Filters and Filter Systems

[Jmarmck]

Hello all,

I am new here so I am sorry if this topic is in the wrong board. Perhaps there is another thread covering this topic?

Filters:
I recently bought a 4x5 Calumet CC-401. I have a Schneider Symmar-S 5.6/180 with a 67mm diameter front end.
I also have a Schneider Symmar-S 5.6/180 with a 77mm diameter front end.

After reading on several different filtering methods and systems I have found that I have three choices. The first is to simply buy the filters I need in both a 67 mm and 77 mm. Add in the other digital and 35mm film gear I have and this becomes a very expensive proposition, far more than I paid for the camera and first lens. The question here is vignette. Is this an issue with these and other wider lenses.

The second option is to filter the back side of the lens. Still the same monetary issues. I am not sure about the vignette on this method. Some opinions and observations would be helpful.

Lastly, there are the systems. Lee is very expensive and they are not very clear on the holder and ring adapters. The 4x4 filters are not cheap and the ND's are worse. The same with B+W though they seem to be focused on the single threaded systems. Hi Tech, maybe but the same issues with Lee. Cokin is not an option as their filters do not seem to be of the best optical quality.

So I am confused to say the least. I am inclined to start with a simple collection of B&W filers for the 67mm and the 77mm, say Tiffin or B+W. What are the advantages/disadvantages of these methods and systems?

Thanks
Marty

[Bill_1856]

Put a 67-77mmm step-up adapter on your smaller lens, and you'll only need one size of filters.
I don't understand why you have TWO identical focal length lenses -- is it a misprint?
I only use a half-dozen different filters (A, G, K2, yellow-green, and Polarizing) multicoated B+W or Hoya, mostly bought used on ebay, but frankly it doesn't seem to make any difference from the 60 year-old Tiffins and Kodaks which I bought when a teenager.

[Mark Woods]

I use Series 8 or Series 9 Filters for all of my lenses. I have the rings to step up to the desired filter. I only have the two sets of filters now.

[Mark Stahlke]

I use 77mm filters and stepping rings to fit them to smaller lenses.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I used to use the rectangular Lee system for my 5 lenses for about 10 years. I have now switched to what has been proposed above, by Bill_1856, that is a combination of the largest size filter (72 mm in my case) plus a few step-up rings. This approach seems to exhibit less flare than I used to get with the Lee filter holder. Also, the individual filter quality can be higher (clarity, flatness, and multicoating). They also wear better, which makes a difference especially with shorter focal length lenses.

I've no experience of using behind-the-lens filters, but I've seen many comments from people I trust suggesting that they significantly impact optical properties of lenses, except those that have been designed to have a permanent, replacable, behind-the-lens (or in the centre) filter.

[Michael Graves]

Ditto. But I keep Series VI as well for the itty bitty lenses.


I use Series 8 or Series 9 Filters for all of my lenses. I have the rings to step up to the desired filter. I only have the two sets of filters now.

[Mark Woods]

There is no more or less optical loss by putting the filter behind the lens. Usually the problems that are mentioned are with cinema lenses where the BTL filter throws off the flange focal distance, thereby throwing off the focusing ring. I've put filter behind the lens, in the middle of the lens (on long lenses), and in front. Pretty much all the same except for the long lenses (this is for 35mm cinema not LF). Putting the filter BTL also can cut down on flare.

[John Olsen]

Cokin is not an option as their filters do not seem to be of the best optical quality.


I didn't know that Cokin filters were not good. I've been happy using their P007 in several sizes for infrared films. The versatility of the Cokin system is pretty attractive, so don't be too quick to drop them from consideration.

That said, I usually have a lens shade on anyway, so I frequently use filters that slide into the shade. That way, it's one filter for all lenses.
Good luck.

[Jmarmck]

Wow, thank you all very much. Some good food for thought.
Yes, I screwed up on that second lens. It is a 5.6/210, 77mm, a pretty thing but no multi-coating. I have yet to use it. In fact, it is not even on a lens board.
I like the idea of the 100m sizes but I am not sure if there is any advantage over the step-up. Either way I will have to deal with step-up rings. One is in a holder, the other is in a round metal frame. I think a 77mm filter on a Nikkor 52mm barrel would look rather comical. Hey, no vignette problems here! 25 years ago I worked at a photographic shop where they sold Cokin. Most of those filters were easily scratched and damage from abuse, plastic. I had a few but they did not survive over the years. That is the reason for the Cokin comment. I figure glass would be better. Though, anything will get damaged with abuse.

I was planning on some standard B&W contrast filters, RGBY, maybe an ND and a graduated ND. I don't think I will need much more than that.
Is multi-coating important with these?

Thanks to you all.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I like the idea of the 100m sizes but I am not sure if there is any advantage over the step-up. Either way I will have to deal with step-up rings.

Though I've mentioned a few of their disadvantages, above, they have pluses too. The choice of filters seems wider, and if you use graduated filters, there is a bit more freedom how you position them. Having said that, I usually ended up placing my grads with the cut-off in the middle, so no issues with a ring-mounted.

Also, if you use a Hasselblad, there is a very good lens shade for it, the newer of the two popular designs, which takes the square Lee filters and shields them from side illumination, which slightly reduces their flare.


Is multi-coating important with these?

Depends on what you photograph, and if you like or dislike the extra overall flare. If you like flare for its contrast reducing, shadow-compressing, softening effect, or if you photograph subjects low in contrast, then multi-coating is not important, and might be something you wish to actively avoid. If, however, you photograph subjects full of contrast (think of a back-illuminated checkerboard, or a source of light inside or close to the frame), and you do not want to soften it, or if shadow detail is particularly important to you, then multicoated filters together with a MC lens, hood, and careful framing will be very important, just like making sure the surfaces are relatively clean, camera interior well dull and black, and the lens board interior not reflective.

[Heroique]

Lastly, there are the systems. Lee is very expensive and they are not very clear on the holder and ring adapters. The 4x4 filters are not cheap and the ND's are worse.

If you explain what's not clear about Lee's holders and adaptors, the Lee users around here can quickly clear things up, and maybe keep the option open. Depending on how many filters you might use in the future (for your 35mm and LF work), the Lee option might be a cost saver in the long run. One single reason I like the Lee system is being able to use their nice compendium shade.

Also, are you aware of Lee's more affordable polyester filters? Framed and un-framed.

For example, b/w filters (like their b/w 4-filter kit) + their NDs (also in a kit).

The GNDs of course are available only in resin (4" x 6"), and they're very nice.

[Drew Wiley]

Polyester filters are utterly abominable optically. OK maybe for color balance testing, but not for quality shots requiring serious resolution. Hard resin filters can be good, but still scratch easily, and aren't cheap by any means. I like the Lee compendium shade system and adapters for field camera use.

[Heroique]

Lee polyesters are "utterly abominable"?

Hmm, I'm tempted to think you're blaming shooting technique on equipment.

Please tell us about your abominable field experience.

[Drew Wiley]

All based upon LOTS of hard testing and real-world experience. I have a full set of Lee polyesters - a location set for color meter work, OK (barely OK) for magazine reproductions from 4x5, which don't amt to much actual enlargement,if any. Thin polyester filters are basically similar to lighting "gels" - not real gels. There's a reason they're so cheap. Now I only use em for under-the-lens minor color modifications to enlarger light when using a registered contact printing frame, like for making registered masks - never for image projection itself. I've given up on everything except multicoated glass filters for camera use. Resin filters might be OK in a studio, but I can't imagine using them in the field - electrostatic and easily scratched.

[Heroique]

[Sigh]

Lee filters are fine for field, critical or not, polyester or resin.

[Bill_1856]

Marie Cosindas used to Scotchtape color-correction gel filters over her lenses. I don't think that it's possible to improve on her color images.

[Drew Wiley]

Guess it just depends on your personal expectations. All filters compromise optical quality to some degree - just depends how much. One really does not need a lot
of filters in the field, so why not have the best? I recently backpacked two weeks in steep off-trail terrain I might never have the opportunity to visit again with
LF gear - I'm no youngster and the clock is ticking - no way I'm going to compromise those kinds of opportunities or have worries with snow and sleet every single day, needing to clean or dry off soft filters. Lucky if I don't drop one in those circumstances.

[Drew Wiley]

Marie Cosindas took tiny little relatively fuzzy Polaroids.... I printed big very crisp Cibachromes.... So I would say I have every reason to improve tremendously on
those kinds of standards. I like her images, but you're comparing apples with oranges. If her shots were enlarged significantly, the limitations would be obvious.
Same goes for folks who jabber, "if it was good enough for EW or AA it's good enough for me".... If you like shooting a flintlock, that's your privilege. I like making
sharp prints and do whatever it takes. Not that that's an end to itself, but it is one reason for shooting large format to begin with, and at something like fifteen
bucks a sheet for developed 8x10 color film, I don't think unnecessary quality compromises are going onto my wish list anytime soon.

[Bill_1856]

Marie Cosindas took tiny little relatively fuzzy Polaroids.... I printed big very crisp Cibachromes.... So I would say I have every reason to improve tremendously on
those kinds of standards. I like her images, but you're comparing apples with oranges. If her shots were enlarged significantly, the limitations would be obvious.
Same goes for folks who jabber, "if it was good enough for EW or AA it's good enough for me".... If you like shooting a flintlock, that's your privilege. I like making
sharp prints and do whatever it takes. Not that that's an end to itself, but it is one reason for shooting large format to begin with, and at something like fifteen
bucks a sheet for developed 8x10 color film, I don't think unnecessary quality compromises are going onto my wish list anytime soon.

Don't knock it 'till you're tried it, Drew.

[Jac@stafford.net]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter#Series_filters

[Drew Wiley]

I done did tried em all. So I've got a perfect right to knock it. Where logic falls apart on all of this, is that someone makes a comparison with how Cosindas chose
to do things - namely, a print intended to be displayed at 1X, or even reduced in published form, and taken in Polaroid holders that don't have a particularly accurate
or even film plane to begin with. That's a very low threshold of technical expectations. Now lets go to another extreme - I get stuck on a peak in a high wind that
will turn my view cameras into a kite, so I have to opt for a little 6x7 camera instead. With extremely sharp modern lenses and a film like Ektar, I'm trying to make
a 20x24 supergloss print that will look reasonably comfortable beside large format work. That's a tall order. I'm not talking any of that "reasonable viewing distance
nonsense", but about getting a chihuahua to behave like a rottweiler. Everything gets fussy. And all it would take is something like a polyester or acetate or even
gel filter to keep that chihuahua behaving no bigger than a fox terrier. That's almost a 10X enlargement. Been there, done that. One sloppy point in the whole
workflow and everything falls apart stretching things like that. Even a typical enlarging lens or less than ideal carrier will ruin it, at least by my standards. I just
mention this as an example. You can get away with all kinds of things when the shot is never seriously enlarged to begin with.

[Bill_1856]

i done did tried em all. So i've got a perfect right to knock it. Where logic falls apart on all of this, is that someone makes a comparison with how cosindas chose
to do things - namely, a print intended to be displayed at 1x, or even reduced in published form, and taken in polaroid holders that don't have a particularly accurate
or even film plane to begin with. That's a very low threshold of technical expectations. Now lets go to another extreme - i get stuck on a peak in a high wind that
will turn my view cameras into a kite, so i have to opt for a little 6x7 camera instead. With extremely sharp modern lenses and a film like ektar, i'm trying to make
a 20x24 supergloss print that will look reasonably comfortable beside large format work. That's a tall order. I'm not talking any of that "reasonable viewing distance
nonsense", but about getting a chihuahua to behave like a rottweiler. Everything gets fussy. And all it would take is something like a polyester or acetate or even
gel filter to keep that chihuahua behaving no bigger than a fox terrier. That's almost a 10x enlargement. Been there, done that. One sloppy point in the whole
workflow and everything falls apart stretching things like that. Even a typical enlarging lens or less than ideal carrier will ruin it, at least by my standards. I just
mention this as an example. You can get away with all kinds of things when the shot is never seriously enlarged to begin with.

lol!

[Heroique]

This one's okay, but I like the stories w/ wild carniverous animals and hair-breadth escapes. :D

[Jmarmck]

Clearly, I am missing something here. lol.

Well after sleeping on it I am leaning toward the holder style. I need to research the costs a bit more

.......................or I could just buy a handful of gels and scotch tape. :D

[Drew Wiley]

This is a bonehead topic for actual optical engineers. I've got manuals as thick as phone books from actual mfgs on this stuff. Whatever works for you works. But
that doesn't mean it will work acceptably for the next guy. And I don't think in the industry itself there is any contest whatsoever between coated glass filters and things like polyester. After all, this is about image forming work. So let me ask a very very elementary question. Would any one of you hypothetically choose a camera lens made out of polyester plastic instead of optical glass ????????????? Or is this the Holga forum?

[BetterSense]

Some modern zoom lenses do use plastic lenses, because it's easy to make such lenses aspherical.

I've personally never noticed any filter to degrade image quality, including random "no-name" filters and Lee gel's held up to the camera lens by hand. But then I don't make 10x enlargements from medium-format film, I don't shoot color, and I use old lenses anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

I knew that response would come up. Yes plastic aspherics are quite common in small lenses, but these are optical grade acrylics, not polyesters, so analogous to
resin filters, not pseudo-gels. Not much good in larger optics due to dimensional stability issues, esp when combined with glass elements. Unlike polyester, acrylic is composed of linear, not cross-liked components, so subject to hydration. But that's why acrylic is clearer.

[Heroique]

So let me ask a very very elementary question. Would any one of you hypothetically choose a camera lens made out of polyester plastic instead of optical glass ????????????? Or is this the Holga forum?

You've missed the elementary question you need to ask: Is this a forum of LF photographers – or optical engineers and technical mountain climbers?

Better, the topic is simple: filter choices for someone new to our game.

The OP has slept on it and offered a puzzled "thanks" just above.

[BetterSense]

I knew that response would come up. Yes plastic aspherics are quite common in small lenses, but these are optical grade acrylics, not polyesters, so analogous to
resin filters, not pseudo-gels. Not much good in larger optics due to dimensional stability issues, esp when combined with glass elements. Unlike polyester, acrylic is composed of linear, not cross-liked components, so subject to hydration. But that's why acrylic is clearer.

Fascinating. I will file this info away. I know that when I used to fish with nylon monofilament, it would behave differently dry vs. after it had absorbed water. I never thought of the possible impact to other applications.

[Daniel Stone]

I have used the thin gel filters, hard resin filters, glass screw-in, and glass square/rectangular filters, here's my short consensus:

Gel filters are so easily damaged, I wouldn't recommend them for "field" use outside of a place where they can be stored in a hard box to organize them. I've found that even when used with the cardboard or plastic frames, it's just a short matter of time before they're rendered useless(IMO). Scratching, etc...

Hard resin filters:
More scratch resistant, but still scratch easily. Love to attract fingerprints, static, and have a tendency to drop more(IDK why, but maybe it's just me)... Nicer weight-wise, since they're lighter than their glass counterparts. Not cheap

Glass square(4x4,4x5.65,4x6,etc.) filters:
I have used these in warming/polarizing/graduated varieties. They're my personal favorite. I use the Lee filter holder/hood, and it's a great combination.
NOT CHEAP(even when filters are purchased used on *bay/elsewhere. However, if you're in this for the "long-haul", these filters are leaps and bounds better quality-wise than the resin filters (again, IMO). I've never experienced color cast issues, where as some Lee/HiTech filters I've owned have had magenta or green casts visible in the filter itself. Unusable IMO, when you're looking to have a NEUTRAL graduated filter. I don't want magenta'd skies unless they're actually that color ;)!

Glass screw-in filters:
My 2nd preference, with similar reasons as to why Drew pointed out in prior posts. Easier to keep clean, easier to pack, and the highest quality glass(schott, in my case, I've got Heliopan's and B+W's in my bag) hasn't let me down once.

as the saying goes: "buy the best, and you'll only cry once." Buy junk/lesser quality and you'll kick yourself later.

Remember, you can build a filter system as-you-go. No need to raid the coffers right from the beginning. Deals on filters come up all the time, just be patient. Wait for the best, and be ready to spend when the timing is right for what you want/need.

cheers,
Dan

[Drew Wiley]

Heroique - I've tried to explain this simply. Being outdoors under any number of conditions implies wind, particulates (often electrostatically attracted), handling,
all kinds of potential weather. Large format implies numerous things to go wrong, expensive film, potential high quality applicationd, and maybe not a second
chance to reshoot something, plus significant gear weight with limitations of what you want to lug around. So one prioritizes these things accordingly. If cheap Lee
filtersdo the job for you, fine. They don't work for me, and I've said why. If someone else has analogous priorities, the information is here and they can make their
choice. But it is quality related. You can encounter the same kind of conditions three feet away from a car as up on a mtn peak. In fact, cars are generally dirtier
environments.

[Heroique]

Didn't mean to be harsh, just a friendly reminder that the OP has simple needs.

They sound starkly different, not "analogous," to yours.

Maybe try to put yourself in his shoes, not him in yours.

[Drew Wiley]

I was in his shoes at one time, and just wish I hadn't wasted so much time learning things the hard way or spending money on things I just had to rebuy.

[Jmarmck]

Hey guys. I really really do appreciate your efforts. I have learned a lot. I was hoping I would get countering opinions. Thank you all.

If I had the cash I would probably go with the square and rectangular system in glass. But, alas, the coffers are getting low with all the gear I have acquired over the last month. So I went the cheap route and ordered a Tiffin three filter kit in 77mm (#6, #13, #25) and the the step-up rings for all lenses. I also ordered an 80A in an attempt to correct for sodium vapor lights. I shoot a lot outdoors at night (lightning) though this is with a digital 35mm. I am keenly interested in attempting lightning with the 4x5 but I first need to get the feel of the camera and film in the quasi darkness that is my playground. The season is still 6 months away so I have time to learn. I also need to learn the camera well enough to setup in the dark.

Thanks again. Good thread!

Marty

[Bill_1856]

Hey guys. I really really do appreciate your efforts. I have learned a lot. I was hoping I would get countering opinions. Thank you all.

If I had the cash I would probably go with the square and rectangular system in glass. But, alas, the coffers are getting low with all the gear I have acquired over the last month. So I went the cheap route and ordered a Tiffin three filter kit in 77mm (#6, #13, #25) and the the step-up rings for all lenses. I also ordered an 80A in an attempt to correct for sodium vapor lights. I shoot a lot outdoors at night (lightning) though this is with a digital 35mm. I am keenly interested in attempting lightning with the 4x5 but I first need to get the feel of the camera and film in the quasi darkness that is my playground. The season is still 6 months away so I have time to learn. I also need to learn the camera well enough to setup in the dark.

Thanks again. Good thread!



Marty

You did good, kid, and you'll never be sorry.

[BetterSense]

Hey guys. I really really do appreciate your efforts. I have learned a lot. I was hoping I would get countering opinions. Thank you all.

If I had the cash I would probably go with the square and rectangular system in glass. But, alas, the coffers are getting low with all the gear I have acquired over the last month. So I went the cheap route and ordered a Tiffin three filter kit in 77mm (#6, #13, #25) and the the step-up rings for all lenses. I also ordered an 80A in an attempt to correct for sodium vapor lights. I shoot a lot outdoors at night (lightning) though this is with a digital 35mm. I am keenly interested in attempting lightning with the 4x5 but I first need to get the feel of the camera and film in the quasi darkness that is my playground. The season is still 6 months away so I have time to learn. I also need to learn the camera well enough to setup in the dark.

Thanks again. Good thread!

Marty

Where did you order from? All the filter kits I find are digital-oriented with only polarizers, NDs, and UVs.

[Jmarmck]

B&H Photo. Each diameter size has that combo (#6, #13, #25). I had trouble getting the search to find the kits again but the item number is TIBWK77, with 77 being the size so if you are looking for another size just sub the 77 for your diameter.