Re: [Leica] UV filter for Noctilux-measurable light loss??

[Nicholas Poole <nick.botton@camphill.org.uk>]

Tina replied to Mark Rabiner re. testing this out on film:
>
>I don't have time, Mark!  I'm so far behind in actual work that I've 
>got to stop all of this testing.
>I'm not going to use any stinking filters anyway!
>
>Tina

Can't we give Tina a break? It's her experience - she doesn't have to 
defend what works for her and gives her consistent results. In trying 
to be helpful she's got caught up in too many variables. She knows 
what's best with her equipment and the kind of work she does. And if 
she's a tad prejudiced against filters, so what? Don't hurt nobody 
but them as holds the opposite prejudice.;-)

As a scientist, I was just intrigued by the question, hoping for some 
hard evidence from a large sample of very experienced practitioners. 
But I see now there are too many variables to make it meaningful.

All I can conclude is that we are just seeing sample variations here 
(although surprisingly wide) between one Minolta IVF meter and 
another. As a publisher working closely with professional printers I 
know that imagesetters and densitometers need recalibrating on a 
daily basis, so I'm not THAT surprised. (Didn't the Zone VI people 
offer a meter-calibrating service some years back?) In my view, the 
only way is to find what works with our own meters, in our own 
situations, and then get on with what we really want to do - make 
pictures.

And can we let Tina get on with what she does best!
Nick