Jump to content

heqm

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. <p>In principle you shouldn't need a red filter with a digital camera: the sensor has red, green and blue filters built in, and (as <strong>David</strong> says) you should get the same effect just by selecting only the red channel. How dark your skies turn out to be will depend on how blue they are: a deep blue sky, as I've found sometimes in mountains in deserts, can get very dark indeed. A cloudy gray sky will look no different.</p>
  2. <p><strong>Rick</strong>, it's getting into summer here, so I am warm, but not at all astonished. Well, maybe a little astonished: that bokeh looks like classic coma, much larger than I'd expect in a well-corrected multi-element lens. If so, the little comet-shapes should all point toward the center of the field, and get much rounder as you stop down a bit.</p>
  3. <p><strong>Winfried</strong>, you're right, of course. There are a lot of factors going into this, and the thickness (and type) of glass is probably more important than just the coating. But lens designs before coatings had fewer elements, because of the reflections at each surface (as you mention) which cause flare and loss of light, and so the total thickness of glass will generally be smaller. I've only tested four or five lenses (on different cameras) but the uncoated lenses do pass more UV. </p>
  4. <p><strong>Stephen</strong>, the first two shots were on Pan-F+, the rest on FP-4+; developed in D76 1+1. I was testing the films for their UV sensitivity. I don't recommend Pan-F for this project: not only is it slow to start with, it's proportionately less sensitive to UV than FP-4 or Tri-X. Tri-X is the most useful of all I've tried. Rule of thumb: take a light reading through a blue (47B) filter, and <em>add three stops</em> of exposure.<br> I use a B+W 403 filter, visually opaque, ordered from B&H, improvised mounting (originally, taped to the end of the lens). Of course what's normally called a UV filter is exactly what I didn't want! </p>
  5. <p>This should give you a taste of what the UV looks like. Thanks for looking.</p>
  6. <p>And of course I have to show the camera itself.</p><div></div>
  7. <p>And again, in the visible:</p><div></div>
  8. <p>For a final scene, the corner of King and Union, in the heart of the tourist district. Note that you can't read the signs!</p><div></div>
  9. <p>And in the visible:</p><div></div>
  10. <p>Now the garden itself:</p><div></div>
  11. <p>And again in the visible.</p><div></div>
  12. <p>Now a garden door in the Carlyle House, built after Alexandria was founded, but not long.</p><div></div>
  13. <p>And for comparison, the sames scene in the visible.</p><div></div>
  14. <p>When I presented my <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00dVFy">Leica III</a>, I mentioned that my motivation (justification) to buy it was a project shooting in the ultraviolet, where a coated lens would actually reduce the amount of light going through. Here are some results. The difference between the UV and visible is generally pretty subtle. First, the John Douglas Brown house here in Alexandria, which was built before Alexandria was a town.</p><div></div>
  15. <p>Between the responses to my Brownie Hawkeye posts and this thread, I'm wondering if we're seeing a Meniscus Lens Movement: the return of the fixed-focus, one-shutter-speed, one-lens-opening camera. They're certainly capable of good work in sympathetic hands. Not exactly the opposite of Holga/Lomo, but definitely in a different direction.<br> <br />I think I'm going to have to try Pyro sometime soon. Even with all the variables in scanning and displaying on the monitor, Rick, you're getting great results with it.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...