with the O ring in
place before the caulk dried.  

So I think my cobbled up job probably will be OK, but--again--I think the
43.5 mm filter for the Bayonet III Rolleipol would PROBABLY be a better fit.  

So, thanks for the tip!

	bob

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected], [email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens

bradleya wrote:
>
>Seriously, I have a 50 FLE that was shipped to me with a filter attached 
>and the package took a good whack, shattering the filter.  As a result, 
>the lens got a few microscopic gouges taken out of the glass and several 
>other little peck marks in the coating.

This is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y what I tell people who insist that a filter is a way 
to protect one's front lens element.

Your 50 FLE isn't the first lens I've seen damaged by a broken filter. As a 
matter of fact, the O-N-L-Y front elements I've ever seen damaged were 
damaged by a broken filter. This reporting ups the count to five. Five by a 
broken filter, zero with no filter.

The moral of this story is: Have a filter on your lens, while 
photographing, when, and only when, the filter will ENHANCE your 
photograph. Otherwise, it will degrade your photograph and you stand a 
chance of damaging your lens.

Thanks for the confirmation Brad...

:)

Jim

From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 

> Putting a UV filter over a quality Zeiss lens is like putting a sticky
> plastic slip cover over an exquisite couch.
> The couch lasts forever but who the hell wants to sit on it?

Mark,

A UV filter does NOT degrade the image quality AT ALL, unless you are in a
situation where flare is an issue.  Even Erwin has agreed with that.

I DO use UV filters, and I find it far far easier to clean the front of a UV
than to clean the front element.  It's MY preference, and since it doesn't
degrade the image quality AT ALL, why begrudge someone their preference?

Austin

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected], [email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens

, george day wrote:

>Of course, UV filters actually do have an optical function, beyond mere
>protection.  But let's not get into that.

Perhaps on 50 year old lenses, made before they incorporated all of the UV 
inhibiting filters into both the glass and the glue between the elements.

The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit.

I have taught numerous Leica workshops for Leica USA. I was told, by the 
sponsoring stores, that telling participants to not by UV filters is a big 
no-no. That it adds significantly to the bottom line of every lens sold. So 
instead of telling them to not buy UV filters, I told them to use only 
"useful" filters. Filters that would definitely enhance their photograph. 
Then I showed the class all of the great filters that I do use. Polarizer, 
warming, cooling, ND, split ND, split color grad, etc. The participants 
spent a huge amount of money buying all of these filters, and no UV 
filters. Everyone was happy.

This is no B.S. !!!

Jim

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected]>
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens

you wrote:
>The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit.

I am sorry, but I have to take umbrage at this calumny. Everyone here who's 
anti-UV filter seems to be operating from the perspective of shooting 
portraits or models or weddings or commercial stuff in controlled 
situations where a UV filter may well not be necessary for lens 
protection/insurance. Heck, my studio-only stuff doesn't have UV filters 
either.

B U T ...

some of us are shooting in less amenable environments. I posted obliquely 
yesterday about getting caught in a frat food fight. It was no joke and it 
really happened. Getting whipped cream and chocolate pudding off my lens 
would have been impossible. Unscrewing the filter after wiping down the 
lens barrel & hood let me finish my day's assignments. The silk tie I was 
wearing and the UV filter went into the trash. I've also shot rodeos from 
the floor, and there's plenty of stuff it's not so simply to scrape off the 
front of a lens, hood or not. I shot plenty of basketball & wrestling too 
(the real college-Olympics kind, not the WWF stuff) and flying drops of 
perspiration are a consideration. No joke.

My point is that while a UV filter is NOT necessary all the time, whether 
for UV filtration or protection/insurance, it IS advisable some of the 
time. Those who've said, "No UV filter, EVER," as as wrong as those who've 
said, "UV filters on every lens every second."

Remember what Groucho said about cigars? Applies to filters too. Finally, 
suggesting that every store salesman who suggests a UV filter is, every 
time, trying to line his (or the store owner's) pocket at the unsuspecting 
customer's expense is just as wrong and just as blatant a generalization as 
the filter conversation has been.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
Subject: [HUG] UV Filters and the real world
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

My Hasselblads and Leicas are on the road with me almost on a daily basis (6
business flights so far in January, 38,000 air miles in December).

UV filters are cheap insurance...even when they cost $50 each...

In theory there may be some image degradation, but the degradation caused by
careless security inspectors, rain, snow, dust, dirt and such poses a far
greater danger of permanent degrading damage to very expensive lens
elements. Much less painful to dispose of a filter than take a lens out of
service for a very expensive regrinding or replacement element.

Perhaps I was lucky, but I have had a UV filter destroyed by flying debris
during the 1993 street fighting in Moscow without damaging the front lens
element on my 150mm.

Mark

From: "Todd Caudle" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cokin Gray vs Neutral Density Filter
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 

I agree w/ Steve on the Cokins. They are rarely neutral in color balance.
His was tinted magenta, I've had them tinted greenish. I use the Sing-Ray
2-stop soft step, and it is absolutely worth the extra dollars. Neutral in
color, accurate in density. If you can, ask Bob when you order if you can
get a filter WITHOUT the Galen Rowell gold stamp along one edge. That way,
in certain situations (horizon is silhouetted), you can actually use it as a
reverse grad.

"Steve Lewis" [email protected]> 
> I once bought a Cokin 'P' series ND Grad and it was awful. Horrible magenta
> cast and uneven graduation. I took it back, exchanged it for another one and
> that one was just as bad. I now use Lee filters which IMHO are the best on
> the market. Don't skimp on filters; buy the best you can afford.
> HTH
> Steve
> zloi wrote
> >Cokin sells a "gray" filter which is usable as a neutral density filter
> >but supposedly differs in some way from a "true" neutral density, such
> >as Singh Ray makes.  Of course, the latter cost about 5 times as much.
> >Does anyone know what the difference in manufacturing is?  And for those
> >who have used both, is there truly a discernible difference?  (In other
> >words, is it worth spending the extra money for the Singh Rays??)
> >
> >-zloi

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 
From: John Lehman [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Verlauf
To: [email protected]

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>

> Anyone have a suggestion on where I can buy (or how 
> I can create) a verlauf filter in Bay3?

Two approaches:

(1) use a bay-3 to 52mm stepup ring and get a Hoya or
other version (disadvantage -- the line is in the
middle only)

(2) use a 3" (75mm) gel filter holder which will clamp
on to the lenshood (both B&H and Calumet sell them). 
Put 1/2 of a 3" filter in a cardboard holder stiff
enough to keep its place vertically in the holder, and
voila!  This was my project for last evening, so we
must have been reading similar stuff (in my case a
textbook on Field Photography) 

=====
John Lehman
College, Alaska USA

From: Joshua Putnam [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Just FORGET about ordering B&W filters!
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 

[email protected] writes:

>Well, first lets throw out the outlyers, such as cheap glass/gelatin
>filters. Then consider the mounting of filters. Some (I won't name
>names)have crummy threads, or leak moisture between the mount and
>glass.
>
>But I'd rather stick with B&W now because I've had good luck and just
>don't need but a few more filters. I'm stuck on them. 

In my experience, one of the greatest things about B+W filters is 
that they don't get stuck on me, or rather on my lens, nearly as 
often as some other brands with lower-quality mounting rings, 
especially in extreme weather where aluminum filter rings have 
more tendency to jam.

Since some of the filters I use are way too expensive from B+W, I 
just scrounge scratched or broken B+W filters at swap meets and 
re-use their mounting rings for glass from less expensive brands 
with rings that jam.

-- 
    [email protected] is Joshua Putnam
       http://www.phred.org/~josh/
  Updated Infrared Photography Books List:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html

From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Jul 2001 
Subject: Re: Just FORGET about ordering B&W filters!

>In my experience, one of the greatest things about B+W filters is that they
don't get stuck on me, or rather on my lens, nearly as often as some other
brands with lower-quality mounting rings, especially in extreme weather where
aluminum filter rings have more tendency to jam.>

When the front end of lenses was metal, this was an issue. Nowadays, the front
end of most lenses is plastic & I wonder if it's still as relevant.
===============================

regards,
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]

From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Just FORGET about ordering B&W filters!
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 

I certainly agree that generally there is no difference in optics among the
name brands. I've always used John Sexton's suggestion to occasionally (once
a year or so) lightly coat the threads with vaseline, so I don't have any
sticking filter problems regardless of brand. As a matter of interest,
however, the final issue of the old (and much lamented, by me at least)
magazine "Camera and Darkroom" contained an article by Joe Englander
demonstrating that different polarizing filters provided slightly different
looking prints or slides.

"John Stafford" [email protected]> wrote...
> Stephe [email protected]> wrote...
> > Roy L. Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > > I have a mix of filters B&W, Tiffin and Hoya. I am about to get shelled
> > > but I see no difference.
> >
> > Not shelled at all. I agree. I'd love to see someone claim they can "see"
> > the difference. That person would get shelled  :-)
>
> Well, first lets throw out the outlyers, such as cheap glass/gelatin
> filters. Then consider the mounting of filters. Some (I won't name
> names)have crummy threads, or leak moisture between the mount and
> glass.
>
> But I'd rather stick with B&W now because I've had good luck and just
> don't need but a few more filters. I'm stuck on them. To each his own
> (and I suppose more money to B&W.)

From: "Jan Mattsson" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A couple of 500mm lens questions
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 

"John Stafford" [email protected]> wrote 
> Yah, sure, Robert. Now tell the gentleman where in god's name he can buy
> 86mm filters for that 500mm lens.
> I've followed every lead posted here and NONE of them carry them.

http://www.ny-camera.net/language/english/index.htm lists 86 mm B+W filters.

/Jan

To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] removing nicotine stains

I use Windex for this.  It takes time and lots of rubbing with clean
cotton cloth.  It isn't the nicotine that coats things, BTW, but the
tar.  

Don't clean those skylight filters!  They'll make great soft focus
filters with a warm tint!  I'm serious about this. I know one famous
glamour photographer, a heavy smoker, who puts his lenses face up
on a shelf in his appartment without caps so they will collect a coating
of tar.  He is famous for the soft look of his images and has found
no other way to duplicate the effect.

Bob

> From: Alan Wayman [email protected]>
* Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [camera-fix] removing nicotine stains
> 
> Hi all,
> Can anyone tell me how to get nicotine off brushed chrome (or
> anywhere for that matter)?
> 
> I've just inherited a Kowa 6 with chrome lenses from a heavy pipe
> smoker. The lenses are all coated with a solid amber blech which I
> know is nicotine, because my grandfather's radio was the same. By the
> way, the glass is okay as they all had skylight filters attached.
> Alan

From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Replacing the glass in a Rolleipol
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 

Hi Jeff,

I have done this successfully many times.  The new glass is always thinner.
Depending on the age of your Bay1 polarizer you can use a o-ring (from a
local hardware store) or the retaining ring from the new polarizer you are
canniblaizing.
I use 34mm Marumi (Bower) polarizers that come apart easily.  The polarizing
glass in these filters is excellent and inexpensive (do not use their
circular polarisers, they are not very good). 
Write me off-line if you need more details.

Peter K

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 1:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Rollei] Replacing the glass in a Rolleipol
> 
> 
> I read some posts awhile back concerning replacing the bad glass in a 
> Rolleipol with new polarizing glass from another filter. It 
> was suggested 
> that for a bay one filter all one had to do was to buy a 34 
> mm polarizer and 
> that glass would fit into the bay one mount. But, does one have to be 
> concerned with the thickness of the replacement glass fitting 
> into the bay 
> one mount?
> If anyone has successfully completed this procedure, could 
> they suggest the 
> name of a polarizer or glass that matches the size and 
> thickness that Rollei 
> used for a good fit in a bay one mount?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jeff
> 

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Advice on Cleaning inexpensive gel filters?
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 

RichS [email protected] wrote:

>Thanks to the help I've received here, I have on-order a new Lee
>gel-snap system, and I bought some old used gel filters. Yep, real
>gelatin. And some of them could use a clean-up...
>
>Now I'm looking for a way to clean these. I've done some experimenting
>in a corner or two. Found out right away that anything water based is
>no good... Didn't want to try anything too toxic or nasty... And first
>try with plain old lighter fluid yielded wondeful results. Completely
>wipes off finger prints and dirt and seems to do no harm to the filter
>material. However, just about anything I've tried to use for the
>actual wiping has caused small to large scratches... So I'm maybe half
>way there?
>
>Anyone got a suggestion on what could be used to clean real gel
>filters? I search around and the only thing I could find was "they can
>not be cleaned..." Well, yes they can, but maybe not too easily so
>far... So I'd really appreciate the offerings of all those experience
>folks out there. I'm sure someone has had to clean a gel and knows the
>'right' way to do it?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Rich (yet again ;-)
>
>P.S. Remove the "-NoSpam" for email replies...

   Gelatin filters are very delicate (as you have discovered). They
should be cleaned like film. Blow off surface dust and clean with film
cleaner like Edwal Anti-Stat Film Cleaner. If not available Kodak now
recommends very pure (99+%) Isopropyl alcohol for film cleaning. I
found suitable alcohol locally at Frye's, a big computer store, sold
with other cleaning agents. Not expensive, I paid about $8 US for a
liter. Its important that the alcohol be as dry as possible, moisture
in it will streak the filters. 

  I would use something like Kimwipes as one time use wipes. 
  One problem with Gel filters is that they scratch very easily. 
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 
To: [email protected], [email protected]
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: [HUG] Eastern Sierras

I personally use B+W & Heliopan 67mm filters on my Hasselblad lenses with a 
67 to B60 adapter. You can screw as many 67mm filters together as you wish. 
I do the same with B70. I use 77mm filters and a 77 to B70 Hasselblad 
adapter. Likewise, you can screw as many 77mm filters together as you wish.

I use a Hi-Tech 4x4 filter holder for nd or color grads. It has a 67 & 77mm 
adapter (actually adapters from 55mm to 86mm). It has two slots for glass 
or resin squares, or in the case of grads, rectangles.

So with one 67-B60 or 77-B70 adapter, you can go wild with any combination 
of regular filters and/or squares.

But I wouldn't encourage too many air-to-glass surfaces in front of that 
fine Zeiss lens. you can get away with a couple, but more than that would 
be questionable. The image fine detail would degrade.

Jim

mikec wrote:
>Fritz,
>
>Thanks much for the response. It makes me want to ask another question: 
>You speak of using two panes of glass over the lens, How do you get two 
>filters mounted at once? My Hasselblad bay 60 filters do not accept 
>another filter on top
>of the first one.
>
>I am a surrealist myself with regards to color saturation, I like heavily 
>saturated colors. I tend to polarize skies heavily also, so I like 
>polarized effect in yours.
>
>Thanks again...
>
>-mike
>hpp://www.mcallahan.net

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Need your help
To: Ronald Shu [email protected]>

see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/bronfilters.html 

re: positioning a gradient ND filter on a rangefinder like Mamiya 7:

basically, you can fake it by calibrating the Lee or cokin filter holder
and the filter with scales you can match up (or markings), then doing a
series of tests at various f-stops against a neutral light colored wall to
determine exact effect at different positions of filter and f/stop values.

With the external finder (w.a. or other), you can put a mask on the
viewfinder and scribe a series of horizon lines (like 4 to 6) to match
your results (using same wall setup if you like ;-). Now when you look 
thru viewfinder, with plastic mask with scribed lines in front/rear of 
it, you see the line positions that correspond to your settings. Simple!

Match the closest horizon line with filter position settings at given
f/stop that give best filter position for your desired composition and 
shoot. Make sense? You can also do a setup for vertical orientation too.

the filter will give the same effect at any given f/stop and lens combo 
when positioned at the same point in the filter holder (hence, scales). 
You need a calibration run to see where and how intense the effect is 
(film is best). After that, you just compose so as to select the 
darkening effect and position that is where you want it...

similarly, you can index a polarizing filter, then view thru it for 
desired effect, and transfer to lens mount. You can also calibrate two 
filters to each other (some come with marked scales around them) and use 
one on lens, one on viewer or at the eye. Lots cheaper than the mamiya 7 
one ;-)

hth bobm

From: "Russell" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 95mm filter holder
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 

Thank you very much for the reply.  I did some searches on this and came
across some articles about putting filters behind the lens, and then I made
a discovery:  the rear of this lens has four little corner cutouts inside
it, presumably to keep the image from vignetting.  You can place a polyester
filter, about 29x34mm, into the space created by the corner cutouts and it
covers the image area completely.  I tried it with a piece of paper.
Tweezers would be needed to handle the little filter without getting
fingerprints on it, but that is a small price to pay.

I think I know what I will do now . . . :)

--Russell

"Bob" [email protected] wrote 
> Russell at
> [email protected] wrote 
> > Hello; I was fortunate enough to obtain a 100-220mm zoom lens for my Bronica
> > ETRSi, and now I am trying to find an economical way to put filters on it.
> > I mainly want to use veil fabric for b/w portrait diffusion.  The 3x3 Kenko
> > Technical holder (62mm) is perfect for the standard lenses; but the 4x4
> > version is only 82mm, and the zoom lens has 95mm threads.  Is there anything
> > cheaper than the Lee or Hitech systems ($200+)?  Preferably the "butterfly"
> > snap-shut type of holder rather than the drop-in type.
> >
> > In the interim I am holding the fabric onto the built-in lens shade with a
> > rubber band.  I don't mind doing this but I might want to use color filters
> > someday.  (Like, when I enter the 21st century.)
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > --Russell
> >
> >
> Heliopan 4x4 magnetic rotating holder has front and rear 105mm threads. It
> would fit by using a Heliopan 105 to 95 adapter. It will hold glass, gel or
> acrylics singly or in any combination.
> HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
> CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
> Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
> Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
> Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com
>

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Source for 40.5 mm filters ?

40.5mm is making a come-back of sorts. It is a common
size in the newer digital/video cameras. I saw a new
Minolta spring-loaded lens cap Saturday for $11.00 in
the video section of a camera store. Filters which are
not ordinarily used for video are probably going to be
hard to find. Imagine a color birthday party video
shot with a K-2 filter!

Unless you need the sleek look of a matching filter to
complement the front of your Helios-103, you might
want to look for Series VI filters.
...

From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: [Leica] Re:  High altitude question

[email protected] wrote:

>I'd say a UV filter had been OK for this situation .
>
>Jo Goodtimes , France
>--

Read my previous post Jo.

If Leica (and Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, etc...) puts UV inhibiting in
both the lens glass and the cement between the elements, what good will
adding yet another layer of UV inhibiting. There's nothing more to 
inhibit.And it doesn't correct the color temperature anyway.

Been there (Colorado and the Swiss Alps) and done that. Does nothing!

Which is why a filter to correct the color temperature of the light is
what is needed. A B+W KR3 for landscapes & sunny subjects or KR6 if your
subject is in the shade. On a bright fall day at 14,000 ft., a KR6 might
be used for everything.

Jim

from Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
From: Charles Seyferlich [email protected]>
Subject: Re: polarising lenses

Some TTL lightmeters also require use of cicular polarizing filters.
Here is a web page that explains polarizing filters.

http://www.camera-filters.com/polarizer_circular.htm

Simon J wrote:
>
> the only difference i know of between circular and linear is that with an AF
> lens you must use a circular.   

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Hoya or Tiffen Multicoated Filters

Protection is the job of the lens cap. While I occasionally use filters
for different reasons I've learned from experience that all but the very
best and most expensive degrade the image somewhat. The ones you are
asking about are both very good (as is B&W which might be the best).
However modern emulsions are not as prone to UV effects like older films.
Currently the only filters I use constantly are things like the Tamron
112mm clear front protective filter from the 300/2.8 and 400/4, and the
various clear rear mount filters that some of my pro lenses have to have
in the back.

Sometimes I use a UV type for cloud effects or a polarizer but I no longer
keep filters on the front just for "protection". If it's a cheaper
consumer lens then any filter will make it a little worse and it isn't
worth paying up to $50 to try and "save" a $100-150 lens. Some pro lenses
have a protective flat element in the front for protection already. Most
modern hard coatings are tougher than the glass under them. I've bought
several lenses that the seller's have said had a bad spot in the coatings,
which turned out to be something I could make disappear after a proper
cleaning.

If on the other hand you are shooting at a location with sand then a
protective filter would be a must as that is harder than the glass itself
and will scratch it if it blows in. The lens coatings themselves are
impervious to chemicals like acetone which is the best cleaner so even a
fingerprint is not something that can't be totally cleaned off.

But you have to make your own call.

Kent Gittings 

From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: UV filter thingummy

you wrote:
>  I am a little clueless on which
>one to get and which brand is better, Hoya, Nikon, Tiffen etc. Could you
>please advice on which filters are essential? I do mainly B&W photography
>with occasional colour as well. Or perhaps you could direct me to a website
>that has more detailed info on filters and their uses?

Try http://www.geocities.com/thombell/

IMHO there's little significant difference in performance from one brand
to another. Nikon circ pol filters are wider in front than at the back to
reduce the chance of vignetting. B+W filters have brass filter rings. Once
upon a time when lens barrels were metal brass was less likely to bind
than aluminum, but now that most lenses are made of plastic, it's moot.
Some manufacturers offer both standard and multi-coated versions. The
latter are said to offer increased transmission.

If you routinely use pol filters on wide angle lenses you may wish to
consider a "slim" or "extra wide" version.

For b&w, in addition to the pol filter, the standard kit of filters
includes yellow, orange, red & green.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: Film tear and ruined images

you wrote:
>In addition, if the filter is not made of one piece of optical glass (a
>laminated filter with glass-plastic-glass composition), you are adding
>additional glass interfaces [glass-plastic-glass], and you are adding more
>areas for image degradation.

Those surfaces, which are not air-to-glass will not contribute to flare
formation. What can happen with so-called "sandwiched" filters is that if
dropped or subjected to pressure the sandwich can begin to separate. This
means the surfaces of the glass are no longer parallel, and sometimes the
separating inner portion gets milky or translucent when no longer properly
bonded to the glass surface. I used to use Harrison & Harrison soft focus
filters, but dropping one meant it was immediate garbage, even if the
filter neither cracked nor broke.

The other potential problem is that moisture can get into the sandwich.
Kaesemann pol filters are edge-sealed specifically to prevent this.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: Re: UV filter thingummy

> I have a skylight UV filter thingummy, and was advised to leave it on
> all the time. This being Australia, we have pretty high UV levels
> outdoors, which was one issue to be concerned with, but I'm told the
> primary function of a skylight is to protect the lens, since it's an
> awful lot easier to clean and cheaper to replace if broken. These seem
> like fairly well-rounded pros - what are the cons of having a UV filter
> fitted?

Hi Rae,
Greetings from New Zealand (also with high UV levels)

Many films are more sensitive to the blue and UV spectrum than the
human eye, resulting in pale washed out skies and haze in your outdoor
and landscape photos. A UV filter removes the blue caste from your
pictures, giving deeper skies and more contrast. If you place your filter
on a white sheet of paper, you will notice it has a very pale yellow 
color.

For black and white photography, you will get progressivly stronger
effects with yellow, orange and red filters.

As you say, a UV filter also protects your lens. The disadvantage is that
anything between the lens and subject has the potential to degrade the
image. Assuming your UV filter is spotlessly clean, it will not have any
bad effect unless you shoot into a bright light, such as the sun. The
glass surfaces of the filter will cause reflections and loss of contrast.In
those situations, it is often best to remove all filters.

Multicoated filters minimise flare and retain higher contrast than
uncoated filters, but care still needs to be taken when shooting into the
light. Multicoated filters have dim colored reflections, uncoated filters
have brighter white reflections. Nikon filters are coated (they are also
rather expensive)

Another disadvantage of using a UV filter, is if you want to use another
filter, perhaps a polarizer or warming filter, it is best to remove the UV
filter. This slows you down, and the more you handle a filter, the more
likely it will gather fingerprints and dust along the way. For that
reason, I rarely use UV filters, unless I need to protect the lens from
dust, sea spray etc.

My most used filter is a polarizer. It deepens the color of the sky and
removes white reflections from most objects so the true color can shine
through. For outdoor shots it is better than a UV filter at removing haze
and increasing contrast. It works equally well with color and black and
white photography. The main disadvantage is that a polariser removes 1-
2 stops of light so you end up with rather long shutter speeds.

Hope this helps,
Roland

From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001
From: imx [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Myth and anti-myth

It is remarkable that the idea that there is a significant trade-off
between high contrast and low resolution still rides high in Leica lore.
As far as I know no one who holds his view has ever presented demonstrable
evidence or corroboratable measurements to prove this point. Generally a
high contrast implies a high resolution and the other way around. It may
be that a shift in focus plane may change this relationship to a small
degree, but the general correlation is evident. More contrast is higher
resolution. And statements to the effect that a "slight" reduction of
contrast brings a "slight' improvement of resolution beg, nay scream for
evidence.

Now to kill two more myths. Sometimes I feel like Buffy the Vampire 
Killer.

I have the Kodachrome films which I used as comparison for the 100 to
400ISO slide film test some weeks ago. Results will kill some preconceived
ideas. The King of all slide films is by now the Kodachrome 64, which
resolves easily 90 lp/mm, much more than the E100SW and even close to the
resolution of TP in normal circumstances. Especially noteworthy is the
excellent acutance, the great clarity of detail and the fine grain. A
disappointment was the K25 which at best was as good as the K64, with a
small gain in grain smallness, but not enough to offset the drop in speed.
The fading out of the K25 then is sensible. No added value. Sorry.

Big surprise the K200, which showed as expected a tight but visible grain
pattern, but a resolution that beats the Provia 400F at 70 to 75 lp/mm. So
the idea that fine grain supports high resolution is as false as the idea
that low contrasr supports resolution.

If you want to test the qulaity of your lenses, there is only one easy
way: use K64! and even K200 will show the defects of most lenses. Do some
actual testing!

I also had the opportunity to test the surfaces of filters on an
interferometer. Results will kill another myth. I used four different BW
filters in several colours (not relevant for testing, but to show that
there must be different batches).

Results? Take a deep breath: NO, absolutely NO image degradation by the
filter as all surfaces of the four filters were absolutely plane to the
highest possible degree. At worst only one interferometer stripe for the
experts.

Of course secondary reflections are possible. But the commonly held notion
that the addition of the filter adds two surfaces and by that fact should
degrade the image quality is simply not supported by measurements.
A well made filter in front of the lens will NOT make a drop of image
quality!

These results show that myths are fine if you wish to cling to stories that
seem sensible because they are repeated over and over again and even have
been 'explained' to some degree. But so the flatness of the earth had its
followers and scientifically based stories. But only measurements bring 
the facts.

Erwin

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
From: "M. Denis Hill" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Filter in general

Before those thin filters came out, I purchased a "wide-angle" 82mm Heliopan
Kasseman polarizer for the 90mm f4.5 Grandagon I formerly used for view
cameras up to 5x7. The front diameter is 105mm! I think I paid $360 for it.
Having not used it in five years, I guess it will soon appear on eBay.

M. Denis Hill
Qualified Panoramic Photographer

From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Large Cheap Filters
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001

annqlee wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering if anyone know of filter systems that are cheap.

Rosco filter books:

        100 filters 1.5 x 3.25" w/data & curves         $7.95

        100 filters 3 x 5"      "             "         $24.95

See:

        http://www.edmundscientific.com/Products/ListProducts.cfm?catid=181

If you know someone in the theatrics business these are also available
directly from rosco, sometimes gratis.

 Regards,
 Nick Lindan

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio  [email protected]

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Unsticking filters (slight Off-Topic)

> Finished off a roll of 35mm on my children. I was using my
> polarizer/kr1.5. Anyone know the best method to get two filters
> unstuck.

There are various methods. The simplest one is to put on a pair of
kitchen rubber gloves for a better grip and either try to unscrew from
holding from the edges or try to apply the palm of the hand against
the filters and try to press firmly while unscrewing. The latter
method is recommended by SRB, UK, (a filter supplier) since then the
applied torque is more uniform you are less risk to bend the thing
filter frames.

There also exists a cheap plastic tool named 'filter wrench', a pair
of thin plastic clamps that allows you to unscrew one filter with one
clamp whereas the other clamp holds on the lens barrel or another
filter nearby. I bought mine from SRB, UK but it seems to be sold
under various brands worldwide. There are at least two sizes to fit
most diameters. There also exist more professional tools similar to
the kind of band-wrench used in garages to unscrew an oil filter.
Again a pair of those may be required.

It is well-known in mechanical engineering that the sticking problem
may occur when you screw alumin(i)um-on-alumin(i)um. A definite
advantage of brass mount filters which will never stuck on an
alumin(i)um lens barrel.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

from nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001
From: Nikon Cameras [email protected]
Subject: Filter Laminations

Correct me if I am wrong (and I have been known to make mistakes on some
rare occasions :-)  ), but glare is not the only problem with sandwich
filters.  You are dealing with a glass-plastic-glass surface interface.
Just like lens manufacturers chose different glass to correct refraction
problems, etc, this change can occur at the interface of different
materials.  I remember an experiment in a physics class I took where light
was changed by going from water to a gel to water again.  Changing the
density of the gel also affected the way the light was affected.  I am
saying that there is a different density to the glass and the sandwich
material (usually plastic) which can affect the image.  Most filters today
are made of optical glass entirely.  But polarizing filters use plastic
between glass.  (As a matter of fact, as I have experienced with my
polarizing perscription glasses which I usually leave in my car, not only
the pressure of the frame on the perscription blank, but heat also, can
cause what is called "delamination" to occur.)

>Those surfaces, which are not air-to-glass will not contribute to flare
>formation. What can happen with so-called "sandwiched" filters is that if
>dropped or subjected to pressure the sandwich can begin to separate. This
>means the surfaces of the glass are no longer parallel, and sometimes the
>separating inner portion gets milky or translucent when no longer  properly
>bonded to the glass surface. I used to use Harrison & Harrison soft focus
>filters, but dropping one meant it was immediate garbage, even if the
>filter neither cracked nor broke.

from Nikon MF Mailing LIst:
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 
From: "John Owlett" [email protected]
Subject: Green Glass

Do you remember how, a fortnight ago, Alan Unangst started a
discussion about filters?

> Dear Sig Members,
>
> I realize that this question may be subject to personal feelings.
> Never the less, here goes.
>
> Whose filters are the highest quality, optically, Hoya, or Tiffen,
> and what do you base your opinion on?

Most of the replies focused on what brands of filters are the very
highest quality.  I think B+W got the most votes.  When I recounted
my quest for a protection filter (for a lens on which I cannot use
a hood) and my choice of B+W for this, several list members joined
in: it seems that, among those Nikon users who use protection
filters, there is a subculture of B+W enthusiasts who want to
preserve the quality of their Nikkor lenses by using the very
highest quality filters.

Fair enough.  But Alan's original question was about Hoya and Tiffen,
and which of those brands was the higher quality.  At the time, I had
no idea ... and I still have no personal experience.  But I have come
across a strong opinion on the "Filter Connection" Web site:

http://www.2filter.com/faq/facts.html

The author seems to me to be negative about the quality of "green
glass" for filters.

(1)  He or she is another enthusiast for B+W, saying (among other
     things), "No B+W filter has ever been made with green glass, and
  they never will, I hope."

(2)  He or she says of Hoya filters, "We do not carry the least
     expensive type called the EXCEL (XL) Green Series, because
     they are made with a type of glass known as green glass. The
     filters are clear when you look through them, but from the side
     (edge) you can see a green tint in the glass....  All the other
     Hoya filters use clear glass sometimes called water glass."

(3)  He or she says of Tiffen filters, "ALL Tiffen round filters are
     made with type of glass known as green glass," ... from which I
     infer that here is one retailer at least who believes that the
     higher ranges of Hoya's filters are better than Tiffen's.

Does anyone know more about green glass?  The phrase is new to me.

Later,

Owl

John Owlett, Southampton, UK

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter in general

thin, fat, huge front threads with stepup ring it is all b.s. with extreme
wide angle lenses with all filter and lens manufacturers. only rodentack
points out that when you screw in one of their 3 hundred to a thousand
dollar centerfilters into one of their 5 hundred to 3 thousand dollar lenses
you automatically reduced the image circle available.  how? the filter
threads themselves.  in other words you pay a huge price to get usable
exposure in the extreme corners which are of course no longer there anyhow.

  i have a line of tweaked brooks veriwides, the vistashift-612's, for which
i have solved this catch-22 with a 4-x and more factor thrown in. these are
reviewed on Robert Monaghan's superb medium format fountainhead

 http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/vista612.html

the solution is simple but not easily achieved.  i generally use over the
lens mount adapters and filter mounts which will accept mounted filters with
front threads 20 or so mm wider than the original lens mount. fat or thin is
immaterial.  summarizing: you cant screw anything into an extreme wide angle
lens without loss of imagae circle.  if you cant find an over the lens
adapter, you have to have one made or you have to accept the bum cropping
the filter and lens makers have done to your extreme wide angle lens. like i
said earlier, only rodenstock even admits to this inexcusable outright
fraud. ralph

> From: "M. Denis Hill" [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Filter in general
>
> Before those thin filters came out, I purchased a "wide-angle" 82mm Heliopan
> Kasseman polarizer for the 90mm f4.5 Grandagon I formerly used for view
> cameras up to 5x7. The front diameter is 105mm! I think I paid $360 for it.
> Having not used it in five years, I guess it will soon appear on eBay.
>
> M. Denis Hill
> Qualified Panoramic Photographer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Filter in general
>
>
> Not too long ago I bought a polarizer for my Sigma 17-35mm lens.  Because it
> had to be ultra thin to prevent vignetting at 17mm, it cost about as much as
> my 1st car.  But that was 1950.
>
> Marty

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: "M. Denis Hill" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Filter in general

Thank heavens for Steve Grimes! His slip-on filter mounts seem to work
pretty well for this.

M. Denis Hill
Qualified Panoramic Photographer

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 
From: "Mitchell P. Warner" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Filter in general

Fifteen, or more, years ago I purchased a 95mm PL for my Bronica 6x7, 50mm
lens. The filter, when reversed so that they treads are forward, 'just'
barely squeezes into the outer edge of the sun-shade on my 17-35, the lens
shade acting, in this case (I think), like the 'over the lens' system ralph
fuerbringer mentions. It's a tight enough squeeze that the filter has never
fallen out. Because the filter is reversed, with the threads pointing
forwards, the filter can still be rotated.  This same 95mm PL is adapted
to  72mm and a  90mm Super Angulon lenses and used on 6x12, 6x17 and 4 x
5inch and now even does duty in front of a 8mm fish-eye when used on a
Nikon995 in the F2 lens mode setting. I'd take credit for thinking all this
out in advance, but it was simple serendipity.

mitch warner

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Seeking rear filter adapter slip-on / clip-on
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002

Frank Loeffel [email protected] wrote:

>For my Schneider Super Angulon XL 47 5.6, Schneider Super Angulon 65 5.6
>and Nikon SW 90/8, I'd like to complement the center filter on the front
>with a warming filter on the rear. As these lenses do not have rear
>filter threads, can anyone please identify clip-on or slip-on adapters
>to mount threaded filters?
>
>Thanks and regards
>Frank Loeffel

 The best way to deal with this is to use gelatin filters behind the
lens. You can make a simple cardboard adaptor for them or simply tape
them in place.

  The use of glass filters is not a good idea. Flat parallel plates in
divergent or convergent light cause spherical aberration and chromatic
aberration. In normal use in front of a lens and where the object is
distant in comparison with the lens focal length, the light is nearly
collimated, so the effect is negligible. On the rear of a lens, where
the light goes through the filter at an angle, the image can be
degraded to a significant degree. The same is true when using glass
filters on a lens for very close work.

  The degree of the effect depends on the thickness of the plate and
its index of refraction compared to air. Gelatin is both much thinner
than glass and has a much lower index of refraction, so the effect of
a gelatin filter is small compared to a glass filter.

  The drawback to gelatin is mainly its delicacy.

  Plastic filters are not as good. Although they are thin the index is
greater than gelatin, still, they are better than glass for this sort
of application.

 For close up work the filters should be used on the longest
conjugate, i.e., on whichever side of the lens has the longest light
path.

  Check with Steve Grimes for both glass and gelatin filter adaptors.
http://www.skgrimes.com

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

From: Roy Harrington [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Seeking rear filter adapter slip-on / clip-on
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 

...

Richard,

This is an interesting issue.  The new Schneider lenses (SuperSymmarXL)
come with threads on the rear element.  In particular the SSXL's
have smaller rear threads which is convenient if you can standardize
on smaller filters.  I always figured it would change the focus point
but introducing aberrations doesn't sound good.  I'm not sure I
understand your "angle of light thru the filter" comment.  It seems to
me the angle is the same both front and back -- i.e. if a point is
N degrees off of axis on the front it will also be N degrees off of
axis on the rear.

BTW, as far as the original question about putting filters on none
threaded lenses I've effectively added threads to an old Artar.
The Artar just has a barrel on the front.  I bought a push-on
Kaiser cap that fit very tightly (about 1mm smaller), cut off the
front entirely so that its just a short cylindrical ring.  I also bought
a step-up ring with the threads about 1mm too big.  The rubber
ring tightly fits over the threads and then the whole thing fits
over the front of the lens.  Its nice and tight so it stays on the
lens and I use a cap that clips into the threads.  So I have a
9.5 inch artar with 52mm threads.

Roy

--
Roy Harrington
[email protected]
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

From: [email protected] (Michael Chambers)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Seeking rear filter adapter slip-on / clip-on
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 

Calumet used to sell and may still sell a unit called a "Xenophon Pro Gel
Holder" in two sizes (for 3 and 4-inch gels).  The unit attached to rear of
the lens board with little feet and had adjustments to bring it to rear of
lens.  I used these quite a bit when wanting to mount any filter in
combination with a polarizer.  Not a slip-on or clip-on, but might suit
your purpose.
...
--
Mike Chambers
Portland, OR

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Confused.  Filters?

 bob smith wrote:
>I'm a newbie so I'm a little confused.  Yes or  No on the filters?  Is
>there a concensus on this?
>
>bs

There is a consensus. No useless filters. Use only useful filters. Those
that will enhance your photographs. Red, green, yellow-green, polarizer,
warming (KR3/KR6), etc. And use them only under conditions that allow them
to perform correctly and not cause flare or other filter induced artifacts.
Flare being the major artifact.

Why would someone use a useless filter that cannot in any way help or
enhance your photograph and has the distinct possibility of causing
problems. I'm speaking of any clear or almost clear piece of glass stuck in
front of a good lens. A $1500 lens always looking through a $20 filter. So sad.

Don't get sucked into the "protection" crap dished out by people who think
that their lens should always look through a windshield.

That's bogus bs, BS. No pun intended...

:)

Jim

From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does a 10+ stop Neutral Density Filter exist?
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 

I have a 10 stop neutral density - B+W it was 45 dollars in the 58mm size. I
got it from B&H. A 1/30th second exposure becomes 30 seconds. It is great
fun. When I get my new website running there will be a section of loooooong
exposures I've done either late at night or with that filter.

--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/

From: [email protected] (dan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does a 10+ stop Neutral Density Filter exist?
Date: 8 Mar 2002 

> exposures for some time (want the look and grain but don't want the speed).
> I have had a degree of success using an 89b with panchromatic film. This
> seems to give an exposure compensation factor of around 10-12 stops. However
> the downside is that I'm basicly recording the long red end of the visible
> spectrum in the scene only, and skylight lit shadow detail is pretty much
> non-existant as a consequence. I'd like something that gave me a similar
> exposure increase but which was neutral for colour transmission, allowing a
> more natural rendition with black and white and also opening up the
> possibilities with colour films. Has anyone have a solution. Thanks,
> John
>

As well as other strengths, B+W has 10, 13 & 20 stop ND filters.

#1 - This link shows what is available from B+W:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/neutral_density/

#2 - This link has filter factor/f-stop reduction/density conversions:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/neutral_den
sity/more_information/

Something to keep in mind:
"Should combining two filters be necessary,
the filter factors must be multiplied together, not added."
>From the #2 link above.

B&H seems to have a good selection.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

May the Light be with you.�
-----
dan

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] USE OF WRATTEN FILTERS

Fellas,

If you follow this link you will find a photographer who have shot some
very good pictures from the High Sierras, Mono Lake, etc. and have
obviously used (a pro lense shade?) and wratten filters to block out the
high-light of the sky to make foreround flowers stand more out.  Are any
of you familiar with this technique and have done it extentively with a
Hasselblad?  What kind of equipment have you been using?  What kind of
light meter techniques?  How 'thick' a wratten filter, etc.

Tom of Oslo

The link is here:
http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.california/aa942pic.html

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 
From: Dietrich Floeter [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] USE OF WRATTEN FILTERS

Tom,  Someone may make a Grad filter in round glass but I would not buy it
unless your horizon is always in the middle.    The resin filters are
roughly 4x5 inches allowing you to slide them vertically to the correct
spot.    This can be seen best with the lens stopped down as wide open the
difference is not always apparent.   Lee makes .3, .6 and .9 in both a hard
and soft edge along with Cokinesque colored grads most of which I have
avoided.

Lee does sell a shade that slides into the holder in a filter slot but is
not necessary although it is a good shade.

For metering I would say buy a great meter and use it a lot.   Test all
situations.    I have a Sekonic 508 which is both reflective spot and
incident, flash and continuous.    It is a good meter but of course the next
one is even better.

To answer Dr Rob, I have purchased the following filters:
.25, .5, 10, 20, 30 M
all 81 series
most 80 series
most 82 series
a few 85's
hard and soft ND (3 of each)
25
plus others I cannot think of

filter holder (second holder as the first popped off the Blad landing in a
Duck Lake about 500" below the aircraft from which I was shooting along with
an 85B)
shade
7 or 8 rings for every lens in the bags

Also crucial for me is a Gossen Color Meter 3F for interior FL and HID
lights.

Was that long winded enough?

Dietrich

From: "Tom Just Olsen" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 
Subject: Re: [HUG] USE OF WRATTEN FILTERS

> Dietrich,
>
> Thanks a lot for your contribution. I shoot very little postive film
> these days and hardly use any filters.  These graduated neutral density
> filters, are they gelatine, or?  Is it possible to buy a glas filter
> with Hassellbad bayonet with a sort of gradiation 'on top' or the filter
> to block out the sky?  Or must I have a pro lense shade and 'the whole
> music'? Can you say anything about light meter techniques?
>
> Tom of Oslo (also new on this list)

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Filter source

try surplusshed.com - lots of war surplus B&W filters for aerial lenses,
hence 4 and 5" diameter for $5 to $15 - great glass too, as $$ no object
to U.S. govt then OR now ;-) This is really the main budget way to get
those really big filters, oversize, and then simply do whatever mount
adapter you need, or get a glass house to cut to series IX or X size etc.

hope this helps... bobm

From: Frank Loeffel [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Seeking rear filter adapter slip-on / clip-on (& other filter confusion)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 

> Frank Loeffel [email protected] wrote:
>>As these lenses do not have rear
>>filter threads, can anyone please identify clip-on or slip-on adapters
>>to mount threaded filters?

Richard Knoppow wrote:

>  The best way to deal with this is to use gelatin filters behind the
> lens. You can make a simple cardboard adaptor for them or simply tape
> them in place.
>   The use of glass filters is not a good idea.

> [more useful info deleted]

Thanks. My rationale for rear mounting the warming filter is the
Schneider's center filter thread size of 86 mm. For this size, there are
to the best of my knowledge no multi coated and no slim filters
available. As a side note, I prefer the Hoya 81Bs because they are more
golden in tone than the B&W 81Bs.

Hence, I am still undecided whether I should just:

standardize on a 86mm uncoated 81B filter for all lenses,
OR
use a 77mm multicoated 81B on the non-wide angle lenses and a 86mm
uncoated 81B on the wide angle lenses on top of the center filter,
OR
use a 77mm multicoated 81B on the non-wide angle lenses and a gel 81B
filter mounted to the rear of the wide angle lenses.

Surely others must have solved this puzzle. Anyone comment?

After many years of abstinence, I also plan to get back into polarizers
and graduated neutral density filters.

I do not see using polarizers on the wide angles, so I can go with
multicoated 77mm for the polarizer.

As for the graduated NDs, I think I'll go with the Lee holder system and
the semi-rare and expensive Schneider glass 4" x 5.65" graduated NDs.

I'm trying to do landscape photos if it matters.

From: [email protected] (Paul Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Seeking rear filter adapter slip-on / clip-on
Date: 20 Feb 2002 

Ann

I think a Cokin x-pro system will work - kind of expensive though. $50
for the adaptor, $50 for the holder, and anywhere from $60 to $500 for
for each filter, depending on which one you get. The filter's are
13x17cm's roughly 5x7 inches. While they don't make a specific 110mm
adaptor, only 112mm,105mm and smaller, they have a universal adaptor
that will go on your 110mm.

Hope this helps. Check B&H or Adorama.

Paul

"ann lee" [email protected] wrote 
> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering if there are any front grad ND filters that will fit 110mm
> filter lens? It seems the largest is
> 4"x6" by calumet.
>
> I am totally guessing, but if I don't use the whole image circle of the
> lens, do you think a 4"x6" will do fine with
> a 110mm filter lens?
> x
> Thanks,
>
> Ann

From: [email protected] (Frank Loeffel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Seeking rear filter adapter slip-on / clip-on
Date: 21 Feb 2002

"ann lee" [email protected] wrote 

> I was wondering if there are any front grad ND filters that will fit 110mm
> filter lens? It seems the largest is
> 4"x6" by calumet.

If you do find a suitable holder, then Singh-Ray would probably make
an ND grad for the desired size at a reasonable cost. These are resin,
so long focal lenghts will loose sharpness. I don't know what should
be considered long though in this context, for a specific format :-(.

AFAIK, in glass there are no stock grad NDs larger than 4" x
5.something". Tiffens are soft step only (again AFAIK). If you need
hard step glass, then look at Schneider. These I have not found on the
schneideroptics.com site, but they exist. They're 4mm thick, coated
and greater than $300 USD in price.

> I am totally guessing, but if I don't use the whole image circle of the
> lens, do you think a 4"x6" will do fine with
> a 110mm filter lens?

Possibly, if you state what format and focal length then someone will
have an opinion but I may be saying the obvious.

Frank Loeffel

From: "Brad Swanson" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: recommended filters for b&w
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 

In b&w photography filters are used to absorb colour.  Therefor using a red
filter will absorb blue and green, creating darker red tones and lighter
greens and blues.  So the filters used can vary a bit depending on the
contrast desired and the colours in the scene.  Here is a quick list from ty
Photgraphy by Lee Frost:

colour: 

Yellow 
General use, darkens blues slightly,lightens skin tones and hides blemishes.

Orange
Darkens blues considerably, reduces haze and hides freckles.

Green 
Darkens reds and separates greens,ideal for landscapes and gardens.

Red  
Blue skys almost black, darkens greens and makes nice sombre pictures.

Blue  
Increases haze, strengthens skin tones and facial details.  Good for male portraiture.

Quick list of reference:

1.Photography by Upton and Upton, publisher:Little,Brown and Co
2.Teach Yourself Photography by Lee Frost  Publisher: TY books

Reguards,
Brad Swanson

From: "PSsquare" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: cokin graduated filter question
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002

David,

I use the Hitech gradiant filters in a P holder.  Always seems to be enough
extra length.  The length is about 1.5 times the width.  The bigger issue to
me is if I can correctly locate it when using a smaller aperture for
hyperfocal applications.  But, for certain landscapes such as waterfalls and
gorges, the gradient is absolutely a plus.  I came to that realization while
shooting in Yosemite.

Regards,
PSsquare

David Strip wrote 
>When using a P-series graduated filter, is the filter large enough to
>afford some movement to allow choice of where the graduated region lies?
>that is, can I shift it up and down in the filter holder and still cover
>the field of view? If it makes any difference, I'm talking about use in
>combination with RB lenses with 77mm filter mounts.
>
>--
>David Strip

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups:alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Circular Polarizing Filters.
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 

Harrogate at [email protected] wrote 

> You really only need a circular polariser if you are using an autofocus
> camera
Nope!

You need a circular polarizer with ANY camera that uses a beam splitter in
the optical path for METERING or FOCUSING.

The first circular polarizers were introduced before AF for cameras with the
meter on the back of the meter.

It is a simple rule.

Circular for any camera but required for cameras with a beam splitter.

Linear only for cameras not using a beam splitter for metering or focusing.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com

From: John Adler [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Seeking rear filter adapter slip-on / clip-on
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002

Frank,

Lee Filters makes something called a Gel Snap, which holds 4x4" gel, resin &
glass filters up to 2mm thick. It attaches to the lens with a heavy
rubberband, and will fit any lens up to 82mm in diameter. Price is $20,
available at B&H.

John Adler
Lee Filters USA

Frank Loeffel wrote:

> For my Schneider Super Angulon XL 47 5.6, Schneider Super Angulon 65 5.6
> and Nikon SW 90/8, I'd like to complement the center filter on the front
> with a warming filter on the rear. As these lenses do not have rear
> filter threads, can anyone please identify clip-on or slip-on adapters
> to mount threaded filters?
>
> Thanks and regards
> Frank Loeffel

[Ed. note: see our notes on solar filters above and related safety WARNINGS!!!]
From Rollei Mailing List
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Brightness of the Sun

Wait a Second....Gelatin or acetate neutral density filters
do not filter out the harmful rays of the sun. If you make the
mistake then you could damage your eyes. Astronomers know to
use high density silver filters to look through. The silver
filter (as results when you fog black and white silver films
and develop them to the fullest) are preferred. Don't use
Ilford XP-2 films or Kodak's c-41 processed black and white
films, as their densities are color dyes. You can find the
actual density of the silver negs by making a reading with and
without them on a normal even-toned subject, before going
the sun route. Ed

Jerry Lehrer wrote:
 Richard
>
> You can measure the brightness of the sun, if you
> use a 1 degree spotmeter and a dark neutral density
> filter of KNOWN density.  Something similar to the
> Inconel coated filter which comes with the Questar
> telescope.  (Gee, I wish I had kept that device!)
> That filter was designed to aid in the direct viewing
> of the surface of the Sun.  Each filter was individually
> calibrated.
>
> Jerry
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know the relative brightness of the sun compared to that of
> > clear blue sky.  This is obviously something that I cannot measure with
> > a lightmeter without risking damaging the meter.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Richard

From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Brightness of the Sun, required grey filter

> Does anyone know the relative brightness of the sun compared to that of
> clear blue sky.  This is obviously something that I cannot measure with
> a lightmeter without risking damaging the meter.

This is an indirect answer. Some info I remember from 1999 when a
total sun eclipse was visible from France. May be the French
astronomical event of my life since the next one visible from France
will be around year 2070+... I was fortunate to see it although the
weather was partly cloudy.

The required filter is a neutral density of *5* (ND = 5) i.e. the
absorbing factor is 10^(-5) = 1/100,000. This corresponds to an EV
shift between 16 f-stops (65536) and 17 (131072).

For use with a telescope, a camera, a spot meter (or even a regular
incident light meter : but then a smaller ND, ~3, may be enough),
pointing directly to the sun (or even a sun partially, 95% !! hidden
behind by the moon), you should *always* put the filter *in front* of
the entrance lens and *not* after the eypiece, or of course not simply
put on the ground glass of your R-TLR !!!. If you do so you are at
severe risk to for the instrument and eventually to your eyes.

In 1999 I made a picture (the "classical", multiple exposures on the
same frame) of the sun before, in the middle of, and after the period
of total darkness. Outside the moment of total darkness (about 2
minutes in 1999) the camera lens was fitted with a metallized filter,
home-made from an aluminized mylar foil (ND factor ~5) sold  for the
occasion by telescope shops, and simply stetched and held by adhesive
tape on a cardboard tube.

But, shame on me ! I forgot what was the EV setting !!! I simply used
what was recommended by a photo magazine and everything worked like a
charm. During the period of total darkness of course the ND5 filter
was taken off and put back immediately after.

About the EV values of the sky : recently I made some
metering/photometric experiments to see if I could use a regular
incident light meter in the focal plane of a lens withut ground glass,
e.g. a view camera or a R-TLR with the cut film back.

I got for an ISO setting of 100/21 an EV reading of 14.5 by directly
pointing an incident light meter to a uniform *overcast* "grey" sky.
With the diffusing dome, an incident light reading was EV 11. Well
that winter day no blue sky was visible! But I noticed that I should
have expected something slightly smaller than EV 15 (1/125s : f/16) by
metering reflected light on a reference grey card in bright sunshine.

My conclusion was that a very uniform overcast "grey" sky is close to
a good reference grey card, w/respect to the incident sun light, i.e.
metering directly on an overcast "grey" sky or on a reference grey
card yields the same reading of EV 14,5-15.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From: "L. Michael Roberts" [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: ?Help finding diffraction grating materials?
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002

Glen wrote:
>
> Hello group,
>              I am a sculptor working on an architectural project.  We
> are looking for an economical way to create rainbow effects on the walls
> of a rather large interior space.  I know about that inexpensive plastic
> diffraction film that Edmund Sci. sells but I am wondering if anything
> like this is available with a mirrored backing so we can make panels and
> bounce the rainbows around the space?  I believe this effect is in use
> at the new planetarium in Manhattan. Any sources or suggestions would be
> most appreciated.

        I can connect you with a supplier of reflection gratings that
produce various patterns and are available in different sizes.
Contact me with more details on what you need and I can recommend a
supplier - [email protected] 

        These are not high precision scientific gratings but rather
designed for entertainment which makes them less costly.

 L. Michael Roberts

From Nikon Mailing List:
From: "Phil Considine" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Nikon] Protection fliters on w/a lenses
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 

This is killing me.

Q1   What use is a filter if it is not used as a creative tool?

a> To keep the front glass clean
b> To get stuck in the lens when the rim bends or strips the filter thread
on impact
c> To facture and cause bits of glass to damage the front element.
d> To act as a flare trap
e> To conform with an urban myth
f> To compromise my expensive glass

All of the above

Now consider this

IF I use an 81A I get added warmth in my shots - good with Velvia I find.
If I use a circular polariser I get a reduction in glare big blues and
interesting colours
If I use a Cokin or Gel Filter I get all sorts of effects
IF (and it's a big IF) I used a UV in taking shots of rally cars or desert
storms where I cant afford a 1/2 stop warming filter and yeas I want to
avoid dust in the front elements, I get a mild pink tone that I might use
creatively or swear at when I get the shots back.
And Guess what?  I also get all of the aforementioned feel-good elements.

But to have a UV filter on the lens at all times just on the off chance I am
going to dirty, bend, break or damage it is a nonsense.

Q2    Would a lens hood do a better job in any of the breakage type
incidents?

Absolutely.

If you are going to use a filter, use it for a creative purpose, even if it
is a generally useless UV filter. Lets dispel the myth of protection
filters. If the filter you have on "saves your lens from a fate worse than a
mushroom" so be it. It doesn't matter if it's a circ-pol or a Gel, at least
you are doing some thinking and creating and not kidding yourself you have
your investment covered.

The lens is for getting light to the film, the filter is for manipulating
that light not just as some feel good prophylactic.

Phil Considine

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2002 
To: Nikon Mailing List Posts
Subject: [Nikon] Protection fliters on w/a lenses

Another couple of incidents to add to the anecdotes: I dropped my
80-200mm AF Nikon zoom (the heavy old one-touch variety), thankfully
from only about 2 feet, but onto tarmac.

The result was a ruined UV filter, but the lens front screw mount and
the front element survived intact.

More recently, my tripod keeled over, with the F100 and 28-105mm zoom
with filter screwed. The lens went head-first into the yellow cup
mushroom you can see on my website (just before I destroyed it :-)))!

Result? A dirty filter, easily cleaned with a damp cloth. If it had been
the front element of my lens, it would have been a very delicate matter
to clean it from that mushroom slime, and almost certainly it would have
ended up getting scratched.

Certainly I will always have a filter on the front.
--
Kind Regards,

Adam
Photos at www.scenequest.co.uk

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The options so far... 

re: aligning a ND filter on a rangefinder

you put the ND in a sliding holder (Cokin..) which is marked with a scale
(mm.) and line up a center mark scribed on the ND filter against the
scale. this makes it easy to get repeatable alignments based on test shots

A series of test shots shows you where the ND filter will have its
effect at selected f/stops based on scale markings. You can also put a
scribed plastic mask on finder with a series of horizontal lines, and
allow the lines to line up with the horizon or desired effect position.
The lines in the viewfinder can be used to match the ND filter setting on
the mm. scale to the desired effect (or interpolate scale settings easily).

hth bobm

From Nikon Mailing list:
From: "Kevin Mahler" [email protected]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] RE: Kaesemann Polarizer

I don't know, but a google search turned up the following.
Kaesemann was an independent company that manufactured some of the highest
quality polarizer material in the world. B+W Filter/Schneider purchased the
company in the mid 1980's. The quality of the material is uniform and
neutral in color. In addition, the polarizer is edge-sealed and guaranteed
against separation. Moisture from humidity will destroy the polarizer
material and edge sealing protects the material. Kaesemann Polarizers are
available in Linear, Circular and Warm Tone Polarizer.

DChrestens wrote:
>I posted this message a few days ago and haven't gotten a single reply.
>Doesn't anyone know what a Kaesemann Polarizer is?

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 
From: John Owlett [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Multicoating of K�semann and Nikon Filters

.... I thought you might welcome more details.

Dr Owl
----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

you wrote:
> quoting Jim Brick
>
> A Kasemann polarizer is simply a hermetically sealed and guaranteed
> optically flat polarizer.  As with a non Kasemann, you can get a
> warm version.  But the bottom line is that it is simply a standard
> polarizer. No special "polarizer" properties. Just sealed and flat.
>
> Jim
>
> end-quote

According to B+H's latest catalogue, K�semann filters are uncoated.
This may matter more to some people than their having sealed edges.

The latest Heliopan catalogue makes it clear that the K�semann
filters they make are not multicoated, but it is not clear whether
or not they put a single coating on their K�semann blanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The question of what filters have what coatings also arose in the
NikonMF list a while back.  I gathered together what information I
had and wrote the following.

From Nikon MF Mailing List
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 
From: "doctor_owl" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters-multicoated or not?

Yesterday evening, Randy Holst wrote:

> The only documentation I've seen corresponds to your findings;
> that the L1Bc and L37c have NIC.  (I'm not sure what you mean by
> "NC filters".)  I have a couple Nikon filter information sheets
> (produced by Nikon) which vaguely state that their filters have
> anti reflection coating on both sides, but does not specifically
> indicate which filters.
>
> I own at least one example of nearly every type of filter Nikon
> makes (except for the Soft-2 and ND-400x).  None of the color
> correction filters for color film and none of the contrast/tone
> control filters for B&W film appear to have any coating at all,
> that I can see.  My Nikon Circular Polarizers appear to have some
> type of coating, but they do not have the noticeable green hue of
> the L37c (which happens to look just like the coating on my Hoya
> HMC lenses).
>
> I'm still as puzzled as you are.

Thanks, Randy. Yesterday evening, I dug through my heap of Nikon
documentation, and these were the most informative statements I
found.  They come from the (British spelling) brochure 8CE30300,
"Nikkor Lenses" dated March 2001.  Obviously this is a marketing
document: good marketing is always truthful (hooray!) but is often
technically limited (boo!).

"Nikon offers a variety of filters including soft, polarizing, and
neutral density.  All feature special coating to eliminate surface
reflection."

"The L37C is multilayer-coated to further reduce reflection ....
The multilayer-coated Skylight L1BC also also cuts UV light, and
like the other UV filters, can be used to protect the lens ....
Neutral Colour NC Filters: Available in 39mm, 46mm, 52mm, 58mm, 62mm,
72mm and 77mm attachment sizes, these neutral-colour filters serve as
lens protectors.  They do not affect colour balance.  In addition,
multilayer-coating prevents light reflection, thus improving colour
rendition."

Under a separate heading (Close-Up Accessories):

"Nikon's close-up attachment lenses screw directly into the front
thread of the lens .... They are treated with Nikon Integrated
Coating for improved image contrast and reduced flare."

Hmmm.  If we assume that the copy was written by someone who knew
exactly what filters have what coating, and wanted to claim the
maximum that he or she truthfully could, then ...

... the close-up lenses have NIC but not the latest SIC;

... the protection filters have multicoating but not NIC;

... the other filters have only single coating.

But I'm not sure we can read a marketing brochure as though it were
Holy Writ.

From Nikon Mailing List:
From: "Thom Hogan" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] re: differences between polarizers

You need a circular polarizer for an N80, otherwise matrix metering and
autofocus may not work correctly.

A polarizer lets light waves vibrating in one plane through, but blocks
those moving at right-angles to this plane (e.g., light scatter).
However, if polarized light reaches a beam-splitting device (the Nikon
bodies have one in the mirror), the proportion of the light split varies
with the polarization (the autofocus and matrix meter want a constant
split). A circular polarizer contains a second component, called a
quarter-wave plate, that "spins" the polarized light. By forcing the
polarized light to make one complete rotation of orientation for each
light wave crest, a circular polarizer restores the required constant
split at the beam-splitter.

Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
www.bythom.com

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Difference between circular polarizer and other polarizers

you wrote:
>A circular polarizer looks the same and works the same way as a conventional
>polarizer. What is the difference? Other than the fact that they cost more.
>Also, which should I purchase for my N80

In theory there's a polarizer inside your N80 and if you add a second
traditional (linear) polarizer it's possible to rotate the one you add so
the sum blocks all light. The same theory says that using a circular
polarizer on your lenses obviates this since the two (internal & external)
polarize differently and don't interfere with one another.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] Do Rollei filters fade?

 you wrote:
> you wrote:
>
>>2, The Rollei Light Yellow filter (Hell Gelb) is not the same as a Wratten
>>#11 (X-1). Its probaably closer to a Wratten #6 or K-1. Its filter factor
>>is given in the Rollei accessory booklet as -1 stop (or 2 times) for
>>panchromatic film in daylight.
>
>I mis-remembered filture designation, which I tried to correct in subsequent
>posts, getting them wrong, too.
>
>>  Rollei also made a Light Green (Hell Grun) filter also with a -1 stop (or
>>2X) factor. I don't believe there was a Wratten equivalent to this filter.
>
>That is, in fact, the filter in question.  The glass looks similar to
another
>filter I have, a Vivitar marked as yellow-green, #11.  I thought maybe both
>were originally a deeper green like other 11s.  The Rollei is much like you
>describe, which makes me wonder if Vivitar is being arbitrary about its #11
>filter specification.  Or maybe, unlike the Rollei, it is a faded filter.
>
>In any case, I like the effect both have on appropriate subjects.
>
>Allen Zak

 I also have a Vivitar #11, X-1 filter which looks very pale compared to a
Kodak filter, which is a vivid green. The Vivitar was bought new only a few
years ago. Its not faded. I don't think other filter manufacturers
necessarily follow the Kodak standards for their filters despite carrying
the same designation. Kodak (now Tiffen) publishes very complete spectral
transmission characteristics for its filters. I've never seen anything
similar from Vivitar. While visual characteristics can be misleading these
two filters are so different that they must also affect the film
differently.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Do Rollei filters fade?

you wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>
>
> Yes, laminated (cemented) filters which have an organic
> dye in the gelatin or plastic inner layer, can and do fade
> as a result of actinic exposure. >>
>
>  What is "actinic exposure" ?
>
  An old fashioned term for light which is active photographically or
chemically. Its really a hold over from the days when photographic
materials was affected only by blue and near UV light.

  However, UV light is still more effective in bleaching out dyes and
pigments, and in accelerating other chemical reactions. Have a look at old
posters, painted signs, etc.,  which have been exposed to daylight for long
periods. You will find they show varying amounts of fading, the red colors
usually fading more than blues.

  Dyes can also fade in the dark. For instance, Kodachrome has very good
dark storage characteristics but fades faster when exposed to the light in
projectors where Ektachrome fades faster in the dark and is more resistant
to projection.

  Kodak gives stability rating for its filters (now made by Tiffen)
indicating, I think, resistance to fading by light. Most camera filters are
pretty resistant, some special purpose filtes are fairly fugitive.

  I think its too strong to state than bulk colored glass filters _never_
fade, but they are probably more stable under all conditions than dye
filters. There are advantages to both kinds. Probably for normal pictorial
photography it doesn't matter which is used as long as the results are what
is desired.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Wanted to BUY==Please

I recall that Tiffen sold bay adapters for series V, VI and VII
filters. I may even have some (which I would not part with). Ed

Jerry Lehrer wrote:
> RUGers
>
> I am looking to BUY the following:
>
>     Bay III filters with cracked, scratched or
>     broken (or even no) glass. Also Bay III CC
>     filters with same bad glass.Also Rolleipols
>     which are faded separated or cracked.
...

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: re: filter brands - blind filter differences tests?

 Robert Monaghan at [email protected] wrote:

> Granted that some of the bottom tier of filters are sometimes poor and
> not even plano-parallel (causing autofocus problems), has anyone done or
> seen any tests of various filter brands and types which could reliably
> identify filter problems or even brands in similar decent filter types on
> real world photos?
>
> I have seen a few filter related articles and tests (e.g., Brit Jrnl of
> Photogr.) which suggest that most of the better filters have very similar
> and minimal effects, such that the image quality loss is perhaps 2% or so,
> and differences are impossible to reliably detect between say UV filters
> by Heliopan, B&W, OEMs like Nikon, Canon, Pentax.. and even the better
> range of HOYA and Tiffen filter makers.
>
> has anyone seen any MTF charts with and without filters for lenses which
> might document some of the effects on contrast and resolution of the
> different filter types? Or testing which showed one or another filter
> type to be superior? If not, why not, unless the results didn't support
> the idea that higher price is better? ;-) Thanks for resources! bobm

 I have asked this question to Zeiss and been told that on a normal day,
atmospheric conditions (heat) will have more effect on lens performance than
any of the filters they sell, or the ones which use similar glasses and
standards (B+W, Heliopan, Rodenstock, etc).

One exception was that with some very large teles, they incorporate a front
element which is basically a filter - just a protective glass - and don't
recommend that any additional filter is used. The built-in protective filter
is of unusually high quality. The same applies to many tele lenses which
have a 'blank' rear filter inserted - these, and other slot-in filters, are
usually made to an even higher standard than regular filters.

David

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: cheap filter on expensive lens

Yes it is true.  Don't worry about the optical quality of filters.  It is
more important to worry about the filter ring.  Most expensive filters use
brass rings and they don't stick as easily and are easier to unstick.  I buy
expensive filters for that reason, not that I think one guy's flat optical
glass is better than another guy's.  Good shooting.

Fred
Photo Forums
http://www.photoforums.net

"Amy West" [email protected] wrote 
> Group,
>
> I've got an expensive Nikon lens recently and at the store they had cheap UV
> filters.  I bought one.  My question, does a cheap filter negate the
> expensive lens/glass?  Just my luck, I know the answer to this, but I'm
> hoping I'm wrong.  The guy at the store said that since filters don't have
> any curve to them, that they are flat, it won't affect my pictures.  Is this
> true?
>
> Amy

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Plus-X or not Plus-X, that is the question
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002

"Brian Ellis" [email protected] wrote:
>Any company that can devise the filter numbering system Kodak has devised
>can easily confuse the names of a couple films.

  My memory is that the letter designations were abrieviations for the
dyes used in the early filters. I don't remember where I saw this so
it would take some research to find it again.

  the letter designations originated at Wratten and Wainright, an
English company bought by Kodak. One of the partners was Dr. Keneth
Mees. George Eastman wanted Mees to come to Rochester and set up a
proper research laboratory for him. Mees agreed to come provided
Eastman would buy out W&W and guarentee jobs for his partners.

  Among other things W&W had researched the types of dyes needed to
make stable filters and the methods of making them. Kodak aquired this
technology with the company along with some emulsion making
techniques.

 The numbering system now used came later and is an international
standard, sort of.

  Kodak always made the exact spectral characteristics of their
filters available, other manufacturers of general photographic filters
did not. There really is no standard to this day. Compare a Kodak (now
made by Tiffen) No.11 filter to a Vivitar No.11, both are green,
that's about all you can say.

...
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 
From: Charlie Goodwin [email protected]
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Looking for Ser. VIII source

Try:

www.2filter.com   or  1-800-882-2832

or
www.singh-ray.com  or  1-800-486-5501

Both outfits are seriously knowledgable about filters....I believe filters are
all that they do.  I have purchased for 2filter.com before and will again.

I have not yet bought from Singh-Ray, but they offer services I need and can't
find anywhere else I have looked.   I have called them and they know their
stuff.   Singh ray isn't cheap, at least for their specialty items, but they
will MAKE UP custom filters to your specs!   Try to find that at Porters or
Abes.....

Good luck,

Charlie

> Looking for B&W (red, green, yellow) Ser. VIII drop-in filters.  Kind of run
> out of places after my usual suppliers.
> D.

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filters
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002

Tony Galt [email protected] wrote:

>Being new to large format a number of things puzzle me. Today's
>puzzlement has to do with filters. There seem to be three sorts of
>filters that could be used on a view camera:
>
>*ordinary screw-in filters of the sort used on small format cameras.
>*Plastic Cokin-style filters.
>*gel filters in sheets
>
>The latter seems to be pretty common among large format users. What is
>the advantage? Is there any disadvantage to the other two kinds of
>fiters. Also, having migrated from 35 mm where a protective skylight
>or UV filter over the lens is almost de rigueur, I wonder if people do
>the same for large format lenses.
>
>Tony Galt

LF cameras are handled differently than 35mm so the use of a filter
to protect the lens is not really necessary. There is some
controversey about this even for smaller cameras since any filter does
degrade the image just a little.

  Gelatin filters have the advantage of being very good optically. The
Gelatin has a low index of refraction and is thin, so it disturbs the
light path very little. Their disadvantage is being very delicate and
easily damaged. For use in front of a lens, where the light is nearly
collimated, good glass filters will have little effect on image
quality. Most of these are made by cementing gelatin filters between
sheets of very uniform and flat glass. Some glass filters are made of
bulk colored glass. they are inferior optically to cemented filters
but are longer lived.

 Acrillic filters are tougher than gelatin but have higher indexes of
refraction, to they disturb the light path more.

  Filters should be placed where the light is least vergent. For
normal photography, where the object distance is relatively greater
than the image distance, the filter should be on the object side of
the lens.

  The disturbance to the image depends on the thickness of the filter
and its index of refraction. When in a vergent beam of light a plane
flat sheet of glass introduces spherical aberration and chromatic
aberration. The amounts added by good quality glass filters used on
the front of a lens is negligible. Gelatin filters can be used even in
vergent beams of light with negligible effect other than the color
selectivity.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002
From: Ralph Barker [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filters

Individual preferences vary here, as in many areas of photography. There
are some practical aspects to consider as well, however, and doing it
early in your process of LF equipment acquisition may save you a lot of
money. Depending on how many lenses you have, or plan to purchase, you
may be swayed one way or the other.

Glass filters have the advantage of fitting neatly on the lens, and
therefore fitting nicely within compendium lens shades and that sort of
thing. Good glass filters always struck me as the best optical choice,
but can get awfully expensive, particularly for larger sizes, if you
have an array of lenses with different filter sizes. With a limited
array of lenses, you might opt to buy for the largest of them, and get
adapter rings for the smaller lenses, giving due consideration for
potential vignetting.

Resin filters, used with an adapter system such as HiTech or Cokin offer
a higher degree of flexibility, and are less expensive than glass.
Instead of filters of different sizes, you buy different adapter rings
to fit your various lenses. The price works out to be similar to buying
one good glass filter for each lens size, with the cost of the filters
themselves being averaged over the number of lenses you have. Going with
this sort of system also allows you to use such things as graduated
neutral density filters (handy for landscapes where you want to reduce
the light level for the sky). HiTech, for example, also offers a variety
of diffusion and special effects filters that can be useful for product
work. The problem, of course, is that none of this fits inside a
conventional lens shade. Some shades, however, do allow the use of
slip-in gel or resin filters, but that is often limited.

Thus, where you fall within this spectrum of choices depends on the
equipment you have, the nature of the work you do, and how much you want
to spend on your filters.

Tony Galt wrote:

>Being new to large format a number of things puzzle me. Today's
>puzzlement has to do with filters. There seem to be three sorts of
>filters that could be used on a view camera:
>
>*ordinary screw-in filters of the sort used on small format cameras.
>*Plastic Cokin-style filters.
>*gel filters in sheets
>
>The latter seems to be pretty common among large format users. What is
>the advantage? Is there any disadvantage to the other two kinds of
>fiters. Also, having migrated from 35 mm where a protective skylight
>or UV filter over the lens is almost de rigueur, I wonder if people do
>the same for large format lenses.
>
>Tony Galt

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Harrison Filters?

 Tourtelot wrote:
>I am looking for a source for tech info about Harrison Filters.  I just got
>some beautiful Series 8 monochrome filters for my SWC and would like to know
>exactly what I got.  A yellow #3., a red (although it looks orange to me) #4
>and a green #5.  Looking for filter factors and anything else.
>

Why not try them directly?

Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers
Unit "E"
1835 Thunderbolt Drive
Porterville California 93257

or

Post Office Box 1797
Porterville California 93258-1797

voice telephone: 559/782-0121
FAX: 559/782-0824

Marc
[email protected]

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] More OT: square glass polarizer

David Meiland wrote:

> I've been looking for a polarizer for my 500mm C lens (86mm). The folks at
> Calumet offered me a Tiffen 86mm polarizer for $140 and a Tiffen 4x4
> polarizer for $100, so I decided to try the latter, thinking I could also
> use it occasionally with 4x5 and other gear as well (already have and use
a
> Lee holder). The item in question is a single piece of flat, tinted glass.
> Anyone have one of these? Does it work? I'm confused, as the others I have
> all consist of two pieces that are rotated to adjust the effect. FWIW, the
> packaging shows a TV or film (cinema) camera, not a still camera. Before I
> get fingerprints on this thing I'd like to know if it's going to do what
> the usual 2-piece filters do.

Polarizers usually are a sandwich of a polymer sheet between two protective
pieces of glass. There are no two parts that need to be adjusted relative to
another (perhaps that's a peculiarity of circular polarizers (i.e. in
effect, not in shape)? I don't know. But i don't know either why they would
need two parts.) Just rotate the whole thing and you will see that it works.

From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] More OT: square glass polarizer

 David Meiland wrote:
>I'm confused, as the others I have
>all consist of two pieces that are rotated to adjust the effect.

Polarizers are "never" two pieces that rotate independently to produce the
effect. Only the "single" filter rotates to produce the effect. Hold up the
4x4, look through it, and rotate it while looking at reflections, the sky,
green foliage, whatever. You will see it work.

If you put two polarizing sheets together and rotate them independently,
you will block out all light when they are 90 deg to each other. They do
make filters like this but they are use as variable ND filters. Sometimes
producing some strange side effects though.

Jim

From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6 1/2" W.A Dagor
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002

I started using the Lee rubber band system with Lee 4" x 4" filters a couple
years ago and have been pleased with it.  No need for a filter thread on the
lens, total compatibility with all lenses in all formats from 35 mm to 8x10,
no vignetting problem with lenses as wide as 90 mm in 4x5, 159 mm in 8x10,
and 55 mm in 6x7 (the widest lenses I own) since the filter doesn't extend
out in front of the lens for any appreciable distance. There are two
downsides, both minor to me considering the alternatives:  the system
doesn't work very well with polarizers since it isn't convenient to rotate
the filters once they're mounted on the lens  and with a very small lens
(such as my 150 mm G Claron) the holder fits kind of loosely. This isn't a
practical problem even with this lens, it's just a little disconcerting. To
deal with the polarizer problem I discarded  the Lee polarizer and now carry
a couple circular polarizers with adapter rings. If having lots of different
circular filters and lots of different step up and step down rings, plus
always worrying whether you are carrying the right combinations with the
right camera system, is driving you crazy as it was me, you might try the
Lee rubber band system.

"Roy Harrington" [email protected] wrote 
> "Dr. Dagor" wrote:
> >
> > >... what people do to put a filter in front of this lens
> > > (and others of its type), since there are virtually no front threads
to
> > > speak of and no good way to attach something like the Lee system.
> > >
> > > Any advice gratefully appreciated!
> > >
> > > Rolfe
> >
>
> I've got an Artar with the same problem -- no threads.
> I bought a push-on rubber lens cap that was very tight.
> I cut out the whole front area to give just a band of rubber.
> Then I bought a stepup filter adapter, so the back side
> of the stepup fit tightly into the band of rubber.
>
> Now the filter adapter plus the band all fit tightly and
> permanently on the front of the lens.  This also gives
> threads to put on a clip lens cap.
>
> Roy
>
> --
> Roy Harrington
> [email protected]
> Black & White Photography Gallery
> http://www.harrington.com

Subject: Re: maker of bay 2 filters ?
From: Bob [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 

 r.m.pruitt at [email protected] wrote 

> Is there any manufacturer that makes bayonet 2  filters to fit Rollei ? I
> know
> there are makers of bay 1 filters and large sizes for Hasselblad but how
> about bay 2 ? These are much more difficult to find than bay 1 or 3, so it
> would seem there must be somebody out there that has them.   Thanks,
> Richard

Heliopan makes a complete range of Rollei Bay I, II, III, VI and VIII as
well as metal and rubber hoods in most sizes.
Also Bay 50, 60, 70  and 108 for Hasselblad and Bay 50 for Zeiss cameras.

Heliopan is the OEM supplier for Rollei.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 
From: mdelman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective

Dirk-Roger:

A few years ago, I purchased a viewing device from a Zone VI viewer from
Calumet Photo in the US.   The viewer comes in a number of format sizes and
let's you preview what the image will look like in B&W.  It comes in
several format sizes.  See below for details on the large format viewer and
the link :

http://www.calumetphoto.com/default.taf?pageload=/calumet/prodindex.taf~ItCa
t0=02~by=~alphastr=~mfg=~ItCat1=~Cat0=Camera%20Accessories~_function=default
&_UserReference=143F9252439C8E933CB95470

For 4x5 format, also for 6x9cm and 8x10. Features a monochromatic #90
wratten filter mounted in clear glass and encased in a 3" diameter black
matte frame. Invaluable for previsualizing the image by converting the
colors in the natural scene toward the tones, and tonal arrangement that
would appear in a black & white print. This abstraction of the image helps
you to compose the forms and balance the tonal areas. Will also help you
determine whether or not a filter is necessary to avoid tonal mergers.
Includes neck cord.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 
From: mdelman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Bay II to 39mm filter adapter

I've already mentioned that I did this by gluing together a bayonet 2 filter
and a 39mm filter that I had removed the glass from both.

What strikes me as strange is that SRB would offer a bayonet II to 35.5mm
adapter as a standard offering but not make one to 39mm.  Many Leica lenses
are 39mm.  What lenses take 35.5mm filters??  Can anyone shed light on this?

-Mark

[Ed. note: a viewing filter gives a monochrome view of a scene, emphasizing shapes and
masses, as on a black and white print, de-emphasizing colors and color contrasts...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 
From: Jerry Lehrer [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective

Bob

I've seen viewing filters at most camera shows.

I made my own from a 2x2 Wratten #90 gel, 'tween
2 glass slide covers and old slide binding tape.  No big
deal.

Jerry Lehrer
...

[Ed. note: thanks to Harold for sharing this interesting observation on filters... ;-)

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 
From: "Harold M. Merklinger" [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Change of URL - Merklinger
...

Bob,

        Thanks for the reply!

 I was just looking again at your myths page.  It reminded me
of another related to filters: a skylight filter is just as good as a
UV filter for screening out UV and offering protection.

        Many years ago (perhaps about 1980) I was taking pictures of
some black light "art".  I wanted to use a UV filter on my Mamiya
645/80 to suppress any possible haze, but had only a skylight.  When
I looked through the viewfinder I indeed saw haze - a pink haze.
Then I noticed that the skylight filter was itself "lit up" - the
filter itself was fluorescing under the UV.  I checked all my other
skylight filters and found many that had this problem, including one
with a camera name brand on it!

        The main message for me was: don't use skylight filters
unless they have been checked; they may do more harm than good.

  I tried at the time to get Modern Photography to publish a
warning, but they declined.
...

- Harold

--
Harold M. Merklinger
[email protected]
Home phone: 902-461-1873

From: "Siu Fai" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How to use a polarizer on range finder
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002

> Heliopan polarizers have calibrated rims with the first and last numbers
> 180� apart.

They have numbers but the numbers are not calibrated. I bought two of them
in 46mm (real cheap) and I was planning on using them on my C330 TLR. Turned
out the numbers of both lenses don't correspond with each other, so I end up
using one and keep the other one as spare.

Siu Fai

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 
From: "ian.barnes" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Source for 4x4 glass or resin IR filters?

There is a company in the UK called Van Diemien who produce both for the
photo and TV industry. They are of a similar standard to Tiffen but a lot
cheaper (from memory). i use 4*4 but they do all sizes and will cut/ make
for you.Glass/ resin/round /mounted/square etc. As you may gather they are a
good but small company.The resins are quite thick about 4mm and glass about
3mm.Pretty standard.Optically fine though.

If you want the number email me . (I think the spelling it correct it may be
dieman).

Ian

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any source for 4x4 infrared filters?
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002

 [email protected] (David Meiland) wrote:
> I'm looking for a 4x4 square glass or resin filter, #87 or similar
> (opaque). Lee does not appear to make one. I've been using a poly
> filter in a Calumet cardboard frame, but the frames do not hold up
> well to being inserted into the Lee holder, which has very rigid
> springs to hold filters in place. Anyone know if such a filter is
> available, or have other ideas?
> ---
> David Meiland
> Oakland, California
> http://davidmeiland.com/

Heliopan makes 4x4" Glass filters (including IR. The 87 is a RG 780).

These are between 2 and 3mm thick and are solid glass. They fit
Heliopan's 4x4" rotating filter holder but may not fit other
manufacturers holders. The holder takes any combination of glass,
acrylic or gel filters. Closes with a magnet and has 105mm male and
female threads. it rotates clockwise for effect type filters. A 105mm
lens hood (rubber or metal) can be added to the front. The metal hoods
are threaded and available in short and long versions to vary the length
of the hood. Brass step-up rings are available to mount it to lenses
with 100mm or smaller front threads.

--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS

From panoramic mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]
Subject: Re: Low tech question.

Medium tech filter and ring info, many are unaware of: in respect to wide
angle lenses, many lose image circle when you screw anything into the front
threads, not that swinglens cameras have/need wide angle lenses at all. I am
referring to the super angulons, apo-grandagons, super symmar xl aspherical.
only rodenstock mentions this problem, publishing these startling,
threatening figures: the 55mm apo-grandagon loses 9mm from the diameter of
its image circle and its angle is reduced from 110 to 107 degrees when its
dedicated center filter is screwed in. you buy a center filter to get better
edge coverage, but hey catch 22 the far edge is eliminated altogether  by
the filter.  Further degrading of the image is from reflection of the screw
in ring on the film,this also in the rodenstock center filter brochure.

solution: for my vistashif-612 tweak of the brooks veriwide
(http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/vista612.html) i use over the lens filter
mounts, into which i remount the center filters. all center filters are
actually in step up rings to begin with. For example the dedicated center
filter for the 55 apo-grandagon has the 67mm lens threads on the small end
and 86mm on the front.  also in many the retaining rings are way to wide and
again can cut image. heligon center filters are the worlds worst in that
regard.

ralph

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Low tech question.
>
> I said adapter rings, I meant to say step-up rings.
>
> AJ

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 
From: Charlie Goodwin [email protected]
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] How do I get a perfect interior + exterior shot?

Hello all,

Re comments of  Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]] and Patrick Bartek:

Polarizers, for the reasons noted by Q.G. de Bakker [[email protected]] will
almost always raise the color saturation of at least parts of a scene, by
removing some of the glare bouncing off surfaces.

Non-metallic objects throw off incident light in two ways:

1. the object reflects or re-radiates light in pretty much all directions with
it's color.i.e. a red object absorbs green/cyan light and reflects red light.
It is this sort of reflection that can give photographs great chromatic
strength, ala Pete Turner.

2. The surface of an object also reflects some of the light that falls upon it
as glare, leaving the object at the same angle from the surface as it came
from, like a billiard ball off a cushion.   That light does not receive the
color characteristics of the object, but retains the color of the incident
light.   The amount of glare increases as the incident angle becomes smaller.
When the incident light is just skimming the surface and one peers back across
the object, a greater percent of what one sees is unadulterated glare.   The
color saturation is lower and lower the closer the view is to a view just
skimming the surface at an incident light source.   However, often aspects of
surface texture are enhanced, so it is a choice, balancing among other things,
the relative desires for color and surface texture.

The surface glare off nonmetallic surfaces is polarized to a greater or lesser
amount.   At something like 40 to 45 degrees incident angle, the polarization
reaches a maximum.  ( Someone undoubtedly will be able to help on that detail.)
  Thus at the same angle, a polarizer can exert the greatest control, usually
to remove as much glare as possible to reveal color and brightness variations
of the object.   At the right angle, saturation will be dramatically increased.

It is rarely remarked upon that the opposite is also true, that one also has,
at that angle, the ability to increase the relative contribution of the glare
by turning the polarizer 90 degrees.   It is easy to see the effects and judge
what is most effective.   Once in a while it is best to maximize the glare.

In, say, an interior, a polarizer gives you more choice of where to put the
glare and where to cut through the glare.

Other considerations also prevail.   The polarizer absorbs light needing
something like 3 1/2 x to 4x exposure increase.   Sometimes that is
unacceptable.   Sometimes a polarizer yields an unwanted unnatural look.

Thanks,

Charlie

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 
From: Robert Feinman [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filters for Meyer Goerlitz 500 mm lens?

I've attached filters to the back of view camera lenses for years.
Either the lens had a thread which could be adapted to a filter holder
or find a slip on adaptor which goes onto the barrel.
I've even used polarizers. Just hold it up to the light and twist to get
effect. Note position of orientation dot and put in on the same way.
You may need to refocus, but if you just do it once with a filter in
place and note the shift you can compensate with others. In most cases
you can focus through the filter (not IR though).
My 500mm Cat lens came with rear filters (glass) and a blank to keep the
path the same.

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

> Having just found out the prices for 118 mm filters (350 bucks for a
> polarizer), I'd like to know if anyone has ever tried mounting filters
> at the rear end of a Meyer (or Pentacon) 300 or 500 mm lens, probably
> inside the adapter ring used to attach the lens to either P6 mount or
> M42 cameras.
> Are there any other solutions for lenses with such monstrous filter
> threads? Any suggestions would be most welcome.
>
> Ralf
--
Robert D Feinman
[email protected]
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com

From: John Stafford [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filters for Meyer Goerlitz 500 mm lens?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002

Ralf R. Radermacher
at [email protected] wrote 

> Having just found out the prices for 118 mm filters (350 bucks for a
> polarizer), I'd like to know if anyone has ever tried mounting filters
> at the rear end of a Meyer (or Pentacon) 300 or 500 mm lens, probably
> inside the adapter ring used to attach the lens to either P6 mount or
> M42 cameras.
>
> Are there any other solutions for lenses with such monstrous filter
> threads? Any suggestions would be most welcome.
>
> Ralf

If you don't mind experimenting and surfing a bit more, Ralf, check out
http://www.surplusshed.com/list.cfm?Category=Filters  (old bookmark)

I got three high-quality 108mm filters made for military aerial lenses. They
cost something like $5US each. They just happen to work on one of my lenses
as an interference fit... they slip between the threads without screwing in.

Excellent glass. Worth looking into.

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: "hockeyshooter8" [email protected]
Subject: Re: filters on fisheyes

--- In ManualMinolta@y..., xkaes@a... wrote:
> Anyone try to get special filters onto fisheye lenses -- Minolta
> or not?

I've just uploaded a photo to the files section (called
fisheye_gel_holder.jpg) of the back end of my Canon EF 15mm f2.8 full-
frame fisheye which has a clip to take geletin filters (so you don't
even have to use sticky tape or BluTak). Some of the Sigma fisheyes
have this feature but I don't know if the Minolta ones have it.

Chris.

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: "Bill Kean" [email protected]
Subject: Re: filters on fisheyes

Hi,
It is a re-usable adhesive that is sold under the name bostik and comes in
a thin sheet about 3 inch by 4 inch. It looks and feels a bit like
plasticine/putty/play-doh.

Bill

>
>What is Blu-Tack?

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: David Meiland [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] More OT: square glass polarizer

I've been looking for a polarizer for my 500mm C lens (86mm). The folks at
Calumet offered me a Tiffen 86mm polarizer for $140 and a Tiffen 4x4
polarizer for $100, so I decided to try the latter, thinking I could also
use it occasionally with 4x5 and other gear as well (already have and use a
Lee holder). The item in question is a single piece of flat, tinted glass.
Anyone have one of these? Does it work? I'm confused, as the others I have
all consist of two pieces that are rotated to adjust the effect. FWIW, the
packaging shows a TV or film (cinema) camera, not a still camera. Before I
get fingerprints on this thing I'd like to know if it's going to do what
the usual 2-piece filters do.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective

you wrote:
> Jim Noel at [email protected] wrote:
>
>> They should be available at any
>> decent camera store.
>
>Have you looked for one recently?  I haven't seen one in a
>camera store in many a year.
>
>Bob

  I have a couple of viewing filters, all picked up a local camera sales
for next to nothing. One is a Spectra made by Photo Research and labled
Color Contrast Viewing Filter. Its dark amber. The  other is very old, sold
by Jack Powell, a Hollywood pictorialist of the 1930's and 1940's. This is
made of dark blue glass, cut out of sheets apparently. I think they are
meant to give some idea of what a scene would look like to orthochromatic
film. I don't think either is very useful but are fun to have.

  Kodak made a viewing filter called a Wratten No.90, described as dark
grayish amber, I suspect this is what is in the Specra viewer. Kodak
describes the purpose as showing the relative values of colors reproduced
in monochrome.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: Jim Noel [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective

Bob,

I have done a little more research and have come up with the following web
site which sell panchromatic viewing filters.
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/harpanviewgl.html
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/tifcolviewfi.html
http://spectracine.com/filters.htm

There are many more, but this covers Tiffen, Harrison & Harrison and
Spectra. I was really surprised to learn that Spectra is still in business.

Jim

From: "Anatoliy Lazarenko" [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: ?Help finding diffraction grating materials?
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 

Hello group,

Coburn Corp. (www.coburn.com - it seems to me) produces self -adhesive
metallized holographic films of about 40 patterns. Among them is
two-dimensional gratings named BrightOverall - like two superimposed with
90degrees turn EdmundSci ones. Width -61cm, price - about $20 per sq.m.
Unfortunately, direct application of it gives only static rainbow effect.
More sophisticated application of some holographic patterns can produce even
DYNAMIC sparkling effect in sunshine conditions (as shown in my  signboard
mock-up http://users.kpi.kharkov.ua/lazart/anita.html)!

Best regards,

Anatoliy Lazarenko

[email protected]
http://ktts.kharkov.ua/~lazart/
>Glen wrote:
>>
>> Hello group,
>>              I am a sculptor working on an architectural project.  We
>> are looking for an economical way to create rainbow effects on the walls
>> of a rather large interior space.  I know about that inexpensive plastic
>> diffraction film that Edmund Sci. sells but I am wondering if anything
>> like this is available with a mirrored backing so we can make panels and
>> bounce the rainbows around the space?  I believe this effect is in use
>> at the new planetarium in Manhattan. Any sources or suggestions would be
>> most appreciated.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Filter and focus point change.

you wrote:
>Gerald Lehrer wrote (edited):
>Some people believe that a filter will shift the focus.
>I do not think that the human eye can see that shift
>in a 80mm f2.8 lens when viewed thru the best
>Maxwell screen.
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>
>You are right.  The focus would shift 1/3 the thickness of the filter you
>put on the camera and I cannot imagine being able to see a 1-2mm change in
>the focus point with the naked eye, aided or otherwise.  It would seem that
>one advantage of the SLR would be that you can focus with the filter on the
>lens so the change in focus point should be accomodated. Wonder if AF would
>do it as well? Hmmm.
>
>Peter K

  The significance of the shift depends on where the filter is. On the
outside of the lens, in normal work, its of no significance at all. On the
film side it can be significant depending on the thickness of the filter.
filters used behind the lens, or for extrmeme closeup work should be as
thin as possible, preferebly thin gelatin filters.

  FWIW a plane-parallel plate of glass in the optical path introduces
spherical and chromatic aberration, the amount depending on the vergence of
the light path. Where the light is collimated, as it nearly is from very
distant objects, the effect is insignificant. Where the light is highly
convergent or divergent, as it is in the light path between lens and film,
or object and lens in close up work, the effect can be noticable.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Filter and focus point change.

 you wrote:
>> >
>> > I believe the focus only shifts if the filter surfaces are not either
>> > coplanar (both parallel with each other) and/or perpendicular
>> to the axis of
>> > the lense.  Other than that, there should be no focus shift at all.
>>
>> Not true.  Even a perfectly flat plano-parallel glass plate will introduce
>> some focus shift.
>
>As I said, I don't believe that is true if it is in front of the lense.  If
>it is behind the lense, that's a different story.  Do you have a source for
>your belief (I hope you expected no less ;-)?  I'll ask one of the optical
>experts I know and see what he says about it.

 The focus shift is due to the change in the effective length of the light
path caused by the difference in index of refraction of the glass and the
air surrounding it. Average glass has in index of about 1.5, hense the
ratio of indexes is about 1/1.5 or 0.3333...  This effect takes place
whether the ligth is parallel or not. If its not parallel there are the
further effects of chromatic aberration, and spherical aberration since the
light is bent to varying degrees going through the glass plate, the amount
depending on its original angle and on the color. Since light from the
edges of the lens are at a more acute angle than light going through near
the center of the lens the amount by which the angle is affected by the
glass will be different introducing the spherical. Since the glass has
dispersion, i.e., the index of refraction varies with wavelength, it will
introduce both chromatic and spherochromatism.

  Where the light is nearly parallel as it is for distant objects for a
filter on the front of the lens all these effects are negligible. However,
they can become very significant when filters are used on the back of a
lens, especailly for short FL lenses,  or on either side of a lens used for
micro-macro work. Filters used this way must be very thin.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heliopan R-TLR-bayo to standard thread

>  "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected] said:
> >Heliopan makes them. I believe the Bay II to 49mm is a #307. I own the
> >Bay III to 49mm which is a #308.

Hmm... Peter, Heliopan #307 is bayo II to M35,5 x 0,5. Odd size
unfortunately. This is what is actually available :

http://www.heliopan.de/picts/Preisliste.pdf

Heliopan adaptors
ref#   filter        R-bayonet
305    30.5 x 0.5    B I/3.5
306    35.5 x 0.5    B II/3.5
307    40.5 x 0.5    B III/2.8
308    49   x 0.75   B III/2.8

> les clark:
> Good-0. Would this be for screw-in 49 mm filters. or "plain" filters?

 Conventional metric screw. M49x0.75
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: glass versus gelatin filters
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 

Paul Butzi [email protected] wrote:
>Which produces *less* image degradation, a quality coated glass filter
>like a B+W or Heliopan, or a gelatin or polyester filter?  How about
>uncoated glass filters?
>
>Anyone done any head to head comparisons?
>
>-Paul
>--
>    http://www.butzi.net

  The least disturbance is caused by high quality gelatin filters.
Good polyester should be the same.

 Glass can cause problems but the extent of the degradation depends
on where the filter is in the light path.

  An optical flat introduces spherical aberraton and chromatic
aberraton when its in a vergent light path. When the filter is used on
the outside of a lens in normal work with distant subjects, the light
is very nearly parallel, so there are no aberrations introduced. When
a thick filter is used behind the lens, or in front when micro/macro
work is being done, the light is convergent so some degree of
aberration is introduced. The amount depends on the thickness of the
filter and the angle of the light beams going through it.

  Gelatin filters are so thin that little disturbance is caused
although their presense must be taken account of in very critical
work.

  The glass used for filters must be optically flat, parallel, and
have very homogenous charistics. Nonuniformities will show up on the
image, but again, it depends on the light path. Generally for
telephoto lenses better glass is needed than for normal lenses. Kodak
used to offer glass filters of two grades: A glass and B glass, A
glass was gound and polished to very precise flatness for use in the
most critical applications and was recommended for telephoto lenses.

  Likely B+W and Heliopan are of this quality.

  Glass filters have the same problems with surface reflections that
lens elements do. Any uncoated surface will cause some flare. Filters
should be coated, and preferqably multicoated, just as lenses are.

  there is some surface reflection from gelatin also but the thinness
prevents some types of flare which glass is subject to. However, a
multi-coated glass filter will have less flare than a gelatin filter.

  Are you now confused worse or better?

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Neutral Density Gradient
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002

.Bob wrote:

> Either rely on your camera's meter to get an exposure (with the filter
> on) or close down a stop or so from that indicated as the camera will
> probably be fooled by the darker sky into over exposing the ground.  If
> using slide film, bracket (and move the filter up/down a bit - like I
> said, takes practice to position the dividing line correctly).

Or keep it simple and just meter with the filter off the lens.
You're exposure should be set for the part appearing in the clear part of
the filter. The filter will adjust the other part, the metering shouldn't do
that as well. So, again, meter with the filter off.

From: Paul Stimac [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Large Cheap Filters
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001

I don't know a cheap way but cokin x-pro will do the job. Their filter's
are130mm x 170mm square, at B&H they are $60 for the holder, $43 for each
black/white filter and $55 for a universal adaptor, which will handle up to
118mm. You could also have someone custom make a step down ring adaptor ring
for you so you can use it on the front . S.K. Grimes would be able to do this:
http://www.skgrimes.com/  Another option (maybe) would be to contact Seagull
camera at www.chinacamera.com and ask if they can make one for you. If you knew
someone who writes Chinese, I'd ask them to write the letter for you.

Good luck,
Paul

annqlee wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering if anyone know of filter systems that are cheap.
> For black and white photography. Something like Ilford's Multicontrast
> filters, in those sizes. I know that cokin makes something like that but
> I don't know what is the largest size they have. It seems like 4" max.
> Last time I got into trouble
> by getting a large diameter lens, but fortunately the rear filters are
> small, 77mm.
> Now the rear element is 110mm and the front is 135mm. Help? I guess I should
> of
> known better, but I needed the movements on this lens for the projects that
> I am doing for
> massive manipulation of the focal plane.
> Do you think I can use the 4" filters somehow if I will only shoot at f22 or
> below on an
> f6.8 lens. Some of those screw on filters cost 1/3 as the lens! Scandalous.
> Why I oughta!
>
> Also, the felt cap in front is kinda loose. Any tricks to make it tighter?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ann

From: [email protected] (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 26 Mar 2001 
Subject: Re: Large Cheap Filters

Ann,

If you are stopping down to f22 I am reasonably positive that 4x4 or
100mmx100mm filters fine.  They should be fine even wide open for most lenses
as long as they are mounted within a few cm of the front element of the lens
unless you are usin ga true monster lens.

Lee and Lindhal both have vast systems of these filters as does Calument (which
are Lee marked under Calumet's name.  I know the Lee holder and hoods keep the
first filter almsot right up to the lens and can see no problem.  Simple
solution is go buy one then do a visual test spacing it a cm from the lens.

If all else fails ROSCO, the company that makes theatrical gels makes them
virtually any color you could imagine and you can buy a sheet of gel, cut it to
size and carefully tape it to your lens or make a cardboard holder for same ...
etc.

Cheers,

Ted
Ted Harris

[Ed. note: Thanks to Alex for sharing these tests of filters and impacts on photography...]
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 
From:  [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks for note: re: blind filter tests

Hi Robert!

This is the table I promised. I dropped data on filters geometry, assembling
quality, "freedom of movement" and alike which affected the overall ratings.

I think a blind filter test would be a most interesting effort too

Well, not every German filter got SUPER in the fM test below so the results
look quite "objective" for me. Minolta and Hoya suffer most from the test
although 160 lpm and medium contrast sounds more than enough to be honest.

Best regards,
Alex.

                    Circular Polarizing Filters
                     * fotoMAGAZIN (09/2001)
                  Tested with 105mm lens, 400 lp/mm

          Model                 Resolution Contrast Rating
          B+W MRC Slim          300 lp/mm  high     SUPER (5)
          Canon                 400 lp/mm  high     SUPER (5)
          Cokin P164            300 lp/mm  soft     NOCH GUT (2)
          Contax MC             400 lp/mm  high     SEHR GUT (4)
          Doerr Danubia         useless    useless  WENIGER GUT (1)
          Hama HTMC Silver      400 lp/mm  high     GUT (3)
          Hama HTMC Wide        400 lp/mm  soft     SEHR GUT (4)
          Heliopan SH-PMC Slim  400 lp/mm  high     SUPER (5)
          Hoya Pro 1            160 lp/mm  soft     NOCH GUT (2)
          Leica                 400 lp/mm  medium   SEHR GUT (4)
          Minolta II            160 lp/mm  medium   NOCH GUT (2)
          Nikon                 400 lp/mm  medium   SUPER (5)
          Pentax                ??         ??       SEHR GUT (4)
          Rodenstock Jet-Pol    400 lp/mm  medium   SEHR GUT (4)
          Soligor               400 lp/mm  medium   GUT (3)
          Tiffen                300 lp/mm  middle   GUT (3)

MYTabs
ak (2002)

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 
From: "Nathaniel E Salang" [email protected]
Subject: TRY BUBBLE WRAP. Re: Re: Vaseline on a UV filter - soft focus effect
or a load of rubbish?

Hi, folks! I came accross this thread and I agree. There are other ways to make
a soft image.

I tried using women's stockings in the past -- on the lens! haha. It worked
well. You could vary the softness of the image by stretching the stockings. You
can also try using stockings of different colors. This will have an effect on
the image.

Lately though, I have been using bubble wrap. I cut out a piece of
doughnut-shaped bubble wrap to fit between the UV filter and the lens. this
makes for an image that is a bit hazy on the perimeter but sharp in the middle.
I have also tried varying the size of the hole in the bubble wrap, and even
tried cutting out different shapes for the hole.

By the way, if you plan to use vaseline again, you would find it easier to
focus manually or by leaving the center of the lens clear of vaseline.

I hope this helps.

Nathaniel
....

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 
From: Bill Rainey [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vaseline on a UV filter - soft focus effect or a load of rubbish?

schwerpunkt1 wrote:
...
> Now aside from the viewpoint that having a jar of vaseline in your
> camera bag is more than a little dodgy (g), has anyone actually had
> any success with this technique?
...

I haven't used Vaseline because of the messy clean-up, but K-Y Jelly works well
as it will rinse off easily with water. Another good thing to use is hairspray!
It will clean off with water also, and in my opinion gives a much better
soft-focus/diffusion effect than the other methods discussed. It also will not
come off on your hands or your camera bag while in use either.

Later,
--
Bill Rainey
[email protected]
http://home.hiwaay.net/~wrainey/

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 
From: "twm47099" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vaseline on a UV filter - soft focus effect or a load of rubbish?

Steve Sint (Pop Photo writer) recomends using clear nail polish on UV
filters.  That way you can try different patterns (swirls, radial,
thick/thin, clear center, etc).  If you don't like the effect you
clean it off with nail polish remover (while off the camera) and try
again.

I've also read that the difference in diffusion effect between light
mesh and dark mesh is that the light mess diffuses the highlights
while the dark diffuses the non-highlights.  Haven't tried it my self
so can't say from experience.

Tom

rec.photo.technique.nature 
From: [email protected] (MrScience9)
Date: Wed May 08 2002
[1] Re: Help - Tiffen filter 812

The 812 is more like an 81B but it doesn;t affect the whites as much as an 81B.

 THE 812 is my warming filter of choice.

Harvey

from minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: Re: Filter brands

 Maisch, Manfred at [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> what "high quality filters" of a "a square system similar to Cokin"
> do you use. I'm not very pleased about the optical quality of the Cokin
> system and would be interested in something similar, but better.

Try the Lee filter system from the UK, or Hitec. The Formatt system is now
defunct. Lee is 100 per cent better than Cokin professional - very
accurate, very well made, but expensive. I have a comprehensive set of
various systems here for magazine reviews done in the past - Cokin P,
Cromatek, Lee, Hitec, Pro4 and various others. Nothing compares to the Lee

products for quality; they are of course the major supplier to the TV and
film industry worldwide, and started out making HUGE filter systems - only
recently did they decide to tackle 5 x 4, and now many rollfilm users also
keep to this make. The holders and filters are frankly too large for 35mm
unless you are using big lenses, but the even-ness and neutrality of their
grads is legendary.  Their polarizers are good but you could buy a camera
kit for the price.

David Kilpatrick

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Re: Filter brands

 Maisch, Manfred at [email protected] wrote:

> Hi David,.
> Where can I find information about that Lee.filters? I never heard about
> that brand. And where can I buy them?

Lee Filters
Central Way
Walworth Industrial Estate
Andover
Hampshire SP10 5AN
UK

Tel +44 1264 338599
Fax +44 1264 355058

www.leefilters.com

Mention PLEASE if enquiring that you saw their advertisement in FREELANCE
PHOTOGRAPHER magazine (they have just finished a year's advertising and we
want them back in - they do lovely full page ads shot by Joe Cornish in
all the other mags, and for some reason paid top rates for a rather poor
1/4 page in ours - a legacy of our previous ad sales agents who just
believed in getting money and never considered the aesthetics).

The CALUMET resin filter system looks to me identical to the Lee system
and I am sure Lee makes this - the holder is identical. Lee also own
Camera Bellows Ltd who will sell you custom-made bellows to fit any old
camera, and also make bellows lens shades for the Lee system. Recently
Camera Bellows launched some really neat LCD viewer bellows shades for
digital cameras too.

Calumet -

Europe - Berlin 0049 30 2644350
Amsterdam - 0031 3 2162761

USA - NY NY - 001 212 989 8500

and many other locations

Head office and export:

UK +44 1908 366344

Again, please say you obtained the information from FREELANCE PHOTOGRAPHER
MAGAZINE. They should be able to send you a comprehensive catalogue which
contains all wholesale supplies plus their own brands, Bowens flash, etc.

David

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Filter brands

The Schmidts at [email protected] wrote:
> RE: series II filter if indeed they are a half stop brighter I will
> try to buy one. Are you pretty sure about this?

Other makes may also be brighter - polarizers have improved generally. the
first of the low density polarizers was introduced in 1976 by Vivitar (a
linear polarizer, and just as slim as the latest new designs). But the
polarizers you get from Tiffen, standard Hoya, Izumar, Cokin etc have a high
ND factor relative to their performance.

I would hope that Nikon, Olympus etc have lower densities. I know that my
B+W polariser was very dense.

I am just comparing an old Minolta pol with a slightly later Hoya,
standard type. They are quite different. This old Minolta circular

polariser is quite dense. I have returned my sample Series II filters to
Minolta so I can't now make an accurate comparison. I observed that they
were visually lighter and appeared to admit half a stop extra on the
camera, but this (of course)  may be only 1/4 stop difference triggering a
change in the display of 1/2 stop.

Here are some readings using a professional densitometer:

Minolta (old, circular pol, c1986)  D 0.59
Hoya 62mm linear, age unknown D 0.60
Cokin linear, new  D 0.56
Cromatek 100 linear, new   0.605

The Hoya has a substantial colour shift towards warm compared with all the
others. I do not have a colour meter now (just sold on eBay...)

All I can say is that the new Minolta is significantly brighter than the
best of these - maybe half a stop over - and that I have had much worse,
with stronger colour shifts, local density variations and even patchy

colour. The differences above are not very significant and amount to 1/6th
of a stop approx.

It may be exactly equal to new slimline new technology Hoya, or a Nikon.
It certainly will not be darker (less efficient) and being Minolta you can
be sure it will dead accurate on colour.

Minolta manufacture all the main industry standard colour measuring gear
and they are always really careful to ensure their filters are neutral, or
accurate if they are have a colour shift.

David

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: "Ellis Chan" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter brands - Why not Minolta also?

It's ironic that that when people are asking advice on protective
UV/Skylight filters on the list, few of us actually recommend Minolta AC
filters.

I also tried Hoya HMC, Hoya Super HMC, Kenko SuperPro, and Heliopan before
discovered the good value of the Minolta AC filter. While Heliopan filters
are of excellent quality, they *are* expensive. Both Hoya Super HMC and
Kenko SuperPro are also flare resistent, but difficult to clean when any
dirt got on their coatings.

The good thing about the Minolta AC filters are they use thin filter rings
(though not as thin as the Heliopan super thin ones) and VERY easy to
clean coating. They are also quite flare resistence. The glass used and
coatings are of course, as good as those on your Minolta lenses. ...

EC
    -----------------------------------------------
I have many filters of all the Minolta sizes, and all the brands mentioned
above.

My flat-out favorites are the modern Minolta ones.

Not only thin but do not tend to jam easily as do the Heliopan <- really a
pain when it happens!

The only Minolta filter I have which is not among my favorites is a heavy
chrome Red filter, made "way back when" I'm sure.

Perhaps the camera-brand filters tend to be a bit better than standard
competition.  My other favorite filters are Pentax 49mm -- I used them on
my Topcon system.  Pentax even made a UV filter with curved glass so as
not to pick up reflections.
   Huff

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 
From: "Michael Hohner" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter brands - Why not Minolta also?

 Ellis Chan wrote:

That's not really surprising as Hoya and Kenko are just two brand names
of the same manufacturer, THK Photo Products.

>Judging from the coatings alone, I would say they are the same thing with
>different badge.
>
>EC
>
>> >I also tried Hoya HMC, Hoya Super HMC, Kenko SuperPro

 How did you find the Hoya Super HMC compared to the Kenko SuperPro? :-)

---

Michael Hohner
[email protected]
http://www.nefkom.net/miho

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: Re: Filter brands

 Alan Kerr at [email protected] wrote:
>> Singh Ray are (with
> respect) a complete rip-off and I know because I once decided to import them
> to the UK.
>
> David, I thought I had better put this in bold text as I have just been
> recommending them. Thanks for enlightening me. I thought these must be good as
> they are the only filter Galen Rowell will use and was going on his
> recommendation.
>
Only uses LowePro bags, too... or would that be a different brand?

All I am saying here is that Singh Ray are very expensive (certainly in
Europe) for something which is actually no different from a run of the mill
product.

The main innovation they had was a haze filter which gave superior results
with Kodachrome, unlike the regular 1As from most makes. But when Fuji films
became popular, Singh started making similar filters for Velvia etc which
were frankly not needed at all. His idea that you needed a different special
UV haze filter for each film type was a money-spinner.

His next most worthwhile idea was to make filters which precisely matched
specific films to specific industrial light sources. If you knew that a
building was illuminated by a particular sort of General Electric
discharge lamp and you were using Agfa film (etc) you could get a Singh
Ray filter (costing if I remember the best part of $100) for perfect
colour balance.

BUT many of the light source were not continuous spectrum (he admitted this,
and the filets came with extensive technical advice) and when many of the
slide film haze filters were around, Kodak actually made two entirely
different kinds of film for America and Europe. US Ektachrome had a
completely different colour temperature target to European.

Today I don't think this distinction exists any more, but all films have
been improved, even slide films have multi-layer emulsions which cope with
difficult lighting much better. Kodachrome is perhaps the only film which
retains a response so different that Singh's original ideas are valid. The
arrival of digital photography for nearly all commercial and industrial
work (certainly in Britain now) has in any case removed any need for that
kind of plus-minus 1CC colour accuracy. Clip tests, legendary 'good' film
batches and stuff like that is all in the past - you just scan the tranny
and correct the colour, if you are not shooting on digital to start with.

If Singh Ray has expanded into other filters my guess is that it will be on
grounds of absolute accuracy, to an anal degree - 2-3 per cent tolerance
from stated Wratten value, density factor, or whatever. If that is so, then
Hi-Tec, Formatt and Lee filters in Britain all got there 10 years ago
anyway. It is even possible that Lee may be supplying (they are a VERY big
company and the photo market is a tiny part of it).

When I said rip-off, I meant price wise and nothing else for Singh Ray
filters. Galen Rowell endorses them; well, Joe Cornish endorses Lee. Joe's
probably got as big a reputation in Europe as Rowell has in the USA. I
would assume the reason we don't get Singh Ray in the UK is the same as it
was when I tentatively imported and advertised them about eight years ago
- they are twice as expensive as anyone wants to pay!

David

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
From: "paulbrecht" [email protected]
Subject: Re: filter brands - blind filter differences tests?

Robert,

I haven't done any "tests" so-to-speak, but I took pictures with a
Hoya Softner (A) & if using a small aperature, you can see the
bubbles on the filter. The Hoya corp. uses a film coating with little
bubbles on it to apply the soft effect. It works good with a wide
aperature, but when DOF is too much, you can see the circles
(bubbles) as blurred spots & the rest of the plane is clear...

I haven't tried this with my Tiffen soft fx filters to see if you can
see the swiggle patterns....

Paul

from nikon mailing list:
From: "Phil Considine" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Nikon] Protection fliters on w/a lenses
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 

Did the lens have a hood attached? If so, did the lens fall on a projected
object like a spike or a rock? If not did it (as seems the case), fall in
the edge of the filter? If so how did the filter do anything but manage to
interpose itself between the lens housing and the ground? Would the filter
type have made a difference?  My point being that UV "protection " filters
are little more than a flare trap. You assert that the lens would have
received a fatal blow - OK I accept that.  My point remains if you drop
the lens the lens hood remains a much safer means of protection than a
filter.  If you are going to use a filter use it for creative purposes not
as a "protective" device. And finally if a lens has an exposed front
element its unlikely that it will be any more damaged without a filter
than with one.

Phil Considine

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Jerome Pennington
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2002 
Subject: RE: [Nikon] Protection fliters on w/a lenses

Recently in the repair department where I work (a large retail & mail order
camera store) I watched two of the techs while they worked on a lens that
appeared to have received a fatal blow.  The UV filter on the front had
been struck by an object and was totally shattered.  It seemed that the
front lens element might also be damaged beyond repair.

They tapped lightly on the UV filter, breaking off bits of glass into a
trash can until all the glass was gone.  Then they went in with a vise
grip and literally wrenched the filter ring from the lens.  There remained a
light coating of dust and powdered glass on the front element due to the
extraction, but when they wiped it off the lens emerged undamaged.  I have
no doubt that that UV filter saved the lens.

Jerome

you wrote:
>This whole debate about "protection filters" really gets to me.  How can a
>$20 piece of glass protect a $1,000 lens?  In fact can it do half the job of
>protecting of a lens hood?  My feeling is this whole thing - protective
>filters - was dreamed up by someone long ago as a good idea and has little
>basis in fact. Its an urban myth that costs money.  IF you were serious you
>wouldn't use glass because if the filter breaks or shatters it would be more
>danger to the lens element than anything but a direct hit by a rock. And in
>that case it would accentuate the problem in most cases. So what do you get
>for your dollar?  A protective element that can cause more damage than it
>can save, that accentuates flare and vignetting, degrades the performance of
>the lens and does little else.  If you are going to use a filter, use one
>that enhances the image - a warming filter or a circular polariser but don't
>kid yourself a UV filter is doing anything worthwhile.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic filters/mountain photography

> Hello: Does anyone have experience with mountain photography,black
> and white film, and the effect of ultra violet light at high
> altitudes? At least one writer states that for black and white a
> yellow filter is quite adequate. Color film however must use ultra
> violet filters for maximum effect and sharpness. Suggestions are
> welcome. ellis

Ellis. I have an extensive experience in using colour slides at high
altitudes (3000-4000m with, once, above 5000) with my R-T and with my
Rollei 35. I've used a UV filter on both cameras, a Rollei H1 on the
R-T (not a skighlight) and a regular non-Rollei UV on the R-35. On the
R-35 I've used Kodachrome 25. With the R-T I've used Ekta and
Agfachrome. In 6x6 slides I found colour rendition satisfactory for
mountain and snow pictures, I preferred older Ektas to older Agfa
slides, but now I'm using AGFA RSXII routineley and I am very happy
with its very neutral rendition. But rendering of whites and textures
of white in snow are outstanding with Kodachrome 25.

Often my skies were dark blue. This was not an UV effect but the
effect of a compromise in exposure between snow, rocks and people.

Now I've never made a side-by-side comparison with / without UV filter
since when mountaineering I always kept the UV filter in place as a
'transparent lens cap' ;-);-)

The suggestion of a yellow filter for B&W pictures sounds reasonable,
although you may debate endlessly on the actual amount of UV light
that can actually reach the film and change colour or tonal rendition
without filter. To put it shortly, I doubt that modern lenses with
many elements inside actually let a lot of unwanted UV reach the film.
For an old un-coated tessar this is another story.

I think there might be some good hints, not concerning hight
altitudes, but about B&W rendition of rocks, skies and snow in Ansel
Adams 'Making of' book. Yesterday I just read the 'making of' the 1927
half dome 'monolith' picture. AA did actually use a contrats filter.
IMHO tonal and contrast rendition in B&W are the important point.
Unwanted UV will be obviously filtered out as a side effect of
re-centering the actual spectrum of light in the yellow or green
region.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> which gel filters?  The typical 0.5mm or 1 mm thick kodak style gelatin
> filters are usually considered to have the least impact on optical quality
> problem is delicate and harder to use....

True.

But the sting is in the tail. They have a horrific impact on quality with
fingerprints all over them, even worse when an attempt has been made to wipe
them off. The best way to use gels, i feel, is as a use-once item. But they
are too expensive to be handled that way, so dirty filters do end up being
used too often.

> other problems with filters include not being plane-parallel (drives
> AF systems nutty ;-)

Being plane too can present problems. Their curvature ideally would be
variable with focuse distance and focal length.

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 
From: "Terry Brow" [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)

> If your filter adds glare or cuts sharpness, it is defective or too cheaply
> made.  Good filters are as well made as lens elements.

If extra elements don't matter than why don't we have 500 mm f 1.0 lenses
with zero aberations? Given enough elements it could be done.

The number of elements is a compromise between minimizing aberations while
fighting increased flare, that's why the best optics makers minimize the
number of elements and put exotic coatings on their lenses.

Yes, another piece of glass or gelatin can and does degrade the image. If
you still disagree....I'll bet you your best Rodenstock that I can make it
flare (more) with any filter you can provide.

Regards,

From: [email protected] (Ed Saus)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: cokin filters on 82mm filter size lens

>Hi all,
>I have a Pentax 67II with a 45mm lens which has a 82mm filter size.   (I
>also have a couple of 35mm format Canon lenses with filter size of 77mm but
>that's off topic).   My question is - is anyone using the cokin filter
>system successfully on this size lens?   I see in their specs they have
>adapter rings up to 82mm but I reckon it doesn't leave much room and can
>imagine the filter holder causing vignetting.
>
>Thanks
>Neil

Neil

You have to cut the last 2 slots off the filter holder with a hacksaw blade and
open up the round hole in the holder to a more rectangular shape with a file.
You can only use one filter with this setup and cannot have a screw-in filter
behind the Cokin.  This setup works well with split ND's, warming filters, etc.
with no vignetting.  If you need a polarizer AND a split ND, e.g., you have to
use a screw-in polarizer and hand-hold the split ND.  To check for vignetting,
remove the finder, stop the lens down all the way, focus at minimum distance
and hold in front of a bright light source such as a lamp and check the
corners.  Hope this helps.

Ed

From: "Simon and Helen Gulliver" [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Carrying filters
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002

There is a company in the UK makes a filter wallet that takes P series
filters including Hitech grads. It costs �5. I use one and protect the
filters with the cardboard that Hitech supply the filters in. You might find
glass filters a bit vulnerable in thin sleeves though. Have a look at
www.srbfilm.co.uk

Simon

"Susan Pratt" [email protected] wrote...
> I have a few filters in Cokin P size (ND, grad, colored for b&w), but
> most are either Tiffen (glass) or HiTech (resin), and they are of
> varying lengths, so that they do not fit into the otherwise-nice filter
> box that Cokin sells. (Most especially, my HiTech grads don't fit.)
>
> A friend recommended using a generic CD case, but I am concerned that
> the filters would slide around in those cases and scratch (especially
> the  resin ones).
>
> How do you carry your square/rectangular filters?

From: "kauai82" [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,r
ec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Bay 1 to 52mm filter adapter
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002

Bay 1 adapters can be found at www.camera-depot.com. They have three
different sizes. They are out of Thousand Oaks Ca.

From: [email protected] (Edward Clayton)
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Carrying filters
Date: 22 Jun 2002 

I have been using a "floppy disk" wallet to cary filters. I found one
that had nylon mesh pockets (like the mesh in some camera bags)and it
is quite accomodating.  I use Coking "A" series filters and various
glass filters.  It easily fits 2 Cokin "A's" per pocket, and I can
hold a 67mm filter in it's plastic shell with no problems.

Ed

From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 
From: Michael Briggs [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] cheap lenses/expensive lenses --> status of gelatin filters

On 08-Jun-02 [email protected] wrote:

> Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 
> From: George Arndt [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Re: [Cameramakers] Cheap lenses/Expensive lenses

>
> I'm not too sure about sources of gelatin filters these days, having watched
> the Invasion of the
> Accountants at Eastman. I think Tiffen might be a place to check first if
> your  local photo store can't (or won't) help.
> George Arndt

Supposedly Kodak will continue to make gelatin filters, but distribution is now
being done by Tiffen: "Kodak will continue to manufacture Kodak Wratten filters
(now offered in 150 varieties) for distribution by Tiffen and will work with
Tiffen on product management activities." from

http://www.tiffen.com/tiffen.press%20release.html

At one point the Tiffen website had gelatin filter offerings that looked like
they were closeouts of some colors or perhaps sizes.

--Michael

From: Stefan Patric [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filtering Flourescent Light
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 

 Allen Smith wrote:

> I've got the basics of how to balance fluorescent light and flash (put
> a green gel over the flash and then filter flash and ambient back
> through an appropriate filter on the lens). I want to ask for help on
> specifics. I've gathered that there are two types of fluorescent light
> daylight and warm, and correspondingly there are two filters an FL-D
> and an FL-W. How can you identify which one you're dealing with? Does
> it really matter much with print film? On the gel side. What green gel
> do you put on the flash? It seems that to balance there should be one
> that turns the flash output to daylight fluorescent and another that
> produces warm fluorescent? Again do you need to be precise with this
> where print film is concerned?
> Any help greatly appreciated.
> Any condescension also appreciated since I know I made you feel better
> because you knew something I didn't.

Contact your local theatrical supply house and ask about Rosco light
balancing media.  Rosco has been making filtration media for the movie
lights for years.  They have several different sample books.  You want
the Light Balancing one.  The media is heat resistant, and comes in 20
x 24 inch sheets and 48 inch or wider wide rolls.

The filter you need for your flash is "Window Green."  It is designed
to balance "average" daylight, and this includes flash, to Cool White
fluorescent lamps, which is about 99% of the type used in offices,
homes, stores, etc.

The other common, but rarely used, lamp is Warm White Deluxe.  This
fluorescent is almost perfectly balance for Tungsten type film.  I've
rarely needed any filtration at the camera.  You'll only need to put an
85B filter (Rosco has this "gel," too.) on your flash to balance it.
If you want to use "daylight" film with this lamp, you'll need to use
an 80A filter at the camera.  But remember, daylight color negative
film begins to loose film speed and color shift with exposures longer
than 1/10 to 1/2 second.

--
Stefan Patric
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 3.0 / 4.0 Series 6 ND Filter
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002

tim eitniear [email protected] wrote:
>I have a 135mm 4.7 optar on my spped graphic.  I wish to create
>"special effects" with long exposures.  Im having trouble finding
>series 6 filters that will fit my lens.  Any suggestions?
>
>
>tks
>
>tim

  This lens uses the same size push-on adaptor as the 127mm, f/4.7
Ektar: 1-1/2 inches or 38mm

  Series VI filters come in two versions, a plain version which slips
into the filter adaptor and a threaded version which threads into the
adaptor. The lens shade also threads into the adaptor in place of the
filter retaining ring. Threaded filters don't need the ring. They are
threaded on both sides for stacking or for the lens shade. Kodak and
others, like Tiffen, made tons of these adaptors so they shouldn't be
too hard to find used. Get a complete one with ring or lens shade.
Because the Optar and Ektar were the standard lenses on 4x5 Speed and
Crown Graphics for nearly twenty years they are very common in this
size. Series VI filters are still made. Used filters are available but
should be bought with care since filters can be damaged and do not
last forever.

  BTW, the Kodak Series VI lens shade is shallower than some others
specifically for use with the 135mm and 127mm lenses on 4x5 cameras to
avoid vignetting. This focal length is slightly wide-angle for 4x5
(normal FL 152mm).

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

[Ed. note: this is a useful trick, esp. handy for natural skin color with fluorescent
lights when using flash etc....]
From: [email protected] (Rabbitbert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: filter on flash or lens?

Rolle asked us:
>Ive seen many amazing photos where the background is saturated with a
>particular hue of color, e.g. blue, yet the foreground subject is of another
>color hue, how can you acheive this effect using filters?

  Yes this is done with filters. You can achieve a colored background by using
one color filter on your lens, while placing the complementary color filter
over the flash.  The flash-illuminated subject then appears normally colored.
Using a flash filter other than the complementary to the lens filter would give
the subject a different color.  Kodak's book, "the Kodak Workshop Series,
Electronic Flash" writtten for Kodak by Lester Lefkowitz, Eastman Kodak, 1986
(my own copy, there may be updated ones now), gives some specific details about
the procedure.  I also recommend this book for anyone unfamiliar with the many
uses of electronic flash. Price is about $10 U.S.

R.

From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Universal Filter setup
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002

You've described the Lee rubber band system except that with it you use a
rubber band rather than metal strips.  The Lee system can be purchased from
B&H or many other places. It consists of a filter holder, rubber band, and
of course some 4" x 4" filters. You put the filter in the holder and attach
the holder to the front of the lens with the rubber band. It sounds kind of
funky but I use it and like it pretty well. It's the best alternative I've
found to carrying around a bunch of different sized glass filters and/or a
bunch of step up rings.

 It isn't perfect. It can be a little cumbersome to use with a lens that has
a small outside diameter because with a small lens (like my 150 G Claron)
there isn't much tension in the rubber band to attach the holder to the
lens. Also, you have to be careful that the rubber band doesn't interfere
with the shutter lever. Neither of these things is any particularly big
deal, just things to be aware of. Lee makes a basic black and white kit,
consisting of the holder, rubber band, and four filters (yellow, orange,
red, green) for around $100 at B&H.

"Msherck" [email protected] wrote...
> Some time ago I came across an advertisement for a large format filter holder
> which attached to the outside of the lens via tensioned metal strips. Since
> most of my LF lenses are old and oddly sized it is difficult finding modern
> filter systems to fit some of them.  Can anyone point me in the right direction
> for finding a sort of universal filter system like this?  Thanks.
>
> Mike

From: [email protected] (Sandy King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Universal Filter setup
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002

...(quotes above)

I use the Lee system that includes a bellows/shade that attaches to
individual lenses with adaptor rings. The bellows, either standard or
wide-angle, can be bought with one or two filter slots, and accepts 100mm
square filters, either gelatin or polyester in mounts or resin filters.
With this system you can use one set of filters for all of your lenses. I
have used many kinds of filtering systems in the past but for my needs the
Lee bellows/shade system beats all of them hands down. B&H sells most of
the Lee components and filters.

BTW, I prefer gelatin filters over glass, polyester or resin because in my
experience they result in less image degradation.

Sandy King

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] My New Hasselblad Questions

> Throw the UV filter in the trash. It is useless and will be the cause of
> ruined photographs. Don't replace it. UV filters are, as I said before,
> useless.
>
> The little triangle on the wind crank is OK. It is used to line things up
> when attaching the crank. That's all.
>
> Jim

Jim, you know how much I respect your opinion (that is meant in all
seriousness)...and for you, I am sure you believe this is the correct
procedure for you...but for me it simply is not.  Having done commercial
photography for over 20 years, I have never reined any images because of my
religious use of a UV filter.  I find (as I was shooting a 4th of July
parade today, and from some of the floats they were throwing "things" and
squirting "stuff") I am very glad my Leica 35 ASPH had a UV filter on it, as
I was able to simply clean it off with the soft cotton tail of my
t-shirt...which is what I typically end up doing when out in the field.  I
will not do that to my front lense element...and I see more lenses on eBay
with "coating marks" exactly in the shape as if someone took the end of
their t-shirt and cleaned the lense!  Yes, of course, don't do that...but
sometimes I simply don't have the time to take out my little lense cleaning
kit, that I'm sure some people keep handily in their photo-guy vest
pocket...and clean the lense on the spot...properly.  T-shirt works fine for
me.

No where has anyone every shown ANY image degradation from a GOOD UV filter.
If you use some off-brand filter, of course they aren't near as good as any
decent lense...and that would be foolish to put an inferior filter on a high
end lense, but if you use a high end, coated, UV filter...you can't show me
ANY image degradation...except some instances of flare if the shooter isn't
conscious of that circumstance...and if that circumstance arises, remove the
filter.  A GOOD lense shade mitigates most of the flare issue anyway, so
always use a good shade!

Regards,

Austin

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: Moreno Polloni [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] My New Hasselblad Questions

> No where has anyone every shown ANY image degradation from a GOOD UV filter.
> If you use some off-brand filter, of course they aren't near as good as any
> decent lense...and that would be foolish to put an inferior filter on a high
> end lense, but if you use a high end, coated, UV filter...you can't show me
> ANY image degradation...except some instances of flare if the shooter isn't
> conscious of that circumstance.

I ran some tests with no filter, a Hassy UV filter, and a Hoya cheapo UV
handheld in front of the lens. Dammed if I could tell the difference, other
than a very, very slight difference in colour.

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] My New Hasselblad Questions

> I really don't buy into the extra air-to-glass impact.
>  I usually blow my shots up very large and on the rare
> occasions that I don't use a front filter I can tell
> no difference at all at a 20X30 enlargement.

I have seen cases where flare has increased with a UV or Skylight filter
to the point I thought the lens was damaged. I use such filters when
circumstances warrant special needs to protect the lens or I need to
filter UV or add a bit of warming for skylit subjects.

ALWAYS use a lens hood with a filter. If you look at the CF 80mm Planar,
you can see that without a filter, the front element is nicely recessed
and that alone gives a good deal of flare prevention. Add a filter, even
a coated one, and you've added a pair of air/glass interfaces way out in
front of the lens elements which can only incite some additional flare
under circumstances where the light source is at an oblique angle just
inside or just outside the field of view. A lens hood helps control the
additional flare.

It's just a stronger case for the dictum to ALWAY use a lens hood...

> As far as protection, I am not so worried about
> dropping the lens, but I am concerned with dust and
> moisture on the front element...particularly in places
> like Africa or the American Southwest where you can
> get in blowing sand and dirt. I believe that the fewer
> times you have to clean the front lens element the
> better.

Certainly wiping the front element of the lens must always be done with
care and a clean instrument. Protecting it when circumstances warrant is
a good thing.

Godfrey

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] UV FILTERS - OR NOT

Hi Mark,

> Tom I've been a professional photographer for 27 years and had my
> darkroom and been shooting seriously since 1965 and i have never damaged
> a front element.

My house has never burned down either...

> There was a very few years i used them and then a Pro I knew looked at
> my camera in my hand and had to restrain a smile. She told me to take it
> off- nobody used them. They were foolish.

As I've said many a time, I know a LOT of professionals who DO use them.
And, because someone else does or doesn't use them has nothing to do with MY
use of them.  As I've also said many times NO ONE HAS SHOWN THEM TO DEGRADE
THE IMAGE, obviously, using decent filters, and except POSSIBLY in
situations that are WELL known.

> I admit i did get a bit
> embarrassed.

I'm not embarrassed at all using them, nor should I be.  For ME they provide
a very valuable use, and I don't really care what others believe or don't
believe.  No one has every complained about my image quality.

> And Later on I've discovered the myriad reasons why that was a smart
> move. The front surface and coating of modern lenses can take an amazing
> amount of abuse.

I see MANY lenses, very new ones, with cleaning marks.  The new coatings are
a lot harder than previous coating, but not has hard as I think you believe
they are.  They still get damaged from cleaning, even if you are rather
careful.  I have never damaged one...but I clean my front element very
infrequently, but clean the filter a lot...and a lot of times, in the field.
I do keep my Clearsight and microfibre cleaning cloth with me, but I simply
don't have the time or conditions to sit down and clean it with those, and
cleaning a filter with a blow and a breath of hot air and a clean cotton T
works fine.

> Putting a flat piece of clear glass i front of a work
> of art from Zeiss or Leica or others would be a sin. IN a way an insult
> to the people who designed the lens.

Not at all, as it does NOT degrade the image at all.  Test upon test has
been done, and no one has been able to show it does.  This comes down to
religion, not to science.  People want to believe the way they do things is
the only way, or a better way, and have no room for others to do things
differently.  I don't understand why some people get so bent on this issue
and just can't let other people do things the way they are comfortable
doing.  If you don't want to use a filter, for what ever reason, that's
fine, and I, for one, do not begrudge you at all for that.  And...if I want
to use one, for what ever reason, what business is it of anyone else's to
begrudge me for it?  As long as I understand the issues involved with using
one, what's the big deal?  I think educating people on the issues, and
letting them make up their own mind is the best advice anyone could
give...not simply saying it's wrong.  People's needs and interests are
different.

> I shoot "naked."

That's a horrid thought ;-)

Regards,
Austin

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] UV FILTERS - OR NOT

Tom Just Olsen wrote:
> I bought this 50 mm/4,0 second hand, - for a song, looking awful on the
> outside and obvious traces of a clumsy repairman, but with just
> beautiful glas (changed?).  I had it for two years and shot a lot of
> stuff with it before getting my ass into a photo shop and buy myself the
> �70mm UV filter-glas as a 'lense protection', as I have on my all my
> other lenses.

> A few of the pictures I shot afterwards with the UV filter on is quite
> revealing (taken under paralell conditions as some shots taken earlier
> without the UV glas); there is noe doubt that UV-filters makes your
> pictures (marginally, though) less sharp and contrasty.
>
> The Hasselblad rep who demonstrated lense stuff at the Norwegian
> importer's stand on a photo eexhibition last spring here in Oslo were
> also a 'protective filters off-freak'.  He looked at us somewhat
> resigned when we accused him of 'luring us into spending the prime glas'
> out there.
>
> One of the authorities on 'photography' and 'resolution' here in Norway,
> Bj�rn R�rslett (he has an excellent Nikon site out there somewhere)
> tested some of the OEM Nikon UV-glas on his Nikon primes and found
> 'disturbing results'; there is noe doubt that the filters destroy the
> 'optical formula'.
>
> That said, there can be no doubt that the reason my original Carl Zeiss
> glas from the 70' look so prime today is that I always have been using a
> UV-filters on'em.  - I have it on all my lenses, ranging from old
> Edixa's (Rodenstock) to brand new Canon EOS/EF gear.
>
> The moral? Use UV-glas, but take'em off on 'special occations'. Like
> when you have the camera on a tri-pod overlooking the sunset at Yosemite
> National Park, foreground; ornamented vulcanic stone, small flowers and
> dried roots, background; a beautiful susnet with majestic clouds and
> with bald eagle flying over the horizon. That's when you take'em off...
>
> Tom of Oslo

Folks i first thought this was sent to me persnalll so i sent this back
to Tom and then see it's been posted on list. So having taking the time
to type it up here it is on list:

Tom I've been a professional photographer for 27 years and had my
darkroom and been shooting seriously since 1965 and i have never damaged
a front element.

There was a very few years i used them and then a Pro I knew looked at
my camera in my hand and had to restrain a smile. She told me to take it
off- nobody used them. They were foolish. I admit i did get a bit
embarrassed. I took the thing off and never looked back. And did notice
she was right about pro's not using them.

And Later on I've discovered the myriad reasons why that was a smart
move. The front surface and coating of modern lenses can take an amazing
amount of abuse. Putting a flat piece of clear glass i front of a work
of art from Zeiss or Leica or others would be a sin. IN a way an insult
to the people who designed the lens. I shoot "naked."

I'm the field or city even shooting black and white though i will often
use a 060 yellow green filter from B+W. Or a darker green or even a red filter.

I used filters to filter. And plenty think they put your lens in danger
as they break and damage your lens in a situation where the lens would
have been just fine without all that broken glass in front of it.

Mark

Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com

From: [email protected] (Mr Margana)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 07 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Tiffen vs. Hoya Filters

Tiffen used to advertise a "lifetime" warranty (they currently do not mention
this). A few years ago, I had a colored filter separate on me (it was an old
filter that I likely bought at a swap meet). I did not have any receipt, nor
paperwork so I figured, "What the heck" and sent it to Tiffen with a comment
about their "lifetime warranty". I got a replacement filter pretty quick, PLUS
they threw in a color correction filter just to be nice. Now that's what I call
SERVICE!!!!.

Charlie
...

From: "That Annoying Twit..." [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen vs. Hoya Filters
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002

Personaly I am starting wonder about Tiffens Quality Control...
As it is known I do work in a pro camera shop...

However in the past few weeks I have seen more brand new out of the box
defective filters than ever before.  On Saturday I had a regular customer
buying a Tamron 28-200 Super II, so we went and pulled out just a comon UV
Haze 72mm.  The lettering on the side of the filter had been partialy
"Erased" and some new lettering had been printed over it. In a previous
lifetime that filter had been Tiffen Enhancing Filter.  Last week we had a
Circular PL that was packaged correctly, and the ring said Circular Pl.
Sounds about right except that the glass Filter in the ring was a RED 25.
Just the other week I picked up a 58mm Circular PL and though I did check
the filter, I didn't check the threads on the ring which where missing.

I used to like Tiffens as a mid grade filter, certainly they where the equal
of Hoyas and in several instances I thought they where superior.   Now I am
suddenly not so sure, as the QC seems to have gone down the drain.  I know
they had some production problems at the factory (I think they had a fire)
but it realy is getting sad on the front lines of photo retail with regards
to Tiffen.

Andrew

From: "That Annoying Twit..."
[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen vs. Hoya Filters
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002

I agree with you 100%!!!
Yes the plastic packages look nice, but they are too easy for people to
steal the contents of.  Since these new and improved packages came out the
shrinkage on Tiffen filters has gone through the roof.  All it would take is
a small piece of silver tape on the edge of the box like what the Hoya
filters have, and the shrinkage would drop.

Personally as far as I am concerned appearances be damned.. Give me a filter
that is reasonably high quality that I don't have to check the contents of
every time I sell one.  Filter sales should be cold fast, and simple..  Not
with the wondering thoughts of; is the filter there? is the correct filter
in this package, or I wonder if this one is in good shape.

It really is ashame because up until recently the filters released by Tiffen
where ranked among the best you could buy.  Versus now it's well maybe it
will be okay...  I am not asking for the super high B+W or Nikon levels of
filter quality, just average to good quality.  Hoyas and Tiffens are both
supposed to be a reliable good mid range filter.

Andrew

"Alan Chan" [email protected] wrote
> Taking about poor. I checked out the TIFFEN regular 49mm UV filter. What I
> found was a broken edge glass which looked like cut from an old green tinted
> window. Instead of making their recent fancy plastic cases, why not work on
> their real problem?

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cokin Filters ?
From: [email protected] (Stan Randle)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 

Matt Williams [email protected] wrote:

> I have a Mamiya m645 with a 80mm lens. I am looking into Cokin Filters and
> do not understand the difference between the A series and the P series. I am
> shooting landscapes and am looking for some graduated ND filters. Is one
> seies better than another ?

The a series is smaller, cheaper and has far fewer (quality) 3rd party
manufacturers of filters. Go with the P-size and then look to Lee,
HiTech, Ringh-Ray (resin) and Tiffen (glass) for filters which fit the
filter holder.

Cokin's filters are grey grads, not truly neutral. Stay away from them.

The best bargain in quality grad filters is HiTech, whose filters are as
good as singh-Ray and Lee (which just started making P-size filters),
but at a lower price. They are around $35 at B&H www.bhphotovideo.com

The Singh-Ray filters are almost double that, and the glass Tiffen
filters are around $100 (although they're far less likely to scratch
than resin filters).

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] FS Friday = good deals! 503CXi-80-50-180 and more!

brad vance wrote:

>However, it has a few (4-5?) miniscule pecks towards the edge of the front
>element.  The truth is you have to turn the lens to the light to see
>them.  They are a fraction of a mm in size and have absolutely no effect
>on the quality of the image.  I will send a scan of the front if you wish.
>and a scan of some chromes shot with it. It was shipped with a filter
>attached and the filter got broken in shipping.

Ah yes. Another testimonial of how a filter saved a lens!

Jim

From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Which filter system for Fuji MF Rangefinders (Lee vs Cokin)?
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 

"Tony Terlecki" [email protected] wrote...
> Also what does one do about the built-in lens hood for the Fuji
> rangefinders when using filters? The hood must be extended to get to
> the shutter speed and apeture dials but by extending this hood one
> cannot attach any of these filter systems!

Yep - this is a major problem with this camera.

Make yourself a mounting frame from a few pieces of plastic and wire and Velcro
it to the outside of the lens shade.
I've been using a variety of 'system" filters this way on both the GW and GSW.
I hate Cokin (it's crap, and I'm being charitable here) but you can choose from
filters made by such reputable outfits as B+W, SinghRay, etc.

Good shooting!
Michael

From: Jeff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which filter system for Fuji MF Rangefinders (Lee vs Cokin)?
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002

Tony, the Lee polyester filters are very thin and flexible; I see no easy
way to "slot" them into anything unless they're mounted in their cardboard
mounts. I assume the prices you are seeing for the cardboard are not per
unit.

Don't hacksaw your GSW! The hood can be easily removed with just a minor
bit of disassembly. Here's how:

1) Close-focus the lens, revealing two black setscrews on the lens barrel,
remove the screws.

2) Remove the two little handles on the aperture ring

3) Remove the outer lens barrel

4) Slide the lens hood backwards, off the lens barrel

That's it! Hope your local dealer stocks jumbo lenscaps though.

Jeff

Tony Terlecki wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>> Funny you should mention the GSW and the Lee filters because I was just
>> thinking this one over this morning when I was out photographing, and
>> here's an untested idea that I mean to try: Lee makes an inexpensive
>> holder which is held in place by an elastic band. I'm thinking if it can
>> simply be slipped over the Fuji's lenshood, then all is well. Otherwise,
>> it's back to the drawing board. I've only used the Lee polyester filters
>> once before and had no problems, save that I would definitely mount these
>> into their (extra-cost) cardboard mounts for easier handling.
>
> Do the Lee filters not have a built in mount then that slots into the
> filter holder? Having not seem them I wouldn't know but the cardboard
> mount you mention seems to cost more than the actual poly filter! Is one
> needed for each filter?
>
> As to the hood - I am seriously thinking of taking a hacksaw to it and
> then just using a different hood with the filter system!

From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Carrying filters
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 

 [email protected] (Susan Pratt) wrote:

> How do you carry your square/rectangular filters?

Lee has a nice filter pouch that stores 10 of these filters. It's a bit
expensive, I paid about 70 euros for it a couple of months ago.
It's very well made though, the outside is made of thick durable
material (like their single-filter cases), it has a zipper, and it opens
like a book. the sleeves inside it are made of very soft material. I use
it for P-size too, but it's easily big enough for 4" filters, even the
long ones like grads.

;-)
Lourens

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] How to identify Bay III filters for 2.8F

you wrote:
>Q1: Occasionally I came upon Rolleiflex filters or Rolleinars on e-B**
which the vendors claimed they were Bay III. I thought normally Bay III
filters or Rolleinars would have a 'RIII' marking on the rim but these have
a red R on them. Are they bay III or something else?
>Q2: Someone told me that some bay III filters have no 'RIII' marking at
all, is he right?
>
>Regards,
>Koi Ho

  I have only a couple of Bay III accessories. One is a filer, which has
just the red R on it. The other is a Rolleisoft which has R III on it. The
Rolleisoft has a bayonet on both sides to allow stacking, the filter does
not.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: "Pete" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: The Filter Shop is out of business
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002

Some of you have bought Heliopan filters from The Filter Shop at
http://members.aol.com/filtershop/.  I did.  You may not know
that the owner died of MD last month.  He was only 30.  Some
of us have only a short time on this Earth.  Rest in peace, Michael.

Pete

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Aerial photography

 you wrote:
>3. Why not use a haze/UV filter? Wouldn't this be a classic haze
>situation.
>
>Thanks
>
>Stuart Phillips

There is no such thing as a "haze" filter. That is a misnomer. The only
filter that can cut through perhaps a teeny weeny bit of hazyness is a
polarizer. The king of haze cutting is infrared film.

Jim

From: Alan Browne [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: HOYA disappointment
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002

I ordered a couple filters (warming 81A and a 3 stop ND, 72mm).  I
specified B+W, but the store owner talked me into HOYA on delivery and
price.

He phoned a couple days later ... they're here...

I go to the store and open the warming filter.  There's the odd flake of
dust.  We brush that off ... hmmm.   more ... won't come off.  Look at
it under a loupe.  An air bubble in the glass.  Rejected.  The air
bubble would have zero effect on an image unless there was some direct
light hitting it... in any case, why should I accept a defective
product?

The ND filter didn't take more that 5 seconds to reject.  It had a fuzzy
line (darker than the rest of the filter) about 2 or 3 mm in width
running one side of the filter to the other, right through the middle.

So, I re-specified the B+W and they are on order.

Alan.

Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: HOYA disappointment

Quality control must be suffering at Hoya. I have an 81A in 72 mm that I
got three months ago from B&H Photo. It is a Hoya, and shows no flaws,
though obviously with your experience it would seem prudent to inspect
prior to purchase. I am not sure if perhaps B&H may have chosen a good one
for me, or if it was just luck.

You want to talk bad filters, try Quantaray. I have two filters for B/W
that delaminated (apparently) after about five years. I thought only the
Cokin filters delaminated . . . .

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 
From: Joe B. [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters on Rolleiflex TLR
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Aidan wrote

> I would like to mount an IR filter on my Rolleiflex TLR to do some infrared
> working and seeing as how it has the separate lenses it would act like a
> rangefinder in that I could have the filter on the shooting lens and still
> be able to frame and focus.  My question is how do I mount filters on this
> lens?  It is a 3.5 Xenar.  Is there a standard screw-mount filter size or do
> I need some sort of adapter?  Thanks much.
>
> Aidan

It takes Rollei Bayonet 1 filters, or in fact Bayonet 1 filters made by
several other makers too. Some infrared filters are made by B+W in this mount
and possibly Heliopan make them too, but they are quite likely to be special
order with a wait of a month or so. If you get yourself a B+W catalogue you
can see for yourself. You can also order regular screwfit filters and use
them with an adaptor, like a 46mm->Bay 1 adaptor. If you do not know for sure
which infrared filter you intend to use yet (there are several possibilities
ranging from normal red to visually opaque black) it might make sense to get
polyester filter material from a company like Lee filters and cut it into a
circle that fits into a normal Rollei Bay 1 UV or skylight filter. You can
hold the polyester filter in there against the glass with a couple of drops
of rubber-type adhesive, or even a couple of tiny pieces of tape. This way
you don't spend a lot of cash trying different filter types, and then when
you know what IR filter you want you can order that one from B+W (assuming
they make it) or Heliopan. Rollei did make an IR filter but it is hard to
find and hasn't been made for a long time. Ideally you need to find out what
type of IR filter you need for the particular infrared film you are planning
to use- differrent IR films like different filters, although there is some
flexibility it is best to start with what is known to work for that film and
then go from there.

--
Joe B.

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Filters on Rolleiflex TLR
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 

 Joe B. [email protected] wrote:
> Rollei did make an IR filter but it is hard to
> find and hasn't been made for a long time.

Actually they didn't, at least since WWII. Heliopan is the manufacturer
of Rollei filters and Heliopan offers 11 different IR cutoff filters
from 645nm to 1000nm in all mounts including Bay I, II, III, VI, 60, 70,
50 Hasselblad, 52 Ikarex, 56 Contarex and 104(VIII).

All would be special order and take about a month for delivery. Also
available, of course is Dark red (29).

--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS

From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] OT: Cokin UV filter

I agree -- optically there would be no different requirements for a film
camera vs. a digital one.  It's purely marketing.  Another example -- there
is a new, highly regarded tripod from Velbon/Hakuba (the 343i, I believe)
that was highly praised in Popular Photography some months ago -- the
reviewer remarked that the tripod states prominently that it's "for
digital."  Obviously, this is done purely to lure digital camera owners.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] OT: Cokin UV filter

WHy would digital camera need a different UV filter than a film camera? It's
all the same. Being a former salesman I would say that "digital" is there to
cash in on customers who need "special" filter.

Matt
RFList Home Page:  http://www.cameraquest.com/rflist.htm

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: HOYA disappointment
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002

[email protected]
(Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

>Alan Browne [email protected] wrote:
>
>> So, I re-specified the B+W and they are on order.
>
>Admittedly, I've been more than a little surprised seeing the high
>esteem people from North America seem to be having on Hoya filters, on
>this newsgroup.
>
>Here in Europe, we don't think too much of them and they're usually the
>cheapest.
>
>If you're looking for something not quite as expensive as B+W, you might
>want to consider Heliopan filters. Very decent quality and an enormous
>selection at most attractive prices. Recently, they've introduced a new
>'slim' mount for most of their filters that is noticeably flatter than
>the mount used by B+W, another plus on wide-angle lenses.
>
>The usual disclaimers apply.
>
>Ralf

Over here, the Hoya is a good substitute for the
expensive Nikkor, B+W, Heliopan, etc., and are
far better than the similarly-priced poor Tiffen...
The "trick" is to specify the single-coated,
metal-rimmed versions, which are moderately priced
and generally high-quality (I've bought at least
20 of them, with no problems or defects...).

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From: "Alan Chan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: HOYA disappointment
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002

I have been using HOYA/Kenko for 10+ years and never had any problem. They
are on par with Nikon and B+W filters optically. I even ran some test side
by side and saw no optical differences (on slides under a 8X loupe). They
were bought in HK, Japan & Australia. None if them were defective. I was
wondering, since returning purchased goods are quite common in North
America, could it be possible the dealers were trying to resell used HOYA
filters which were damaged by previous customers?

...(quotes above post)

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] UV FILTERS - OR NOT

I bought this 50 mm/4,0 second hand, - for a song, looking awful on the
outside and obvious traces of a clumsy repairman, but with just
beautiful glas (changed?).  I had it for two years and shot a lot of
stuff with it before getting my ass into a photo shop and buy myself the
�70mm UV filter-glas as a 'lense protection', as I have on my all my
other lenses.

A few of the pictures I shot afterwards with the UV filter on is quite
revealing (taken under paralell conditions as some shots taken earlier
without the UV glas); there is noe doubt that UV-filters makes your
pictures (marginally, though) less sharp and contrasty.

The Hasselblad rep who demonstrated lense stuff at the Norwegian
importer's stand on a photo eexhibition last spring here in Oslo were
also a 'protective filters off-freak'.  He looked at us somewhat
resigned when we accused him of 'luring us into spending the prime glas'
out there.

One of the authorities on 'photography' and 'resolution' here in Norway,
Bj�rn R�rslett (he has an excellent Nikon site out there somewhere)
tested some of the OEM Nikon UV-glas on his Nikon primes and found
'disturbing results'; there is noe doubt that the filters destroy the
'optical formula'.

That said, there can be no doubt that the reason my original Carl Zeiss
glas from the 70' look so prime today is that I always have been using a
UV-filters on'em.  - I have it on all my lenses, ranging from old
Edixa's (Rodenstock) to brand new Canon EOS/EF gear.

The moral? Use UV-glas, but take'em off on 'special occations'. Like
when you have the camera on a tri-pod overlooking the sunset at Yosemite
National Park, foreground; ornamented vulcanic stone, small flowers and
dried roots, background; a beautiful susnet with majestic clouds and
with bald eagle flying over the horizon. That's when you take'em off...

Tom of Oslo

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen vs. Hoya Filters
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 

"That Annoying Twit..." [email protected]
wrote:

[...]
>It really is ashame because up until recently the filters released by Tiffen
>where ranked among the best you could buy.  Versus now it's well maybe it
>will be okay...  I am not asking for the super high B+W or Nikon levels of
>filter quality, just average to good quality.  Hoyas and Tiffens are both
>supposed to be a reliable good mid range filter.
[...]

For as long as I can remember, I avoided Tiffen
filters 'cuz:

- they tend to "self-fog" in a couple of months,
  giving unintended diffusion effects until cleaned.

- they are often uncoated many-layer sandwiches
  instead of coated single-layer dyed glass.

- they come in really thick rims, which often
  vignette on wide-angle lenses.

For as long as I can remember, Hoya has (mostly - I
avoid the plastic-rimmed versions) produced
high-quality filters in good rims at reasonable
prices. I do avoid their hard-to-clean multi-coated
filters, though, and use Hoya single-coated filters
along with my Nikkor filters...

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 
From: "camfix55" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Handy tool

Hi Guys;
       After a recent "go round" with a Tameron zoom that I am saturating with
various fluids I thought I might pass this along. In the kitchen aids section
of your local dept. store you will find a round rubber pad used to help people
open stubborn glass jars. Run right out and get one. I have used mine for years
and find it very worthwile. Very handy for filter rings that have been over
tightened or lens barrels that unscrew etc. Now if I could get my wife to quit
putting it in the silverware drawer!!:-) 

Later. Everett

From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Anyone have experience with Hitech ND Grads?
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002

Matthew David Farrell [email protected] wrote:
>
>Hey, first of all, this is my first time posting to this newsgroup, and I
>must say that I am extreamly impressed.  Everyone here is courteous in
>their posts and seems to really care about giving out good advice and
>making sure things work out for everyone.  Every other newsgroup I belong
>to seems to have at least a couple flame wars every now and then, (in some
>newsgroups the NOW is more common) but I haven't noticed any deragory,
>rude, or even incourteous posts here so far.
>
>Now, on to my question:  I am going on a 20 day backpack in the Sierra's
>at the end of this month (from North Lake near Bishop to Mt Whitney, if
>anyone wants to know.)  Being farily new to nature photography (in the
>past I was more into urban/night photography) I have decided to purchase
>some ND grads for sunset/sunrise pics, etc.  I have decided on Hitech
>filters (singh-rays too much $$) and I am only planning to buy 2 or maybe
>3 different filters.  I need some advice on which filters to buy.  Most
>people I've talked to seem to recommend buying a 2 stop soft and a 3 stop
>soft, but I think they were talking about singh-rays.  Now, I've heard
>that singh-ray soft edge filters are like hard edge for hitech or other
>brands, but I was wondering if anyone could verify this with personal
>experince or professional comparisons (like from a magazine article, book,
>etc.)  And then, if there is a significant difference between the softness
>of singh ray and hitech, which two or three filters do you think would be
>most useful for the type of situations I am likely to encounter in the
>high sierras?  Again, other advice I've heard seems to say that the two
>stop and three stop soft edge are most useful, but I have no idea what
>kind of situations those people photographed in.  Finally, i was wondering
>if anyone knows about the durability of resin filters (seems to me that
>they would be scratched easily) and if the tiny little scratches that come
>from handling and cleaning will noticably effect my photos at all?  Thanks
>in advance for any answers to my (numerous) questions.
>
>-Matt
>PS. My system is a Pentax ZX-M (manual) w/ 28-50 f3.5, 80-200 f4, and
>105 f3.5 macro lenses, if that matters at all.

Matt,

The Sierras, particularly in the JMT area that you are describing,are
often quite jagged, and you will often find that the tops of peaks are
projected into the ND part of your filter, as well as the sky. If
you're going to use ND grads, soft transition is probably better in
the mountains. I have Lee filters and they are usable (although not my
first choice) in many situations like that. I don't know how they
compare to Hi Tech.

The filters are definitely delicate, and keeping them clean and free
of scratches is a challenge in the field. You handle them by the edges
at all times, and keep them in their pouches when not on the camera.

I would bring these, perhaps, and a polarizer. You'll have to decide
which you think has more benefit, and ultimately which is more
practical for you in the field for an extended period. ND grads take
some getting used to, and they have some limitations. I would not take
them as my only method of darkening the sky.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/

from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: want to use standard screw mount filters on Hasselblad Bay 60 and 70 lens - Adapters??

 Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video wrote:
>I am aware of the following adapters:
>Bay 50->Bay 60
>Bay 60->67
>Bay 60->77
>Bay 60->58
>Bay 60->62
>Bay 60->Bay 50

Henry!

I'm surprised at you.  Bay 50 and Bay 60 are available in Series sizes from
Harrison & Harrison in California.  Really well-made gear, too, better than
most of the junk on the market -- AND it is inexpensive!

Marc
[email protected]

from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Harrison & Harrison

you wrote:
> you wrote:
>>Harrison & Harrison in California
>
>B&H doesn't carry their stuff.

Of course, not Henry, and I'm not certain just why you posted this.  You
purchase H&H adapters and filters directly from them:

Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers
Unit "E"
1835 Thunderbolt Drive
Porterville California 93257

or

Post Office Box 1797
Porterville California 93258-1797

voice telephone: 559/782-0121
FAX: 559/782-0824

I do not believe that H&H yet has a website.

H&H gear is QUITE inexpensive and VERY high quality -- their Bayonet to
series adapter rings don't crump in as do the cheaply made ones marketed by
others.

Marc
[email protected]

Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bay 1 to 52mm filter adapter
From: [email protected] (Stan Randle)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002

Aidan [email protected] wrote:
> I've heard wind that these exist but can't seem to locate one new on B&H,
> Adorama or Calumet.  Any help would be much appreciated.  Thanks a lot.

Most people  get a Bay1-to-49mm adapter, because they find larger sizes
to be intrusive. You could more easily find one of those, and if
absolutely nesessary use a step-up ring to go from 49mm to 52mm. Goodwin
Photo in San  Diego usually carries Bay1-to-49mm adapters:

http://www.goodwinphotoinc.com/Medium_Format/Twin_Lens_Reflex/twin_lens_reflex.html

I just checked but didn't see any listed in their online catalog, but I
might have missed it. They will answer email questions you send to
[email protected]

From: "William E. Graham" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: General filter question
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002

This is a great post....After buying and messing around with
about $150 worth of filters, I have settled in on an 81A and
a polarizer.....If I had read (and believed) a post like
this about 6 months ago, I would have saved over $100 and a
lot of film and time.....I might add that Joseph Meehan has
a book out about filters that sells in the $25 range....If
you want to know more, buy it and read it.....

"Jason Elias" [email protected] wrote
> > Hi,
> >
> > Let me start by saying that I own no filters, apart from the UV ones
> > that protect my lenses.
> >
> > I keep reading all these posts about filters, and  frankly I am quite
> > lost in the subject.
> >
> > Do I need filters for certain conditions or for certain subjects? If I
> > want to take pictures of wildlife, mountains, trees, plants, skies
> > etc. do I need filters? And for what purpose?
> Sounds like a tutorial is needed!
>
> Well!  Let me make it simple -
>
> There are three main kinds of filters, all of which you can exist very
> nicely without, but all of which are sometimes handy.
>
> You don't need any filter if you like the way the view in the finder is
> as it stands.  But sometimes you don't like it and a filter can help.
>
> Three kinds:
>
> Those that change the colours in the scene by altering the light.  In
> this class are polarizers and colour intensifiers.  I don't like to use
> either because they tend to give unnatural looking results.  Many people
> are very fond of polarizers because they reduce reflections and darken
> blue skies.
>
> Those that change the colours in the scene by adding a layer of colour.
> In this class are, basically, coloured filters such as the very useful 
> 81A and 81B which are a light brown filter that simulate a warmer light
> than you actually have.  You can extend a sunrise by a few minutes using
> these.  They're also handy for portraits taken in shade as they will
> reduce the unpleasant blue cast.  Others in this class are the 82 series
> which have a cooling effect - they are blue filters.  Not very useful.
>
> Those that have some other effect on the scene.  In this category are
> split neutral density filters which are handy for reducing the contrast
> between sky and land, when it is too great for your film to handle.  Also
> in this class are such special effect filters as soft focus filters, star
> filters, etc.
>
> If you're just starting a filter collection start with a polarizer and an
> 81A or 81B, and leave it at that for a while.  If you have an AF camera
> make sure you get a circular polarizer as the linear type will mess up
> the autofocus.  If you have several filter ring sizes on your lenses, get
> your filters all in the largest size you will need and use adapter rings.
>
> HTH
>
> J

From: Rudy Garcia [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How important are multi-coated filters?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002

"Dallas" [email protected] wrote:
>To determine the sort of difference a MC filter will make as opposed to
> a non-MC filter, place one of each on a flat counter surface. Step back and
>look at about a 45 degree angle into the filters. One of them will
> reflect a lot of the ceiling and the other won't.
>
>No prizes for guessing which does which.

Ok, so how does it affect the picture?

What is important is the behavior of the light rays that bounce off the
lens and hit the back of the filter. Do they go through the filter, or
do they get re-reflected back to the lens?

From: "Alan Chan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Even more filter questions
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002

"Melissa" [email protected] wrote
> There's been a lot of talk about filters, types, uses and how poor quality
> can negate a good quality lens.  I guess I'd be safe to assume that the most
> expensive (B+W) is excellent and the cheapest is poor.  But what about those
> poor folk (like me) who want good filters?  I'd like to see a breakdown of
> where various brand names fall in the excellent, good, fair, poor
> categories.
>
> What about Tiffen, Hoya, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Quantary, Sunpack, etc?

I think most people got the impression that more expensive stuffs must be
better. Not so based on my experience. With the filters that I have been
using over the years, TIFFEN and Cokin are the only two I do not recommend.
Other than flare control, I don't see any sharpness difference amount HOYA,
PENTAX, NIKON & B+W.

From: [email protected] (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Even more filter questions
Date: 15 Aug 2002

As others have posted, the Nikon/Canon/B+W/Hoya filters are "better"
than the Tiffen and Cokin filters but the difference is not that
significant for casual photos.  A major professional catalog shoot is
a lot different than a hobby.  I put Nikons and SMC Hoyas on my Nikon
primes but the third party zooms often get Tiffens. I use four Cokin
graduated filters and they work just fine.  If I was earning a living
shooting landscapes I'd use Singh-Ray graduated filters but I find it
hard to justify the price difference, $15 vs $120 each, for a slight
improvement. Buy film with the difference or better yet, save it for
that better lens.  A 2nd rate filter on a 1st rate lens is a lot
better than a premium filter on an inexpensive lens.
...

From: Bill Jameson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: HOYA disappointment
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002

Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I wonder where you got this information from. The HOYA filters that I have
> seen in Canada and US are identical to those in HK and Australia. In Japan,
> there is no HOYA but Kenko which are the same as HOYA.
>
> > As far as I know, Hoya makes a cheap line of filters that are not
> > officially marketed in the USA (& presumably Canada) using green glass and
> > are best avaoided.

Got the information online. Kenko/Hoya does make a very cheap line of
filters that are sold in the third world, e.g. the Philippines. They're not
to be sold in other countries, but that doesn't prevent grey market
importing. Those green glass filters would be just the thing to go with
one's overpriced Canon 888 SLR (also not to be sold in North America), but
I've seen them for sale in shop windows in Philadelphia.

Bill Jameson

[Ed. note: run your own tests and see which you like best? ;-)]
From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film vs. digital resolution (and nonsense)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002

"Dave Martindale" [email protected] wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" [email protected] writes:
> >Another way to look at this is to look at a D60 image printed at 200 ppi. I
> >find that to be quite adequate for "high-quality" inkjet prints (YMMV, but
> >I'm quite nearsighted and a detail freak). On the other hand, scanned images
> >printed at 200 ppi are simply unacceptable. The noise is blatant and the
> >edges are soft. I'm not convinced that even 300dpi scanned images are as
> >good as 200 dpi D60 images, but 400 dpi is certainly at least equal.
>
> I'll have to take your word for it - I don't have access to *either* a
> D-60 or a 4000 DPI film scanner.

You don't have to take my word for it if you have a photo printer and either
patience or a fast internet connection: the galleries at
http://www.dpreview.com/ have lovely sample pictures from most of the
important digital cameras and the scanner reviews at
www.imaging-resource.com have samples of 4000dpi scanner images. One of my
favorite images for comparing digital cameras is the red brick house shot in
the reviews at Steve's Digicams. http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: "Alan Chan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya green label (was Re: How important are multi-coated filters?)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002

In the past, regular HOYA filters were not coated. But that was 10+ years
ago. Today, regular HOYA filters are double coated, except some special
effect filters like DUTO etc. Experience tells me that coated but
non-multicoated filters are perfectly fine, and as well as multicoated
filters, as long as the Sun was kept out of the front element. The
difference is in flare control, instead of sharpness difference. In fact, I
prefer the regular HOYA filters because their HMC filters are damn difficult
to clean, and HMC aren't very flare resistance either so just don't bother.
But then again, my B+W and HOYA cir-pl are uncoated, and my test results
showed no sharpness difference compared to without filter on slides. So I
just don't care much about multicoated filters or not, just go do some
shooting.

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How important are multi-coated filters?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002

[email protected]
(paulisme) wrote:

>I know that all modern lenses are multi-coated, but does one lose the
>benefit of the multi-coating by using filters that are single-coated
>or aren't coated at all?

No, under most conditions. Coating on the front
surface is unnecessary, but it is more useful on
the rear surface (that faces the lens front).
I prefer single-coated filters for the greater
ease of cleaning them - a clean filter is
better than a multicoated filter with smudges
on it...;-)

>Just curious if I'm negating the quality of
>my Nikkor lenses by using inexpensive Quantarray filters.

More of an issue is whether or not the filter
is likely to be flat, and has a good enough rim
to hold the glass properly without intruding into
the image with wide-angle lenses... BTW, for
relatively inexpensive, but good, filters, I
prefer Hoya single-coated metal-rimmed versions.

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From: "Derekasaurus Rex" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002

I used to leave protective UV filters on my lenses all the time. It
just seemed like a good protective measure; filters are cheap to
replace, lenses are not. Then I changed my mind. It occurred to
me that any filter adds additional glass, which in the case of un-
necessary protective filters reduces image quality. Now I only use
UV filters for protection when there is a clear and present danger
to my lens.

Last night I decided to test my assumption that UV filters degrade
image quality. I shot some stills with my Canon D60 + 50/1.4 on a
tripod with mirror-lockup and a cable release. I performed no post-
processing (just applied a color profile to linear TIFFs generated
from the RAW captures). I shot with and without a Hoya HMC UV
filter at several apertures, and looking at full-size crops I can't tell
the difference between the shots with and without the filter.

In the back of my mind I have always been bothered by the notion
that adding a thin, high-quality filter to a lens that already has many
groups and elements really noticeably reduces quality. The filter
seems like a drop in the bucket.

Is the degradation in image quality due to a protective UV filter
noticeable? My results suggest no, but is that because a 12-bit 6.3
megapixel sensor can't resolve the degradation?

Derek

From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 13 Aug 2002 
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?

Is the degradation in image quality due to a protective UV filter
noticeable? My results suggest no, but is that because a 12-bit 6.3
megapixel sensor can't resolve the degradation? 

Generally, a protective filter will not degrade your image quality,--generally.

 I have found specific instances where they will, however.  I had been shooting
some cityscapes at night with my Noct-Nikkor wide open at f/1.2 and found that
bright points of light were bouncing around off the back of the filter and onto
the film plane.  With the L37C removed, the problem went away.  Similarly, the
50mm f/1 lens that I have for my Leica is recommended by Leica to be used
without a protective filter.  I have yet to see a measureable difference after
adding a multi-coated UV filter to that Noctilux lens.  As with many things in
an imprecise science,--'it depends.'   You're doing the right thing to test it
out, before you need to shoot for keeps.

dan Lindsay
santa barbara

From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002

Derekasaurus Rex [email protected] wrote 
> I used to leave protective UV filters on my lenses all the time. It
> just seemed like a good protective measure; filters are cheap to
> replace, lenses are not. Then I changed my mind. It occurred to
> me that any filter adds additional glass, which in the case of un-
> necessary protective filters reduces image quality. Now I only use
> UV filters for protection when there is a clear and present danger
> to my lens.
>
> Last night I decided to test my assumption that UV filters degrade
> image quality. I shot some stills with my Canon D60 + 50/1.4 on a
> tripod with mirror-lockup and a cable release. I performed no post-
> processing (just applied a color profile to linear TIFFs generated
> from the RAW captures). I shot with and without a Hoya HMC UV
> filter at several apertures, and looking at full-size crops I can't tell
> the difference between the shots with and without the filter.
>
> In the back of my mind I have always been bothered by the notion
> that adding a thin, high-quality filter to a lens that already has many
> groups and elements really noticeably reduces quality. The filter
> seems like a drop in the bucket.
>
> Is the degradation in image quality due to a protective UV filter
> noticeable? My results suggest no, but is that because a 12-bit 6.3
> megapixel sensor can't resolve the degradation?

    As others have said, the most noticeable negative affect is in situation
where flare is a concern.

    However, magnification makes a big difference too. When using a long
lens, or with macro work, a filter may have much more noticeable
degradation. I discovered this with my 170-500mm, and that quite expensive
filter is now permanently removed.

    - Al.

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002

"Al Denelsbeck"
 wrote:

>    As others have said, the most noticeable negative affect is in situation
>where flare is a concern.
>
>    However, magnification makes a big difference too. When using a long
>lens, or with macro work, a filter may have much more noticeable
>degradation. I discovered this with my 170-500mm, and that quite expensive
>filter is now permanently removed.
>    - Al.

I have rarely noticed a problem from flare with UVs used.
Also, to test the filter-vs.-no-filter resolution, I set
up a 400mm f3.5 Nikkor (quite good, even wide open) and
checked the image on film shot with/without the rear and
front UV filters (in the 4 possible variations), and could
detect no resolution differences with a good 10X magnifier.
Since a long, fast lens is likely to show any differences
more than a short, slow lens, I'm satisfied that a good
filter has no noticeable effect on resolution, and I
continue to use them...

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002

Look at it this way - if the camera cannot resolve the degradation --
does it matter?

   35 or so years ago I was given the full "you young sprouts don't know
what you're doing" routine by the old timers who hung around the camera
shops. One of the targets of their pomposity was the UV filter on my lens.
"Ruining every shot you take son - You start out with two strikes and a
broken bat - etc etc etc.

   So I went out and took a series of shots with and without the filter.
Processed the film and compared the prints. I couldn't see any difference. I
went back to the camera store and slapped them down in fron of thecracker
barrel crew and asked them to identify which shots were ruined by the
filter. They couldn't and the new excuse was "You lens isn't good enough to
show the difference". To which I said "Then it doesn't matter if I use the
filter does it?"

   No answer.

      Keep the filter - lose the tsk tsk crew. Your photography won't be
hurt a bit.

http://www.chapelhillnoir.com

From: "SimRacer" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002
...

I have found the best lens protector to assure no unwanted effects is to use
a lens cap. Fingerprints are no longer a problem and they are equally as
tough as glass to protect from drops and hits to the lens front. I think the
whole UV filter as a protector started as an addon sale to 35mm buyers in
the past and it has just stuck. Now there is a big following of this
phenomenon that says UV filters don't affect the image at all (not true, any
glass between image and film affects the finished product one way or
another). I tend to stay away from the argument, because the 'UV filters are
fine and do nothing to the images' camp is always right, regardless of facts
presented to them so I'll close with this: I use filters to filter and lens
caps to protect. If the filters did not alter the image, they'd be called
lens protectors, not lens filters.

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: GRADUATED NUETRAL DENSITY FILTERS
From: [email protected] (Clyde)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002

William J Daum [email protected] wrote:
> so what types are you all using? I am interested in purchasing either
> Singh-Ray or Lee. With the price of them before I buy I would like to hear
> from people who use them and what they think of each.

I prefer Tiffen's because they're glass and don't scratch nearly as
easily. Good neutral grey and works in the Cokin P holder.

From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 
From: "tonyturnbull" [email protected]
Subject: cokin filters

thought I would mention that Minolta has sold cokin filters to
proquest. Why after 20 years would they do this?

From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 
From: "minoltaman222" [email protected]
Subject: Re: cokin filters

Because the only part that made money was the "P" holder. People
buy/bought other brands of filters. The "A" and "X" sizes never
really caught on because no other company made filters for them.

 I suggest you might want to pick up an extra "P" holder if you use
them incase the new management changes it.

--- In Minolta@y..., "tonyturnbull" turnbull@f... wrote:
> thought I would mention that Minolta has sold cokin filters to
> proquest. Why after 20 years would they do this?

From: Avogadro [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002

 [email protected] (EDGY01) wrote:

>Is the degradation in image quality due to a protective UV filter
>noticeable? My results suggest no, but is that because a 12-bit 6.3
>megapixel sensor can't resolve the degradation? 
>
>
>Generally, a protective filter will not degrade your image quality,--generally.
> I have found specific instances where they will, however.  I had been shooting
>some cityscapes at night with my Noct-Nikkor wide open at f/1.2 and found that
>bright points of light were bouncing around off the back of the filter and onto
>the film plane.  With the L37C removed, the problem went away.  Similarly, the
>50mm f/1 lens that I have for my Leica is recommended by Leica to be used
>without a protective filter.  I have yet to see a measureable difference after
>adding a multi-coated UV filter to that Noctilux lens.  As with many things in
>an imprecise science,--'it depends.'   You're doing the right thing to test it
>out, before you need to shoot for keeps.
>
>dan Lindsay
>santa barbara

A UV filter definitely has an effect on the picture. Most of the time
we don't notice it. (Most of the time our shots are not critical
anyway). But the effect is there all the time.

Shooting through a sheet of glass gives reflections. You may not
notice it depending on the situation or the quality of your filter.
See
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-coated.html.

Sometimes a filter gives very noticeable ghost reflections as edgy01
described above. In my experience it is most noticed in sunset shots.
Here's how it is caused. The sun forms a very bright image on the
film. This bright spot is reflected back out through the lens to the
filter, and then back into the lens. This produces a weak and fuzzy
ghost image of the bright sun. The ghost will be the same distance
from the center of the image as the sun is, but on the exact other
side of the picture. If it lands in an area that is dark, it will be
very noticeable. This effect can be eliminated by removing the filter,
or by using a curved filter if you happen to have one of those.

For most shooting situations, the UV filter makes no noticeable
difference. For a few rare situations, it is quite noticeable. Whether
you use one all the time is up to you, but it is advisable to remove
it when shooting high contrast scenes like night shots or sunsets.

From: Rudy Garcia [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002

[email protected] (Neuman - Ruether) wrote:

>  Rudy Garcia
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Stephen M. Dunn) wrote:
> >
> >>  Alan Browne
> >> [email protected] writes:
> >> $Stick with the filter.  It is just clear glass with (or without) a
> >> coating.
> >> $Pros can afford to have a front element replaced (or the whole lens), but
> >> I
> >> $can't, can you?
> >>
> >>    Actually, that brings up another point.  Some pro lenses have a
> >> flat piece of clear glass as the first element for exactly this
> >> reason - protection.  Canon usually does it for lenses where the
> >> first refractive element is either ultra-low dispersion glass,
> >> which is relatively expensive to replace, or fluorite, which is
> >> also very expensive and also much softer (and therefore more
> >> easily damaged) than optical glass.  I wouldn't be surprised
> >> if Canon weren't the only lens maker to do this on some lenses.
> >>
> >>    For that matter, the big lenses that don't take front-mounted
> >> filters (because they'd be way too big - e.g. a 300/2.8, where the
> >> diameter of a front-mounted filter would be well over 100mm) usually
> >> take drop-in filters towards the back.  If you're not using a filter,
> >> guess what you're supposed to put in its place?  Yup - a flat
> >> piece of clear glass.
> >>
> >>    I haven't heard anyone complaining that either of these flat
> >> pieces of clear glass ruin the optics of these lenses :-)
>
> >I believe those lenses have the flat filter (front or back) computed
> >into their optical formula.  That is, they are designed to be there for
> >optimum optical performance.
>
> For optimum focus - removing the filter does not appear to
> change anything but focus in the image...
>
> >There is one situation where a protective filter may affect the image if
> >you are critical.  That is in macro.  The issue is not flare, but the
> >undesired refraction from the "flat" filter.
> >
> >In macro work the subject is sooo close to the front of the lens that
> >most of the subject rays being imaged are striking the filter at an
> >angle that is way off the normal and are therefore refracted. This
> >results in a displacement of the light rays as they go through the
> >filter.
> >
> >Depending on the symmetry of the shot, the amount of displacement will
> >vary significantly.  You may not notice this if you are doing macro with
> >a lens that is not really designed for this task as it will have enough
> >distortion by itself as to hide the undesirable refraction from the
> >filter.  The thicker the filter glass, the more refraction you get from
> >it.
>
> Um...
> The same should be true for super-wides, but
> removing/replacing a large/thick Nikkor filter
> from an 18mm or 17-35m does not appear to change
> the image at all...
> David Ruether
>  [email protected]
>  http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
> Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!

I've seen it with a 50mm at 0.7 X   there was distortion on an off
center of symmetry subject with the filter on.  Redid the shot later
without the filter and the distortion was gone.

It wasn't noticeable on every shot.  Just ones where there was the right
amount of asymmetry of the subject relative to the optical axis of
symmetry, then the refraction produced by the filter was noticeable.
Again, this was in macro work and in a critical application where
correct rendition with minimal distortion was needed.

If I was shooting a bug instead, I probably would not have noticed it.

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] polarizer and films

 Tom Christiansen wrote:
>Can you use the lens hood for the 80mm lens with a Bay-60->67mm adaptor
>and filters?
>
>Tom

Yes.

I use this set-up all of the time since my LF system takes 67mm filters. I
share between the systems. Screw a 67mm filter into a 67-B60 adapter and it
is hard to tell the difference between it and a true B60 filter.

Jim

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] circular polarizer waste of money and polarization

Charles Carstensen wrote:
>I frequently use a PME45 in spot mode I may as well spring
>for a circular.

There is nothing in Hasselblad's line-up that requires a circular
polarizer. Period!!!

Buying a circular will be a waste of money and will give you reduced
polarization for that extra cost.

How is it that you think a spot meter, that is looking at a ground glass,
needs a circular polarizer?

It does not.

Jim

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] polarizer and films

I don't know the reason, I just know that it works that way. I have both a
Hasselblad B60 polarizer and a 67mm circular polarizer (for my Leica R
cameras) and I have used both on my Hasselblad. The circular seems to give
me less effect shooting the same subjects. The California coastline.
Perhaps the retarder plate shifts the phase, causes diffusion, or something
like that.

??

Jim

 Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

>Jim Brick wrote:
>
> > A circular polarizer is not the way to go. You get less polarization [...]
>
>Why would that be?
>A circular polarizer *is* a linear polarizer, with a retarder plate behind
>(!) it. The difference between the two types occurs after (!) the light has
>passed through a linear polarizer. And it's that that does the selective
>filtering, the same in both types. So why would there be a difference?

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 
From: Karl Wolz [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] polarizer and films

Charles,

There is no reason to use a circular polarizer on a 'Blad.  They are
specifically designed to be used in autofocus and/or autoexposure
systems which use a pellicle mirror (semi-silvered).

Additionally, you will most likely find that your metering is more
accurate if you meter with the polarizer on, but not dialed for maximum
polarizing effect, then adjust your polarizer - you don't want to meter
the partially darkened scene, or you will be defeating the reason you're
using it in the first place.  Either that or simply meter before
applying the polarizer and add the recommended exposure.

Save your money and you may manage to maintain your two hairs.

On my older lenses, I use a B50 to 52mm adapter and then a 52mm to 67mm
adapter.  I then have access to my entire library of filters.

Karl Wolz
...

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cleaning Hoya MC UV filters.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 

This does work well, if followed with a distilled-water
rinse... I then blow off water droplets with a good
hand air-syringe and finish with breath and a good
lens tissue (WITHOUT SILICONE IN IT!!!!).

"Alan Chan" [email protected] wrote:

>Wash it with warm tap water and dish detergent.

>>Lots of posts about UV filters recently.  Made the jump and bought five
>>multi-coated filters and am discovering that they aren't easy to clean.
>>Anybody have a really good way to these clean?  Thanks!

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From: Rudy Garcia [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cleaning Hoya MC UV filters.
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002

 [email protected] (ATSF3460) wrote:

> Lots of posts about UV filters recently.  Made the jump and bought five
> multi-coated filters and am discovering that they aren't easy to clean.
> Anybody have a really good way to these clean?  Thanks!
>
> Mike Martin / Peoria Heights, IL

Here it goes once again.

Rudy's Lens & Filter Cleaning Guide
___________________________________

Step 1.
Use a blower bulb (not a compressed gas can) to gently blow off any
particulate matter from surfaces.

Step 2.
Follow up with a lens cleaning brush (I'm partial to the "lipstick" type
of brush). Never touch the hairs on the brush, as you'll transfer your
body grease to the hairs and from there to the glass. Use the brush to
dislodge any particles that weren't blown away by step 1.

1 & 2 above are usually sufficient for most cleaning if you are careful
handling your equipment and keep you fingers off the optics, but if you
have to, then continue on to step 3.

Step 3.
Use lens cleaning tissue with a drop of lens cleaning fluid on tissue (I
use Kodak, or ROR if necessary). Wipe glass surface gently with a
circular motion, from center to edge. If a residue film resembling an
"oil slick" (ie. multicolored rainbow like film) remains after the glass
is dry, then switch to ROR (Residual Oil Remover) and repeat this step.
If the �oil slick� remains, you are most likely using too much fluid.

Thats it!

Microfiber cloth is great stuff, but I hardly ever use it. I rather use
a pristine tissue of lens cleaning paper rather than risking using a
microfiber cloth that may be harboring a small particle of grit (like a
sand grain) left over from previous use. One swipe with it and whoila!
instant "lens cleaning mark". I don�t like lens pens much for similar
reasons (using the same cleaning surface over and over), plus the carbon
dust like residue it leaves behind.

I also don't like to recommend alcohol because of its flammability.

Some of my lenses are more than 15 years old and the glass is like the
day Nikkon manufactured it.

Hope this helped.

--
Rudy Garcia

From: "Eric Miller" ericmilleratericmillerdotdynipdotcom
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cleaning Hoya MC UV filters.
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 

In the case of tenacious oily residue on filter:

1.    Remove retaining ring.

2.    Remove lens

3.    Dip lens into bowl of water with about a tablespoon of Dawn
dishwashing liquid.

4.    Rub lens between soapy fingers.

5.    Rinse

6.     Dry with clean tissue

7.    Blow off tissue fragments with blower brush

8.    Replace lens

Eric Miller

"ATSF3460" [email protected] wrote...
> Lots of posts about UV filters recently.  Made the jump and bought five
> multi-coated filters and am discovering that they aren't easy to clean.
> Anybody have a really good way to these clean?  Thanks!
>
> Mike Martin / Peoria Heights, IL

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002
From: Ralph Barker [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filter holder problem

I've seen the type of filter holder you are referring to, Catherine. I
believe they are referred to as slip-on or snap-on filter holders, with
the adapter being made of light-weight spring metal. They are often used
as rear-element filter holders. Lee makes two models of what it calls a
Gel Snap Holder using a rubber band instead of the spring metal. The 3"
Lee unit is B&H Catalog # LEGSK, but they appear to be out of stock at
the moment. The 4" unit is Mfr Catalog # GS . B&H Catalog # LEGS and
appears to be in stock.

Catherine Costolo wrote:

>
> I have had a filter holder for my 4X5 lenses that I have really loved
> and I need a new one but can not find it. Calumet said it was not
> being made any more. I will try to describe it. There is no brand name
> on it anywhere. It is a square piece of lightweight metal with a hole
> cut in the middle. There is another piece of flexible metal that is
> folded over and goes down through the middle of the holder and when
> you push on the top of it, it splits apart and you can slide it over
> any size lens. My cardboard filter holders then slide in. Does anyone
> know where I can get one( that is if you have figured out what I am
> talking about)? If I cannot get one, what other options do I have? One
> side of the flexible piece of metal on my holder has come loose from
> where it was attached at the base and I don't know if I can have it fixed.
>
>    Thanks so much for any help. I am glad this group is such a
> wonderful resource.
>
>            Catherine Costolo

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Stephen M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002

"Paul Saunders" [email protected] writes:
Anyone ever thought of using a UV filter to filter ultraviolet light?

   HERETIC!

   One other thing to keep in mind - a lot of UV filters, particularly
those marketed as "UV Protector" filters, let a lot of UV pass through.
>From the UV filter page of a Tiffen filter brochure:

UV Protector:  "Provides basic reduction of UV light"
Sky 1-A:  "Absorbs almost half of UV light"
Haze-1:  "[absorbs] almost three quarters of UV light"
Haze 2A:  "Absorbs virtually all UV light"
UV 17:  "Absorbs slightly less UV light than Haze 2A"
--
Stephen M. Dunn  

From: "Meryl Arbing" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do protective filters really degrade the image?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002

If you are in a situation like a beach with blowing sand or salt spray then
definitiely us a filter to protect your lens from the gunk flying around in
the air. Unfortunately some people take this advise to mean..use the filter
ALL the time and the rationale is, as you have stated, "filters are cheap to
replace, lenses are not" but there is a false sense of security  in using s
filter as "protection". I was carrying an expensive (aren't they all??)
digital camera. I had the camera on a strap and I slung my arm through the
strap so that the camera was hanging under my arm. I was walking and just
didn't see the bar that came about chest height as I rounded a corner. The
end of the bar just caught the camera square on the "protective" filter and
shattered it. Wow!! I'm sure glad I had that "protective" filter! NOT!!!
Because the shards of broken glass from the filter broke inwards and
completely scratched up the front element of the lens on a $1000 digital
rendering it complete junk!!

If, instead of a $5 glass filter, I had used a $0.25 plastic lens cap or
used a lens hood nothing would have happened.

There are places when a filter is the best protection you can have and still
shoot...but nothing is the only choice

"Derekasaurus Rex" [email protected] wrote
> I used to leave protective UV filters on my lenses all the time. It
> just seemed like a good protective measure; filters are cheap to
> replace, lenses are not. Then I changed my mind. It occurred to
> me that any filter adds additional glass, which in the case of un-
> necessary protective filters reduces image quality. Now I only use
> UV filters for protection when there is a clear and present danger
> to my lens.
>
> Last night I decided to test my assumption that UV filters degrade
> image quality. I shot some stills with my Canon D60 + 50/1.4 on a
> tripod with mirror-lockup and a cable release. I performed no post-
> processing (just applied a color profile to linear TIFFs generated
> from the RAW captures). I shot with and without a Hoya HMC UV
> filter at several apertures, and looking at full-size crops I can't tell
> the difference between the shots with and without the filter.
>
> In the back of my mind I have always been bothered by the notion
> that adding a thin, high-quality filter to a lens that already has many
> groups and elements really noticeably reduces quality. The filter
> seems like a drop in the bucket.
>
> Is the degradation in image quality due to a protective UV filter
> noticeable? My results suggest no, but is that because a 12-bit 6.3
> megapixel sensor can't resolve the degradation?
>
> Derek

From: Rudy Garcia [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How important are multi-coated filters?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002
...
"Dallas"[email protected]
> > wrote:
> >
> > >To determine the sort of difference a MC filter will make as opposed to
> > > a non-MC filter, place one of each on a flat counter surface. Step back and
> > >look at about a 45 degree angle into the filters. One of them will
> > > reflect a lot of the ceiling and the other won't.
> > >
> > >No prizes for guessing which does which.
> >
> > Ok, so how does it affect the picture?
> >
> > What is important is the behavior of the light rays that bounce off the
> > lens and hit the back of the filter. Do they go through the filter, or
> > do they get re-reflected back to the lens?

I am perfectly sure. Light rays bouncing off of the external surface of
a fileter never become image making rays.  Only light rays that bounce
off of the front lens element and hit the back of the filter are
problematic.  If the back of the filter is coated, then these rays
escape the optical system and don't make an image. If the back of the
filter is not coated, the rays are re-flected back into the lens and
will cause flare or other artifacts.

The Hoya advert, although clever, doesn't really address how a frontal
coating (which is the effect displayed) is in any way better than a
filter with just rear multicoating.  Now calm yourself down.

[Ed. note: this filter is long sold, but posted here for info on filter usage...]
From: [email protected] (ca)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: FS:  Zone VI B&W Viewing Filter  $12
Date: 28 Aug 2002 

For Sale.  Zone VI B&W Viewing Filter w/neck cord.

For 35mm format. Features a monochromatic #90 wratten filter mounted
in clear glass and encased in a 3" diameter black matte frame.  For
previsualizing the image by converting the colors in the natural scene
toward the tones, and tonal arrangement that would appear in a black &
white print.  This abstraction of the image helps you to compose the
forms and balance the tonal areas.  Will also help you determine
whether or not a filter is necessary to avoid tonal mergers.  Good
condition.  $12 (plus shipping from Calif.).

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] polarizer and films

Chuch,

>So, may I expand this to an 80 MM lens? Knowing that a circular polarizer is
>the route to go, what is best, faults with second best and which is your
>favorite, all you landscape/scenic types?

Why's the circular polarizer the way to go? If you're using it on a
Hasselblad it doesn't make any difference what type of polarizer you get.
-- Unless the 205 uses some semi-transparent mirror for the spot meter.
Linear (top) polarizers are more effective than their circular counterparts
so you get a more pronounced effect of the polarization. This effect is
obviously adjustable by turning the filter ring.

You will need a circular polarizer in the following situations:
1) If you're using auto focus.
2) If the metering system in your camera requires it (typically only spot
meters require circ. pol., CW and partial meters are fine with the lin. pol.)

>Should I go
>with the Hasselblad brand, B+W Kaesemann, Tiffin.

A polarizing filter consists of two pieces of glass with a polarizing film
sandwiched in between. In "Regular" polarizers this sandwich is held
together mechanically by a threaded ring. In Kaesemann filters, in addition
to the mechanical fixation, there is a seal that prevents moisture from
being trapped between the two glass plates and the polarizing film. I've
never had problems with the regular type, so I find it hard to justify
shelling out an additional 40% to get the Kaesemann variety. But maybe
others have different opinions.

I have good experience with Contax and B+W filters myself. I hear that
Nikon makes good filters too -- although I don't know anyone who's actually
tried them out. I would not hesitate buying Hoya filters. I have a friend
who uses Hoya filters with great results. And I've been told that Hoya
makes the glass which Schneider/Leica use in their lenses... I think that
speaks for itself... :-)

Generally there are two types of filters:
1) Dyed glass
2) Two slices of clear glass with colored gelatin sandwiched in between.

Every time the light passes through an interface between two mediums (e.g.
glass-to-air, glass-to-gelatin) image quality will be slightly degraded due
to diffraction, surface defects, etc. This is why stacking filters is not
recommended. Every time you add a glass filter, you increase the number of
light interfaces by two (one on each side of the filter). Every time you
add a glass-gelatin-glass filter, you increase the number of interfaces by six.

In addition to the increase in the number of interfaces, there is another
potential problem. The two sides of the glass might not be 100% parallel
(as a matter of fact having two exactly parallel surfaces is a statistical
miracle!!). As light enters the filter, it's bent due to the difference in
refractive index between the filter medium and whatever medium the light
came from (typically air). If the two filter surfaces are parallel, the
light gets bent back in the same fashion. However, if the two surfaces are
not parallel, the light will not be bent back in the same fashion when
exiting the filter. And as the angle of refraction depends on the
wavelength of the light, the different colors will get bent back at
slightly different angles. Thus, if the filter surfaces are not exactly
parallel, lateral chromatic errors occur in the image. This makes the image
look slightly out of focus as the three primary colors are not in the same
focus on the film.

Contax, B+W, and Hoya all make filters of dyed glass (their polarizers
being the only exception, as you can't make one with one piece of glass). I
bet Hasselblad and Nikon do the same. Tiffen makes filters by sandwiching
gelatin between two glass plates -- at least in their "amateur" series.
I've been told that they have a "professional" series where they use
colored glass... I'll let the choice of brand be up to you... :-)

>How about an adapter going
>from Bayonet 60 to 67 mm. Is the 67 adapter really the way to go with a
>circular polarizer? It sure would save some money considering the need to
>have more than just a polarizer.

I'm in the same dilemma myself. Should I really buy into yet another filter
mount just for the Hasselblad? Or should I just get adaptor rings and use
the filters I already have?

Well. Adaptor rings have the major disadvantage that you usually can't use
a lens hood, as the filter and adaptor ring get in the way. OTOH, buying
one $20 adaptor ring will make it possible for you to use the filters
you've already got. But if you do get an adaptor ring, make sure it's matte
-- not shiny.

Hope that answers your questions.

Tom

from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] polarizer and films

No.

The meter in Leica R cameras and autofocus systems in Canon, Nikon, etc.,
all have half silvered mirrors in front of them to capture some of the
image light. This causes a phase shift in the light akin to a polarizer.
Thus using a linear polarizer in front of these devices will, during full
polarization, allow no light to enter the meter or AF system. Giving
erroneous readings at any polarization level.

This is NOT the case with any stand alone meter. If a circular polarizer
was needed for a Hasselblad meter, Hasselblad would be selling them.

Jim
Bernard Ferster wrote:

>There is no H. product that requires circular polarization. True. But if
>the filter is to be used with a light meter to adjust exposure, a circular
>filter may be more accurate that a straight version.
>
>I know that the use of a circular meter is needed in some auto exposure
>camera systems for the exposure system to perform correctly. Could it be
>that this is also true for stand alone meters?

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002
From: Bernard Cousineau [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] polarizer and films

> I don't know the reason, I just know that it works that way. I have both a
> Hasselblad B60 polarizer and a 67mm circular polarizer (for my Leica R
> cameras) and I have used both on my Hasselblad. The circular seems to give
> me less effect shooting the same subjects. The California coastline.
> Perhaps the retarder plate shifts the phase, causes diffusion, or something
> like that.

I am currently helping a friend who is testing polarisers for a short motion
picture project. What I suspect you are seeing is the quite substantial
difference between polarisers of different brands. The fact that one is a
circular polariser and the other is not is probably irrelevant.

Bernard

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 
From: Robert Marvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] BayIII to 49mm adaptor

--
A Bay III to Series VI adaptor ring also works well. They can often
be found at camera shows or in junk drawers. Mine works fine with the
smaller of the two Series VI lens hoods that Kodak used to make (also
plentiful at camera shows or in junk drawers). I have two of these
adaptors--one, a Tiffin also fits under a Rollei, Bay III hood. The
other, an Ednalite does not.  Good series VI filters can also be
found at VERY low prices

Bob Marvin

[Ed. note: probably long sold by now, but posting here for info on this adapter]
From: "Albert Ma" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS: Minolta Autopole Polarizing Filter for Twin Lens Reflex TLR Bay I mount
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002

This is the rare Minolta Autopole Polarizing Filter for Twin Len Reflex
cameras with Bay 1 lens mount.

You mount the filter and actually see the effect of the polarization through
the viewing lens. The rotations of the two pieces of polarizers are
synchronized.

This is the ONLY way to see the actual effect of polarization on twin lens
reflex cameras.

In original Minolta paper box, which is a little worn. There is also an
instruction leaflet.

The synchronization gear of the filters works perfectly. The lens mounts are
good and tight. There is no separation. There are some coating marks, which
can be seen from the picture. Otherwise, the glass is clear and clear.
Cosmetics are in like-new conditions. $85 shipped for US address.

See pictures at
http://home.attbi.com/~ctalbertma/autopole_1.jpg
http://home.attbi.com/~ctalbertma/autopole_2.jpg

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002
From: Robert Marvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] BayIII to 49mm adaptor

--
Marc,

Tiffin and Ednalite (or, for that matter Enteco or Kodak) series
adaptor rings , although long out of production, are hardly "Oriental
monstrosities" , but its good to know that Harrison & Harrison still
make such things. I Know you've mentioned H & H numerous times, but
all I've seen for sale of their products have been used series
filters. I was able to find their address and phone number on Google
(Harrison & Harrison Optical Engineers, 1835 Thunderbolt Drive, Unit
"E", Porterville, CA 93257,559-782-0121) , but I couldn't find a
website. Do you know if they have a catalog I could request by phone?
I would love to have some new series VI filters, for example, an
infrared filter darker than a common #25; does Harrison & Harrison
make such a product?

Bob Marvin

Marc James Small wrote:

Thanks, Bob.  But why not buy the real item, new, from Harrison & Harrison
in California?  The price is quite low -- $20 or so -- and the quality is
far higher than those Oriental monstrosities which cease to work after 4.89
repetitions.

>A Bay III to Series VI adaptor ring also works well. They can often
>be found at camera shows or in junk drawers. Mine works fine with the
>smaller of the two Series VI lens hoods that Kodak used to make (also
>plentiful at camera shows or in junk drawers). I have two of these
>adaptors--one, a Tiffin also fits under a Rollei, Bay III hood. The
>other, an Ednalite does not.  Good series VI filters can also be
>found at VERY low prices

From: Rudy Garcia [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Filter Decision: SMC Hoya or Plain B&W?
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002

 Bryan K [email protected] wrote:
> The super multi-coated hoya costs 39 USD for the 72mm filter. While
> the plain (no coating) B&W costs 41 dollars.
>
> I'm looking at comparable 72mm, UV filters.
>
> Are B&W's that good?
>
> TIA,
> Bryan

"Are B&W's that good?"  Not in any objectively provable way.

BTW: save some more money and get the Hoya "HMC" type instead of the
"SMC".  You'll be dollars ahead, have an easier to clean filter and see
no discernible difference in the results.

--
Rudy Garcia

From: [email protected] (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How does a graduated filter work?
Date: 5 Sep 2002 1

They work a little better with the lens stopped down to shooting
aperture. Try the card using DOF preview at f/8 and f/22 and spaced
out a little bit from the lens.  Typical rectangular filters from Lee,
Singh-Ray, Cokin, etc. are spaced out a 1/2 inch or so from the
front of the lens by the filter holder which also enhances the effect.
....

From: "Bob Johnson, Earthbound Light" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Nikon] neutral density filters
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 

Travis,

For regular (solid color) neutral density filters, simply meter as
normal with the filter on.

If you are talking graduated neutral density filters, it's a bit more
tricky and does require some practice. For lots of info and tips on
neutral density filters (by coincidence) check out this week's photo tip
on my website at http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/20020901.html.

Bob Johnson
Earthbound Light
Nature Photography from the Pacific Northwest and beyond
http://www.earthboundlight.com

From: T.P. [email protected]
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.p
hoto.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.darkroom,rec.p
hoto.marketplace.digital,rec.photo.misc,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: filter adapters
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 

Val Sharp [email protected] wrote:
>
>Don't think there are much in the way of downsides for step rings
>generally, but step-down rings to smaller filters can cause problems
>with vignetting.

Don't be silly.

There can be HUGE disadvantages to using both step down AND step up
rings.  Taking the step down rings first, vignetting will be a problem
- unless the filter ring on the lens was originally designed to be
oversized, which would be rare.

With step up rings, they are very likely to prevent use of either a
dedicated or a built-in lens hood.  They can also cause vignetting; a
small step between filter sizes and the larger filter size may not be
enough to provide the lens's required angle of acceptance.

Of course, many people either don't know what lens hoods are for, or
are too mean to buy them, or fail to recognise the significant effect
a good lens hood can have on their photography.  The same people also
buy Cokin filters and forget - completely and conveniently - about the
importance of shading the lens.

In times past, lens manufacturers used to strive hard to keep a common
filter size across large parts of their lens range.  That was in the
days before today's widespread outsourcing, which has resulted in many
so-called "camera brand" lenses using the independent lens
manufacturers' standard filter sizes which differ from their own.

Nikon is a very good example.  In the 1980s, you could have a Nikon
outfit with wide angle, standard and short to medium tele lenses that
used only three standard filter sizes - 52mm, 62mm and 72mm.  Later,
77mm came along.  Now, Nikon's habit of buying cheap Tamron designs
means and re-badging them as Nikkors means that you have to buy what
used to be called 'bastard sizes' in addition to the Nikkor standards.

It's a waste of everyone's time and money.  The only solutions are
(1) is to factor filter sizes into your lens choices and (2) to buy
different filter sizes.  Except for occasional use, step-up and
step-down rings merely cause more problems than they solve.

From: NickC [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is a good Polarizer filter?
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002

I basically use B+H and Heliopan filters. I have at times used Tiffen
and Hoya but not as a normal practice. It's not that I can readily see
a difference in picture quality. It's just that I think that overall,
B+H and Heliopan filters are made better.

Nick

Rogue Vorlon wrote:
>
> I want to get a good 77mm Polarizer for a Nikon 200mm EDIF for the best
> price.
>
> Any recommendations, like Tiffen, Hoya, etc?

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 
From: Marco Pauck [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters for Arsat 30

Paul R. Ostand wrote:
> Marco, thank you for the reply. In the Kodak pub. "Applied Infrared
> Photography" they say (in refering to aerial photography), "...filters
> should be mounted in glass; unmounted gelatin filters are likely to result
> in poor definition."
>
> I am not interested in aerial photography. The only other reason I could
> imagine for this warning is that the unmounted gel might not be flat.

Yes, that's true.
In addition, true gelatin is very sensitive to humidity and wraps easily.
Other foils such as polyester don't have this problem (but others ;-)

> Do you see any such problems with gels in the Arsat mounts? Do you leave the
> clear glass in place? I was going to leave my clear filter unmodified and
> replace the glass in the other two with red and yellow for straight b&w.
> Then for IR I was going to just use a gel BTFR so I could use all lenses
> easily.

Leave the clear filter alone. It is part of the optical calculation
and replacing its glass by a gelatine foil will cause problems.

I'm using gels for many of my more exotic lenses that don't accept
standard filters (beside the Arsat/Zodiak fisheye the Peleng 8mm
fisheye, the Horizon 202's swing lens, some large format lenses, etc.)

Sure, in theory a well polished glass filter would be better but this
is no practical alternative unless you are willing to get a custom
filter built that probably will cost more that the lens itself ...

Some additional pages to check on this issue are:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/gelatine.htm
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/FOCUS/FOCUS036.HTM

Marco

From: [email protected] (DM)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Cleaning a Hoya Super-HMC filter.
Date: 12 Sep 2002

I didn't realize this when I bought some Hoya super-HMC filters,
but the new ones advise you not to use any liquid/chemicals to
clean them. They advise you to use a soft cloth (microfiber)
instead.

Just noticed that there were a few spots of gunk on my new filter
after a day out in the rain/dirt, which refuse to go. How would
you go about cleaning this?

Thanks!

From: T.P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cleaning a Hoya Super-HMC filter.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 

[email protected] (DM) wrote:
>I didn't realize this when I bought some Hoya super-HMC filters,
>but the new ones advise you not to use any liquid/chemicals to
>clean them. They advise you to use a soft cloth (microfiber)
>instead.
>
>Just noticed that there were a few spots of gunk on my new filter
>after a day out in the rain/dirt, which refuse to go. How would
>you go about cleaning this?

Most of us who have used Hoya HMC filters have experienced exactly the
same problem.  The only solution is never to buy a Hoya HMC filter. I
use a mixture of B+W, Heliopan, Hama and Nikon filters, all of which
are multi-coated and none of which suffer from the Hoya HMC problem.

I strongly suggest that you try cleaning your filters with running
water and a tiny amount of mild soap.  Rinse thoroughly and dry with a
clean no-lint cloth.  You can use lens tissue if you can be bothered
with the stuff.  I can't be bothered with anything that takes time.

Beware: You must never clean a Hoya polariser with any liquid, not
even clean water, because the liquid will get into the polariser
"sandwich" and ruin it.

After years of cursing the many other brands of polariser that suffer
from this same problem, I discovered the 'Kaesemann' polarisers sold
by B+W and Heliopan.  They have the edges of the sandwich sealed with
epoxy and they are waterproof.  I buy mine in Germany (wholesale) and
the price is little more than the retail cost of a Hoya HMC.

Of course, if you knew the wholesale price of most filters (not just
Hoya) you would never, ever buy another!  The same applies to Sigma
lenses, which have some of the highest mark-ups I have seen.

From: NickC [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cleaning a Hoya Super-HMC filter.
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002

Hoya coated filters spot easily and are difficult to clean and
attempts to clean them sometimes damage the coating. I would advise
either fogging and 'gently' cleaning it with a microfiber cloth and if
that doesn't work, try wiping it 'gently' with just a small drop of
distilled water on lens tissue immediately followed by the use of a
microfiber cloth. I hope one these recommendations work for you.

If that doesn't work, give the filter to someone who recommends the
use of Hoya filters. {g}

Nick

From: Steve Kramer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin 'A' series filters?
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002

Joseph Kewfi wrote:
>
> Any advice on storing them? I want to prevent scratches for as long as
> possible, are they easily scratched?

I store mine in a pocket hardshell CD-ROM carrier, (fits into an outside
Domke pocket) the sort that uses woven fiber pockets to hold each CD. I
carry about 8 different filters, including a polarier, and 3 sizes of
adapter rings in this case. I carry the filter holder and hood
separately. Haven't scrated even a Cokin filter in years...

I also attach a printed label with information about best placements,
best usage, best settings, etc., for each filter to it's pocket.

Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand

From: "Bert Sirkin" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Using a split ND Filter
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002

Most matrix or center-weighted TTL metering systems will meter the scene
properly with the filter in place, depending upon where the split is.  For
example, if you were to use spot or center-weighted metering and the split
is high or low, it's unlikely the exposure will be accurate.

With matrix metering, I always use the cameras meter to determine exposure
with a grad nd.

PS - You didn't indicate what kind of grad ND filter you got, but I HOPE
it's not a "round" filter!

Bert Sirkin
Web Gallery: http://www.photobert.com/page1.asp
Nikon CheatSheets: http://www.photobert.com/cheatsheet.asp

"Rob F." [email protected] wrote 
> Good Day All.
>
>     I want to take my landscape photography to a new level so I bought a
> split 2xNd filter and a standard 2xND filter. I do plan on experimenting
> with these filters but was wondering about a couple of things. Do I meter
> with the split ND filter on or off? Before I bought the filters I would spot
> meter the darkest and lightest areas of the scene and then set my shutter
> speed in the middle of the settings. Do I apply this same technique with the
> filter on? Or do I do a straight reading with the filter on and then
> bracket? If you could direct me to an article or give me a little feed back
> on how you use these filters I would be most grateful. Thanks in advance for
> the input.
>
> Rob Frease
> www.rfreasephotography.com

From: Tom Keller [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Using a split ND Filter
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002

Rob,
Using your split ND filter is relatively easy, although it does take a fit of
fussing around. First, I assume you bought a square or rectangular one, NOT a
round one.

Exposure: If, for example, you are shooting a scene with light/bright mountain
tops and a darker meadow, you'll want to hold back the light mountain. So, meter
the meadow, make any compensation you might want/need and then slide on the ND
filter with the dark half to cover the sky

Placement: This is the part that takes some practice and fussing around. You
want the break between filtered and non-filtered parts to come at a natural
break in the composition to hide the line. If you use your preview button, you
can see exactly where the filter is.

That's the quick answer to your question. For a full (and very good) discussion
in very understandable terms check out this web page:

Enjoy:  tom keller

http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil/nd.html

"Rob F." wrote:

> Good Day All.
>
>     I want to take my landscape photography to a new level so I bought a
> split 2xNd filter and a standard 2xND filter. I do plan on experimenting
> with these filters but was wondering about a couple of things. Do I meter
> with the split ND filter on or off? Before I bought the filters I would spot
> meter the darkest and lightest areas of the scene and then set my shutter
> speed in the middle of the settings. Do I apply this same technique with the
> filter on? Or do I do a straight reading with the filter on and then
> bracket? If you could direct me to an article or give me a little feed back
> on how you use these filters I would be most grateful. Thanks in advance for
> the input.
>
> Rob Frease

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] B60 neutral density filter?

David Meiland wrote:
>Any manufacturer make a 5-stop neutral density filter in B60 mount? Would
>this be a ND 1.5? Greater density would also be OK. Only ones I have found
>are the Kodak gels.
>
>Thanks,
>
>DM

Yes, it is 1.5

I have 1 stop, 2 stop, and 3-stop B+W 67mm B+W filters and a Hasselblad 67
to B60 adapter.

Search the B&H site for B+W/ND/B60 filters and you'll see that B+W makes 10
B60 ND filters. The closest to 1.5 is a 1.8 (6 stops.) They make the same
in 67mm.

Heliopan makes no B60 ND filters but make .3, .6, & .9 67mm ND filters.

The only way to get to 1.5 is to combine a .9 and a .6 .

Jim

From: "Ed" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cokin filters..yea or ney?
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002

> Wow.  I'm convinced.  Not.
>
> Is that really the best you could come up with?

Glad to see yet another fellow newsgroup reader that woke up on the wrong
side of the filter.  Do you guys go to the same school of etiquette or
something?  That's quite an arrogant stance.  What ever made you the
ultimate authority that needs "convinced"?

> >As with most glass, you do have to be careful not to scratch it.
>
> Hello?  They aren't glass, you know!

True, some aren't.  So far, all but one of the 15 that I have *are* glass.
The catalog doesn't make any mention of the materials, so you really have no
way of knowing before having one in your hands - that's an acknowledged bad
point.  However, the images through the plastic materials are very sharp as
well.

Deny these facts of Cokin vs. screw-in filters:
1> One set of filters can be used on all of your lenses (up to 82mm for the
"P" series, anyway)
2> Very quick and easy to add or remove a given filter.
3> More selection
4> Price is usually a fraction of a screw-in filter, if a screw-in
equivalent is even available
5> No threads to have problems with
(no doubt, this will prompt some kind of countering list which I am eager to
see)

Let me ask you this - what do I have to gain by lying?  I don't work for
them, I don't sell their products, I don't make any money from my comments.
It's a great filter system that has served me well for years.  Many other
wedding photographers are seen using them regularly as well.  Do my
experiences mean that everyone is going to like it?  No.  Does it mean that
I'm happy with the product and want to share that good experience with
others?  Absolutely.

Bring on the flames, Mr. Bigglesworth!

From: "sympatic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Series VII filter holder question.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 

see  http://www.pdnonline.com/newprod/articles/article1566.html

[Ed. note: on Lee Size "P" filters..]

from nikon mailing list:
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Which UV filter?

Michael J. Bortulin wrote:
>Why should these filters cost so much when for example, a new Nikon 50mm
>f1.8 lens having several more elements, an iris mechanism, focusing
>mechanism, lens mount, etc.can be purchased for around $100?  Is it that
>difficult to make a colored (albeit to tight specifications) piece of
>plano surfaced glass and put it in a simple mount to justify the cost?
>What am I missing here?

Marketing 101 and Production Accounting 201? 

Generally, the price of accessories such as filters has little relationship
to production costs, except, as Bob Johnson notes in a later post, the
demand for certain filters may cause more of them to be made and sold, thus
lowering the per-unit production cost.

Since filters such as an NC or UV tend to be a one-time-per-lens purchase,
and either one uses them regularly or one doesn't, the mark-up can tend to
be higher for a couple reasons. First, since it isn't really a "must-have"
item *for most people*, demand is lower; second, since those who do believe
in always using a protective filter *do* see it as a *must-have* item, the
price is not a deterrent to acquisition. Though those points may seem
mutually contradictory, if you think about them for a moment, you should be
able to realize the logic behind them.

Think of a filter more as a "boutique" item -- just as a fashion-conscious
person will pay a relatively high price for a new piece of clothing at the
start of a season -- compared to someone buying it on sale at the end of
the season. The selling price is based more on "perceived value" rather
than "cost of materials."
--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002
 [email protected] (Xosni) wrote:

> I'm fed up with those Hoya filters. I want to try quality filters now-
> I'm talking specifically about #29 (dark red) filter for B&W. Where
> can I get Schneider or Rodenstock filters in the US (VA)? And which
> offer the best quality?
>
> regards,
> Xosni

Rodenstock only makes Graduated Center Filters. All other Rodenstock
filters are Heliopan.

--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002

...

Heliopan also has thin rings as a standard mount but, unlike B+W,
Heliopan's thin mounts have front threads so your snap-on caps will
still work. Heliopan's MC is SH-PMC and is 16 layers - 8 per side- and
it repels dust and moisture and is highly scratch resistant.

--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS

From: Roger [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002

Xosni wrote:
> I'm fed up with those Hoya filters. I want to try quality filters now-
> I'm talking specifically about #29 (dark red) filter for B&W. Where
> can I get Schneider or Rodenstock filters in the US (VA)? And which
> offer the best quality?

Hmmm...tests I've seen suggest that filters make next to no difference
to optical quality.  It's very easy to make a flat piece of glass.

Obviously avoid anything that's loose in its mount or isn't coated on
both sides.
--
Roger

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002

...
> Obviously avoid anything that's loose in its mount or isn't coated on
> both sides.
> --
> Roger

  I'm not so sure its that easy to make an absolutely plane
parallel sheet of glass. Good filter glass must be very
homogeneous and free of wedging. Both will disturb the
optical path if they exist.

  Actually, a slightly loose mounting is not a problem:
since the glass is flat it has no optical axis to disturb.

  I also would be interested in knowing what is wrong with
Hoya filters. Hoya makes optical glass and should be able to
make very good filters.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] re: filter markups and $900 lens hood for Nikon 600mm f/4

I wish it were true.  Of the many things I have my fingers in, I own a small
retail operation, not related to photography.  We are lucky to mark up a few
things 25%.  Our core items are marked up as little as 5%, though 10-15% is
more typical, and 15% is the absolute MOST we can get away with.

Do we make any money at 5%?  NO!  But we get the chance to sell the
accessories, which is where we can make up to 25%.

Between Wal*Mart, and large sporting goods chains like Galyans, we are
trapped.

This is true of must retailers of commodity items in the US.  Even large
appliances are low markup items, unless it is a high line item like Mile,
Asko, or some high end item in a main line brand, like GE Profile.

I don't know if any broad based retail category where price competition
hasn't invaded to the max, except coffee, and niche markets, like expensive
perfume.

It is really sad.  People go to the "service" oriented retailer to get all
the details on their purchase, then go down the street to the discounter to
make the purchase.  The discounter doesn't provide any service.

We no longer do repairs, warranty or otherwise, on items purchased at
discount stores for that very reason.  We tell them to take it back to
[blank], where ever that may be.  They complain that [blank] cannot help
them.  Some of them get it at that point, but most don't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty too.  I shop at Wal*Mart while I know Wal*Mart
is killing all the old downtown shopping in small to medium sized towns all
across the United States.

As an aside, I don't go into my local (Virginia) Wal*Mart, because it is
AWFUL.  I do shop in Las Vegas on a regular basis.

Back to the issue; many photography operations make their profit on
processing.  Sure, Wal*Mart may be less expensive, but you stand a great deal
more chance of getting your film back, and colors right, if you go to a
professional.

--chip

[email protected] writes:

> I don't know what price list you were shown, but dealer markups
> are a lot more than 30% in retail stores, and not just on filters, if
> the retailer intends to stay in business.

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filters for Goerz Apo Artar
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 

"Jeff Novick" [email protected] wrote...
> Could anyone give me specific filter sizes and brands to fit my 9.5" Goerz
> Apo Artar f/9? The lip on the lens is extremely shallow on the exterior
> while the inside of the lens lip is threaded.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff

  These lenses were not intended to take standard filters.
You will have to find a push-on or clamp on adaptor. The
adaptor will take standard size filters. If you can't find
one ready made check with Steve Grimes:

http://www.skgrimes.com who makes very fine ones.

  Some later Apo-Artars have a slot. This slot was intended
for special diaphragms or for filters. The filters should be
gelatin type and you would have to make the holder.

  There are compendium lens shades and filter holders
available from folks like Lee, which will probably fit the
lens and might be a good answer.

  Many Artars have a threaded ring on the front which covers
the threads for mounting a reversing prism. These threads
could certainly be used for a filter adaptor, but it would
have to be specially made.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: "Dan Lindsay" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polarisers with WA lenses

--- In NikonMF@y..., "drjh68" drjh@b.. wrote:
> Greetings to all,
>
> I saw a reference somewhere or other recently suggesting that
> polarisers on very wide angle lenses could produce irregular effects
> e.g. uneven colour saturation.

Wide angle lenses and polarizers don't go well together,--particularly wider
than about 24mm.  I'm pretty much a wide-angle photographer most of the
time and I have essentially given up on using polarizers for wider angled
lenses because of the uneveness of the polarization and thus artificial
appearance that it imparts to a shot.

The other lesser issue is vignette.  First, never buy the Nikon polarizing filters
because they're designed to work with a polarizing filter hood,--which then
negates your ability to use the proper hood for the lens you're putting this rig
upon.  I suggest something like what I use:  A Heliopan circular polarizing
filter (I have a 77mm one for my 17-35mm lens).  I get no cutoff, and it is a high
qualtiy filter of the same material construction as Nikon and B+W,--only it
works better than the Nikon filter.

Dan

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002

"Xosni" [email protected] wrote 
> I'm not ready to argue Bob. All I see is that I get marked image
> quality degradation with Hoya filters. I was wondering if I can get a
> filter that doesn't cause such degradation, or at least the least
> possible image degradation.
>
> best regards,
> Xosni

I am pretty sure the filters you want are either Heliopan
or B&W, both made in Germany.
  Heliopan's web site is http://www.heliopan.de/

  In the USA Heliopan is distributed by HP marketing. If you
are outside the US they may be able to direct you to the
distributor for your area.
http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/

 B+W filters are now owned by Schneider. They refer to their
German home page for finding dealers outside of the USA
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/

  In the USA see
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_pho
tography/

  I expect an e-mail to either company would find a dealer.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 

"Xosni" [email protected] wrote...
> They are not sharp!
>
> Xosni

 I responded to where to buy in another post.

 I am curious where you are using the filters. Normal use on
the front of a lens photographing a distant object is
perhaps the least critical location. Used where the light
going through the filter is convergent can cause problems
even with very good filters. This occurs where the filter is
used behind the lens in normal photography or on either side
in close up photography.

  In very critical applications thin gelatin filters are the
only solution.

  When light goes through a flat section of glass nothing is
changed if the light is collimated, i.e., if the rays are
parallel with each other and exactly perpendicular with the
glass. If, however, the light is vergent (convergent or
divergent) so that it goes through the sheet at an angle
several things happen. One is that some spherical aberration
is introduced. Spherical from a flat piece of glass? Yup,
because the _wavefront_ is curved. The light going straight
through the center of the plate is not deviated but as the
angle increases the light beam is increasingly bent more
towards the center, so you have exactly the same effect as
from an uncorrected spherical lens. In addition, since the
light is being deviated by the glass some chromatic
aberration is introduced. Not so good. The degree of
deviation, and thus the amount of aberration is dependant on
the relative angle of the light rays (the amount of vergence
of the beam) and the thickness of the glass plate. The
thicker the worse and the steeper the angle the worse.

  So, if possible filters should be used someplace in the
system where the light is either parallel or nearly so and
filters should be thin.

  A flat plate also changes the effective path length so can
affect focus. When used in front of a lens for reasonably
distant objects this has insigficant effect, but in a
vergent beam it defocuses the system by some amount, the
amount depending on the thickness of the glass, angle of the
rays and the index of refraction of the glass.

 Generally, filters should be made of low index glass, since
it bends the light least.

  This is just general stuff but my point is that if you are
experiencing image degration from Hoya filters used, say,
for untra close up work, another brand may not be any better
because you are fighting the physics of the thing. Again,
the filters which do the least damage to the optical
performance are thin gelatin filters. Unfortunately, they
are very delicate and not practical for many general
photographic purposes. Gelatin filters are made to very high
standards of quality since inhomogenities can cause problems
(shadows etc in the image).

  Generally, focus should be checked _with_ the filter since
even if the filter itself is not causing defocusing it can
make aparent problems from chromatic aberration of the lens.

  It would be valuable to learn you experience with other
than Hoya filters particularly if the Hoya's are really
causing noticable degradation.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 

 [email protected] (Collin Brendemuehl) wrote:

> unlike others that
> are single- or multi-coatinged on only one side.

It would perhaps be more informative to state who does this.

In the case of Heliopan all filters are coated on both sides. Either a
total of 2 coats for the regular series or 16 coats for the SH-PMC (that
is 8 layers per side). Of course filters that should not be coated like
soft focus, fog, Softars, etc are not. If they were coated their effect
would be lost.

--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS

From: "Joseph Meehan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Skylight or UV filter?
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002

ThomasH wrote:
> Rob Broome wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to know some opinions on whether or not to add a skylight
>> or UV filter to the lens for protection.  Will this degrade the
>> image to a noticeable level?  I use Nikon lenses and want the best
>> picture possible, but also want to protect my investment from an
>> accident.
>>
>> Thanks for any thoughts,
>>
>> Rob
>
> Skylight is not neutral, use it if you need it. For example I shoot
> a lot while sailing or flying and the images appear often too blue.
> In such case skylight is a blessing for me. Skylight filter factor
> is approx. 1.1 to 1.2 (data published by B+W web page,) whereas an
> UV filter is always 1.0.
>
> Thomas

    Acturally neither is totally neutral, but as you suggest UV's are
generally close to neutral in effect.  Without any UV light the UV is not
likely to show any bias, while the skylight may show some.  With a lot of UV
light both will show a small shift.

       Skylight, Haze and UV filters are much the same.  They both block UV
light.  You can't see UV light, but most films can.  Those films see it as
blue or blue grey.  There is no rule as to exactly what a UV or Skylight
filter is so different manufacturers often have different ideas.  They
differ in exactly where they cut off the light and how smoothly they cut off
the light.  Different films react differently so that complicates things
even more.

 You can say in general that Skylight filters are a little stronger and
often will "warm" the colors because they generally cut off a little of the
blue light.  Some manufacturers offer a number of different such filters of
different ?strengths? (higher of lower cut off points).  The best part of
this is they all do about the same thing and they generally do their thing
best when needed most.  That is if there is a lot of UV light they get ride
of it and if there is little, they don't do much.

 In short, for the most part it does not make much difference in real life.

 Most people don't buy, or should I say, most people are sold UV filters not
to correct light problems, but to "Protect Your Expensive Lens."  Keep in
mind that for many years the guy behind the counter (I was one of them) may
have made more on the filter, than he made on the lens!  His incentive was
to make money and sell you something.  Fear of damage is a good sales tool.
Sort of like the paint protection package they will offer you on a new car.

 In real life, with a few exceptions like a windy sandy beach or a
photographer who over-cleans his lenses, few photographers need the
protection of a filter.  But then again, even a good one does not cost all
that much* and they are easy to use. The down side is they will very
slightly reduce sharpness and very slightly increase flare.  It is a wash,
little gain and little loss.

 Most of the time you would get better protection with a good lens shade and
it would be likely to reduce flare, but they are more difficult to use.

 So if you want one and if you like warmer colored photos get a skylight, if
you like less warm photos go for a UV or Haze.

* On of the tricks of selling add ones like filters is to have the price low
enough that the buyer will say, even if it does not work I did not speed
that much on it.  Which is why you will not often find the sales person
trying to sell you a B&W brand filter that is going to cost a few additional
$$$ but cause less image problems.

   Please note that this author is not the same Joseph Meehan who is a
professional author of Photograph materials.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Skylight or UV filter?
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002

Tony Spadaro wrote:

> A good filter will not.

Indeed.

And it's a myth that good filters must be expensive.
High optical quality filters are very easy to produce. Quality diferences
are mostly found in the rim the glass is set in. Not in the quality of the
glass itself.

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Skylight or UV filter?
From: Magus [email protected]
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002

Alan Browne [email protected] wrote
> Oh hell, here we go again...
>
> A good UV filter (doesn't mean the most expensive, a Hoya or Tiffen
> should do) will not degrade the image at all in any noticeable way in
> most conditions.

There is a set of lens tests here that at least suggest that there is a
detectable difference.

I don't know exactly how scientific these tests are, but they appear to
have been conducted carefully.

http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

Do a 'search on page' for Hoya and you should find the examples.
I doubt that I would detect any difference with or without in 'normal
use'  :) I prefer to keep a protective UV on.
M.

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: "Maisch, Manfred" [email protected]
Subject: AW: Cokin P series - how wide and how wide?

Hi Dave,

I'm using the Cokin P series filter on my
*       Sigma 3,5/18mm, 72mm filter thread,
*       Sigma 2,8/24mm, 52mm filter thread and
*       Minolta 3,5-4,5/24-85mm, 62mm filter thread

Without additional vignetting and without cutting the holder. Note: the 18mm
lens has a 72mm filterthread, but the front-lens is actually much smaller. I
assume, there is a higher vignetting problem if you have a WA lens with a
72mm filter thread and a nearly as wide front lens.

Manfred

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: "ericthex700" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin P series - how wide and how wide?

...

I have to admit I haven't used them for anything shorter than 28mm, but the
Cokin material suggests they should be OK. However, there's a serious drawback.
There are no "true" Cokin ND grads, they're grey . . . Er, this is why when you
look at the credits against lansdscapes taken by photographers like Joe Cornish,
they all mention "Lee" grads, which have the variety of densities and the hard or
soft gradations you really need. Do I hear squeals of anguish coming from your
wallet? (Mine clamped itself shut at the very thought when the problem dawned
on me . . .)

Eric

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: "lensman3" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Cokin P series - how wide and how wide?

Are you shooting product or other advertising where color is a
critical issue?   Are you a super-perfectionist who will recall all
the details of a photo years after it was taken?

Do you need extreme flexibility and numerous degrees of density
to handle many of your shots?

If your answer to the above is generally "yes" then spend the money.
If not, TRY the Cokins, they are not real expensive and are also widely available
on eBay.  You might like them.  There are folks on this group who would
photograph the Second Coming and complain about the non-neutral color
of the light.  And there a few slobs like me who can't quite see the
difference.

From K-cameras list:
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polarizing Filter...help!

Hi,

let me put in my two cents about polarizers and a very nice
link

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/polarized.html

Linear filter  used with slr's without autofocus

Circular filter used with slr cameras with autofocus
(but can be used on a non autofocus camera)

a very good explanation can be found here

http://www.geocities.com/cokinfiltersystem/polarizer.htm

L8tr... Tom

From: "Charles T. Low" [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: Rainbows & polarizers ...
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002

I read a magazine article years ago which said that polarizers didn't do
much for rainbows, because a polarizer works most at right angle to the
light, and rainbows are always centered at 180 degrees to the light.

But I have little experience with it, and your comments are at variance with
this. I hope somebody else knows the answer.

Charles

P.S. Would it make any difference if it was a linear or circular polarizer?

Charles T. Low

From: John H. Guillory [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: Rainbows & polarizers ...
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002

...(quotes above)

  Popular Photography did an artical on Polorizers recently, and
basically, there's a time for them and there's a time to take them
off.... Sometimes they will dull your pictures and sometimes they'll
add debth.....  To find the right angle, hold your thumb up, and your
fingers out (making like a L shaped patter with your thumb and fore
finger....  Now, point your thumb toward the sun without changing the
angle of your fingers to your thumb.... Turn your polorizer in the
angle of your fore-finger.... This is the maximum light using the
polorizer.  Also, when using a polarizer, you need to adjust usually 2
stops ahead of what your meter says....  As far as Rainbows, I've yet
to photograph one, but considering how rainbows are made they should
disappear when the polarizer is doing the most work..... Rainbows are
formed from light hitting the moisture in the clouds and reflecting
off that water, forming the rainbow of colors you'd normally see in a
prism.  A polarizer allows light to enter through the lens in only 1
direction, which normally eliminates reflections.  The rainbow's light
is bent due to the reflection off the moisture, which is why the
polarizer can make it disappear....

>But I have little experience with it, and your comments are at variance with
>this. I hope somebody else knows the answer.

  Go to www.popphoto.com I think it is, just about all their past
articles and FAQ's, etc. are online....

>P.S. Would it make any difference if it was a linear or circular polarizer?

I can't see it helping.....
John H. Guillory

From: Arthur Hood [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 
Subject: [Contax] Filter induced artefacts

Hi Andras,

I have encountered a problem with a filter, the filter reflected light which
had been reflected from the film surface back to the film, but in a
different location, this resulted in a ghost image over the original. The
contrast was very high, it was a night time shot and illumination on a peir
was the subject of the reflection, normally the result is not visible
(though it still occurs. This image, along with more explanation can be seen
on Paul van Walree's site http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/flare.html

Although this was a cheap filter (I know, a waste of good Zeiss glass...
won't do it again!) the same happens to a lesser extent with good quality
filters.

Cheers,

Art.

From: "mp" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei Green Filter
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002

> > No it means 1 1/2 times. Not 1 1/2 stops.
> >
>
> No! It means increase by 1.5 stops. Some UV filters for example shows -0.5.
> Based on your definitition it will mean decrease by 1 stop. Highly unlikely
> isn't it?

Filter factors are NOT stops. And filter factors are always based on
positive values.

A filter factor of 1.5 requires 2/3 stop compensation

FF 2 = 1 stop
FF 3 = 1 2/3 stops
FF 4 = 2 stops
FF 8 = 3 stops
FF 16 = 4 stops

from nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 
From: "sinedyar" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polarisers with WA lenses

Hello, James:

     A polarizing filter is most effective at an angle of 90 degrees
from the sun and have virtually no effect towards or 180 degrees from
the sun..  Since wideangle lense cover a wide angle you'll see lighter
effects on one side or both depending on your picture angle in
referrence to the sun.  This can happen at a 90 degree angle at about
28 or 30mm, more so as you go wider.  However, the effect isn't
necessarily unpleasing.  In fact it can be quite nice.  The main thing
to be careful of is to use a thin polarizer or a larger one with a
step ring to avoid viginetting.

Denis

from minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 
From: "Paul Brecht" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter to control contrast?  Does it exist?

Here's the follow-up to my last post claiming that contrast filters
do exist:

>From B&H's website:

B&H Home to Professional Video to Filters & Accessories to Round/Threaded
Bayonet Mounted to Contrast

B&H Catalog # TILC.5105

Low Contrast:

Bright lights or sunlight create problems when the ratio between the
highlight and shadow areas is beyond the latitude of the film. If you
expose for the highlights, the shadows appear without detail. If you
expose for the shadows, the result is washed-out, overly bright
highlights. Contrast reduction is achieved by lightening shadows
without overexposing highlights or by darkening highlights without
darkening shadows further. Tiffen Ultra Contrast filters work by
using the ambient light surrounding the image area as well as the
light in the actual image area itself. They lower contrast uniformly,
with little or no loss of sharpness, throughout the scene even when
there are varying degrees of brightness within the image. Shadow
areas are opened up, revealing more detail, but without any flare or
halation from direct light sources or bright reflections. Even direct
shooting into the sun produces no flare or halation. Ultra Contrast
filters come in grades from 1-5 with #5 having the greatest effect.
Certain larger sizes are commonly used for movie cameras and are
available in fractional strengths i.e. 1/8, 1/4/, 1/2.

B&H Catalog # TISC1105

Soft Contrast:

Tiffen Soft Contrast filters reduce contrast in the opposite manner
from the Low Contrast filter series. This filter absorbs light
diminishing the highlighted areas while retaining the darker look of
the shadow areas. In other words, the hot spots or bright areas of
the image are reduced while the shadow areas remain dark. This
results in a reduction in contrast. This filter, like the Low
Contrast filter, will cause a slight amount of flaring or halation.
The Soft Contrast filter has a neutral grey appearance, which drops
the exposure. Although it may seem to require it, Tiffen does not
recommend any exposure compensation since this will negate the effect
of the filter. Soft Contrast filters are available in grades 1-5 with
#5 having the greatest effect.

B&H Catalog # TIUC.25S9

Ultra Contrast:

Bright lights or sunlight create problems when the ratio between the
highlight and shadow areas is beyond the latitude of the film. If you
expose for the highlights, the shadows appear without detail. If you
expose for the shadows, the result is washed-out, overly bright
highlights. Contrast reduction is achieved by lightening shadows
without overexposing highlights or by darkening highlights without
darkening shadows further. Tiffen Ultra Contrast filters work by
using the ambient light surrounding the image area as well as the
light in the actual image area itself. They lower contrast uniformly,
with little or no loss of sharpness, throughout the scene even when
there are varying degrees of brightness within the image. Shadow
areas are opened up, revealing more detail, but without any flare or
halation from direct light sources or bright reflections. Even direct
shooting into the sun produces no flare or halation.

Paul

from minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 
From: "Gordon & Janice" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filter to control contrast?  Does it exist?

Hello All,

Tiffen do a set of 'award winning' contrast filters, see their website.

Best wishes

Gordon

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002
From: Don [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: Solar Filters

Rowena wrote:
> I'm having a bit of trouble trying to track down solar filters.

Unless you want to spend thousands on an Halpha filter which is not
necessary for just the eclipse the next best thing is Baader film. I
think a 10x10 sheet costs about $50. They can be obtained from
http://www.astronomy-electronics-centre.com.au/

They are in SA though.

I have made filters for several cat telescopes, Nikon teles and binos.
All with Baader film. Some consider them to be the perfect solar filter.

More info on Baader can be got from
http://www.baader-planetarium.de/com/sofifolie/details_e.htm

Cheers
Don

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Internal filters for process lens
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002

"Nick Zentena" [email protected] wrote
>   The process lens I have doesn't have standard threads. At least I
> haven't been able to figure out what size they are if they're standard. OTOH
> it has a slot for filters. What can I use? It's a Apo-Tessar from Carl Zeiss.
>
> Nick
>
> PS I want to thank everybody for all the info in the archives. I wouldn't
> have know it had a filter slot if I wasn't looking in the archives for
> something else. Now I know what that wierd lever is for and why dust kept
> getting inside-))

   The slots were made mainly for the use of special stops.
Better half-tone dots could be gotten by using square or
eliptical stops rather than round ones. If filters are used
they should be of the gelatin type: these disturb the light
path in the lens the least. The light at the diaphragm is
nearly collimated so the filter should not disturb the lens
corrections much. However, it must be thin.

  Generally any lens can be adapted for filters by using a
push-on adaptor of some sort. These were made in a wide
range of sizes. You can also use a modern combination filter
holder and sunshade although some of them are fairly
expensive. Its not hard to makeshift a cardboard holder for
either glass or gelatin filters.

  From an optical standpoint gelatin filters are the best.
Their shortcoming is mainly that they are delicate.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

Subject: Re: Internal filters for process lens
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 
From: Phil Smith [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format

I am a reprographic photographer.

Ive seen tons of thos little metal inserts around that hold filters for
those lenses.  They are like two pieces of thin metal and you put a gel
type filter in between.  Depending on the size of the lens, you just
cut up a gel filter and sandwich it inbetween.

I have a gel filter holder that attaches to the outside of the lens
without threads.

Its called a "VOSS Proffesional Gelatine Filter Holder"

It has a simply clamping mechanism and you just stick it onto the end
of the lens and the filters slide in. According to the box, I paid
$38.50 for it though.  It does have the advantage of attaching to any
lens within a certain range though.

Hope that helps.

Phil
...

From: "Hesham" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: cleaning Hoya HMC filters
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002

quote
CLEANING YOUR FILTERS:
Due to their high precision, filters should always be handled with care and
kept clean whenever possible. Filters should be cleaned gently with just a
lens tissue or soft cotton cloth, such as Hoya's Hi-Tech Microfibre cleaning
cloth.
 Never use any chemicals, such as lens cleaning fluid, on your filters, as
these can damage the coatings. If any stubborn stains occur, these can
usually be washed off with some clean water and a soft cotton cloth.
Hoya Hi-Tech Microfibre Cleaning Cloth is specially designed microfible
cleaning cloth, ideal for cleaning dust & finger marks from camera lenses or
spectacles. Machine washable. Size: 170 mm x 170 mm (6.7 inch x 6.7 inch).

end of quote
...

From: [email protected] (Larry Sprigg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: cleaning Hoya HMC filters

The solution that Filter Connection sells works superbly on Hoya HMC filters.

Larry

From: "dennis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: cleaning Hoya HMC filters
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 

...

OK, you guys are killing me.  What's so hard about cleaning a HMC Hoya
filter?  It's just like cleaning eye glasses with the anti-reflective
coating.  It isn't as easy as cleaning straight uncoated glass, but it's not
a reason to ditch excellent filters.

I use a spray cleaner called Leland Power Clean / Optical Cleaner.  It says
"For all coated, Multi-coated & Anti-reflective Military Optics.  Cleans
eyeglasses, mirrors, prisms, lasers, VDT's, CRT's and lenses.  Exceptional
static control.  Residue free.  100% hazard free - no alcohol."

It comes in a 2 oz spray bottle.  And if I remember correctly, the only
reason I have this is that my dealer was out of ROR and I paid around $5 for
the bottle.

Leland Limited Inc.  Box 382 Bedminster New Jersey 07921

I also use ROR.  Residual Oil Remover.

And I've had great success finishing off with a Lenspen.  Absolutely removes
anything the Leland leaves.

From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 
From: "Chad [email protected]
Subject: SFX Filters (was Vivitar Series 1 35-80)

Kenny,

OK, here it is.  I have a book on IR that has some suggested filter
factors.  The exposure compensation for IR are different than those
for standard film because the film is looking at different part of the
spectrum.  I say this because these will be a little surprising, but I
have tried them with SFX and they are at least good enough for my lab
to print them (more than a stop off and they don't waste their
high-priced time).  Of course I bracketed and in direct light, this
list was right on.  In shade, toss this list and your meter readings.
 Then get your dice out.

Filter          Plus X (std B&W)      SFX
#8 Yellow       +1 (stops)            +0
#15 Orange      +2/3                  +0
#25 Red         +3                    +1 (red REALLY cuts haze)
#29 Deep Red    +4 1/3                +1
#87 Opaque      N/A                   +13

The book is the Advanced IR photography Handbook by Laurie
White-Haywall published by Amherst.  It focuses on Konica 750 and
Kodak HIE (my favorite of the three) more than SFX.  SFX looks a lot
like std black and white, too much for my taste, but I had to try it
anyway.

Let me know how it turns out.

chad

From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 
From: Ulrich Olaf [email protected]
Subject: Re: SFX Filters

Chad  wrote:
> I have a book on IR that has some
> suggested filter factors.  [...]
>
> Filter          Plus X (std B&W)      SFX
> #8 Yellow       +1 (stops) (2x)       +0 (1x)
> #15 Orange      +1 2/3 (3x)           +0 (1x)
> #25 Red         +3 (8x)               +1 (2x)
> #29 Deep Red    +4 1/3 (20x)          +1 (2x)
> #87 Opaque      N/A (inf.)            +13 (8,000x)

Yes, these filter factors seem very reasonable to me.
However, I am a little surprised about the choices
of filters this table offers.

The #29 Deep Red filter is a rarely used filter
because for IR films, it is not strong enough and its
effect hardly is different from the #25's effect.  And
for panchromatic (i. e. standard) B&W film it is too
strong ... so most photographers prefer #25 Light Red
or #23A Orange-red over #29 Deep Red.

The #87 Opaque filter is a very strong IR filter that
makes sense only with the Kodak High-speed Infra-red
film HIE.  This film's IR sensitivity reaches farther
into the IR spectrum than any other film's so it can
handle the extra-ordinarily strong #87 filter.  A
filter factor of +13 f-stops means 8,000x (eight
thousand) which renders this filter virtually useless
for SFX.  For HIE, the filter factor is much less.

There are quite some IR filters available in-between
the #29 and the #87.  The most-used ones are #89B and
#88A.  Those are weaker than #87 but stronger than #29
and thus work very well with IR films like Konica
IR 750 and Ilford SFX 200.  Approximate filter factors
for SFX are about +2 f-stops (4x) for the #89B and,
err, +4 f-stops (16x)---or thereabouts---for the #88A.

Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen
[email protected]

From: "dr bob" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filters for Crown Graphics
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002

"Richard Knoppow" [email protected] wrote 
> "Shawn Hedvat" [email protected] wrote
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I own a Crown Graphics with a 127mm Ektar I use as a field camera and am
> > baffled by what kind of filter system works for this combo. The Ektar does
> > not have front ring threads and my set up being a little shaky as it is (
> > light weight tripod etc.)  I don't want to hold the filter by hand. So Any
> > suggestions?
> >
> > Thank you all in advance.     
>   These lenses used push-on adaptors for Series VI filters.
> The correct size for the 127mm Ektar is 1-1/2 inches or
> 38mm. The adaptor also holds the lens shade. Push on
> adaptors were made by Kodak, Tiffen, and other companies.
> They are still available used. I think some are still made
> new.
>
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> [email protected]   

I recently acquired a couple of push-on adapters for my Speed Graphic from a
vendor of specialty stuff.  The only ones available from that source were
the old Series-6 so I had to obtain at lease one Series-6 to 58mm converter.
This lash-up did not vignette the image when using a 127mm lens, as I was
worried it might.  I think the entire order was less than $25.

Truly, dr bob. 

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 
From: "aj_at_work2002 [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin system quality

--- In [email protected], Alex Z alexzfoto@y... wrote:

> I'm considering their system and GND set specifically (as well
probaly a warm up filter) to suppliment my landscape photo passion.

Good idea Allex - the Cokin filters are wonderful for landscape work!

My concern is how much image quality is compromised once shooting
through their filters whilst high-quality optics is used. I've heard
their optical quality isn't badn although definitely not up to Lee
standards (though it comes for the price...), so I would womewhat
reluctant putting low-garde stuff in front of the glass capable to
resolving much higher. 
In my experience I have seen no degradation of image quality with
cokin filters, and I regularly shoot with two or even three stacked
grads.

> What is your experiences with that ? Is there a point of
considering their mounting system but Tiffen Cokin-compatible filters
instead (to gain better optical quality) ?

Seriously Alex, I truly believe you will see no difference between
the two.  I would strongly recommend getting a P121 Gray Grad, using
it, then comparing the results under a loupe or microscope to the non-
filter shots.  I can't see any difference with mine, using Minolta
primes and Reala or Velvia.

Have a look here at a couple of shots using the colored grads from a
recent trip I took:

http://www3.photosig.com/userphotos.php?portfolioId=51053

I am also one of the moderators of the Cokin filters group - feel
free to visit and perhaps join the group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cokinfilterusers/

Cheers and Merry Christmas!

Antony

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002
From: "twm47099 [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin system quality

I have a couple of Cokin Filters.  I have read that many don't like
their circular polarizer.  I needed on for a 77mm filter ring so I
decided to give Cokin a chance.  It is glass, fits in the "P"
holder.  It is stiffer to turn than a screwon filter, but is of
excellent quality.  I'd recommend it.

I also have a graduated ND that I am very pleased with.
On the other hand, I also bought a P-sized 1B warming filter.  First
roll of shots were very soft.  Played around with it a bit and found
that I could see an image shift as I slid the filter in and out of
view.  Actually didn't even look sharp in the VF.  I think that the
the 2 filter surfaces must not be parallel.

If you buy Cokin, be sure to check them out carefully and be able to  
return them.  Now I usually buy HiTech from B&H, although I've read
about some problems with QA on photo.net filters too large to fit
the P holder, some off color greys, but supposedly HiTech fixed the
problem?  The ones I've bought have been fine).

Tom 

From: AC/DCdude17 [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya UV filters
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 

[email protected] wrote:

> I have had UV filters on all my lenses since I bought my first SLR 40
> years ago when I was living in outback Australia, so I never tried
> taking photos in those glary conditions without one. How much
> difference do they make in strong sunlight?
>
> I am asking this question now because I tried cleaning a Hoya UV
> filter I bought for my new SLR with Calotherm solution and tried a
> number of times to get rid of the film left on the glass with a lens
> cloth, but everytime I thought  I had removed all the mistiness I
> noticed a slight film when I looked at the glass under different light
> conditions.  Is it possible to remove all trace of mistiness from the
> glass?  

Welcome to the art of glass cleaning.  It's half skills and half
materials.  Microfiber cloth and multiple cleaning chemicals works well.

First use alcohol to remove the majority of lipid soluble contaminant.
Next, use a bit of Windex.  Proper amount is the key.  Finally, finish off
with your breath followed by dry wipe using microfiber cloth.  It takes a
lot of practice.  Shine at it with intense blue light from a blue LED
keylight.  Blue light scatters very easily and you will see scratches and
smears you thought wasn't there.

> Thanks
> Mike

[Ed. note: I'm also someone who likes the older, cheaper, easier-to-clean Hoya filters ;-)]
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya UV filters
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002

...
>The Hoya multi coated filters, specially the super-HMC filters are
>a pain to clean. I have never successfully cleaned one of these. There
>was always some kind of stain / coloration left on the filter. As a
>result I dumped all my Hoya filters and switched to B+W and Heliopan.
>These are much easier to clean.

As are Hoya single-coated filters - the
multicoating on filters is unnecessary...

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether   

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 
From: "Michael Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone use Singh-Ray gold and blue polarizer?

I have both cokin and hitech filters for my P holder. Honestly I don't see
any difference in my prints between the two. They are both resin filters. If
anything the hitech's scratch easier. If you're looking to get a split ND,
buy the hitech as it's a true ND where the cokin.... #120 I believe, is
actually gray and not ND.

-Mike

>
> Hi Alan.
> I'm considering Cokin system to go for a landscape work and even started a
therad heer recently inquiring about it.
> I was also concerned a bit about Cokin filters optical quality and
although was kinldy advised by some of Cokin experienced users already, I
would be glad to hear your opinion whi you would value more Hitech. Please
elaborate.
> best regards and Mery X-mass, Alex 

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 
From: Alex Z [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone use Singh-Ray gold and blue polarizer?

Thanks Mike.

In fact, the main reason of considerign Cokin system for me is Graduated ND,
once goign with the system I intend to have two Graduated ND ( of different
levels) and one Blue Graduated ND for enriching skies.
What is Split ND thing ?
Alex

 Michael Hood [email protected] wrote:

I have both cokin and hitech
filters for my P holder. Honestly I don't see
any difference in my prints between the two. They are both resin filters. If
anything the hitech's scratch easier. If you're looking to get a split ND,
buy the hitech as it's a true ND where the cokin.... #120 I believe, is
actually gray and not ND.

-Mike

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 
From: "Michael Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone use Singh-Ray gold and blue polarizer?

Same as graduated. There are also hard and soft edge variants too which are
are optomized for different focal lengths. Soft is better for wide angle and
hard is better for tele lenses.

-Mike

> What is Split ND thing ?
> Alex

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 
From: "Michael Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone use Singh-Ray gold and blue polarizer?

I have both cokin and hitech filters for my P holder. Honestly I don't see
any difference in my prints between the two. They are both resin filters. If
anything the hitech's scratch easier. If you're looking to get a split ND,
buy the hitech as it's a true ND where the cokin.... #120 I believe, is
actually gray and not ND.

-Mike

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 
From: "Michael Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone use Singh-Ray gold and blue polarizer?

I have both cokin and hitech filters for my P holder. Honestly I don't see
any difference in my prints between the two. They are both resin filters. If
anything the hitech's scratch easier. If you're looking to get a split ND,
buy the hitech as it's a true ND where the cokin.... #120 I believe, is
actually gray and not ND.

-Mike 
...

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 
From: "Alan Kerr" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone use Singh-Ray gold and blue polarizer?

Alex, The Hitech filters are of a higher optical quality than the Cokin filter.
A lot of local Pro's here use them and swear by them. I avoid filters where
possible but when I need them the last thing I want is a filter that
compromises quality so I tend to go for higher quality filters but are often
shocked by the price. The Hitech filters offer Pro quality at a reasonable
price. They are available at B&H if you want to check them out. A word of
caution, many of these square filters are made of optical resin as opposed to
glass. These are very easy to scratch so handle with care.

Alan

From nikon mailing list:
From: "Mark Smith" [email protected]
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] OT: Hard-soft ND Grad filters on landscapes

Hi to all. Finally I'm preparing to buy a decent ND Grad filter, to use on a
Nikon AF 20-35mm. I love to watch those amazing landscapes of Gallen Rowell
and other photographers that really know how to use them. Altough sometimes
Gallen abused a little too much for my taste... :-) Anyway the Cokin P
holder is the option (I will cut the external slots to avoid vignetting) and
the brand I'm looking is Hi-Tech (Singh-Ray are too expensive for me,
especially that I would have to import them from US...). But I heard several
times to say that Hi-Tech hard-edge is as "soft" as other manufacturers
soft-edge, being quite subtile (as I want it to be). I would like to ask if
any of you has experience with Hi-Tech hard- soft edge filters, and which is
better if one is looking for a all- around ND Grad with not too obvious
signs of a filter being used. 

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 
From: "Alan Kerr" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hitech setup

Alex, I would start with one holder which will hold Cokins round filters (i.e.
a polarizer) and a couple of square/rectangle filters stacked (something I
never do, I'm strictly a one filter person). If it is only for GND filters you
definitely won't need more than one holder. You will need two or three modular
hoods. These clip together and you build a hood to suit the lens you are using
i.e one hood for wide-angle, two for mid-range lenses and three joined together
for tele's. You will also need a Cokin lenscap to fit. Some people leave a ring
attached permanently to each lens, if you do this you will need a cap for each
ring. I'm sure others will add to this. Remember if any of your lenses have
rotating front elements to break the we tag out of the holder so you can hold
it to stop it turning with the lens. BTW has anyone tried dropping a screw-in
type filter into the first slot on the holders (the one for Cokin round
filters)? I'm just wondering if they fit. At present I have no holder to try
it, I've just been holding my GND's in front of the lens with reasonable
success but only trouble is I can't fit a hood.   

Alan

 ----- Original Message -----
  From: Alex Z
  To: [email protected]
  Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002
  Subject: Re: [Minolta] Hitech setu

  Thanks Alan, but due to my absence of knowledge in this area, I have troubles
to figure out what I need to build basic setup Cokin/Hitech setup.

  All my current lenses are 77mm, so I guess I'll need only one adapter ring, right ?
  Then I'll need a few holders and filters, of course.
  Anything missing ?
  Alex

  Alan Kerr [email protected] wrote:

  Alex, Hitech make a range of filters that fit Cokin holders and another
  range that fit their own holders. There own version is thinner than the
  Cokin series, I'm not 100%sure if this makes a difference. Have a look on
  Ebay for the holders, sometimes they offer whole kits minus filters at great
  prices. B&H usually have everything you would need. Go through and price
  everything before you start and don't get caught out like a friend of mine
  who bought Sing-Ray filters then had to buy rings, holder, hood etc. which
  were very expensive. The best value is probably getting Cokin holder , rings
  etc. then getting the Hitech series that fits these.

  Alan Kerr

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 
From: "Magnus Wedberg" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin vs Hitech filters

>  And they scratched easily - how do
>   you store them? I found that the plastic boxes had a habit of
>   opening at the wrong time and letting the filter float ab
> out in my bag and get scratched.

A friend of mine, who is a VERY heavy Cokin user, uses a soft
MiniDisc holder (the kind where four discs are on one "page" and you
can flip between pages). It seems that Cokin filters are about the
same size as MD media... this is just anecdotal, I have never used
Cokin filters much, YMMV, and so on, but it may be worth researching
anyway.

--
Magnus Wedberg
http://mw.9000.org/ 

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 
From: "Gennady Korpachev [email protected] 
Subject: Re: Cokin filter storage

I use a CD case for carrying Cokin filters too.
One more tip for you... Look for a case with white pages.
It will help you to distinguish filters more easily.

Regards,
Gennady Korpachev. 

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 
From: Ze'ev Kantor [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Cokin filter storage

Cokin have a 10-pcs boxes for storing and carrying up to 10 filters in baox.
Filters are ceparated. I bought them, I think from Adorama vie the net. Here is
a snip from the order:

Item=COKIN STORAGE BOX A (10)    A305 Qty=2 Price=$6.50
....

Thank You
Tobias - Adorama [email protected]
Adorama Camera Inc
42 West 18'th St. New York, NY 10011
Tel# (800) 223-2500 x253 or (212) 741-0052 x253 Fax# (212) 463-7223
www.adorama.com   

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 
From: "Alan Kerr" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin vs Hitech filters

Bill thanks for that. I've been asking some questions on a group for NZ pro
photographers because I know a lot of them use Hitech filters and was told
the Hitech filters are  made of the similar stuff as the X-pro Cokin
filters. Cokin may claim to have developed it (and they may well have) but
this same resin is used in some of the higher quality eyeglasses also, it is
used by many companies. Hearing of others experiences with Cokin filters I'm
thinking there is properly little difference in 1st/2nd generation CR-39 and
3rd generation CR-39 though quality control is properly stricter for the
higher quality resin.  

>> Think of it as very similar to plastic eyeglasses (shatterproof type). They
> are not glass like with the Hoya and B &W lines.

the polarizing filters are made of mineral glass as opposed to organic
glass. I have Jean Coquin's (Cokins founder) sitting on my knee and are
reading from that. Anyway enough on filters from me.

Alan Kerr 
...

from minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 
From: "Alan Kerr" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Cokin vs Hitech filters

>Antony,
IIRC Singh Ray filters are C39 Resin plastic.

exactly. I don't know if I'd buy them even if I was making a good living from
photography. I don't find them any better than what I have at half the price.
David Kilpatrick (Minolta Image) didn't have very nice things to say about
Sing-Ray filters either. He said in tests they did they didn't perform so
great. On the other hand he had good results with Hitech filters. I can't
remember if he tested Cokin but I presume he did. I think I saved his post but
it is on my other computer, I'll check later and if I have it I'll repost it.

Alan Kerr 

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 
From: "Michael Hohner" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin vs Hitech filters

Wayne Naughton wrote:

>And you're right, organic glass is a form of plastic.

... and that's what really counts. It scratches up easily, and it's
completely uncoated. Say hello to flare. And Cokin says you can't rub
off the color. I can show a t-shirt with a nice orange spot that
appeared after cleaning an orange Cokin filter...

Seriously, I don't recommend Cokin filters except the graduate filters.
For normal color filtering I recommend using something else.

---
Michael Hohner
[email protected]

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 
From: "Alan Kerr" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hitech setup

Alex, Hitech make a range of filters that fit Cokin holders and another
range that fit their own holders. There own version is thinner than the
Cokin series, I'm not 100%sure if this makes a difference. Have a look on
Ebay for the holders, sometimes they offer whole kits minus filters at great
prices. B&H usually have everything you would need. Go through and price
everything before you start and don't get caught out like a friend of mine
who bought Sing-Ray filters then had to buy rings, holder, hood etc. which
were very expensive. The best value is probably getting Cokin holder , rings
etc. then getting the Hitech series that fits these.

Alan Kerr

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 
From: "Bill P. [email protected]
Subject: Re: removing a filter

Another idea is to use one of the rubber discs that your wife has in
the kitchen to remove jar tops....they work great on a stuborn
filter. Cheers! Bill

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens protective filters
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003

"Joseph Meehan" [email protected] wrote:

>    As far as I know most glass does not pass a lot of UV light and that
>includes most glass used in sunglasses.  However, the source of this
>information I have seen is related to UV damage done to eyes, photo and art
>work and thing like drapes in the home.
>
>    I suspect that much of the longer UV near visible may not be filtered
>out effectively and while the amount and the wave length of the light may
>not cause the damage that concerns the general public, I suspect it is
>enough to have a photographic effect.
>
>    That is a project I would like to research and I hope to find the time
>to do both book and practical research.  So until then, I can't agree or
>disagree.

Then it is best not to state that UV has an effect
on most photos shot in daylight...;-) I think a simple
2-frame slide-film shooting of a distant scene with
no change except for filter/no-filter is useful (making
sure to use a UV filter with no visible color!!!). I
think you will see both no "haze penetration", and no
"image degradation" under most *common* conditions with
the use of a good-quality colorless UV filter...;-)

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003
From: Avogadro [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens protective filters

...(quotes above posting)

>    And I have seldom seen any aparent difference in sharpness or flare, I
>have tried over and over to keep in mind that there is a difference in some
>effect and a noticable or objectional effect.

Sure ... "there is a difference in some effect and a noticable or
objectional effect" ...

Okay, try this. Shoot a sunset, with the bright sun plainly in the
upper part of the picture, off to one side a bit, and a dark
foreground. Shoot it with and without a filter.

When you get the shots back from the processor, check out the pic with
the filter. It's the one with the sun ghost in the lower part of the
picture, opposite the actual sun.

Avogadro

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens protective filters
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 

 Dave Moore [email protected] wrote:

>"The Dave�" [email protected] wrote:
>
>>When I got back into photography a few years ago, I fell for this.  I bought
>>2 lenses and paid $30 each for UV filters.  I do buy into the protection
>>idea, but if I had only known I could've gotten the same filters for less
>>than $8 each on eBay, I could've saved $44+/-.
>
>Not necessarily. I haven't checked eBay, but there are coated and uncoated
>filters. Generally, (but not always), coated filters cost considerably more.
>Unfortunately, sometimes it can be difficult to even determine which ones are
>coated.

Actually, there are uncoated, single-coated, and multicoated

filters. Uncoated is not terrible (surprise!;-); I prefer
single-coated for their ease of cleaning; multicoating is
not especially useful for filters. Filter coating types are
easy to identify: uncoated look uncolored in their
reflections; single-coated look very moderately colored in
their reflections; multicoated look very colored in their
reflections (usually green).

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003
From: Robert Marvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: Medalist Filters

Series VI filters. which BTW are unthreaded, drop into the front of
the lens and are held in place with either a Series VI retaining ring
or a Series VI lens shade--a very clever design. Most other cameras
require an adaptor ring instead of taking series filters directly.
Kodak Medalists originally came with a retaining ring in place--if
you can't see the lens threads, its still there and you just have to
remove it to drop in your filter.

Bob Marvin

Frank Vincent wrote:
>Does anyone know how to use filters with the Kodak Medalist I?  Is there an
>andapter?  Is there a Cokin adapter that will work?  All I know is that they
>take Series VI filters.

Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
From: Helge Nareid [email protected]
Date: 13 Oct 2002 

"Richard Knoppow" [email protected] wrote 
> "Roger" [email protected] wrote 
>> Xosni wrote:
>> > I'm fed up with those Hoya filters. I want to try quality filters
>> > now- I'm talking specifically about #29 (dark red) filter for B&W.
>> > Where can I get Schneider or Rodenstock filters in the US (VA)? And
>> > which offer the best quality?
>>
>> Hmmm...tests I've seen suggest that filters make next to no difference
>> to optical quality.  It's very easy to make a flat piece of glass.
>> Obviously avoid anything that's loose in its mount or isn't coated on
>> both sides.
>> --
>> Roger
>>
>   I'm not so sure its that easy to make an absolutely plane
> parallel sheet of glass.

It most certainly is not. A good one-sided optical flat is a very expensive
item - a two-sided flat with no wedging even more so. Of course, that all
depends on your definition of "flat", if you look at scientific optics, we
would want less than 1/10 wavelength - a more "relaxed" specification is
1/4 wavelength. I have had occassion to order optical windows on a few
occassions - plane parallell BK7 (or "garden variety" optical glass) cost
about $300 each for 120mm diameter 15mm thickness and 1/4 wavelength
surface precision if memory serves me right (it is a couple of years ago,
and I no longer have access to the paperwork). I can't remember the wedge
specification of those, but it was not too stringent. The cost is _not_ the
glass, but the flatness specification (and the wedge specification).

> Good filter glass must be very
> homogeneous and free of wedging. Both will disturb the
> optical path if they exist.

It depends on the type of filter, but I would expect homogeneity not to be
a problem for modern optical filter glasses. Wedging is normally not that
much of a problem - in a number of applications a small amount of wedging
(say a few arc minutes) is actually beneficial in that it reduces the
effects of multiple reflections between the surfaces (highly parallell
plane glass surfaces form a rather effective interferometer - which you do
not want in a photographic component).

>   Actually, a slightly loose mounting is not a problem:
> since the glass is flat it has no optical axis to disturb.

A slightly loose mounting is a sign of a well-designed filter. An optical
element should _never_ be restrained by the outer edges when mounted,
because of the differences in thermal expansion coefficients between the
glass and the mount material. The correct way is to restrain it by the
outer area of the optical surfaces. With spherical surfaces, it is fairly
easy to make a mount which will center the element and hold it securely
without movement - unfortunately this is not that easy with flat surfaces.
If an optical element is subjected to radial stresses when mounted, there
is serious risk of stress birefringence, which is _very_ detrimental to
optical quality. In severe cases, such stresses could also cause damage to
the glass.

The cost of well-designed mounting is one of the hidden cost of expensive
photographic lenses. It is not particularly glamorous, and you seldom (if
ever) see it in advertisements, but it is very important when designing a
high-quality lens. It is also expensive.

>   I also would be interested in knowing what is wrong with
> Hoya filters. Hoya makes optical glass and should be able to
> make very good filters.

Indeed. Hoya is one of the largest manufacturers of optical glass in the
world, and the largest in Japan (which means it makes its way into a lot of
Japanese-made lenses). It is also one of the largest manufacturers of
filter glass in the world. As a matter of fact, quite a few of Japanese
brand-name (as in camera brand names) filters have designations which are
identical to the corresponding Hoya glass. There are others, but optical
designers normally have at least two sets of glass and filter catalogues to
hand on their desks - Schott and Hoya.

Back to photographic filter suppliers. I have had good experiences with B+W
filters (glass supplied by Schott I believe), they appear to be very well
finished and mounted. Hoya filters also appears well-made, but my very
subjective impression is that their mounts are not as good as B+W. I am not
aware of either Schneider or Rodenstock manufacturing their own line of
filters with the exception of centre filters for wide-angle large-format
lenses.

 Helge Nareid
  Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland

From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters?
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002

Helge Nareid [email protected] wrote:
> I am not aware of either Schneider or Rodenstock manufacturing their own
> line of filters with the exception of centre filters for wide-angle
> large-format lenses.

B+W is part of the Schneider group.

Rodenstock filters are made by Heliopan. The same great filters in the
same awful plastic boxes, only the paper differs.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de

From: [email protected] (Steve Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Help getting filter
Date: 31 Oct 2002

[email protected] says...
>
>I'm looking for sheets of a filter material in thicknesses of 1mm or under, of
>like BG38, BG39, BG40, or equivalent to lop off the response of arrays of
>silicon sensors to 850-1060nm signals.
>
>Does anyone know of someone that would have the material, on the shelf, and
>low cost?
>
>Thank you very much, in advance.

I haven't looked much, but for custom shapes & sizes, Newport Industrial Glass
(http://www.newportglass.com/home.htm) has done well by me.  For stock sizes,
Rolyn (http://www.rolyn.com) has the best prices in the USA.
--
Best regards,
Steve Eckhardt
[email protected]

From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: "Anders Bj�rklund" [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Homemade contrast filters

...

I have been using filters printed with a color laserprinter on transparencies
for a while. I use them for my regular 6x6 enlarger, but i suppose one could
make any size of these filters up to A4 / letter size easily. The thin
plastic films would need some kind of support as the size increases i guess.
This has not been a poblem for me with 6x6 cm filters..

Magenta and yellow are readily available in the printer, so theres no need
for mixing colors. Just make several filters with for example 20%, 40%, 80%,
100% magenta and the same for yellow. Calibrating for different contrast is a
matter of experimenting...

From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 
From: Edward Lukacs [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters!

I have several sets of russian filters in 40.5mm, 46mm, 49mm and 52mm.
Almost all are Lytkarino. Tyey are just fine! I also have a polarizer in 52mm,
and it works just fine. I would say that the quality of the filters is as good
as that of their lenses, which puts them on a par with any high quality
glass filters.

Regards,
Ed Lukacs

From: "Norman Worth" [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: Filter History
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 

Filters have been around since before photography. They were used both for
selective viewing (as in astronomy and microscopy) and for coloring light.
Early filters were based either on colored glass or on colored solutions.
These are still both used. Wratten developed the use of dyed geletin for
filters early in the 20th century. The gelatin is either used by itself or
is cemented between planes of optical glass for protection. Later yet,
interference filters were developed. The principle was known since the 19th
century and was used for some special scientific applications, but it was
not until the 1950s when thin film manufacturing techniques were developed
well enough to make these filters common.

One of the most famous early uses of filters in photography was Maxwell's
production of a color image in the mid 19th century by using color
separations through solution filters.

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Selecting & Using Your Essential Filters.
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 

Here is an interesting atricle on this subject.
http://www.usefilm.com/articles/EssentialFilters/

Cody H.

From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cleaning a Multicoated Hoya 77mm Skylight Filter
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 

There is at least one brand of cleaner on the market specifically for
Multi-coats: Formula MC by Peco products. There may be others. I think the
PEC wipes are about as important as the fluid. Both are available from
Porters but I would assume B&H or Adorama would have them too. Porter's
still sends a newsprint catalog out every now and again, which I can peruse
at my leisure and away from the computer, consequently they are the ones who
sell me the weird stuff.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
"Allen S. Lefohn" [email protected] wrote 
> Tony:
>
> Are there lens cleaners designed for multicoated filters that you would
> recommend? David has suggested soap detergent. Are there others specific
> cleaners recommended? I have a methanol-based lens cleaner that appears
> to be designed for non multicoated filters. My camera dealer recommended
> against using a alcohol-based lens cleaner because he felt that it would
> take the multicoat off the filter. I could not find any instructions
> that came with the Hoya filter to explain how to clean the filter.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Allen

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Multicoated Lens Filters
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 

Colyn [email protected] wrote:
>[email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:
[...]
>>My main complaints about Tiffen are not the lack of
>>coating, but the "self-fogging" effect (odd, but I have
>>observed this for years with different eras of Tiffen
>>filters - after about 3-6 months, a uniform fogging needs
>>to be cleaned off, whether the filter is in any kind of box,
>>or on a lens...),

>I only have one Tiffen filter (red #25) and have nver had the fogging
>effect you speak of.. Maybe its the area you live in..or are you a
>smoker??

No. Check yours carefully, at an angle in good light, or
with a small light shining through it. The fog is enough
to diffuse images noticeably, but not overwhelmingly...

>and the poor rims...
>>
>My filter seems to be built pretty good..

The Tiffen filter rims are unusually deep, making their
use on many wide-angles unwise...

>I have various makes of filters. Some were given to me and most I
>never use..But my overall experience with filters is the expensive
>ones are no better than the cheaper ones..

I agree, with the exception of Tiffen and REALLY cheap
ones...

>They are all made of optical glass except the very cheaply made
>plastic (Cokin) ones with simular properties..

Tiffen are often sandwiches of two sheets of glass
and a color layer instead of being dyed-glass, a
preferable form - and many are uncoated, unlike most
others. I prefer single-coated Hoya filters as
"good enough"...

David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From: Don Stauffer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Multicoated Lens Filters
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 

I tend to not believe this. A piece of uncoated glass can have about a
5% reflectance. Say we have a scene with about a 1000:1 contrast. That
is not unreasonable for a sunlit scene, even conservative. Say film
surface is also 5% (I think this is even low for film- I'd guess most
are about 10 %. Anyway, a single reflection from film to uncoated
surface gives us 0.25% of light from highlight back on film. But 0.1 is
amount of light in shadow detail, so flare is 2.5 times shadow exposure.

Now, what about focusing or defocusing? A flat plate perpendicular
actually AUTOCOLLIMATES, so flare light IS focused near edges of
highlights. So if you have a shadow right next to highlight, it WILL see
flare.

Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>  "jriegle" [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>I agree. Hold a lens up towards a bright window, but not directly at it and
>>look into the camera end. You should see faint reflections off the coatings.
>>Now hold an uncoated filter in front. You should see a large increase in
>>reflections. With a multi coated filter, there will be increased reflections
>>but not nearly as much as the filter with no AR coatings. So in my test, AR
>>coated filters do reduce reflections. Does this mean it will make a
>>difference on film? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the lens and lighting
>>situation.
>>
>>A lighting situation that caused annoying flare in a shot may still have
>>shown some flare even without a filter attached so it is best to avoid these
>>situations if possible.
>
>
> If you figure the percentage of "flare light" introduced
> by even an uncoated filter compared with the total light
> going through the lens, the amount is almost always below
> the threshold for shadow exposure on the film, and is
> not seen... In conditions where the added light is not
> diffuse (when light sources are much brighter than the
> rest of the image, and are relatively small in the image),
> the filter coating can make a difference, but it is
> slight...
> David Ruether
> [email protected]
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
[email protected]
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

From: "Joseph Meehan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rating filters
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003

I can tell you this.  The professional level filters are just that,
professional level.  That would include a number of non-professionals who
operated on a professional level.  However the lesser brands generally give
results that are not different in the eyes of 95% of the population.

    A Porsche is a very good car, but few for most of us a Miata will do
quite nicely and get us where we are going. The Porsche is just not worth
the money.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rating filters
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 

Short answer is "yes", but it is a matter of degree.
  I've been buying Hoya Multi-coats for many years now and they are all
excellent filters. However there are cheaper Hoyas without multi-coating and
cheaper yet without any coating that I do not buy. I have some Tiffens that
I bought used for a buck each - that was a good price for them, as they are
not coated. Anything I use a lot has been replaced with a Hoya Multicoat.
   I have one B+W filter, because Hoya does not make a 10 stop ND filter. It
works pretty well but, like the Tiffens I have to be careful as it's not
coated.
  A lot of people say the German made filters like B+W and Heliopan are
better, but the only actual quality difference they can quote is that the
brass filter rings are less likely to stick than Hoya's aluminium ring -
since I've never had a filter stick to a lens, I don't worry about it.
  Cheap filters tend to be gels sandwiched between window glass - I never
buy them for any reason. House brands like Quantary, Promaster, Sunpak, and
all sorts of others tend to be made by the lowest bidder. I could buy a good
one today, and in a year they will have found some Chinese coke bottler to
make the same filter for less. The price difference is frequently very
little, and I know my Hoyas are good.

--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto

From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 
From: Francis Corvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] How to differentiate between a circular and a linear polarizer

 you wrote:

>Hi,
>I have been a mostly observing member of the list for the past two
>years. However, do to the results of aging, I am changing from Nikon
>manual focus to auto focus. In the process, I may or may not need to
>change my polarizers. I don't know whether they are circular or linear
>because I purchased them used. Is there a way to determine which
>polarizers I now own?

Put the polariser against a mirror. If you can't see through (i.e., total
black), it is a circular polariser. If you can see through (even though
darker), it is a linear polariser.

Regards,

Francis

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 
To: [email protected]
From: Francis Corvin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Nikon] How to differentiate between a circular and a linear polarizer

you wrote:

> > Hi,
> > I have been a mostly observing member of the list for the
> > past two years. However, do to the results of aging, I am
> > changing from Nikon manual focus to auto focus. In the
> > process, I may or may not need to change my polarizers. I
> > don't know whether they are circular or linear because I
> > purchased them used. Is there a way to determine which
> > polarizers I now own?
>
>Yup. That was the tip of the week from December 29 last year :-)
>
>http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/20021229.html

Much better than my explanation! But longer to read ;)

Regards,

Francis

From: Peter Rosenthal [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sat 3/15/2003  
To: [email protected]  
Subject: Re: [HUG] HOYA vs. B+W or others ?

Hoya makes glass for a LOT of different companies. Some of which would
surprise you. Or maybe not. What these companies do with the glass is
another issue.

I've taken it upon myself, as a hobby of sorts, to test just about
every skylight and UV filter that comes into my shop. Mostly
interference tests with a reference plate I made when I was making
telescope mirrors. In terms of percentage the best filters (flat glass,
no wedge: I can't test for band-pass) are Hoya, Tiffen and a surprising
third place B&W. The Korean filters are so bad that I don't even have
to test them anymore. I can just look through them and see the
aberrations. To my surprise, not only are they not coated but they
don't filter anything either. Just plain old clear, really wavy glass.
The bad ones run in the 70% range. I've not seen a bad Hoya or Tiffen
filter in the past 25 years. I have seen a few bad, two I think, B&W's.
But Oh, those brass ring mounts. I love to just hold them. Just to be
fair I've seen several B&W filters that were near perfect. They would
have made good reference plates themselves. Nikon and Canon filters
have proven to be good. I suspect many companies buy seconds from Hoya
or Tiffen and put their names on them. They have to go somewhere! There
are several standard deviations of poor to fair to good filters with
familiar and unfamiliar names on them. Tiffen and Hoya filters are at
what they want them to be. I haven't seen enough Heliopan filters to
say anything useful.

What I determine is BAD is only my opinion and not based on any sort of
objective standard. I stopped writing down the results of my tests
about 15 years ago. Gets tedious.

Just my opinion...

Peter
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779 5263

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 
From: "Dave Farmer" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin Filters

Michael,

The 'levels' are not quality levels as such - just size differences.
There is the 'A' system of 67mm square filters which is OK for lenses
as wide as 35mm and with a filter thread of something around 62mm or
less (anyone confirm that?), the 'P' system - 83.5mm square - which
will cope with up to 82mm filter thread and wider angles - depending
on the lens it seems that the cut-off comes between about 20mm and
28mm focal length, and then there's the 'X-Pro' system which is
huge.. 130mm wide filters for bl**dy big lenses!

As far as my research can uncover, the quality is OK but not as good
as the (much) more expensive Lee system. Hi-Tech filters seem to be
good quality but closer to Cokin in price (I am going for the cheap
cokin holder and adapters and some Hi-Tech filters to fit it). If you
want neutral density then the word on the street is that Cokin 'grey'
does not fit the bill - they impart colour casts apparently.

My view is that at the price of the holders and adapters, it's worth
giving them a go with a coupld of filters. If you like the idea you
will be in a better position to decide whether to upgrade to the
expensive stuff or not. If you can't get on with them then you've not
wasted a vast amount of your hard-earned dosh!

Cheers,

Dave.

--- In [email protected], "Michael L. Washington" mlwsgw@a... wrote:
> Could anyone with familiarity with the Cokin system give me their opinion on
> it (ease of use, quality, versatility, etc.) compared with "regular"
> filters. Are there not a couple of levels in the system i.e. consumer level
> and a pro level?
>
> M

From: "Mark A" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B&W filters
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003

"Bob Oehler" [email protected] wrote
> My mind is going I can feel it
> so said Hal 2001
>
> It has been so long since I did any serious B&W work that I can not
> for the life of me remember what color (number) filters do what to the
> image.
>
> The one in specific is the one that brings out clouds (not polarizing)
> etc. and How many f-stop #'s do you need to compensate for this??
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Bob Oehler

For that you want, a minus-blue filter--yellow, orange, or red (in
increasing effect on making the blue sky darker and removing atmospheric
haze).

There are many variations of each filter. For example, yellow varies from
light yellow (wratten 3) to deep yellow (wratten 15), orange varies from
wratten 16 to wratten 23. Most red filters are about wratten 25 or higher.

In addition, each film behaves a little differently (Kodak TMAX films are
different than most other films), there are separate adjustments needed for
daylight vs. tungsten lighting, and even in daylight the time of day
(mid-day vs. evening) and geography (coastal region vs. high desert) affects
the compensation needed. In addition, not all filter manufacturers use the
wratten system or they don't use it accurately. Therefore, it is advised to
do your own testing.

The film manufacturer usually publish the filter factors for each film, so
check their web site. But here are some typical adjustments. Note these are
"filter factors," not f-stops. A filter factor of 2 is one stop, factor of 4
is 2 stops, and factor of 8 is 3 stops, etc.

No. 8 (yellow) daylight 2, Tungsten 1.5

No. 21 (orange) daylight 4, tungsten 2.5

No. 25 (red) daylight 8, tungsten 5

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 
From: Mark Beauchamp [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: welding lens

Belle Long wrote:
> I am still going through these boxes of dads , In his camera bag I found 2
> colored welding lens one is shade 12 the other is shade 8 so what the heck
> would he had used these for , maybe nothing they just happened to be in
> there since he did not weld I just could not think of why he would use
> them in photography
>
>
> Belle

They can be used as contrast viewing filters. This is a very old trick
used in cinematography. After you have lit a set, with tungsten or HMI
lights, you look at it through a piece of welding glass to judge the
contrast, mostly it tells where your shadows or highlights fall. I also
see gaffers use them to look right into the lights, think 5Kw, 10Kw,
18kw lights, to see if they are on spot or flood before asking one of
his guys to spot or flood it.

If your dad was lighting with tungsten lights he might have been using
them for this purpose. Something you can't with strobes or flashes.

--Mark

From: Nick Zentena [email protected]
Subject: Re: Filters on a Protar VII
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003

Michael Dowdall [email protected] wrote:
> I have a Zeiss Protar VII 'D' set of lenses mounted in a barrel. I've read
> that useing a #15 yellow filter helps to reduce aberations. So I've looked
> around and have yet to find a screw on filter that will fit. What do those
> of you that use these lenses use in the way of filters?

For my barrel lenses I've pieced together a Tiffen MCS system. It hasn't
been sold new for awhile so I had to get it NOS off Ebay. When I first saw
the auction it looked like it would do the trick but I was kind of wondering.
I skipped it. Eventually it got relisted at a price that rolling the dice
made sense. I've managed to put together a system that can hold
49mm,58mm,67mm,3x3,4x4 and the tiffen MCS filters on any lens with an
outside diameter smaller then 100mm. The adapters I got use three screws to
tighten onto the outside of the lens. Then you add any of the other system
pieces on to that. It's all magnetic. I don't know what everything cost me
but it's not much more then the Lee gelsnap with one set of filters would
have been. It's also a lot more flexible.

Nick

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Filters on a Protar VII
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 

...
"Michael Dowdall" [email protected] wrote
> I have a Zeiss Protar VII 'D' set of lenses mounted in a barrel. I've read
> that useing a #15 yellow filter helps to reduce aberations. So I've looked
> around and have yet to find a screw on filter that will fit. What do those
> of you that use these lenses use in the way of filters?

The best method is to use a push on or clamp on filter
adaptor. However, there is another problem here. When a
single element of a convertible lens is used it should be
behind the stop for best correction. That means that the
filter will have to be fitted either on the front of the
shutter or barrel, or on the back of the lens. If its on the
back of the lens the quality of the filter becomes critical.
The best filters for use there are plain gelatin filters.
You may have to makeshift a filter holder.
None of these old lenses has a standardized thread as do
modern lenses.
The color correction of the Zeiss Convertible Protar cells
is actually very good. Mine shows no color fringing and is
quite sharp without filters.
While best performance is had by using the cell in back of
the stop is is slightly retrofocus that way and
significantly less bellows draw is needed when the lens is
mounted in front of the stop. This is usually necessary only
with very long focal lengths where the slight degradation of
the image away from the center is of little significance.
The Protar is a surprizingly good lens.
There is some controversey about the relative merits of
Zeiss vs: Bausch & Lomb versions of this lens. My suspicion
is that production variations are greater than any inherent
difference. The two are not interchangible, however.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From nikon mailing List:
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 
From: Rick Mili [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Pitch of filters

I recently purchased a Hoya skylight filter (1B) for one of my NIKON
lenses. I just noticed a sticker on the edge that indicates the diameter
(52 mm) as well as:

PITCH: 0.75

I have never before come across this term in this context. Does anyone know
what it means?

Rick

From nikon mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Pitch of filters
From: Ian Goodrick [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Rick Mili wrote:
> I recently purchased a Hoya skylight filter (1B) for one of my NIKON
> lenses. I just noticed a sticker on the edge that indicates the diameter
> (52 mm) as well as:
>
> PITCH: 0.75
>
> I have never before come across this term in this context. Does anyone know
> what it means?

The pitch refers to the thread of the filter, and is a measure of the
distance between 2 peaks, (or troughs) of the thread.

AFAIK all filters have the same pitch, give or take manufacturing
tolerances.

Ian

From nikon mailing list:
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Pitch of filters

[email protected] writes:

> The pitch refers to the thread of the filter, and is a measure of the
> distance between 2 peaks, (or troughs) of the thread.
>
> AFAIK all filters have the same pitch, give or take manufacturing
> tolerances

Actually, though I'm no expert, they don't all have the same pitch. Leitz
lenses/filters have a different pitch from whatever is the norm. I'd guess
that most ordinary lenses/filters are the same, but I'd love to have a
definitive answer from somebody out there.

Rolf in Toronto

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 
From: Joe B [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ensign 12-20 filters?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

Steve Bell wrote
> I've had an Ensign 12-20 with the Ross Expres 75mm F3.5 lens for some time
> now, just starting to use it again. I'm looking for the best option to use
> with a red filter for B&W photography. The lens hood will incorporate a
> filter about 31mm diameter, but I've only been able to source a green glass
> filter for it. Actina 32mm push on filters almost fit, too tight. Kodak size
> 320 do fit, but I I've only found a haze filter in this fitting. How do
> other users of folding cameras overcome this problem, is it best to cut a
> celluloid filter to size, continue looking for suitable older types or just
> hold a modern Hoya filter in front of the lens hood?
>
> Steve Bell

I make a point of collecting filters and hoods for this sort of camera since
I have a number of them and I like using contrast filters for black and
white. Most dealers wont bother selling small old filters like this that are
not worth much money but there are some places that will, I can think of two
here in the UK, Vintage Cameras and Marriott Photo-Cine, both are vintage
camera specialists. If you are in the UK then these are your best bet,
although red filters are harder to get in this type. If a 32mm filter (the
commonest size used in my experience with old folders) almost fits then it
might be that it does fit once you bend it out a little. These filters and
hoods were not a perfect fit and usually need to be adjusted slightly. If it
has two parallel slots on the rim close to one another, that makes a tab
which can be bent in (carefully) to make the filter or hood fit more tightly.
Consequently it may also be possible to make it fit a little more loosely
too. However and FWIW my Ensign Autorange 1620 (with Ross Xpres lens)
doesn't accept a 32mm push-on- it is definitely too small, and the hood I
have for it seems to be more like 34mm. Cutting to size a piece of polyester
photo filter (from Lee filters for example) will give you a filter that can
be used under (and kept on the lens by) a clear filter. I've done this
sometimes, as long as all surfaces are clean it works well, although
obviously with uncoated surfaces and used on old lenses, the fewer extra
surfaces involved the better. Or sometimes you can attach a piece of
polyester with small pieces of tape, depending on the lens. Personally I'd
look hard for a filter that fits the lens. BTW many filters of this type
could be taken apart and the glass replaced.

http://www.marriottworld.com/

http://www.vintagecameras.co.uk/ltd/index.htm

BTW with Vintage cameras you really need to phone them and let them look for
this sort of thing and then call you back. It probably isn't listed on the
web page even if they have it. With Marriott, it will be listed if they have it.

From: [email protected] [[email protected]] 
Sent: Wed 6/4/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1966

[email protected] writes:

 Does anyone know where I could get cases for the filters I use for my
Distagon 40? It's a 104mm filter, but it is slightly larger and thicker
than typical filters. 

I think you could make a case out of foam-core board and duct tape that would
do the trick. Just pick some board that is thicker than your filters, cut a
slightly oversize hole in it, glue a solid piece of board on the bottom, and
make a hinged board for the top with a duct-tape hinge. You could easily make
a case to hold 2 filters, or 4 filters, and keep the whole thing closed with a
couple of rubber bands.

As Andreas Finneger (sp?) once said, "We are more concerned about the beauty
of our photographs than about the beauty of our equipment."

Hope this helps. Best regards, David Hodge, Churchville, MD.

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya vs Tiffen Filters
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 

"Tony Spadaro" [email protected] wrote:
> I think he may be talking about fog between the layers of glass. I had a
>Tiffen Pol that fogged internally, and there was nothing I could do about
>it. IT may have been ecause of the damp atmosphere - I did a lot of shooting
>in the Adirondacs that year and it was beginning to look like a rain forest.
> I now have a bunch of Tiffins I bought used about 10 years ago, none of
>which have fogged and I'm not even sure if they are sandwich designs (save
>for the pols. All Pols are sandwiches).

ALL the Tiffen filters in my collection (a surprising
number, given that I don't like Tiffen...;-) "spontaneously"
(as in, without known or obvious cause, whether on a lens,
or in a case - when stored under conditions which do not
cause problems with other filters...) fog, requiring
cleaning before use every few months to remove the haze
from the filter surfaces...
I prefer not to find that I have unintentionally used a
diffusion filter, though...;-)

David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya vs Tiffen Filters
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 

"Reefpup" [email protected] wrote:
>I am just starting to get into filters and I was wondering if some folks
>could tell me their experiences with each of these makers. Basically the
>pros/cons of each. I basically am just looking at circular polarizer and
>neutral density filters at this point. I don't want to spend an arm and a
>leg but at the same time, I don't want to just throught money out the window
>on crappy filters. Just looking for something middle of the road I guess.

I dislike Tiffen filters since they are often uncoated,
can be "sandwiches" instead of single-layer dyed glass,
have very thick rims, but mostly 'cuz they tend to
spontaneously fog and need checking/cleaning when other
filters don't; I like Hoya (single-coated, which is
sufficient for a filter, and FAR easier to clean...)
'cuz they're relatively cheap, have good-enough glass
that I've never seen an ill effect on image sharpness
from using one, and have well-designed rims that
function well and do not cause problems with WA lenses.
I buy Tiffen only when necessary, then often remount
the glass in better rims from junked filters...

David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Mark Rabiner [[email protected]] 
Sent: Mon 6/16/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Multi-coated filters & filter recommendations in general

Snip

If Lee had a line of glass filters I'd give it a second thought.
but it's a round hole - square peg kind of thing... And a big square
peg. A rectangular square peg. Like an index card. 
A house of cards..compare that to the elegance of a Hasselblad filter,
or one made by B&W and Heliopan.
And resin. Just look at them out of the corner of your eye and "where
did that faint pattern of scratches come from?" in no time flat!
That's from looking at them too hard! Oops I brushed my shirtsleeve
against one! Now my pictures have a magical glow in the highlights!
Oh one more thing. Isn't resin a few decimal points down from glass in
it's abilities to transmit light clearly even if it's pristinely clean?
I read an article on Brownie cameras which used non glass elements and
that's what it said. Also said the USA is far and away (that's past
infinity) the leader of resin and plastic lenses.

Grad? I already Graded. And I ain't going back. Except to teach maybe.
None of my favorite photographers used grads the major example being
Ansel Adams.

Grad photos seem to look like Grad photos. They become overGraded. I
like underGrad phots. Freshman who've not declared their major yet.

A question is what does this have to do with Zeiss Glass for Hasselblad?
The way I see it nothing! Putting resin in from of Zeiss glass seems to
me pretty obviously absurd! Gives me the heebie jeebies!
I am an pretty good in Resin though having read a wood boat building
book to help me build my latest darkroom sink of resin coated wood,
A wooden boat keeps the water out. A wooden darkroom sink keeps the
water in.

It was put together with resin. Then coated with it. I had all kinds of
additives i could potentially play with. Slow hardeners� by the way the
resin is much stronger than any screws or nails you've put your sink
together with. You could take those all out after the resin dries and
your sink would be held together less than a fraction of a percentage
point less. They are really in effect useless but good for getting the
wood together tightly while the resin dries .
http://www.westsystem.com/

Adhesive Fillers, fairing fillers. Aluminum powder, graphite powder:

"423 Graphite Powder is a fine black powder that can be mixed with WEST
SYSTEM epoxy to produce a low-friction exterior coating with increased
scuff resistance and durability. Epoxy/graphite is commonly used as a
bearing surface, and as a coating on rudders and centerboards, or on the
bottoms of racing craft that are dry sailed. It does not provide
antifouling qualities. The epoxy/graphite mixture can also be used in
teak deck construction to simulate the look of traditional seams and to
protect the epoxy from sunlight. Cures to a black color. Add to mixed
resin/hardener at the rate of up to 10% by volume (approximately 5.7 oz.
per B group)."

And i was all set too make my own golf clubs!!

And all kinds of spun glass tapes and fabrics which i always didn't have
to use.

My sink is 18 feet long and will print 20x24's. It's had no sing of
leakage or corrosion in the dozen years since I've built it.
I was told all photographers sinks leak. So far not mine.

Love that resin! Resin coated paper for contact sheets. But not on my
Zeiss lenses.

Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.rabinergroup.com

From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Tom Christiansen [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sun 6/15/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Multi-coated filters & filter recommendations in general

Folks,

I'm thinking of buying myself some filters. Specifically polarizer and 81A,
81B. I currently use B+W and Hoya 67mm filters with an adaptor ring to
Bay-60 but I would prefer to use Bay-60 filters to avoid the screwing
around with adaptor rings and stuff...

Does anyone know which filters are multi-coated and which aren't?

I was paging through The Filter Connection's web site (www.2filter.com) and
found the following list:
http://www.2filter.com/faq/facts.html
It claims that filters like Heliopan and B+W aren't multi-coated, which
surprised me as these filters are rather spendy. I was also of the
impression that even the older (non-MRC) B+W filters were multi-coated.
However, it is entirely possible that TFC just wants you to believe that
Hoya filters are as good as the highly renowned brands (which they possibly
are) so they can sell you some of their filters...

What makes one filter better than another? Why do people rave about
Hasselblad and Heliopan filters? What makes them better than the rest of
the crowd? Which filters would you recommend?

Thanks,

Tom

From: Lisa Horton [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Modular Filter Systems Recommendations
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 

First thing to know and remember: Cokin holders OK, Cokin filters not
OK.

The Cokin filters are not of high quality, and the Cokin ND Grads are
not really neutral in color. However, there is nothing particularly
wrong with the Cokin holders.

HiTech, Lee, and Singh-Ray all make high quality resin filters to fit
the Cokin P holders. Lee (at least) also makes a very high quality
(and quite expensive) proprietary filter holder and matching filters.
The advantages of using high quality filters in a Cokin holders are
several. Your filter holder(s) cost next to nothing, comparatively,
and the Cokin P sized filters are cheaper than the larger "regular"
size Lee and HiTech filters. With the low cost of the Cokin P
holders, it's practical to get an extra holder and cut off the outer
filter slots for use with wide angle lenses. Lee also makes a good
quality compendium (bellows) style hood for use with Cokin P holders,
this is VERY useful.

My suggestion would be two Cokin P holders, a Singh-Ray circular
polarizer, and either Singh-Ray or HiTech ND grads, perhaps starting
with a 2 stop soft, then maybe adding a 2 stop hard then a 3 stop. Of
course the good hood should be part of the initial purchase.

If I'm going to be using the filters with more than one lens during a
session, I find it convenient to have adaptor rings on each lens, and
the Cokin adaptor lens caps since the regular lens caps won't fit on
the Cokin adaptor rings.

Lisa

"Yi-Zen Chu; Yiren Qu" wrote:
>
> I'm looking for some filters for my prime lenses and I thought the best
> way to go would be get a filter holder system. I know Cokin but I am
> wondering what else is out there, and what people recommend? Lee? What's
> the difference between Lee and Cokin? Also are there any quality filters
> available for Cokin or Lee other than the common resin ones - I'd guess
> that the surface quality of resin filters cannot be better than a few waves?
>
> Thanks for the suggestions!
>
> Yi-Zen
>
> PS. I'm looking to get polarizers, ND graduated, and maybe a red filter
> for B&W. Any other suggestions for filter newbies like me?

From: [email protected] (Chris Wilkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who makes Jessops Filters?
Date: 6 May 2003 

[email protected] (Chris Wilkins) wrote 
> Who makes Jessops Filters please?
>
> Chris....

I think I've answered my own question.

I rang up Kood Filter who told my that they made Jessops square
filters. The type of filters on offer seem to match the range of
Jessops square filters.

I also notice that Jessops seem to ask a lot more. �22.50 from Kood
compared to �39.99 from jessops for a circular polariser in 'P' size.

Chris..

BTW. Jessops are selling off their Jessops Square filters for half
price but don't tell anyone.

From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who makes Jessops Filters?
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003

T. P. [email protected] wrote:
> There are *several* German suppliers of B&W filters who undercut Hoya
> HMC filter prices by a *huge* margin. 

...and there's a few more selling Heliopan filters at most attractive
prices.

Just like those from B+W, Heliopan filters are made of Schott glass.
They have a very interesting 'slim-line' filter series with very thin
mounting rings allowing their use on wide angle and extreme wide angle
lenses.

Their complete catalogue is online under:

http://www.heliopan.de

I've bought a few Heliopan filters from a German outfit called
'team-foto' on ebay and I've been quite happy with their prices and
service.

The usual disclaimers apply.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de

From: "JanR" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who makes Jessops Filters?
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 

If you can read German, you might want to try www.fotomayr.de/fofilter. They
carry the full Heliopan line, take credit cards, and are cheaper than
www.team-foto.de. And I find their web site easier to navigate as well...

JanR
...

From: new rollei user [email protected]
Subject: Re: The actual diameter of a Bay 6 filter?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 

Thanks for the two replies. I also found this information, which is
specific to B+W filters, but I think it is probably fairly applicable.

http://www.2filter.com/prices/products/bwregsizes.html

B + W FILTER SIZE SPECIFICATIONS FOR REGULAR FILTERS

FILTER SIZE THREAD x PITCH MOUNT O.D. CLEAR APERTURE FRONT THREAD LENS CAP

67E                67 x 0.75     69mm       61.5mm  67 x 0.75        223/29
67EW               67 x 0.75     84mm       65mm/75mm -              223/32
72E                72 x 0.75     74mm       66mm 72 x 0.75           223/30
72EW               72 x 0.75     88.5mm     68mm/80mm -              223/33
BAY  6             n/a           73mm       65mm n/a                 223/30

Thanks

From: Michael Moore [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heliopan filters any good?
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 

T P wrote:
> "Olaf Ulrich" [email protected] wrote:
>>T.P., most what you wrote on B+W vs Heliopan is true
>>except the following:
>>
>>Same glass.
>
> No, that is not true. Every single Heliopan filter uses Schott glass,
> but the same cannot be said of B+W.
>
>>Not true. Both B+W and Heliopan use the same high-
>>quality material for their filter rings---black-anodized
>>brass. No aluminum. No plastic.
>
> I own B+W filters in both aluminium *and* brass rings. There has been
> more than one range of B+W filters, and they *definitely* don't all
> have brass rings. However, the filters sold at my UK B+W dealer *do*
> all have brass rings.

True. In Canada, the ones with aluminum rings are thicker
(i.e. no F-PRO rings), don't have MRC coating, and are a lot
cheaper.

>>I don't know why Heliopan filters usually tend to be
>>sold at slightly cheaper prices but the reason definitely
>>is *not* cheaper materials. I guess it has to do with
>>marketing and distribution---Heliopan filters are not
>>as easy to acquire to the end user as B+W filters
>>because Heliopan seems to rely more on cheaper
>>distribution channels, like e. g. mail-order retailers.
>>I guess that's why Heliopan filters more often than
>>B+W are special-order items ...
>
> Possibly. I think the difference in price is because B+W appeal to
> the professional user who needs to know his/her dealer always has the
> filter he/she needs in stock and is prepared to pay more for that
> service.

There isn't a good stock of B+W filters in Canada. Even in
the U.S., some of the newer filters are not available and
must orders must be filled from stock in Germany.

> Heliopan appeal more to the amateur who is not especially
> disappointed when the filter takes days or weeks to arrive. I have
> never once been disappointed my by B+W dealers in the UK and Germany,
> but if I want to save money I buy from Germany well in advance of
> needing the filters - for example, I replace my most-used filters
> regularly and can easily plan when to do it.
--
M2

From: [email protected] (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are There Any REAL Differences In Filters?
Date: 28 Jul 2003 

it is difficult to make blanket statement about any brand, as there is a
range and some special filters etc., so even some high end filters may
have aluminum rings rather than brass etc. for certain filters or
production run series, so again, high $$ may not reflect the actual filter

In the case of vivitar and similar filters, different batches were done by
different mfgers. Since there isn't a serial number, it is harder to tell
than on a lens who made the filter or when. The same is true of OEM
filters; many don't make their own filters, but just relabel filters made
by others, including some competitors ;-) e.g., my bronica S2/EC filters
made by Asahi Pentax but with the bronica name on it is one example.

the short answer on how do you test filters is you try them out ;-) Some
defects such as non-flatness and strain will show up in longer telephoto
shots easier than other lens shots, but I have yet to find a noticeably
non-flat glass filter. Defects in coatings, glitched filter threads,
delamination, and scratches on the filters are pretty obvious. Filters
that are loose or even rotate in their mountings are not bad, that is done
to reduce strains and stresses in the filters. To get an idea of what a
bad filter is like, use a long telephoto lens and shoot thru some general
window glass, which often has stresses and non-flat areas. You will
probably be able to see what a "bad" filter looks like based on this test!

The biggest problem I see with used filters for sale at camera shows is
lots of fine scratches, which are bad for flare and contrast. Makes you
wonder about the folks who were shooting thru these scratched up filters?
This is why I recommend using lens cap for protection, and only rarely are
clear filters needed for protection (as in blowing sandy desert or beach
areas).

hth bobm

From: T P [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen or Hoya
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 

Michael Moore [email protected] wrote:
>When there is no gap, dirt doesn't get in there in the first place. I
>have relied on evaporation to get rid of the "residual mositure" but
>found that it didn't happen too quickly (more so if you put the filter
>back in its protective case.)

It is a physical impossibility to manufacture metal-rimmed glass
filters without a gap. There is **always** a gap, otherwise
temperature changes would shatter the glass through differential
expansion and contraction of the metal/glass.

>It also seemed to me that in "steamy" environments, more things would
>stick to the Nikon filters than too my B+W filters. But I don't have
>enough data here to be scientific -- I'll have to try again.

Some proprietary lens cleaning fluids leave a thin but very effective
sticky residue which attracts more dust and dirt. The idea is that
you then use *even more* lens cleaning fluid to clean off the dust and
dirt, leaving behind **even more** sticky residue ...

Household detergent is remarkably effective at removing that residue.
It also costs a *tiny fraction* of the price of those lens cleaning
fluids that tend to cause more problems than they solve.

From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Are There Any REAL Differences In Filters?
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 

A number of posters in other threads have stated that they use only certain
brands of filters that are normally considered to be quality brands, i.e.,
B+W, Heliopan, and various camera manufacturers' branded filters. I admit
that I, too, buy only Pentax filters for use on my Pentax prime lenses.

I have read, in several places, that some of these name brand filters are
actually made by other companies. The name "Marumi" has cropped up several
times, as a company that sells its filters re-badged under camera
manufacturers' names. I have also read that some of the thin Pentax filters
are actually made by Minolta. Someone else posted an article earlier today
saying that Rodenstock filters were re-badged Heliopans.

I cannot recall ever seeing any test data that compared one brand of filter
against others. If it is true that filters of one manufacturer are somewhat
routinely re-badged under other names, it would appear that we are being
sold filters at high prices that may be available under other, less
impressive, brand names at much lower prices.

Does anyone have any information about who manufactures what? Also, have
any of the publications ever tested filters and reported the results? Is a
Quanterray filter as good as a Nikon-branded filter? (Might they come from
the same source????)

From: T P [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heliopan filters any good?
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 

"Steven Blake" [email protected] wrote:
>Hi ... I'm in the market for a better quality circular polarizer. Was
>initially thinking about B+W (or Singh-Ray) but don't think I can justify
>the expense. Heard about Heliopan.
>
>Anyone have any comments on quality?

Heliopan and B+W use identical Schott glass for most, but not all
their filters. Basically, Heliopan has similar glass at a lower
price, usually because the filter rings are made of cheaper materials.

Consider the "Kaesemann" polarisers which have the edges of the
glass/polarising medium/glass "sandwich" sealed with epoxy resin.
They are extremely resistant to moisture and dirt and are well worth
considering. Both B+W and Heliopan offer these.

There are several photo dealers in Germany who offer reasonable prices
for Kaesemann polarisers (plus other B+W and Heliopan items) on eBay
Germany - with worldwide shipping. 

Try searching eBay for the User ID "foto-walser" for starters. There
are several other dealers too.

If you go to eBay Germany ...
http://www.ebay.de/

... then click on "Foto", you will be able to search on "B+W",
"Heliopan", "Kaesemann" or even "K�semann".

From: "Olaf Ulrich" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heliopan filters any good?
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 

"Mark M" wrote:
> > Hi ... I'm in the market for a better-
> > quality circular polarizer. Was
> > initially thinking about B+W (or
> > Singh-Ray) but don't think I can justify
> > the expense. Heard about Heliopan.
>
> Heliopan is excellent, but it is even
> MORE expensive than B+W.

Well, I don't know the prices where you live ... but here
in Germany, Heliopan filters are even (slightly) cheaper
than B+W filters---and both are the same level as far as
quality is concerned.

In my experience, B+W and Heliopan filters are the best
you can get, at reasonable prices. The filters offered by
the original camera makers---like Canon, Leica, Minolta,
Nikon---also are top-notch ... but those tend to be *really*
expensive, and choices of types and diameters are limited.

By the way, I just happened to find out that the current
Rodenstock filters are just re-badged Heliopan filters.

Steven, a high-quality polarizer does cost a lot of money,
no matter which brand. Don't believe that you cannot
justify the expense! Actually, you cannot justify not to
buy top-quality. A low-cost polarizer will compromise
the sharpness of your photos more than any other kind
of (low-cost) filter, particularly with telephoto lenses---
so buying one of those is a complete waste of money.

Olaf

From: "David Ruether" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen or Hoya
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 

"Jeremy" [email protected] wrote 
> "David Ruether" [email protected] wrote

[...]
> > Hoya single-coated metal-rimmed versions as the best buy in good-quality
> > filters (though some samples can be defective - as with anything, check
> > upon purchase) - these have good enough rims, glass, and coating for
> > most purposes, and cost less than "fancy" filters with no particular
> > practical advantages, and are generally better than Tiffen filters (though I
> > buy these to get filter types not offered by others - and put the glass in
> > better rims
[...]

> Bob Monaghan's site addresses some of the differences between Tiffen and
> other brands. Tiffen typically sandwiches tinted gelatin between two pieces
> of glass, rather than dying in the mass. Yet, Bob Monaghan said that his
> tests revealed no difference in image quality between Tiffen and other
> brands, which seemed surprising.

Not really...;-)
BTW, it is not the optical deficiencies I complain about
with Tiffen (though I've heard many are uncoated - and they
do "self-fog", turning them into diffusion filters unless cleaned
occasionally...), it is their thick, crude rims (and the fogging...;-).

> While there *may* be quality issues that are more apparent in
> low-end/unbranded-type filters, I can't help but wonder what justifies the
> huge price difference between, say a Hoya and a B+W? Is an $89.00 filter
> going to produce images that are discernibly better than a $19.99 filter, or
> are we being ridiculous?

I think the latter - though there can be perceived (if not really
present in practice...;-) advantages/disadvantages to either...;-)

> It is strange that the photo magazines have never thoroughly tested and
> reported on this question. Are they trying to keep us in the dark?

This is not strange at all, since photo magazines are part of
the mfgr's marketing, and "reviews" are ads in disguise (ever
see a bad camera or lens reviewed? ;-). The magazine publishers
have no intention of telling Schneider, for instance, that its full-page
ad touting the wonders of German Schott glass and spiffy rims
is hooey in terms of practical reality - and the publishers do have
a vested interest in keeping us all wondering (and insecure) about
relative filter quality, instead of doing a simple comparative test
report which could kill continued interest in expensive filters...;-).
--
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From Minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 
From: Val Dodge [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cokin vignettes, how about Lee or Singh-Ray?

jojiten wrote:

> Just tested on a roll w/ Cokin P filter and ND 8x on my Maxxum 7
> with 20/2.8 lens (72mm thread). It really helped improve the detail
> and color saturation of the sky. The problem is it vignettes big
> time on the left side of the images.

I bought a second Cokin P filter holder specifically for my 20/2.8 and
used a hacksaw to cut off two of the three filter slots, leaving only the
one closest to the lens. That pretty much eliminates the vignetting with
this lens and Cokin P-sized filters, but won't allow you to stack multiple
filters if that's what you're into. Singh-Ray rectangular filters fit into
the Cokin P system, so switching wouldn't get you any benefit. Lee filter
holders are larger and shouldn't vignette with the 20/2.8, IIRC. Cokin
also sells a larger filter holder, the X-Pro, but I don't think that there
are any third-party filters that fit it.

--
Val Dodge

From: "David Ruether" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen or Hoya
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 

"Bob P" [email protected] wrote
> "David Ruether" [email protected] wrote
> > "Chino Cherokee" [email protected] wrote
> > > I'd like to buy a new set of sky/uv filters for my lenses. I currently have
> > > a hodge-podge of used filters. Mostly Tiffen and Hoya, but a couple of
> > > Nikon filters, etc.
> > > I'm looking for 52 mm round.
> > >
> > > From what I've seen/read/heard, I'd rank the 'optical quality' of filters:
> > > (Best to worst)
> > > 1. Singh-Ray
> > > 2. B & W
> > > 3. Hoya
> > > 4. Tiffen

> > I would rate the first three (plus Nikkor) about the same, with the
> > Tiffen well below the others...

> This brings up a question. Several people have recommended Nikon filters,
> and I use Canon filters (because I usually buy them when I buy a lens for my
> Elan-7e). Do Nikon and Canon actually manufacture their filters, or are
> they made by a 3rd party and branded for them?
>
> BobP

I think Nikon makes their own; I don't know about Canon, but I would
be surprised if they were not made by Canon; Sony filters appear to
be Tiffen rebranded (and WAY overpriced...;-). I generally recommend
Hoya single-coated metal-rimmed versions as the best buy in good-quality
filters (though some samples can be defective - as with anything, check
upon purchase) - these have good enough rims, glass, and coating for
most purposes, and cost less than "fancy" filters with no particular practical
advantages, and are generally better than Tiffen filters (though I buy these
to get filter types not offered by others - and put the glass in better rims
[and then try to remember they are actually Tiffen, so may need cleaning
before use to remove the "self-fogging"...] ).
--
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

From: Alan Browne [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tiffen or Hoya
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 

Jeremy wrote:
>
> Bob Monaghan's site addresses some of the differences between Tiffen and
> other brands. Tiffen typically sandwiches tinted gelatin between two pieces
> of glass, rather than dying in the mass. Yet, Bob Monaghan said that his
> tests revealed no difference in image quality between Tiffen and other
> brands, which seeded surprising.
>
> While there *may* be quality issues that are more apparent in
> low-end/unbranded-type filters, I can't help but wonder what justifies the
> huge price difference between, say a Hoya and a B+W? Is an $89.00 filter
> going to produce images that are discernibly better than a $19.99 filter, or
> are we being ridiculous?
>
> It is strange that the photo magazines have never thoroughly tested and
> reported on this question. Are they trying to keep us in the dark?

The photo mags are just filtering the reality...

While recomended, I rejected 2 Hoya filters on delivery last year. Look
at them on a light table with a loupe before accepting:

From a posting I made in August last year:
------------------------------------------------------------------

I ordered a couple filters (warming 81A and a 3 stop ND, 72mm). I
specified B+W, but the store owner talked me into HOYA on delivery and
price.

He phoned a couple days later ... they're here...

I go to the store and open the warming filter. There's the odd flake of
dust. We brush that off ... hmmm. more ... won't come off. Look at
it under a loupe. An air bubble in the glass. Rejected. The air
bubble would have zero effect on an image unless there was some direct
light hitting it... in any case, why should I accept a defective
product?

The ND filter didn't take more that 5 seconds to reject. It had a fuzzy
line (darker than the rest of the filter) about 2 or 3 mm in width
running one side of the filter to the other, right through the middle.

So, I re-specified the B+W and they are on order.

Alan.

From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Filter tutorial?
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003

"Nobody" [email protected] wrote

> I have a UV filters on the front of my lenses. Do I have what I need and
> why or why not?

All screw in brands work with each other, as long as the size is the same.
You can screw a Tiffen on top of a Hoya. The German brands use the letter
codes E, ES along with the mm size to indicate the thread pitch of the
various sizes. Tiffen and Hoya only use the size markings like 52mm etc. So
a B+W 62E is the same as a Tiffen 62mm, in thread pitch they can work fine
together.

Hoya has 6 different grades of filters in UV's. The EXCEL( XL)) Green Series
is made with a type of glass known as green glass. The filters are clear
when you look through them, but from the side (edge) you can see a green
tint in the glass The Hoya green series also does not have any optical
coatings All the other Hoya filters use clear glass sometimes called water
glass. They come in Mono coated (single anti reflective coatings)
Multi-coating (several layers of anti reflective coatings) called HMC and
Super MC (SMC) with 5 layers of Multi coatings + 1 layer of anti scratch on
each side. The SMC's have the best coating, 99.7% transmission of light.
The newest Hoya product are the Super Multicoated Pro UV and Skylight
filters. The Hoya Super Pro's have not only the super coating, but this is
put on both sides of the Hoya optical glass.

Tiffen UVP (Uv-Protectors) are solid glass filters, with no optical
coatings. All other Tiffen filters Uv-1's are laminated (2 pieces of glass,
with the laminate carrying the color or effects) and no coatings. ALL
Tiffen round filters are made with type of glass known as green glass, they
do look clear when you look through them, from the side of the glass, the
edge, you can see the green tint. Tiffen only offers the "crystal clear
glass" in their motion picture product line at a very much higher cost.

B+W filters are solid Schott Glass, water type, crystal clear. No B+W filter
has ever been made with green glass. Most of all B+W filters have mono
coatings on both sides (in some places called double coatings, the double =
one on each side)

The new B+W MRC coating is as good as it can be 99.5% transmission. The MRC
coating is coming on all the Multicoated polarizers.

Quanterray products are Ritz Camera's house brand, and are sold to meet
certain price points. They do have some value in terms of protecting the
surface of your lens, but their optical quality is compromised. If you are
shooting 4x6 or 5x7 prints, you probably will not notice anything. I use
only Pentax filters (although there has been speculation that they are
actually made by Minolta). If I were going to buy another brand, it would
be Hekiopan, because their quality appears to be on a par with B+W, but at a
lower price.

There are many individuals that believe that filters--especially UV--are a
waste. I use them to protect my lens surfaces (mainly to protect them from
my overzealous cleaning!) I use Skylights more often than I use UVs. I
have personally not noticed any difference in quality using UV filters. It
seems that multicoating and certain types of cement used in lenses may
absorb most or all UV light, making an additional filter unnecessary.
Again, I use them to protect my front elements from spray, fingerprints (I
seem to have a problem with fingerprints) and excessive cleaning. I am
willing to accept the tiny bit of image degradation added by the filter in
exchange for increasing the lives of my lenses (all of which are nearly 30
years old now). Others may have an entirely different, yet equally valid,
perspective on this. For me, the advantages of filters outweigh the
disadvantages.

From: Phil Stripling [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Filter tutorial?
Date: 17 Jul 2003 

"Nobody" [email protected] writes:

> I haven't gotten Google to show me the way to the comparisons. Maybe someone
> here can. I'm willing to toss and replace, but I'd like to have confidence
> about why I'm doing it.

Google is, indeed, your friend. Go to
http://groups.google.com/
select Advanced Search, and type in
filter UV lens
in the box for "Find messages with all the word," then drop down to the box
at "Newsgroup Return only messages from the newsgroup" and type in
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
then click on Google Search, and you'll have about 5,000 messages right on
point. Some of them are even current in this newsgroup even as we, uh,
type.

--
Philip Stripling 

From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya Filters
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 

"Joseph Kewfi" [email protected] wrote
[SNIP]
> I personally don't believe MC makes a
> squat of difference only to the manufacturers profit margin. All modern
> lenses are MC'ed anyway nowadays.

This seems a non sequiter. True a well coated lens will deal better with
reflection internally, but light reflected by an un/single coated filter
back into the light path will appear to the lens as the same as image
forming light, and no amount of lens coating will then reject it. There
will be less such non-image forming light reflected off the front element of
the lens if it has an effective coating, but why would I want to allow _any_
such light to be re-reflected off the back of a cheap filter and into the
image path?

The fact that part of the image forming system is coated doesn't mean that
it is fine to add another part that is not: coating works best when it is
applied to the whole system.

Whetehr the difference is enough to matter to your chosen standards and with
the type of photography you do is another matter: these are your choices.
But it is illogical to assume that a well coated lens negates the need for a
well coated filter (just as those who think the flare rejection of a poor
lens is improved by the addition of a top class filter are also deluding
themselves.)

Peter

From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya Filters
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 

>There are differences of opinion
> as to whether multicoating a filter or just single coating make an actual
> difference in real world situations, I personally don't believe MC makes a
> squat of difference only to the manufacturers profit margin. All modern
> lenses are MC'ed anyway nowadays.

For another point of view on the multicoating issue, check this link:

http://www.2filter.com/faq/multicoatedfaq.html

I personally don't use multicoated filters, but I can attest to noticing
reduced contrast when shooting into brightly lit scenes (especially shooting
into the sun) with my uncoated Asahi Pentax skylight filter.

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Circular Polarizer on a Rangefinder
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 

"David J. Littleboy" [email protected] wrote:
> What I don't know (and hope someone will comment on) is if there is any
> image quality (or degree of polarization effect) difference between the two
> types.

From the same manufacturer, same type no difference.

between manufacturers there can be a difference (color, resolution)

between different types from the same manufacturer (standard polarizer
vs Kaesmann type polarizer) there may be a difference in color amd
resolution - especially with very, very long lenses.

--
HP Marketing Corp.

 End of Page

Density	Percentage of light	Increase in exposure	Filter factor
	Transmission	in f-stops

0.3	50	1	2
0.6	25	2	4
0.9	12.5	3	8
1.2	6.25	4	16
1.5	3.125	5	32
1.8	1.562	6	64