On 9/26/2011 1:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
This gives me an idea. What if I want to see what the picture would
look like had I shot it through a red filter. How would I do that?
Just drop the green and blue luminance? Twiddle with camera
calibration sliders? Is there a better way? -- Larry Colen
On 9/26/11 1:46 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
I'd consider what color is blocked and what is passed through the filter, then
work with the luminance to get the effect. So, yes...a red filter would block
blue and some green.
yeah, but the
On Sep 26, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Doug Brewer wrote:
On 9/26/11 1:46 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
I'd consider what color is blocked and what is passed through the filter,
then work with the luminance to get the effect. So, yes...a red filter
On Sep 25, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
They're both very nice. You might try reducing the green luminance some to
darken the ferns and make the tan leaves stand out more. I think that will
make a difference in both the b/w and color images.
This gives me an idea. What if
On 9/26/11 1:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
They're both very nice. You might try reducing the green luminance some to
darken the ferns and make the tan leaves stand out more. I think that will
make a difference in both the b/w and color
I'd consider what color is blocked and what is passed through the
filter, then work with the luminance to get the effect. So, yes...a red
filter would block blue and some green.
-p
On 9/26/2011 12:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
They're both
On Sep 25, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
I'd consider what color is blocked and what is passed through the filter,
then work with the luminance to get the effect. So, yes...a red filter would
block blue and some green.
yeah, but the luminance sliders seem to work on the mixed
Dave Brooks wrote on 11 Mar 2006
16:24:15 -0800:
Hi Gang.
I found a place to get 2 of the filters i'm interested in. The 62
and 67, so i
ordered them both.
Then i had a bad feeling with the 67. I was thinking of using it on
the 16-45
I'm using the Hoya HMC-Super UV filter (standard ring depth) on
my DA16-45 and have never noticed any vignetting from it over
its entire zoom range. In fact, I use the same filter on my DA14
without problems either.
Jim, are you saying in the last sentence that you use a 67 mm.
filter on the
Joseph Tainter wrote on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:29:55:
I'm using the Hoya HMC-Super UV filter (standard ring depth) on my
DA16-45 and have never noticed any vignetting from it over its
entire zoom range. In fact, I use the same filter on my DA14
without problems either.
Jim, are you saying
Hi Gang.
I found a place to get 2 of the filters i'm interested in. The 62 and 67, so i
ordered them both.
Then i had a bad feeling with the 67. I was thinking of using it on the 16-45
F4, but won't that cause problems at the wide end.
Any one using it on the 16-45.??
Dave
David J Brooks
Dave Brooks wrote on 11 Mar 2006 16:24:15 -0800:
Hi Gang.
I found a place to get 2 of the filters i'm interested in. The 62
and 67, so i
ordered them both.
Then i had a bad feeling with the 67. I was thinking of using it on
the 16-45
F4, but won't that cause problems at the wide end.
You might want to see if a Series-VI filter will fit. As I recall they are
pretty close to 43mm in diameter, and since they do not have threads they are
somewhat slimmer than millimetric filters.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
Andre,
If you need the UV only, I wouldn't mind breaking a set.
Is it Pentax? If so, then I would be interested, but in an earlier email
you mentioned that this was a normal 43mm SMC (filter) kit; that is, not
designed as a drop-in filter, but rather a front element screw-on. The
problem with
Andre,
Thanks for the filter offer, but I should be in good shape now. After a
few more phone calls, I got someone in Colorado to order the original
Pentax drop-in filter for me. I should also finally be getting a hood to
my DA 16-45mm lens that actually fits, AND my *ist-D is on the way back
Andre,
Thanks for the filter offer, but I should be in good shape now. After a
few more phone calls, I got someone in Colorado to order the original
Pentax drop-in filter for me. I should also finally be getting a hood to
my DA 16-45mm lens that actually fits, AND my *ist-D is on the way back
home
On my 600mm FA, you need the threads to mount the filter to the holder.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dec 7, 2004 9:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
You might want to see if a Series-VI filter
just dropping an unmounted filter into the slot, I believe it
would need to be firmly located and not floating around in there.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dec 7, 2004 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: another filter question: FA
For those who purchased this lens new, did the drop-in filter housing come
empty, or was it already equipped with a 49mm filter of some sort? I've
been told both by Pentax/Colorado. I also noticed that the Pentax website
(and Boz's website also) show it having a 43mm filter... but I think it's
I own the A version which takes a thin 49mm.
Jack
--- Jerome Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those who purchased this lens new, did the
drop-in filter housing come
empty, or was it already equipped with a 49mm filter
of some sort? I've
been told both by Pentax/Colorado. I also noticed
For those who purchased this lens new, did the drop-in filter housing come
empty, or was it already equipped with a 49mm filter of some sort? I've
been told both by Pentax/Colorado. I also noticed that the Pentax website
(and Boz's website also) show it having a 43mm filter... but I think it's
Jerome, I think the filter kit for the lens actually has 6 of them in
a soft pouch-case. I forgot UV and Cloudy. But the kit, to be
complete, should include a green filter...
Andre
: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
For those who purchased this lens new, did the drop-in filter housing come
empty, or was it already equipped with a 49mm filter of some sort? I've
been told both by Pentax/Colorado. I also noticed that the Pentax website
(and Boz's website also) show
Aren't you even curious to see if there is a performance difference?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jerome, I have a 600mm FA that uses 43mm filters.
I'm told that there needs to be a filter in that holder.
FWIW, Ive never shot anything with out a filter
Kenneth,
Jerome, I have a 600mm FA that uses 43mm filters.
okay... now I'm confused. Pentax tech support says 49mm. Pentax website
says 43mm... Boz: 43mm... BH: 49mm (d'oh!)
but... um... I guess I can just measure it, huh? Or take the lens to the
store with me (which I've been trying to
Aren't you even curious to see if there is a performance difference?
Well, *I* am. That's for sure. And to be honest, I have my money on *not*.
But the jury is still out.
According to Pentax Japan web site, the lens should come with case, hood, PF
filter. BH also lists the filter included. I remember there was mentioned
internal filter was part of the system and should be used at all time, but I
cannot confirm.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
For those
Jerome Reyes mused:
Kenneth,
Jerome, I have a 600mm FA that uses 43mm filters.
okay... now I'm confused. Pentax tech support says 49mm. Pentax website
says 43mm... Boz: 43mm... BH: 49mm (d'oh!)
The A lenses take 49mm internal filters; The FA lenses take 43mm filters.
I don't know
Hi Jerome
Pentax tech support says 49mm. Pentax website
says 43mm... Boz: 43mm... BH: 49mm (d'oh!)
Here BH says 43mm...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlistA=detailsQ=sku=99752is=REG
but... um... I guess I can just measure it, huh?
Indeed, you should measure it and
Alan,
BH also lists the filter included.
Wow. You're absolutely right; thanks! I'm not sure why the Pentax tech
person told me 49mm... but I see where I may have gotten 49mm from on the
BH website (the 300mm A version is listed as such). I'm not sure how I
missed the filter on the included
Not in the least!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
Aren't you even curious to see if there is a performance difference?
Shel
I just tried a normal Tiffen 43mm 1A and it is too thick!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Jerome Reyes
Subject: RE: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
Alan,
BH also lists the filter included.
Wow. You're absolutely right; thanks! I'm not sure why the Pentax
Both the 300 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4 lenses use the same 43mm, six filter kit: Y48 (yellow-green), R60 (red),
O(oh)56 (orange), L39 (appears clear), Normal (appears clear), and Cloudy (Skylight or 1A).
Both lenses shoot neutral color without a filter installed.
Hope this helps.
Andre Langevin
Both lenses shoot neutral color without a filter installed
Ok, I'll bite -
why do they come with a filter installed then?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: John Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: another filter
Both lenses shoot neutral color without a filter installed
Ok, I'll bite -
why do they come with a filter installed then?
Kenneth Waller
And why a Neutral filter AND a L39 filter, which is a UV filter, both
being without any effect on the color balance?
Andre
-
From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
Both lenses shoot neutral color without a filter installed
Ok, I'll bite -
why do they come with a filter installed then?
And have you observed the difference with without the middle filter in
place?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
because the optical
: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
And have you observed the difference with without the middle filter in
place?
My lenses were purchased new, and neither lens had a filter installed. The
literature that accompanies either of these lenses says nothing about a filter
being installed - it only gives instructions about how to install a filter in
the filter drawer.
Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are
Message -
From: John Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: another filter question: FA* 300mm F2.8
My lenses were purchased new, and neither lens had a filter installed. The
literature that accompanies either of these lenses says
my A* 400/2.8 is designed to not matter,
so i don't have any filter in it.
And that would be the lens that I *do* have a filter in.
Go figure.
Andre,
If you need the UV only, I wouldn't mind breaking a set.
Is it Pentax? If so, then I would be interested, but in an earlier email
you mentioned that this was a normal 43mm SMC (filter) kit; that is, not
designed as a drop-in filter, but rather a front element screw-on. The
problem with
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
[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
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
- 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
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.
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Steve Larson wrote:
Didn`t want you to beat yourself up :)
I was not suggesting that, it was a personal observation.
I did forget to mention
to use DOF preview, the hood should come in more clearly.
Not available on the MZ-50 :-)
Kostas
on 05.09.03 15:29, Amita Guha at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I picked up a standard Promaster 72mm UV filter to protect my
new wide-angle lens. Then I went on the BH site and I noticed that
Tiffen makes filters specifically for wide-angle lenses. These lenses
are very thin and don't
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Amita Guha wrote:
Is it critical to use a very thin filter on my 17mm lens? I want the
front thread because I need to use a hood.
I noticed[1] that my K24/3.5 vignettes with the generic round hood
when using a filter (HMC Skylight). And that's a 24, not a 17. Does
your hood
- Original Message -
From: Amita Guha
Subject: wide angle filter question
Yesterday I picked up a standard Promaster 72mm UV filter to protect my
new wide-angle lens. Then I went on the BH site and I noticed that
Tiffen makes filters specifically for wide-angle lenses. These lenses
have to be careful. some rings move the filter forward.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: wide angle filter question
You could circumvent the issue entirely by getting a 72-77
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong
Subject: Re: wide angle filter question
have to be careful. some rings move the filter forward.
Thats why the next size up. If it's a really wide, like a 17 or 20mm, she
could even go to an 82mm step up. At this point, she could probably stack
it's just that in these 35mm photog handbooks I have
they have [ND filters] as part of 'essential kits'.
Brad,
That's stretching the meaning of the word essential way past the breaking
point. I'd bet not one out of 1000 photographers even owns a ND filter.
--Mike
P.S. Also, the last time a
Hi Mike,
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:27:16 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
Today, sales of 135mm primes have slowed to barely a dribble.)
Well, I have a Tamron Adaptall 135/2.8, the Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5,
and the well known SMC 135/2.5. The first two are going to soon be
sold, but I'll be keeping
So what killed the 135mm prime? 80-200 zooms? 180mm and 200mm primes?
Michael Cross
Mike Johnston wrote:
Today, sales of 135mm primes have slowed to barely a dribble.)
Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:27:16 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
Today, sales of 135mm primes have slowed to barely a dribble.)
Well, I have a Tamron Adaptall 135/2.8, the Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5,
and the well known SMC 135/2.5. The first two are going to soon
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ND filters are used to trim light levels so that specific
aperture/shutter speed combinations can be used. If you want to
shoot at (as an example) f/8 at 1/60th, no matter what the light
level, then an ND filter set will be essential.
Now *there's* an
VideoVBG
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:31:24 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Irony and a filter question.
So what killed the 135mm prime? 80-200 zooms? 180mm and 200mm
primes?
Michael Cross
Mike Johnston
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:47:26 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
Right now my only prime between my 100/2.8 macro and my
300/2.8 is a 200mm, which I find a bit too long for part
of a 3-lens kit (with a 28mm and 43mm).
Well, I usually have transport nearby, or at least my folding luggage
Hey gang,
Well, with all the Visa numbers and emails flying around, I missed a phone
call. If you remember the original email, I had as part of my main order,
the CS-105. If I had emailed that correctly, it would have been billed and
ordered. Anyhow, a message on my machine, my CS-105 had come
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Irony and a filter question.
Hey William,
Ok, so one question is settled. I don't think I'll bother
with Pentax on
this one, but go B+W or Heliopan. It sounded like you though
Heliopan is
the more expensive (better?) of the two
B+W brass body is the way to go, for my money.
I do think you should consider something though.
This is my own experience.
In more than 30 years of photography, I have only used a neutral
density filter on a very few occasions. This is one of those
things which you only buy if you have a
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? Any help much
appreciated.
Bob
=
What boots up must come down.
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA
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
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.
Dan Kirsch wrote:
I picked a filter up on eBay. It was listed as a Tiffen series 9
professional 77mm sepia filter. Just got it and see that firstly
it doesn't say 77mm on it anywhere and then I noticed that it had
no mounting threads on either side.
Back in the good old days
I understand Pentax makes a SMC Cloudy filter- what kind of animal is
this?
A soft-focus filter?
RK
-
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
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.
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
98 matches
Mail list logo
