Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gee George, can you read? It is repeated for you just below the "Jim Brick wrote" in case you want to take a second stab at it. I was discussing "image degrading practices." Not JUST filters. As anyone with an ounce of sense knows, filters can indeed "contribute" to the "image degradation chain." They are but one of the dozens of ways to degrade an image. If you are not careful. But you didn't really read my post did you... You just skimmed it and saw the line you quoted and decided that it was your turn to fire a volley. As I've said a million times, I use a lot of filters. Damn near every time I'm out photographing. There is always something that can be made better with a filter. So, you can misquote me all you want. I really don't care. Because all of the other folks that are waiting for me to say something controversial, probably were smart enough to actually read my post, then decided that I had not offended them, so didn't reply. So you get the prize. And here repeated again, are the two sentences, only not taken out of context as you did: >> But the question begs: Why would someone go the extra mile, spend the extra >> dollars, to buy the best lenses available, only to "not" pay attention to >> image degrading practices. >> >> Own the best prime equipment and produce mediocre results. And just so that you know, "image degrading practices" are, and not necessarily in this order: Dirty lens, lens fungus, fast film, hand holding below 1000th sec, flare from filters, film curl, incorrect focus, uncalibrated RF, over exposure, over developing, processing temperature swings, dirty VC filters under the enlarger lens, dirty enlarger lens, dirty projector lens, and the list could go on for a long while. I actually quoted some of these in my original post. Remember? And looking through the LUG messages, at 3:44 this afternoon, Mark Rabiner said about the exact same thing I did. Different words, exact same theme. But this time it was you know who... I hope you are having fun George. I am... :-) Jim (OPKIA) Brick Hells bells, I guess I'm now expected to act this way!!! No more mush and gush! ;-) At 07:12 PM 2/28/01 -0800, George Day wrote: >I've been resisting this thread, but this is too rich: > >Own the best prime equipment and produce mediocre results. > >So, using a filter over your lens means you will get "mediocre results"? >This is utter rubbish and hardly deserves comment, unless a newcomer to >photography might actually believe this. >Jim Brick wrote: >> >> There is enough evidence accumulated by the masters (Ansel Adams, Westons, >> etc.) and the schools (Brooks, RIT, etc.) and the independent researchers >> (Erwin, Ctein, etc.) to fill volumes as to what keeps an image from being >> perfect. Besides technique (tripod, MLU, film type, exposure, development, >> how printed or projected, etc.) there are other factors. A filter is just >> one of these other factors. A thumb print on the lens would be another. >> Filters under you enlarging lens is yet another. >> >> All of this stuff adds up. >> >> But the question begs: Why would someone go the extra mile, spend the extra >> dollars, to buy the best lenses available, only to "not" pay attention to >> image degrading practices. >> >> Own the best prime equipment and produce mediocre results. >> >> Sorry. For me, that is oxymoronic. >> >> :-) >> >> Jim >> >> >> These are simply my (Jim Brick's) personal observations and preferences. No >> attempt has been made to emphatically state that this is either the correct >> way, or the only way, to effect the end. >> >> The above statement is meant to calumniate the insolent and exculpate the >> innocent. >> >