zeos 386sx
Well-known
I heard/read someplace that Leica puts an internal UV coating on its lens elements. That would make an external UV filter redundant and useful only for protection. It makes more sense to me to just use a good lens hood which reduces flare AND provides protection.
Ben Z
Veteran
Does someone who "never uses" UV filters also "never use" any other filters, or are those terrible aberrations they claim to see only with UV filters?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
zeos 386sx said:
This is correct, they use a kit called "absorban"in their optics since the late 40ies, making UV filters redundant But they are still selling them
. And I agree with you 100%.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Look! No filter-no flare!
Look! No filter-no flare!
The only filter one needs to use in these digital days is a polarizing filter.
Look! No filter-no flare!
Ben Z said:
The only filter one needs to use in these digital days is a polarizing filter.
Last edited:
richard_l
Well-known
It's easy to get carried away with the wonders which can be wrought digitally. Unfortunately, the information pertaining to this in the Luminous Landscape site is exaggerated. If color film is used, some filters, such as yellow and orange, can be emulated fairly well. However, the effect of a deep red filter cannot be emulated (at least not by manipulation of the color channels). In any case, in order to digitally emulate contrast (colored) filters, one is restricted to the use of color film. With black and white film, the only way to emulate contrast filters is to actually "paint" over the image.jaapv said:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
richard_l said:
That,Richard, is undisputable. Maybe I should have formulated my post more exactly. I should have said: "With the advent of the digital darkroom, filters can be largely simulated in Photoshop, with the exception of polarizers and some specialist filters, if one uses colourfilm, as a lot of people do, even for black and white" I must confess I was provoked to generalizing too much because of the twisting of my words in an earlier post. Wrong to do so-usually I am saved in such matters by the bad quality of my internet connection which by only connecting after a number of false starts will give me time to reconsider such posts.
As to the Rob Galbraith site- I find for myself that files extracted from digital RAW are easier to manipulate in PS than scanned film. Maybe that accounts for your opinion. In general I find it an excellent site with good information on basic theory.
But to sum it up- I'm sure you agree that to use filters one should know the advantages and drawbacks and use them accordingly.
Last edited: