bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> But the crux of the matter is that the presence or absence of a uv or
> skylight filter will never be the make or break factor in a
> photograph. Proper exposure, composition, developing, and printing,
> not to mention the subject of the photograph will always be greater
> factors in the end result. So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the
> presence or absence of a filter up front.
>
I'm not so sure I'd agree to 'never' will be the make or break factor. We
could all then apply that logic to our Zuikos- why bother with Zuikos when
you can use a $20 Soligor lens? We all want the 'best possible' image, no? So
if I can get the 'best possible' by just removing a filter, why wouldn't I do
that? (With previous exception of rock climbing, salt water spray, and the
like). I'm just skeptical that a filter will be 1000n-noticeable when I
want it to be. (IOW not when I _want_ a filter effect).
George S.
George S.
|