To filter or not to filter....

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by jakemaryniak, May 20, 2020.

  1. But the Skylight filter has no defined depth of 'pinkness' like anything from the Wratten series. Nikon's 1a filter is not the same as Canon's nor as Hoya's for example. You've only got to put two different makes of Skylight filter side by side on a white surface to see that. And pink isn't the complement of blue, nor is it a CT shift filter colour, that's amber.

    Using a faintly pink filter on colour negative film? Really? When a twitch of the Y and M printing filters would do the same thing. Totally pointless IME. It's not as if batch-to-batch variations of film or colour paper are within the +/- 0.1R difference that a Skylight filter would make.
  2. Water spray, rain, and dust are the reasons I mount a filter these days. Some fountains leave a mineral deposit that is very difficult to clean off. The lens cap and hood provide good protection for most situations. Post processing eliminates the need for most film era filters.
  3. Not so. 1A is a Wratten designation, and there is a spectral transmission prescription. If brands differ, it is their mistake to call these filters 1A filters.
    It is not a colour temperature correction filter, no. Not strictly blue versus red. But that's not enough to correct real life scene's. Hence the existence of tricolour colour meters.
    But it does what i wrote it is made to do.

    Not so, again. When there is too little red in the recording (either film or digital: same), reducing blue will not add red. It will reduce the overall colour content. However when you filter light in which all colours are present in abundance by using a filter in front of the lens, you can adjust the balance much better.
    But true, it is a small correction.
  4. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Maybe in your experience, but as mentioned we got actual value from using 1A as I described and this use was at the request of the Lab Tech who printed our Roll Proofs - up to six Weddings per Weekend - so I guess that Lab Tech had some logical reason for requesting the 1A be used and I assume it was to make his printing job easier and not more difficult: I suspect even though it was a little difference it could have been a difference as described by q.g. de bakker.

  5. I know the conversation has been shifted past UV filters, but I thought I'd throw this in.

    A good UV filter, like a Nikon L37c, has a sharp cut-off at 370nm. I've gone through phases of checking filters in a spectrophotometer, and this is a consistent value for filters marked "UV."

    Good quality optical glass, incidentally, also cuts off at around 370nm. In fact, when doing UV-VIS(or fluorescence) measurements in the lab, the rule I always tell people is to use quartz or polystyrene cuvettes for anything below 400nm. You can get away with glass down to about 380nm, but 400 is a much "cleaner" line to draw. Aside from some cheap glass transmission cuvettes I have a pile of to "loan" to people who I know won't return, my ones for personal use(and loans to trusted people) are quartz fluorescent. They're not a lot more expensive than quality optical glass, but are much more versatile.

    That aside, I've put my fair share of lenses in the spectrotometer too, and I've never seen one that would transmit below 370nm. Even if there's an exotic material like fluorite(which can transmit down to ~190nm), or a more pedestrian material like plastic, a good part of a typical modern lens is still glass. So, in my mind, a "UV" filter really is just a clear protection filter.

    BTW, most of my manual focus Nikon lenses that get used regularly wear a Nikon L1Bc all the time. I like the small amount of warmth that it adds to slide film.
  6. Totally agree, however, when shooting stitched panoramas a polarizer is usually out (sometimes it can be used but 90% of the time it will do more harm than good). A UV filter will help a little with cutting through some horrendous haze. I usually have a UV filter with me and I slap it on whenever there's a bunch of haze but only after I've already captured my pano without any filter and if I have the extra time. The improvement over unfiltered images is negligible at best but when the atmospherics are that atrocious - every little bit helps.
  7. jakemaryniak,
    One can use UV filters like and in addition to a lens cap. You can take the filter off anytime you want.
    If you have it you can use it when you need it. They do protect the front element and to some degree the filter threads.
    For panoramics all the auto features are turned off and the filters especially a polarizer are stowed.
    As well, have never seen any published objective findings that high quality B&W filters made with schott glass
    or any of the superb optical quality stuff manufactured in Japan degrade image quality.
    Good hunting
  8. I keep uv filters on all of my lenses for protection. I have had several filters broken but have never had damage to the lenses. I have always been of the opinion that the less you clean a lens the better. A filter will keep it clean. I use Hoya filters and they seem to be of very good quality. I had someone pick up my camera once and he decided the lens needed cleaning. I caught him cleaning it with his dirty flannel shirt. He may as well used sandpaper. Luckily I had a filter on the lens and the lens was not damaged. The filter was shot but easily replaced. I also use metal lens hoods on all of my lenses.
  9. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Hmm... did you kill him...?
    robert_bowring likes this.
  10. I discovered that whenever possible, the best lens protction is a collapsible rubber lens hood, since in addtion to shielding the lens from aberrant light rays, it serves as a bumper, but can be collapsed to occupy less space in the camera bag. They are difficult to find , and must always be tested mounted on lens and camea to make sue they do not vignette.

Share This Page