On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 02:47:08 +0200, Michael Quack
>In article <3d910874.5782590@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Neuman - Ruether says...
>> >And I am a firm believer of sharp, unblurred pictures
>> >with highest possible contrast. Which rules out the use of
>> >filters unless necessary. I have seen way too many
>> >pictures with ghostings from filters, and I have seen
>> >way too much flare in images from lenses without lens hoods.
>> And I'm a firm believer that under most circumstances,
>> a good-quality filter will have none of the effects
>> listed (and I have done the tests to find out...).
>Well, I have seen way too many pictures *with* the listed
>effects to take any chance. "Most circumstances" is simply
>not enough.
Those effects are due almost entirely to flare/ghosting
within the lens, relatively unaffected by the presence
or not of a filter...
>> I agree that a shade benefits most lenses (and is
>> essential for some, almost useless on some others).
>Useless only for macro lenses with a barrel protecting
>and shading the front element very effectively.
>Beneficial on *all* other lenses.
Not all - as I said, I have some lenses that are
sufficiently unaffected by sidelight for a shade
to be unnecessary under most conditions...
>> If you see flare/ghosting, try removing the filter - my
>> bet is that you will see *NO* difference, unless the sun
>> is near the center of the image, with some lenses.
>Stray light is not sun in the middle. Image degradation
>starts a long time before you *see* it in the finder.
>But you will see it on the finished images.
Yes, if you have a lens sensitive to this - but the filter
presence generally has little or no effect on this...
>Don't go after what you *believe* to see, take comparative
>shots and decide based on the results.
Exactly as I have done...;-)
>> >Judging from the fact that in more than 20 years of professional
>> >photography, which always included newsgathering on the street
>> >and many many punk gigs I never had a single scratch on any
>> >lens, the investment in several first class filters makes
>> >up for more than one decent lenses, not just a single front
>> >lens.
>> Not a bad point, but you were lucky -
>No, simply treating my stuff right. A lens shade is a
>hell of a lot of protection.
See below...
>> I had a lens grabbed - and it ruined the filter...
>It might not have ruined the lens itself, because filter
>glass is comparably soft and thus susceptible to scratchings.
This is nonsense...
BTW, the lens grabbed had a shade on it, but the filter
was still ruined.
>> Also, fine scratches, if there are enough (resulting from
>> "cleanings"), *will* result in increased flare when shooting
>> toward the light source (as will dirt and smudges, if the
>> lens is not clean...).
>You don't need to shoot against the light source, any
>off image light hitting the lens will have adversary effects.
Yes, as I said...;-)
>> One extra surface, a relatively moderate increase
>> compared with the large number of surfaces within most
>> lenses - and decent single-coating suppresses most
>> of the reflection from that single surface...
>But it is not part of the optical calculation and
>thus shows in the results.
This makes no sense. Most lens front surfaces are
convex, and adding a flat surface in front of them will
cause back reflections to be spread away from the lens
center...
>> >> if the sun is in shot no lens hood is going to help.
>> >Even in this case it will block extra reflections maybe
>> >from a puddle of water below you.
>> As can a hand...
>Sure, but why bother if you can have a perfect tool?
So, I should only use all my gear, with all possible
accessories in place, to take all pictures...?;-)
Sometimes it is useful to be able to stack two
compact lenses with caps on both ends in a single slot
in a bag - and this is more useful than avoiding
having to use the very occasional "hand-shade"...
Also, many wide-angles do not have really effective
shades available (or, if so, they are very large),
and the "hand-shade" can be more effective than
one specifically provided for the lens.
>> But there are few "absolute" rules, and when it comes
>> to the ill effects of using filters, some get carried
>> away with theory over experience, I think...;-)
>Different in my case. I have seen so many images with
>obvious filter influence, you wouldn't believ it.
You are right, I wouldn't believe it - I doubt that
most of these problems were actually due to the
presence of the filter...;-)