Just look on the brighter side of life.... I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM...
Tom C.
From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: lens cleaning Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 02:01:20 +0200
OMG, not THAT debate again :-)
Let's just say that fast shooters, PJs, similar almost always use filters (no time to remove lens caps, "cleaning" the lens with your dirty handkerchief because no time for something better, care more about the moment that slight unsharpness, modern xMC filters - Nikon, Pentax, SHMC, etc are pretty good and do not add much flare at all). I fall into that category as I shoot people.
Some need the very best details, have time to clean the lens in the field and protect it with lens caps that are hard to remove, have time to use bellows lenshoods, and are slowshooters of things that do not spit on your lens or throw rocks and teargas back at you (incidentally, the only ones throwing rocks at journalists were the policemen at all the IMF/WB/... rallies I was attending...The rioters at least knew how to not aim at journalists <g>). Such as that nature shot with tripod, using polarisers, et cetera. My friends who shoot architecture on large format do precisely that, and they carry their gear in big metal trunks, unlike myself, who carry it in an old worn Domke which is not so much protected...but much preferable for my style of shooting.
Again, De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum (meaning loosely, your mileage may vary).
Both approaches, To Filter or Not To Filter, are fundamentally different for different kind of photography.
I would end with some funny punchline from Monty Python to make this less serious (is that even possible <g> ?), but my memory is failing me... Please, others, put some nice MP reference here :)
Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
