Filter vs Image Quality

[argos33]

Hello fellow LF shooters,
I was recently talking to a friend of mine about the following question:

How much does the quality of the filter affect the quality of the image?

He was saying that he can see a discernible difference between filtered shots and those taken just with the lens in terms of sharpness, clarity, etc. I always thought that Hoya and Tiffen filters were middle ground in terms of quality but I believe that's what he was using. He typically shoots 4x5 TMax I think.

What do you guys think? How many of you pony up for the nicer filters? Do you see a difference when using cheaper filters compared to using no filters? I normally shoot 8x10 b&w, and am wondering how much of a difference it would really make.

It seems to me that it would be even more important to use nicer filters for 35 & medium format work given the smaller negative size. I just got a used Hasselblad for a carry around/scouting camera and am wondering if it would worth the expense to get nicer B+W filters for it, assuming I want to make some prints at some point?

Any input or example photos would be great.

Evan

[Eric Woodbury]

First, I try not to use filters, but when I do, I use gels or plastic. They are not too expensive, small, and don't distort the image when using very-wide angle lenses.

I use glass for MF and then Tiffen and Hoya. I have a few better ones in there, but I can't tell.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I prefer not to use a filter at all unless there's a pretty specific reason to do so. Anything you put in front of a lens is going to have some negative effect, no matter how good it is. Whether this effect will actually be visible in the negative is another question. I use all kinds of old series filters with no problem that I can see. More modern filters I use are Tiffen, Hoya and just about everything else. I'm a bottom feeder, you see. The only bad filter I've run across was a generic UV filter. It was so bad, you could actually see it when trying to focus, which was impossible. It totally fuzzed up the image. It was horrible. I thought it was the new lens I had it on and was downright sick that my lens could be bad. Guess how far one of those filters can go with a good strong pitching arm behind it.

[sanking]

I don't use filters with LF unless there is a clear need to do so, and if I do I use thin gels. You need to store them well to prevent damage, and they should be replaced from time to time, depending on use and damage.

With good quality thin gels I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove any image degradation.

If you don't have gels, multi-coated glass would be my next preference.

Bottom line, use best practice and if you do there should be no loss of image quality.


Sandy King

[Don Hutton]

A couple of months ago, I shot a Leica lens resolution test on ultra high resolving film with and without a filter - the filter was a high quality Leica UV/IR filter. There was absolutely no difference in resolution - with and without tested at 150lp/mm. On the basis of that, I believe that any filter of excellent quality should have no impact on image quality, especially on large format where absolute resolution is typically much, much lower.

[Kirk Gittings]

A couple of months ago, I shot a Leica lens resolution test on ultra high resolving film with and without a filter - the filter was a high quality Leica UV/IR filter. There was absolutely no difference in resolution - with and without tested at 150lp/mm. On the basis of that, I believe that any filter of excellent quality should have no impact on image quality, especially on large format where absolute resolution is typically much, much lower.

Interesting, I have always believed, based on perception, that the opposite was true even thoug I use only the best filters. Additional flare in the field may sometimes play a role.

[Don Hutton]

Interesting, I have always believed, based on perception, that the opposite was true even thoug I use only the best filters. Additional flare in the field may sometimes play a role.

Kirk

It was a limited test only for resolution only- it was of interest to me because the Leica M8 basically needs to be shot with a UV/IR cut filter in front of the lens at all times and I had suspected that it must impact resolution... Apparently not! I'm pretty certain that you will loose contrast due to flare under some cirumstances and that obviously has an impact.

[sanking]

Flare is the main reason I use filters sparingly. I am much less concerned about loss of resolution than flare.

Sandy King

[Brian Ellis]

Before Photoshop came along I occasionally used red, green, orange and yellow filters in b&w photography to separate tones that otherwise woud tend to merge and to darken skies. I also used a Polarizer occasionally to reduce reflections and sometimes to darken the sky. That's about it. But everything I formerly did with filters can be done in Photoshop except reduce reflections. So the only filters I use any more are polarizers and then rarely. I've owned and still have B+W filters, Heliopan filters, Hoyas, and Tiffens. I've never noticed any difference in the "sharpness" of my photographs with or without filters nor have I noticed any difference among those four filter brands.

[Hector.Navarro]

I do not have my eyes "educated" to see the difference between nice & nicer filters. I might in the future.
In the meantime I am well aware of the difficulties of focusing things up close with the camera and the impossibility of focusing on a filter with a LF camera.