On 13 Jan 2001, at 8:58, Chris Brogden wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Joseph McAllister wrote:
>
> > > (2) The SMC, which is supposed to increase transmitted light to
> > > 99.8% (I think), can still reflect objects that it *really* shouldn't.
> >
> > Yeah. So what? .2% of a headlight reflection is better than 15%. The big 'G'
> > may have reduced that to .15%.
>
> But if it's reflecting most of a candle back from the glass, that's hardly
> .2. But hopefully it was the filter that was the culprit.
The filter may have been the culprit since a reflection off the front a convex
lens obviously wont be of similar size, however it may also have been an
internal lens reflection (there may have been more but they may not have
been in the frame).?
Just remember that film has a log response and the exposure was not
determined by choosing the centre of the candle flame as the 18% metering
point therefore the flame is a bright source of light the reflected 0.2% may be
quite significant?
I recently had a revealing experience using new Leica ASPH glass (touted as
being very flare resistant) sans filter on a range-finder body to shoot some
friends around a bonfire. The flames from the fire were the only source of
illumination, I metered for the faces and positioned the fire at one side of the
frame. I was quite pleased with the exposure balance however the print has a
huge lens flare across it from top to bottom plus some veiling flare. Like Bills
experience with the 77mm it was something I didn't expect, however of
course when using a range-finder you are only able to detect problems like
this after processing, SLR viewing is cool :-)
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
Fax +61-2-9554-9259
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
