Filters Filters Filters

[ttmmfast]

How can you determine for a round filter which way is 'horizontal' and which is 'vertical'? Of course, if one adjusts the CPL for maximum effect and then changes camera orientation without readjusting the CPL then the effect is .. erm.. somewhat limited.

I meant you have camera horizontal, turn CPL until max effect (in RF have to turn until a region where exposure has a 1 stop dip). Keep CPL fixed relative to camera. Turn camera upright (ie 90 deg). Turn the CPL and now the region with the 1 stop dip is at a different position (hence the need to have an arrow on the CPL).

First I thought circilar so will not make a diff, it does!. Then I said, ok, maybe it is also 90 deg to where it (the arrow on CPL) was when camera was horizontal) Nay:think:

So to get max polarizing effect, need to "calibrate" when turning camera vertical.

 

[night86mare]

I meant you have camera horizontal, turn CPL until max effect (in RF have to turn until a region where exposure has a 1 stop dip). Keep CPL fixed relative to camera. Turn camera upright (ie 90 deg). Turn the CPL and now the region with the 1 stop dip is at a different position (hence the need to have an arrow on the CPL).

First I thought circilar so will not make a diff, it does!. Then I said, ok, maybe it is also 90 deg to where it (the arrow on CPL) was when camera was horizontal) Nay:think:

So to get max polarizing effect, need to "calibrate" when turning camera vertical.

did you keep the angle exactly the same... :dunno:

because this makes no logical sense.

 

[ttmmfast]

How does "No stacking" not express the advice for not using multiple filters? Google for 'filter vignetting' and you'll find a very good reason why one should not stack filters. Final impact will depend on lens and filter types used, though.


Not really relevant anymore in times of DSLR and digital post processing. Changes in white balance are easily made afterwards. But I'd like to know how a filter can increase sharpness. So far I have only seen plenty of occasions showing the opposite.

I have UV for occasions / locations where the chances for dust/dirt/water splashes are higher. All the rest my lens goes naked. I haven't seen any lens so far with the remark "works best / optimized for filter XYZ". They are built to work best without any filter. Lousy filters will only add problems (flare, ghosting), good filters go unnoticed.
CPL and other filters are best used with intention, not just "always on".

I agree in theory add 1 more thing on means one more thing to s****up. But,

If under certain conditions the filters actually affects the lens performance, I think the lens maker (at least some of them) will issue a warning (like please do not use filters, it is detrimental to your image) on using filters since they are pretty much unrelated, business wise.
Also you are claiming the with/without filter photos in the filter makers website are not real like what we like to believe about sliming centers' before and after photos; all PPed.

We knows that UV exist or at least our skin does under a day of hot sun. DSLR have sensors that are made by various companies and supposedly those made by Kodak are the best. Leica and Sigma are the only ones that specify their sensor's origin; guess the rest wants us to believe they design and manufacture the sensors themselves. There are probably as many sensors as there are film emulsions and each has their own characteristics. So there may be a need for "assistance", like Leica UV/IR (2 FOC if you buy the M8 so they are not up selling) because they realized M8's problem under certain conditions. Others may have other problems, be it lenses or sensor (film).

Anyway, this is an interest group forum so anyone can have an opinion. When in doubt don't use. When in doubt leave it on. When in doubt use both (referring to UV + CPL). When in doubt don't take (if you have 1-2 shoots left in your roll), when in doubt bracket all, ...

There are so much that can go wrong in the workflow and if your interest is restricted to the process of shooting, viewing on your own monitor and printing no bigger than A3 on consumer printers and papers, all the little technical flaws (like UV filer on/off) are unlikely to surface and all can be solved under digital post processing; sad that we digitize analog film to print on digital printers. Your monitor, printer, paper, scanner probably are the weakest link.

 

[ttmmfast]

did you keep the angle exactly the same... :dunno:

because this makes no logical sense.

Yes I did. Makes no sense to me too. You try and see. Seeing is believing. I tell my self, isn't it like if I turn myself 90 deg, it should not change right?

Please update if you turn 90 deg and the arrow on your CPL still remain on the same spot when in max effect (my reference is a 1 stop drop) and I am using a plain wall as a control. I have 2 CPL a Hoya HD and a Kenko Zeta, both same ie, they both shifted but not by same amount.

If yours not affected whether camera is vertical or horizintal than I need to go check my camera/CPLs/eyesight/brain:cry:

 

[asthio88]

I meant you have camera horizontal, turn CPL until max effect (in RF have to turn until a region where exposure has a 1 stop dip). Keep CPL fixed relative to camera. Turn camera upright (ie 90 deg). Turn the CPL and now the region with the 1 stop dip is at a different position (hence the need to have an arrow on the CPL).

First I thought circilar so will not make a diff, it does!. Then I said, ok, maybe it is also 90 deg to where it (the arrow on CPL) was when camera was horizontal) Nay:think:

So to get max polarizing effect, need to "calibrate" when turning camera vertical.

i read twice but i m not sure i fully understand your point. i have b+w uv filters on most of my lenses and they are more for protecting the lenses thn to improve the iq. i use b+w as i believe they are less 'destructive' compare to other cheaper options. i don't think there's any filter/s that can give greater sharpness. and to protect cpl with uv cuz cpl more expensive? :dunno:

 

[aspenx]

I meant you have camera horizontal, turn CPL until max effect (in RF have to turn until a region where exposure has a 1 stop dip). Keep CPL fixed relative to camera. Turn camera upright (ie 90 deg). Turn the CPL and now the region with the 1 stop dip is at a different position (hence the need to have an arrow on the CPL).

First I thought circilar so will not make a diff, it does!. Then I said, ok, maybe it is also 90 deg to where it (the arrow on CPL) was when camera was horizontal) Nay:think:

So to get max polarizing effect, need to "calibrate" when turning camera vertical.

alamak.........:mad2:

Get a piece of paper. draw a straight line on it and imagine that it's your CPL "dial". turn here turn there and see what happens.

I don't think you even understand the meaning of "polarize", so please read up more first.

 

[night86mare]

We knows that UV exist or at least our skin does under a day of hot sun. DSLR have sensors that are made by various companies and supposedly those made by Kodak are the best. Leica and Sigma are the only ones that specify their sensor's origin; guess the rest wants us to believe they design and manufacture the sensors themselves. There are probably as many sensors as there are film emulsions and each has their own characteristics. So there may be a need for "assistance", like Leica UV/IR (2 FOC if you buy the M8 so they are not up selling) because they realized M8's problem under certain conditions. Others may have other problems, be it lenses or sensor (film).

not true, not true, not true.

how long are you going to spout mistruths??

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

not true, not true, not true.

how long are you going to spout mistruths??

Whatever he is smoking, i wanna have a puff of it... *even thou i'm not a smoker*

 

[aspenx]

Whatever he is smoking, i wanna have a puff of it... *even thou i'm not a smoker*

So that you can know that your skin exists under the hot sun?

We knows that UV exist or at least our skin does under a day of hot sun.

 

[night86mare]

Whatever he is smoking, i wanna have a puff of it... *even thou i'm not a smoker*

best way is how he can write about it so convictedly.. :dunno:

 

[wildcat]

best way is how he can write about it so convictedly.. :dunno:

Watch enough X-files and you'll believe anything.

 

[tortise]

I also say BW. Just to differentiate B+W the brand from B&W for Black and White and not the Speakers.

Filter-lens logic:think::
No offence to the brands. Would you put $400 per tyre on your Subaru (I drive one too)? You might right. Would you put $180 per tyre on a 911 Turbo? You won't right, even if reviews says they are very good because you will think that their very good is only relative.

think many have pointed out that the point is not about putting a 'better' filter than the lens to improve it, but that a poor quality filter will effectively waste all the good glass in the lens? So putting a cheap and poor filter on the super lens will compromise its capability for good image quality.

Read somewhere that the image is only going to be as good as the worst piece of glass it needs to pass through to reach your camera (or stg like that). Analogy is like taking a photo with high end lens through a dirty bus window. So putting a super diamond made filter is not likely to improve the image quality, but just minimize the amount of degradation.

I have not compared filters, nor have i reached the level to be anal about sharpness of image or reproduction of colors so can't share any personal experience on this but i think the general idea is there... just want to share this point that i came across somewhere.:sweat:

 

[wildcat]

think many have pointed out that the point is not about putting a 'better' filter than the lens to improve it, but that a poor quality filter will effectively waste all the good glass in the lens? So putting a cheap and poor filter on the super lens will compromise its capability for good image quality.

Read somewhere that the image is only going to be as good as the worst piece of glass it needs to pass through to reach your camera (or stg like that). Analogy is like taking a photo with high end lens through a dirty bus window. So putting a super diamond made filter is not likely to improve the image quality, but just minimize the amount of degradation.

I have not compared filters, nor have i reached the level to be anal about sharpness of image or reproduction of colors so can't share any personal experience on this but i think the general idea is there... just want to share this point that i came across somewhere.:sweat:

Actually I thought that was just a sales tactic by the camera shops to get you to buy the more expensive filters :bsmilie:

But what do I know? I still plop an expensive filter :embrass: on a cheapo kit lens :sweat:

 

[wildcat]

On top of 1 of the above, you may need a polarized (not just bluer sky but cut out reflections), a B&W filter (if shooting B&W film), a softening (to get specific feel), ND (too bright and wants full open), center ND (to prevent vignetting),.......

I agree with that. I am the guy who wants to stack two ND110 together.

The more Pro guys like nai meh may laugh now... but wait till I come back with photos of a 2.5hrs sun-trial... :angry:

 

[tortise]

Actually I thought that was just a sales tactic by the camera shops to get you to buy the more expensive filters :bsmilie:

But what do I know? I still plop an expensive filter :embrass: on a cheapo kit lens :sweat:

hur hur... and i'm the cheapo type with a $10 tokina filter in front of my 50mm f1.8:embrass:
Rest of my hoya UV filters came together with lenses in BnS purchases...

 

[9V-Orion Images]

Wow, a lens filter fanboy. :what:

 

[CS TAN]

Let me just put in my two cents...

Stack all you want, but if you do that frequently, chances are you will need a pair of filter wrenches because sooner or later, your CPL will get stuck onto your UV or whatever filter you had on the lens. The worse case will be you are able to remove the filters (together) from the lens but is unable to separate them. With your big hands, enjoy trying to separate them...;p

BTW, in case you finally give up trying to separate them, give me a PM, I have the filter wrenches that might be able to help...

 

[Diavonex]

Polarization is most effective at 90 degrees to the sun. That means that the subject that you are shooting will display maximum polarization at right angles to the sun's position.

With the sun right behind you (180 degrees), polarization is almost non-existent.

 

[Octarine]

We knows that UV exist or at least our skin does under a day of hot sun. DSLR have sensors that are made by various companies and supposedly those made by Kodak are the best. Leica and Sigma are the only ones that specify their sensor's origin; guess the rest wants us to believe they design and manufacture the sensors themselves. There are probably as many sensors as there are film emulsions and each has their own characteristics. So there may be a need for "assistance", like Leica UV/IR (2 FOC if you buy the M8 so they are not up selling) because they realized M8's problem under certain conditions. Others may have other problems, be it lenses or sensor (film).

Please have a look at the lenses and their characteristics with regards to UV transmission. Then again have a look at the point of having a UV filter, especially at locations with an altitude below 1,000 meters like Singapore.
Instead of hunting conspiracy theories about the origins of sensors let's get out into fresh air and take pictures.

 

[night86mare]

I agree with that. I am the guy who wants to stack two ND110 together.

:bsmilie:

scary........ nightmare!!!!!!!!!!