Good vs. Bad UV Haze filters?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 9 Jan 2010 00:15 On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:55:58 -0500, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >I also don't find multicoating on filters very >useful. Yes, armchair photographer trolls wouldn't.
From: David Ruether on 9 Jan 2010 09:54 "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote in message news:sk3gk518841r5i3b90748r6ullvn7miu9b(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:17:06 -0500, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >>"jean-daniel dodin" <jdd(a)dodin.org> wrote in message >>news:4b4621d7$0$29883$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr... >>> Le 07/01/2010 18:45, Neil Harrington a �crit : >>>> Not in my personal experience, but I have read that even a fairly deep >>>> scratch is unlikely to make any visible difference in imaging. >>> urban legend... may be related to the focal length. >>Yes. A relatively long focal length lens with a relatively large >>sensor area would probably show little or no ill effect from >>a fairly deep scratch even at a smallish stop with textured >>subject material - but with a good WA converter on a good >>1/3rd" CCD video camera set at WA, even the tiniest, barely >>visible pin-prick sized "tick" in the front element glass can >>show in side and back lighting conditions. > That's because at wide-angle everything from the front lens surface to > infinity is in focus you idiots. I have a fish-eye lens where I have to > keep the front of it in pristine condition or it will put any dust on that > lens in focus. This is NOT true for the average focal-lengths that all > others use, nor any filters placed in front of those lenses. Your response is inappropriate - and inaccurate. It is all relative, as I (and others) pointed out. Example: while the video camera example I gave is true, an 8mm (or even 6mm) fisheye lens on a 35mm camera does not show similar image problems with dust or minor defects on its front surface. The likely reason is that DOF is less with the larger "sensor", and the front element is relatively huge compared with the area of the dust or defect. A wide angle for a sheet film camera will unlikely ever show ill effects from dust or defects unless either is extreme. Also a factor is the lighting, as I pointed out. With front lighting and textured subject matter, it is less likely that lens defects will be seen in the image than if the lens itself is side-lit and the subject is smooth and dark. Properly shading the lens surface may reduce or remove this effect, though. Be careful who you call "idiots". The term may easily be thrown back at you, especially if you oversimplify...;-) --DR
From: David Ruether on 9 Jan 2010 10:24 "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote in message news:i03gk5h1l2qss902an5jts9dg8d88vqc0i(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:04:53 -0500, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >>... And, remember the days when "pros" used to "clean" their lenses >>with quick swirls of their neckties on them? Those lenses were soon >>good for little more than taking "moody portraits"... :-( I agree that >>anyone concerned about optimizing the performance of their gear >>should examine it and replace it as needed - but it is surprising how >>many *barely visible* scratches an optical surface can have without >>impairing its optical qualities. >>--DR > All bullshit. A common idiot's tale told and passed down on the net by > pretend-photographers. A lens can even have some bubbles in the glass and > still perform admirably. Any large scratches in any filter can be > blacked-out with a sharpie with no perceivable performance lost. One of my > favorites for Fall photography is an antique filter I found in a junk-box > one time. I cannot find a filter today with the same band-pass profile. A > large conchoidal fracture on one edge and several large scratches in it. > All defects blacked out with a sharpie and it performs admirably. > > A large research-telescope mirror was shot at with a high-powered rifle by > someone with an unstable agenda and left huge divots in the mirror. They > were patched over and blacked out, with hardly any performance lost. > (Perhaps someone can find that link to show these idiots they are idiots.) > > Stop parroting net-nonsense invented by armchair-photographer trolls. Well, you are looking more and more like one of those.... I do remember when photographers shot with 4x5 Graflexes, and wiped their lenses with neckties - and I did see the fronts of their uncoated lenses (with soft glass) turned into what was approaching diffusing surfaces (I bought and sold gear, and I early on I learned to avoid gear if the seller mentioned being a "pro" ["mint condition" to them meant that the gear sorta worked even if it looked a mess] or if his voice sounded old [they unfortunately tended to remember only what the gear was like when it was nearly new...]). BTW, nothing in your post substantiates your description of what I, or anyone else, has written as "all bullshit". But, put some of those "fixed" or "special" filters you have described on a wide angle lens on a suitably sensitive format size and try to shoot with it - yuh, just try...! ;-) Look who is really writing mostly BS (and you know you are, which is really, really odd...! ;-). (But I guess I'm just feeding the troll with the above, so, "BUH-BYE"! ;-) --DR
From: John McWilliams on 9 Jan 2010 10:47 David Ruether wrote: .. > (But I guess I'm just feeding the troll with the above, so, "BUH-BYE"! ;-) Easy enough to do at first. But the more we resist, the less he'll persist. -- john mcwilliams
From: David Ruether on 9 Jan 2010 12:10
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hia8ds$qck$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > David Ruether wrote: >> (But I guess I'm just feeding the troll with the above, so, "BUH-BYE"! ;-) > Easy enough to do at first. But the more we resist, the less he'll persist. -- > john mcwilliams Yes, of course - but it took me a while to spot him, sigh...! ;-) I guess the name-calling should have been the give-away, though. --DR |