Re: Filter question
Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Filter question If God had wanted us to use cameras, we'd have all been born with one. We weren't? JUST one? ERNR
Re: Filter question
Instead of two you mean? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: If God had wanted us to use cameras, we'd have all been born with one.
RE: Filter question
Hi Peter, The debate of whether or not to use filters such as haze or UV (which I think the haze filter is similar to) shall go on forever. There are those that claim newer glass is designed to filter the UV light, so a filter isn't needed. There are those who suggest that a filter will degrade the image, so it shouldn't be used. There are those who say that new lens coatings are hard enough that a filter isn't needed for protection. IMO, all those considerations are correct to a degree. But, one must consider the use of a filter wrt to the situation, the lens used, and the results desired. For example, if you're photographing in a miserable environment - dirt, dust, moisture, and so on, a flirter may be an ideal option to protect the lens, but also to allow you to continue working by just swapping out the filter when it gets dirty so you don't have to stop shooting to clean the lens in a situation that's not ideal to do so. Are new coatings strong enough to withstand lots of cleaning? Some demonstrations that have been reported seem to indicate that such is the case, but do you want to underwrite the cost of that experiment long term? Does your lens even have a newer coating? Will a filter degrade the image? It can, and the degree to which it will degrade depends on several conditions. using a cheap filter you can pretty well count on it. If using a high quality filter with good glass, superior coatings, and which is well constructed, any degradation will be minimal, and I challenge anyone to see the degradation in a typical print. It certainly won't be noticeable on a web image or smaller prints - at least I've never been able to se see it. But, even when using a cheap filter it may not be easy to see image degradation that's attributable to the filter itself except possibly in a carefully controlled side-by-side test. Scene lighting, the use of a lens hood, chosen aperture, choice of film will all play a role in just how much, ~if any~ degradation you can easily observe. Does new glass preclude the need for a UV or haze filter? Maybe, but does your lens have that glass in it? I think some have said the cement used to hold elements together can affect the xmission of UV rays. Does your lens have that cement? I think the use of a filter becomes a very personal choice and should be considered wrt to the above, and in all cases, wherever finances will allow it, only the highest quality filters should be used unless you're looking for specific effects. When i was young and foolish and poor, and photography was in its infancy (LOL) these discussions didn't exist. we'd just stick a filter in front of the lens and go out and make photographs. Some of the photos I made years ago with Spiratone and Vivitar filters look just fine to me today. There was no such thing as Multi Coating, and SUPER multi coating was only a germ of a thought in some lens designer's mind. Shel [Original Message] From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] my father gave me some photographic odds and ends he isn't using any more. Among other things a Tiffen Haze-1 filter. It looks clean, but is it a good one? Is it usefull? What is your general opinion about filters. Some recommend the use of filters to protect the lenses, others say that its better not to use filters at all, or only in special situations. Peter, Sweden
RE: Filter question
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
{snip}
Are new coatings strong enough to withstand lots of cleaning?
Some demonstrations that have been reported seem to indicate
that such is the case, but do you want to underwrite the cost
of that experiment long term?
Does your lens even have a newer coating?
{snip}
A few years back I bought some plain glass filters, for no other reason than
to protect the lenses from accidental damage.
Malcolm
Re: Filter question
Peter, I see you're getting all the info you will need to make a cursory initial decision re filter usage. I took your question to, also, include that of an opinion as to Tiffen brand filters. I've used a bunch of their filters (multi coated..etc.) and have developed no aversion to their use. At this point in my photo pursuit I find myself paying a bit more for filters partially due to the fact that they are going on more expensive lenses. Don't have a clue if I need to. My only lens that is not filtered is a 100 f/2.8 macro. Deep set front lens and extra fine detail sought. I'll add one other point in the event it hasn't been mentioned, and that is the chance of additional flare due to reflection 'bounce back' between the filter surface and the objective lens. When shooting, even obliquely, toward a light source, I remove the filter. Hope you can use. Jack --- Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, my father gave me some photographic odds and ends he isn't using any more. Among other things a Tiffen Haze-1 filter. It looks clean, but is it a good one? Is it usefull? What is your general opinion about filters. Some recommend the use of filters to protect the lenses, others say that its better not to use filters at all, or only in special situations. Peter, Sweden __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Filter question
A deep and effective lens hood is helpful, Jack ;-)) especially since there are times one may want to use a filter for contrast enhancement in BW work, color correction, or certain effects. Shel [Original Message] From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll add one other point in the event it hasn't been mentioned, and that is the chance of additional flare due to reflection 'bounce back' between the filter surface and the objective lens. When shooting, even obliquely, toward a light source, I remove the filter.
Re: Filter question
I don't put haze or skylight filters on my lenses. The one filter I will use a lot is a polarizing filter. The only time I will place a haze filter over my lens is when I need a misty shot. The filter is given a light coating of vaseline to give me the fog effect. Jim A. From: Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:27:30 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Filter question Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:27:47 -0500 Hi all, my father gave me some photographic odds and ends he isn't using any more. Among other things a Tiffen Haze-1 filter. It looks clean, but is it a good one? Is it usefull? What is your general opinion about filters. Some recommend the use of filters to protect the lenses, others say that its better not to use filters at all, or only in special situations. Peter, Sweden
Re: Filter question (Shel)
Shel, Right! That afterthought did occur to me and, given enough time, I might have even sent an addendum. Thanks for covering the point. :))) Jack --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A deep and effective lens hood is helpful, Jack ;-)) especially since there are times one may want to use a filter for contrast enhancement in BW work, color correction, or certain effects. Shel [Original Message] From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll add one other point in the event it hasn't been mentioned, and that is the chance of additional flare due to reflection 'bounce back' between the filter surface and the objective lens. When shooting, even obliquely, toward a light source, I remove the filter. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Filter question
- Original Message - From: Peter Smekal Subject: Filter question Hi all, my father gave me some photographic odds and ends he isn't using any more. Among other things a Tiffen Haze-1 filter. It looks clean, but is it a good one? Is it usefull? What is your general opinion about filters. Some recommend the use of filters to protect the lenses, others say that its better not to use filters at all, or only in special situations. I don't use em, myself, unless the situation dictates the use of a filter. I figure if God had wanted us to use a filter, he would have included one with the lens. The Zenitar 16mm fisheye is an example of God including a filter. William Robb
Re: Filter question
If God had wanted us to use cameras, we'd have all been born with one. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I figure if God had wanted us to use a filter, he would have included one with the lens. The Zenitar 16mm fisheye is an example of God including a filter.
Re: Filter question
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Filter question If God had wanted us to use cameras, we'd have all been born with one. We weren't? William Robb
Re: Filter question: UV or just clear protection?
The guy asked a question, I answered it. You don't like the answer you can ignore it, (hell most people do anyway). Frantisek wrote: Friday, August 20, 2004, 11:05:26 PM, Peter wrote: PJA Firstly plain glass blocks most UV. But you will be adding an extra PJA couple of air glass interfaces which will PJA probably affect the sharpness of your photos more than the lack of UV PJA filtering. Not this discussion again, please ;-) It surfaces every month or so. Good light! fra -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Filter question: UV or just clear protection?
On 20/8/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, offered: If I get the clear filter instead of UV, what will I be missing? Will my outdoor shots be any less sharp? Can anyone confirm that the Contax Protection filters are multicoated? Paul, FWIW, I have decided that any extra glass in front of a lens is removing the ability of the light to reach the sensor/film plane, and adding to the possibility of flare. OTOH, they do offer some front element protection. I tend to have UV filters on teles, nothing on wides. I don't use one on my K50 1.2. Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Filter question: UV or just clear protection?
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:24:07 - (GMT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I get the clear filter instead of UV, what will I be missing? Will my outdoor shots be any less sharp? As others have mentioned any extra glass lessens the sharpness of the final image. But the added protection of a clear lens cap means that I'll take my camera out at times when I might otherwise not - eg. windy day on the beach with salt spray and sand blowing about. It's easy to unscrew my clear lens cap for optimum quality, but difficult to put it on in a situation where I want to use it. As a result all my lenses have UV filters. If they are selling the clear protection filters as multicoated then they must be. Contax would not falsely advertise that badly these days. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Filter question: UV or just clear protection?
Hi, Friday, August 20, 2004, 6:24:07 PM, paul wrote: I like to use a UV filter on each lens to protect the front glass. I'm now shopping for an 86mm filter, and it's hard to find a top-end (Contax, Pentax, Heliopan, B+W, or Hoya SHMC), multicoated UV filter in that size, in used condition (and thus at a used price). I can get a used Contax clear protection filter (model 86 P) at a good price ($31). It has no UV protection, but according to the Adorama listing (New), it is multicoated. I am taking this on faith, because I can't find it confirmed anywhere else, including Kyocera's site. In 86mm, a new Contax Protection filter costs abotu $8 less the UV filter. This will be for my Vivitar 24-48/3.8, for which I just placed an order. If I get the clear filter instead of UV, what will I be missing? Will my outdoor shots be any less sharp? Can anyone confirm that the Contax Protection filters are multicoated? Paul I have a lot of Contax filters, but not this one, so I can't help on that particular question. There is a Kyocera shop here - I assume this is the one you've looked at: http://kyocera.smartermall.com/searchresults.asp?dept_id=14 On this list of filters they specifically state 'multicoated' for nearly all of them, but not for the 86mm clear filter. So I would assume from that that it is not multicoated, and I'd pay the small extra amount for the UV. At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, if you buy a clear filter you will lose UV reduction, so if you photograph those blue remembered hills, they will indeed be blue. Teamwork (http://www.teamworkphoto.com/heliopan.html) is a good source for Heliopan filters. They're well priced by UK standards, but the exchange rate is probably against you. -- Cheers, Bob Into my heart an air that kills From yon far country blows: What are those blue remembered hills, What spires, what farms are those? This is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain. The happy highways where I went And cannot come again. ---A E Housman
Re: Filter Question:
Bob Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to decide about filters for the K24/2.8. Will a regular size (thickness) filter vignet; or should I go the step-up ring route and say, go from 52 to 58mm for UV and Polarizer? I used a Nikon on mine, without problems. But then, I never shot wider than f/5.6. If you're concerned, your best choice would be Heliopan Slim (the multicoated version, of course), which is threaded to take a screw-in hood, or B+W Slim (multicoated), which is not. Given that 52mm offers a safety margin over the later 49mm 24s, I'll bet a Pentax filter would be just fine. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter Question:
On 18 Jun 2002 at 16:55, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: I used a Nikon on mine, without problems. But then, I never shot wider than f/5.6. Paul, what do you mean wider? Mechanical vignetting becomes more apparent as the lens is stopped down and is least visible when the lens is fully open. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
RK wrote: I understand Pentax makes a SMC Cloudy filter- what kind of animal is this? It is a warming filter. Slightly warmer than a skylight filter. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 03:23 PM, Bill Owens wrote: I think there is a problem with the ME and MES. Using just the orange filter, the TTL metering in my MES (which I THINK is fixed) shows a 1 stop correction. The data sheet shows 2 1/3 stops correction. This morning I shot a roll of FP4 (ISO 125) in my Yashica Mat, using a Minolta IIIF incident meter at ISO 25 and the negatives appear perfect. Using the MES in TTL would have underexposed by 1 1/3 stops. Your meter is right on, don't worry. This is what we were talking about -- black and white film is not sensitive to all colours of light in exactly the same way. The redder the light, the more exposure the film requires to make a proper exposure. If you had colour film in your camera, your ME's meter would have given you perfectly exposed negs. However, the bw film needs that extra 1 1/3 stop because of the colour of the filter. The rest of the exposure difference is due to the filter's density. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: Filter question
I recently bought a Tiffen #25 Red for the BW camera. The sheet said 3 stops.When i put it in front of the clip on meter of the S3 it dove 3 stops,so it looks as if that factor/meter relation is 'pretty close'.Time will tell when i finish shooting this roll of Delta 400 Dave Begin Original Message From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:30:13 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Filter question Possibly, my books say an orange filter has a filter factor of 3x. That would be about 2-1/3 stops. A yellow filter is 2x which would be 1 stop. Red is 6x which would be about 4-1/2 stops. Your meter should be pretty close for color compensating filters with color film, but for black and white it is always suggested that you use the published filter factor. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Filter question Probably not, but I also get a -1 reading with the ME Super in manual mode. Are you saying that using a filter with TTL metering is inaccurate? Bill Your spotmeter does not have exactly the same color sensitivity as film. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:56 AM Subject: Filter question Since I'm somewhat of a newbie at BW photography here's a question regarding the use of filters While at on of the local camera shops the other day, I noticed they had a junk bin of filters for $5.00 ea. I picked up a Vivitar orange 08. According to the sheet that came with the filter, there should be -2 1/3 stop correction when using it in daylight. However, when placing it over my spotmeter, I show only 1 stop reduction. Could someone please explain the 1 1/3 stop difference? Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
On Sunday, February 17, 2002, at 11:15 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: So, either use a hand-held meter and change your ISO to reflect the 1 1/3 stop difference, Bah, I mean 2 1/3 stop difference. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Yesterday I loaded the OM-10 (ME-Super still broken) with CN400, attached the orange filter, set the meter on 80 and shot away at f8 in auto mode.. At work yesterday evening I processed the film and ran through the printer on normal setting. The machine prints came out looking fine. Bill - Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 8:05 AM Subject: Re: Filter question On Sunday, February 17, 2002, at 11:15 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: So, either use a hand-held meter and change your ISO to reflect the 1 1/3 stop difference, Bah, I mean 2 1/3 stop difference. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: Filter question
- Original Message - From: David Brooks Subject: Re: Re: Filter question I recently bought a Tiffen #25 Red for the BW camera. The sheet said 3 stops.When i put it in front of the clip on meter of the S3 it dove 3 stops,so it looks as if that factor/meter relation is 'pretty close'.Time will tell when i finish shooting this roll of Delta 400 What I found with the #25 filter was that it has a 3 stop deflection on the meter, but also an additional nearly 2 stop deflection on the film speed. I find with FP4+, which I nominally rate at 80, I need to do a + 1 2/3 stop exposure compensation when I use a #25 filter. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: Re: Filter question
Time will tell Bill.I shot 10-12 frames with it on and i used the guide of +3 as the little book recommended.I also took some frames of the same subject without the #25 for comparison. BTW i kept the camera at 400 and opened up lense wize. If the weather is good this weekend(by that i mean cold and snow still on the ground)I;ll finish the roll and take it in.Im curious as to its outcome. Dave Begin Original Message From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:05:41 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Filter question - Original Message - From: David Brooks Subject: Re: Re: Filter question I recently bought a Tiffen #25 Red for the BW camera. The sheet said 3 stops.When i put it in front of the clip on meter of the S3 it dove 3 stops,so it looks as if that factor/meter relation is 'pretty close'.Time will tell when i finish shooting this roll of Delta 400 What I found with the #25 filter was that it has a 3 stop deflection on the meter, but also an additional nearly 2 stop deflection on the film speed. I find with FP4+, which I nominally rate at 80, I need to do a + 1 2/3 stop exposure compensation when I use a #25 filter. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
- Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 7:59 AM Subject: Re: Filter question Bill, This has been an interesting thread, as I have only recently mentioned my intention to start BW photography. Most of my filters were bought in the 70's, (i) I new little of photography, and (ii) no longer have the data sheets. I remember looking at some of the bw prints before I moved from the UK, they struck me as being under exposed. I still do not understand what compensation to make for correct exposure. On my ME and MES I should not have a problem, but I need to know how to set my ASA/ISO speed correctly with my SPF using TMax 100 Pro. I will probably use the following filters: Yellow(K2), Green(G (x1)) and Orange(G) filter James - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
I've put up a page for filter factors that should answer your questions. Check out my site (URL in my sig file) and look under the section for Film Developing. jmadams wrote: Most of my filters were bought in the 70's, (i) I new little of photography, and (ii) no longer have the data sheets. I remember looking at some of the bw prints before I moved from the UK, they struck me as being under exposed. I still do not understand what compensation to make for correct exposure. On my ME and MES I should not have a problem, but I need to know how to set my ASA/ISO speed correctly with my SPF using TMax 100 Pro. I will probably use the following filters: Yellow(K2), Green(G (x1)) and Orange(G) filter -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Yellow 2x (1 stop) Green and Orange 3x (2-1/3 stops) Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: jmadams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: Re: Filter question - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 7:59 AM Subject: Re: Filter question Bill, This has been an interesting thread, as I have only recently mentioned my intention to start BW photography. Most of my filters were bought in the 70's, (i) I new little of photography, and (ii) no longer have the data sheets. I remember looking at some of the bw prints before I moved from the UK, they struck me as being under exposed. I still do not understand what compensation to make for correct exposure. On my ME and MES I should not have a problem, but I need to know how to set my ASA/ISO speed correctly with my SPF using TMax 100 Pro. I will probably use the following filters: Yellow(K2), Green(G (x1)) and Orange(G) filter James - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Bill, This has been an interesting thread, as I have only recently mentioned my intention to start BW photography. Most of my filters were bought in the 70's, (i) I new little of photography, and (ii) no longer have the data sheets. I remember looking at some of the bw prints before I moved from the UK, they struck me as being under exposed. I still do not understand what compensation to make for correct exposure. On my ME and MES I should not have a problem, but I need to know how to set my ASA/ISO speed correctly with my SPF using TMax 100 Pro. I will probably use the following filters: I think there is a problem with the ME and MES. Using just the orange filter, the TTL metering in my MES (which I THINK is fixed) shows a 1 stop correction. The data sheet shows 2 1/3 stops correction. This morning I shot a roll of FP4 (ISO 125) in my Yashica Mat, using a Minolta IIIF incident meter at ISO 25 and the negatives appear perfect. Using the MES in TTL would have underexposed by 1 1/3 stops. Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Bill said: I think there is a problem with the ME and MES. Using just the orange filter, the TTL metering in my MES (which I THINK is fixed) shows a 1 stop correction. The data sheet shows 2 1/3 stops correction. This morning I shot a roll of FP4 (ISO 125) in my Yashica Mat, using a Minolta IIIF incident meter at ISO 25 and the negatives appear perfect. Using the MES in TTL would have underexposed by 1 1/3 stops. Bill, I find this a bit surprising. I checked 3 of my cameras, an ME Super, Super Program and a k1000 with a hoya y (k2) filter--the Me Super and the Super Program did not register any change, and the k1000 may have moved just a smidge. I put the filter in front of a luna pro F and it registered less than 1/3 of a stop change. This may mean they were all being consistent and the change in transmittance was not enough to move those lovely colored diode lights. I have always had this problem with all of my cameras and so use filter factors and manual metering. Didn't someone suggest that filter factors have to do with the sensitivity of the film and not the light meter? That seems to be consistent with what I am seeing. How do folks deal with this who don't manually meter? For anyone interested, here is a very nice site that has a lovely filter chart at the end: http://www.photo.net/photo/filters.html Dave Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Your spotmeter does not have exactly the same color sensitivity as film. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:56 AM Subject: Filter question Since I'm somewhat of a newbie at BW photography here's a question regarding the use of filters While at on of the local camera shops the other day, I noticed they had a junk bin of filters for $5.00 ea. I picked up a Vivitar orange 08. According to the sheet that came with the filter, there should be -2 1/3 stop correction when using it in daylight. However, when placing it over my spotmeter, I show only 1 stop reduction. Could someone please explain the 1 1/3 stop difference? Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Probably not, but I also get a -1 reading with the ME Super in manual mode. Are you saying that using a filter with TTL metering is inaccurate? Bill Your spotmeter does not have exactly the same color sensitivity as film. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:56 AM Subject: Filter question Since I'm somewhat of a newbie at BW photography here's a question regarding the use of filters While at on of the local camera shops the other day, I noticed they had a junk bin of filters for $5.00 ea. I picked up a Vivitar orange 08. According to the sheet that came with the filter, there should be -2 1/3 stop correction when using it in daylight. However, when placing it over my spotmeter, I show only 1 stop reduction. Could someone please explain the 1 1/3 stop difference? Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Possibly, my books say an orange filter has a filter factor of 3x. That would be about 2-1/3 stops. A yellow filter is 2x which would be 1 stop. Red is 6x which would be about 4-1/2 stops. Your meter should be pretty close for color compensating filters with color film, but for black and white it is always suggested that you use the published filter factor. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Filter question Probably not, but I also get a -1 reading with the ME Super in manual mode. Are you saying that using a filter with TTL metering is inaccurate? Bill Your spotmeter does not have exactly the same color sensitivity as film. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 7:56 AM Subject: Filter question Since I'm somewhat of a newbie at BW photography here's a question regarding the use of filters While at on of the local camera shops the other day, I noticed they had a junk bin of filters for $5.00 ea. I picked up a Vivitar orange 08. According to the sheet that came with the filter, there should be -2 1/3 stop correction when using it in daylight. However, when placing it over my spotmeter, I show only 1 stop reduction. Could someone please explain the 1 1/3 stop difference? Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
On Sunday, February 17, 2002, at 09:05 AM, Bill Owens wrote: Probably not, but I also get a -1 reading with the ME Super in manual mode. Are you saying that using a filter with TTL metering is inaccurate? Yep. You'd be fine with colour film, but bw is significantly less sensitive to red. The orange filter is eating a stop of light for its density and requires another third of a stop for the proper exposure on bw film. It's just like shooting bw under tungsten lights, where you have to open up a stop (or more) from your metered reading to get the right exposure. So, either use a hand-held meter and change your ISO to reflect the 1 1/3 stop difference, or put the filter on the camera and see what the camera's meter reads and then dial in the difference between that and the filter's rating (in this case, overexpose by an additional 1/3 of a stop). -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter question
Very interesting and worthwhile thread. I don't shoot BW often, but a couple of summers ago I shot a roll of Scala just to try it out. (Loved it.) I had a red filter on the lens and just used whatever exposure the TTL meter said to use (on a ZX-50). I don't think a single shot was off in its exposure. On some shots, -1/2 EV gave me an exposure I preferred, but this is often the case with transparencies. The metered exposure seemed never to be wrong. Can someone help me understand this in view of the posts indicating that TTL metering through filters isn't necessarily accurate for BW? Thanks, Joe - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
