vlad po...

<p>Ric, you can try this link<br /><a href="http://www.optyczne.pl/5.4-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV_Omówienie_wyników_i_podsumowanie.html">http://www.optyczne.pl/5.4-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV_Omówienie_wyników_i_podsumowanie.html</a><br>

They found that Hoya, as economy option, superior than others, including Kenko, but the margin can be slim. I saw your filter on eBay (where most stuff usually overpriced) for $45, so, I guess, they gave you not so bad price. I recently purchased 52mm Hoya HMC Super at Adorama for $26, buying online is usually cheaper. It works fine and I guess so does Kenko.<br>

All stuff like "to protect your camera sensor against the harmful UV rays"..."its thinner compared to Hoya HMC, therefore no haze, its easier to clean coz its not multi coated" is a pure BS:))) ...they also are telling not all the truth. While cleaning HMC filters is really quite a job, uncoated/monocoated glass blocks more light and may allow more flare/ghosting, than multicoated. The most important thing here is the peace in photographer's mind, I mean, when you shoot it's better to focus on composition rather than thinking every moment about your lens protection. For example, I'm a very meticulous person, so I feel good with UV protector rather than without. If you tried shooting with and without the filter and don't see any image degradation or ghosting that's excellent, so you can attach the filter and forget about it at all:)))<br>

I don't think you should remove the protector filter at any time, including night, except when you need to add something else, like polarizer or so.<br />Cheers.</p>

<p><strong>Just my 2 cents)))</strong><br>

Yes, I agree with the person who says that you need protection, especially for 100mm and "L" series. <br />BTW, another person also said you a valid thing: it's high chances the POOR QUALITY filter may easily impair the quality of an expensive lens.<br>

From what you listed above I may guess they are all cheap uncoated glass filters. Don't see any reason in using SKY, it's a warming filter and will change overall white balance. The other two can be used. If you don't care about reducing UV/haze, than use Ultra Clear as a protector for 7-210 zoom. 100mm macro seems a better quality lens, so I'd suggest using multicoated protector, for example 58mm Hoya HMC UV/Haze ($22, Adorama).<br>

Specifically, answering your questions<br />1) You didn't provide all the details, but I assume, you've got Circular Polarizer (not Linear), right? <br />You CAN use it as a protector, but, probably, shouldn't. Please, consider next things a) ANY additional <br />glass layer in front of your lens blocks some light, reduce sharpness, may introduce flair, especially <br />uncoated glass; polarizer has 2 layers of glass; b) polarizer slows down your camera up to 2 stops. So, qualitywise, unless you are shooting sports or some fast changing events where time is money, it would be good not stucking filters, but to replace protector for CPL only when you are planning to darken sky, reduce reflections, etc.<br>

2)I have Nikon DSLR, probably other Canoners))) will be better reference as for specific recommendations for Canon DSLR filters. But as a rule of the thumb, the better lens requires the better quality filter. And the quality filters work good on most lenses. If you buy Hoya HMS or higher grade, e.g. HD, you can't be wrong.<br>

3)If you are on budget, one of the best options would be Hoya HMC UV; 77mm version is $49 at Adorama, but if you don't mind to spend more, HD version costs $110. It's probably worth it, since it's a pain to clean fingerprints from HMC (and, probably from most multicoated filters?), but they say HD is resistant to dirt and cleans easily.<br />You can look at the results of filter testing published on one Polish website I discovered recently by chance (link below). Unfortunately, I don't know Polish,but the charts, test images, ratings and prices are more or less clear and don't require translation. According to all these data, Hoya HMC, HMS-Super, and Digital Pro are three top brands (price also considered as an identifier, secondary to light transmission and image quality). So, you can decide.<br>

A disclamer: I have nothing to do with Hoya, Canon, Nikon and other big players, my suggestions based on common sense and some experience:))) BTW, I have 52mm HMC Super UV/Haze and very happy with it, under normal conditions I don't see any difference when shoot with UV protector or without.<br />Good luck.<br>

<a href="http://www.optyczne.pl/5.4-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV_Omówienie_wyników_i_po">http://www.optyczne.pl/5.4-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV_Omówienie_wyników_i_po</a></p>

Vanessa,

 

As for the scan I posted here the problem was not that bad, but I decided to enhance the halos through Levels-USM to make them clearly visible on any monitor on low-res JPEG. I remember that answering questions like this in other threads some people complained that they couldn't see the spots on their monitors. In fact, I can correct the problem (I would guess)using healing brush, but it takes a lot of time, so I'm wondering why? WHY??? What's happened? Looking back to my small format past when I was developing films just in tap water saturated with chlorine I can't remember anything like that. Now I use deionised water and filter stock solutions carefully, but everything is getting worse. Well, as I've said, next time I'll try to filter everything, even Photo-Flo :))), but the source of the trouble is still not identified. So I would appreciate if anybody else will share his/her experience and possible positive ways to resolve the problem. I do not think that something can be done to correct it on the negatives. Although, if you scan them, just use well known digital tools in PS like healing brush and cloning stamp. And a lot of patience, of course.

Ronald, Chris and Erwin, thanks a lot for stopping by and for your detailed analysis.

 

Ronald,

 

 

I use tank called "Universal", a Paterson-like version, all parts are there. I used to add developer from the top and never had any problem before. As for dust on the scan, I didn't try to remove it when scanning because it was just for illustration purposes and the spots I'm talking about are clearly visible there. If I understood correctly you mentioned silver particles as a probable cause of that stuff in upper right. I suspect that as #1. Mmmm... not sure about undissolved developer particles. I prepare all stock solutions on magnetic stirrer and filter them. But. But one-shot work solutions I don't filter assuming that bi-distilled water and pre-filtered stock shouldn't contain any junk. And, probably, that's wrong. A good point, will try to check this step too.

 

Chris,

 

Not sure about 10 micron, but I use at least 22. Therefore, from your and Ron's explanations I can conclude that the spots caused by particles floating either in developer or in fixer. It should be only one of these two and I suspect fixer, but next time I'll try to filter both solutions. I used to re-use fixer before and nothing went wrong. Probably, it's better to filter it before every use.

 

Thanks for the info and suggestions, at least now I'm sure it's not air bubbles.

I noticed appearance of strange spots on some of my B&W negatives. Various

films, various developers, some minor variations in processing protocol, but

the problem is persistent. I?ve read archives on PN and some other sites, but

didn?t find any satisfactory explanation. May be I missed something, not sure,

so I would try to ask for help to figure out what can be the source of spots.

I?m pretty sure, that I?m not unique with this kind of problem, so if you

experienced something like that I would really appreciate any advice.

 

I shoot MF. The spots used to appear only on few frames of a film, like 1-2 or

3 not more. Visible only in areas of a uniform density like sky or snow. Round,

elongated or any other kind of irregular shape. They look like either white

circles with black dots in the centers or, if elongated, like dark lines or

curves contoured with white lines.

 

Processing details are as follows. All solutions made using bi-distilled water

and filtered except fixer if re-used. Temperature and time are controlled good

enough. Develop in plastic tank, do inversions and hit it really hard to remove

bubbles (are they still there?????????). Use distilled tap water for rinsing.

If the spots are from air bubbles, the solution is easy, just use steel tank. I

have one, but haven?t used it because I don?t like its film loading system. But

if the spots are not from air bubbles, my guess is that they might be caused by

particles from 1) silver from re-used fixer not filtered before each use; 2)

distilled tap water used for rinsing; 3) dust particles from air deposited on

the hanging film during drying process.

 

Will try to post a sample.

 

So, what's wrong???<div></div>

Thanks everybody for your input. Now I can clearly see the situation on this market. It seems that I should wait for some time and visit J+C again. I'm interested specifically in Efke 25, so I'll wait. The slowest MF film Freestyle has is ISO50, but I'm happy with Pan F+ so far.

I never presoak 120 film. Does it make any difference? It scans well anyway. You may need it (to avioid air bubbles) when the developing time is very short, e.g. 5 min. Never had any troubles with bubbles or color tint. If you are nervous about the pink base color rinse the film 25-30 min after fixing and it's gone. Why to bother about color of the developer.

Ron, I visited this site yesterday and they had 120 film ADOX ISO125 and 400 only. Efke 25 out of stock, no ADOX ISO25 (KB14 I guess) either. So I still have a question about any vendor in US other than JandC Photo who is selling Efke or ADOX ISO25.

I wanted to try 120 film Efke 25 and went to JandC. However, they are

out of stock. Does anybody know if it's possible to buy this film

somewhere else in US. Any info is greatly appreciated.

Yes, Frank, I know that some cameras like yours have specific markers. Unfortunately, Mat 124 doesn't have any marks on focusing knob.

Stephen,

 

probably I did confusing statement. Of course, I can't imagine IR without tripod. I just was keeping in mind that I want to get a reasonable aperture, like f8, to get optimal resolution from Yashinon lens and to decrease exposure time to avoid blurring of the landscape elements. I think I eventually will try what you suggested if nobody else will recommend me easier solution. Thank you very much for the advise.

 

Ferdi,

 

I've got R72 already and actually I wouldn't like to make more investments so far. Anyway, I appreciate your suggestion, it's good to know all options available. I haven't heared anything about lens-shaped IR filters, sounds interesting.

Sounds funny, I decided that by clicking on 'TLR' I'm going to another forum more specific to my camera - LOL.

I'm reposting here what I've asked in Medium Format Digest because I

feel that my question might be more appropriate to this forum. I have

Yashica Mat 124 and Hoya R72 filter. I've started shooting IR with my

digital camera, but now I want to try film IR. I'm aware that IR film

requires specific focus adjustment different from regular film. I

realize that the best way would be experimenting myself what I

actually intend to do. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first who

decided to shoot IR with TLR like Mat 124. There may be some

photographers who have got valuable experience and might be willing

to share it with freshmans like me. I would appreciate any advise on

focus adjustment in TLR for infrared film. Of course, I can try to

set up deep DOF, say f22, that would be one of simple solutions.

However, I'd like to keep aperture reasonable (e.g. f8) to get

maximal resolution of Yashinon and avoid blurring at extremely long

exposures. I'm just wondering if it's possible.

Rob, thanks for the reference. However, that thread doesnt say anything about the focus adjustment in old manual TLR which doesn't have the red 'R' mark for IR. So I'm still waiting for more specific answer.

I've tried to shoot IR with my digital camera and it was fun. Wanted

to try my Yashicamat 124, but not sure about how to focus the camera

correctly. I've read that IR requires to set focus closer than

regular scale. How closer? Hoya R72 needs at least 5 stops, so I

guess I won't be able to keep f32 or f22 to get maximal DOF even at

EI400. I would appreciate if anybody can share his/her experience in

focusing of TLR for infrared film photography.

It depends what are you planning, scan or enlarge. I know only one "no grain" film, Tmax100 (practically in any developer), best for scanning. Not the best lattitude though, in this respect HP5+ and TriX would be better. If you digitize your negatives for scanner, than HP5+ at EI200 in Perceptol, Microdol, or Xtol, as said above by many others, all diluted 1:1 would be one of the best solutions. The developing time you can find on www.digitaltruth.com. Although,I cannot recommend this combination under low contrast lighting conditions, because pulling (to EI200) decreases contrast and frequently used just for that, not only to reduce grain. Same thing about dilution, straight developers decrease contrast significantly so you can get absolutely dull negatives. I'd say minimal dilution would be a reasonable trade-off. I disagree, that TriX is better. TriX, at least for me, gives more fogged base in any developer; the emulsion is thicker, so less preferrable for scanning; less contrasty than HP5; IMHO has slightly larger grain. If you are going to enlarge, the same approach basically would be OK, but the best solution may be quite different.

Doug, thanks for your fast response. I've also read your message on Epson 3200 Yahoo Group. Now I'm sure everything is OK with the scanner. I suspected that the diffuser supplied by Epson specifically for MF film may be of importance. I'll buy the original Epson diffuser to test.

I recently purchased a used Epson 3170 on eBay and the Doug Fisher's

adapter for MF film. The scanner was sold "as is" without any

accessories. Doug Fisher's site says that he learned from the other

photographers that the use of additional diffuser is not a critical

part of the scanning process. So I didn't worry either. However, when

I started scanning I found dark strips across the scans from 6x6 B&W

negatives. Their pattern seemed to correspond to the position of the

two scanner lamps. For comparison I scanned the same negative on

HP5370c and didn't get anything like that. I attached the both scans

to this post. The strips seem are not visible when I scan slides. My

question is what can I do to get rid of these spots; 1) if you guess

the scanner is absolutely bad (e.g. the build-in diffuser screen is

old and ineffective)and the only option is to buy a new scanner; or

2) if I need to buy/make an additional diffuser. If you think the

second is valid, what kind of material I could use for a diffuser. I

would appreciate any suggestion.

I mean to get it working before your patience is over. It worth. This sery of printers indeed a leader in producing of high quality B&W prints within and beyond the price range.

* I only used the Epson paper because I suspected the HP paper, and wanted to see if the problem would improve on another paper It didn't. So I figured the problem was not the paper.*

 

Once again, the best way to figure out the problem would be to try to set up standard conditions recommended by HP. Photosmart 8150+Vivera ink (#100)+HP Photo Paper+HP Image Zone. I?m not saying that any other brands like third party inks etc.will not work but than you should go by way of trails and errors with unpredictable results. I asume that before experimenting you should reproduce just what HP suggested to work. If you called HP support and told them that you used Epson paper I may guess they would say that this was your problem. Probably it?s not, but nobody knows

 

 

* Vivera inks. Is the 100 cartridge fiolled with Vivera ink?*

 

Yes, ##96, 97, 99&100 use Vivera ink designed specifically for HP photoprinters like Photosmart.

 

*Do you think it is neccesary to go through HP Image Zone?*

 

It?s of course not necessary, but you should try if you want to figure out if something is wrong with your printer. Why HP Image Zone? Because a) it?s 100% proof that you get a complete set of correct ICC profiles; b) very simple in use; c) nevertheless it has enough controls not only over profiles, but over color balance, sharpness etc., you can edit images in this software. For example, you may easily adjust tones/color balance to eliminate undesirable color cast etc. It?s especially convenient if you are not happy with an image just printed out. You are not wasting time to go back to PS, just doing minor editing here.

 

* I would like to know if the color cartridge is necessary for a neutral black.*

 

Photosmart 8450, 8750 use Photo Color #99 in addition to Gray Photo #100. Looks like your 8150 doesn?t.

 

*The HP Photosmart 8150 only holds three cartridges and therein may lie my problem. Right now there is a #97 and a #100 cartridge in there.*

 

As I understand you should have installed only #100 for B&W on 8150.

 

* Should I mail the printer back to them?*

 

If you would plan to spend some extra money and print something larger than 8x10 I would recommend exchanging it for 8750. Otherwise, I would try to use any opportunity to get 8150 working before returning. If, of course, the deadline allows.

>I think I eliminated the paper by making some prints on Epson Photo Quality Ink Jet Paper<

 

You didn?t David. Just on the contrary, you?ve introduced a new factor, >paper<, in this case. HP guarantees the result with Vivera inks on HP Photo Paper only.

 

David, I?m not sure, if I got correctly what you said, but what I see above is

 

>I've been using Adobe Elements #1 with Everyday Glossy and Premium Plus Semi-gloss HP paper<

And than >Then I did [Paper quality> HP Everyday Photo Paper]<

 

From your description is not clear if you changing paper profiles when switching between >Everyday< and >Premium Plus< HP Photo Paper.

 

The other thing, as I understood you are printing from Elements. Why? Why not to print from HP Image Zone supplied with the HP printers.

 

I have Photosmart 8450 and after post processing in PS5.5 print final output files through HP Image Zone. Everything as Constance said, just excellent B&W prints without any tint. On HP photo quality paper. With the three cartridges loaded (#97, #99d), no #96.

I think you need to use only HP Photo Paper and make sure to choose matching paper profiles in each case. I also suspect that everything is OK with your printer.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>