From: Tom Ferguson (tomf2468@pipeline.com)
Date: 05/21/01-07:15:48 PM Z
This thread has been going for quite a while, so I'll add my 2 cents. Early
on I was very concerned about "filter types". Much to my surprise, a few
tests show VERY little differance.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm a BIG fan of using lens shades / bellow shades in
outdoor work (and usually in the studio). So all filters (and lenses) in my
tests were shaded.
For those that have followed my threads, this was back in my "I want to
Brett Weston" shooting outdoors days :-) I'm usually happily "self
limited" to studio work today.
I set up both my 35mm and 4x5 field camera outside and shot a scene with
lots of fine detail and difficult "dark bare branches against bright sky".
I shot both systems without filter, with assorted gels, non coated glass
filters, coated glass filters, and "plastic" Cokin filters.
The Cokins were nearly (but not quite) perfect, the gels were well used (did
show use). Much to my amazement, when developed and printed: I couldn't see
much difference. Printed big and stared at with "nose to print" intensity:
I like glass best, Cokin next, and gels least (remember that my gels were by
far in the worst shape). But, viewed and printed normally: NO REAL
DIFFERANCE!
Relax! Either do a similar test to convince yourself, or go out and happily
make your filtered "snaps".
-- Tom Ferguson http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:40 AM Z CST