On a recent shot (the Alameda County Courthouse posted in the Kallitype thread) I went with the spot reading of middle grey off a grey card. The sky above the courthouse also registered middle Grey and on the print it is indeed a middle grey. Suppose I would have installed a UV filter on the lens. Would that have "softened" the middle grey renditioned of the sky? Food for thought.
Thomas
Why put q $10 piece of glass in front of a $500+ lens?
Perhaps he has Heliopan or B+W or Rodenstock MC filters and they are not $10 pieces of glass. Not everyone buys bargain filters!Originally Posted by Jim Noel
Just to reinforce Bob's comment...
ALL of my 40 or so filters are B+W, at sizes up to 105mm (Rodenstock Apo-Sironar (W) 210/5.6)
Believe me, that 105mm filter did NOT cost $10.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
$10 is all you have left in your bank account after buying 105mm filters!
I don't know what you mean by "soften" the gray of the sky. Did you want it to be lighter in tone? In any case, a UV filter wouldn't change much.
Like Mark, I would say no -- not enough UV at that low elevation to see any difference.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
I have the Schneider 4"x4" UV-410 (HAZE 1) filter that I paid around $150 new - they are currently priced at $161. It blocks UV below 410 nanometers "effectively reduces or eliminates photographic haze in areas where the atmospheric conditions contain a heavy concentration of dust particles, water droplets, and pollution...Helps eliminate such conditions often found in mountainous or coastal regions, and industrial areas that scatter light and produce a bluish cast that causes film to render a lack of color, contrast and overall image quality..." Would using this filter tone down the grey sky on the print mentioned above? A UV 2A filter is supposedly more effective.
Thomas
Jac, where on earth would one even find a "K2" filter these days unless they uncovered some Egyptian tomb beneath the dunes? Even that numbering system predates Egyptian hieroglyphics, I think. My point is, if someone does manage to find something like that, and does have the time to scrape the
layers of mold and snail tracks off it, it's certainly not going to help the optical expectations associated with an expensive lens. And Tom - yes, UV filters
can help clear a tad of haze scattering even on the coast using color film, but will be nowhere near as effective as a red or deep orange filter for pan film
in that respect, which allow only long wavelengths through. And one shoe does not fit all in terms of the best filter for each specific type of color film.
For example, I found that a nearly colorless very light yellow UV filter worked best for E100G chrome film at high altitude, whereas a pale magenta 2B
worked best with Fujichrome, and a Singh-Ray KN pale apricot-salmon UV filter for Ektar color neg film. But even some of these product numbers have
since changed to match the digital rather than film camera market. Ironically, certain kinds of expensive multi-coating can be counterproductive with
certain digital sensors. Glad I don't have that problem; but I do believe in high-quality coated glass filters rather than flimsy fragile gels.
Everywhere except under the rock under which you live.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks