again, everyone has choice, and it's really not an issue.
i know of no professional photographer, myself included, who has experienced diffraction in film photography, either in studio or field.
but again, each individual gets to make their choice. after all, chances are your lens glass comes from schott blanks.
how a person spends their funds is up to them.
nikon_jon wrote:
Sunshine and heat may kill the mold, but will it eliminate the mold that is already there?
if yu are speaking of a lens which has mold, then for this reply, i'm going to assume you mean fungus. fungus can appear as spider-shaped or snowflake form, usually. now cleaning is a subject unto itself. if it is between the lens elements, then you need to find a repair service with a clean room which specialises in separating elements and regluing them, once the cleaning is completed. on the outside surface of elements, some cleaning can be done. but...and here's the big one, if the fungus has eaten into the lens coating (and you can feel this by using a fingernail - gently! over the surface of the element) nothing can be done.
having blathered about all that, sunlight will do nothing for fungus. you may be fortunate in that it is not on the rear element and does not continue to spread over time. often the lens remains useable as it is.
hope this is of assistance.
CHOLLY wrote:
You people can waste all the money you choose on clear glass and UV filters.
They not only don't provide you any protection good common sense won't give you, but they degrade your image quality.
Go ahead; throw your money away. I'm sure you've got PLENTY to spare these days. :mrgreen:
i must say, in defense of uv filter users, schott glass does not degrade anything. and other than a macro lens, the front element never focuses on the filter - does not recognise the existance of the filter and therefore remains unaffected by the presense of said filter.
i think i'm done with this.
yup, in my little world took years to learn 2nd shutter curtain release! duh!
i don't know, to be honest. it puzzles me, too. i mean, everyone has a choice and gets to exercise it. while i've always used minolta and nikon cameras, i do admit a very personal hatred for nikon's break away lens hoods. spent half my life picking those damn things up. either they were a lousy idea, or i was clumsy!!
ahhh, who cares in the great scheme of things?
it's just nice to know, someone was discerning and got it.
thanks!
i know, that's why everyone uses digital, today. (heh-heh)
sirlensalot wrote:
Nope, you are incorrect on that one, and it is still PP but perhaps by another name. I do get a kick out of the "except" part though. lol
the "except" part only applies to law enforcement. so, we will just have to disagree on this.
i guess i'm sort of surprised you had not used them until then. but, there you go, i learn new things every day!
amehta wrote:
In a topic about professional Nikon bodies, "being a beast to lug around" is a badge of honor. :lol:
yeeeah,,,, good point - have used all the f models all my life. and i do have to agree with that. hell, i even liked the ergonomics on my f4s, but gads, they were big! metered like crazy, though. i thought they did with the f5 what they did with the f4, only vertically!
but then... there's the f6, i gotta admit, and do not like battery dependent cameras, it is really nice, love using it.
4ellen4 wrote:
Everyone has their own method. I have found that carrying a notebook to jot down some facts like;
--time of day,weather conditions [sunny or cloudy etc]
--if doing a close up or macro shot how far away from subject
--mode shot in,and camera setting for each shot
the makes notes on which one was the better shot.
You can read all the books that you want put it is experimenting that will be the greatest teacher--of so I have found
let me second your excellent response.
Regis wrote:
Thank you. I am just looking out for the little guy or a beginning photographer who wants to enjoy a wonderful hobby or profession and can not afford the best equipment.
More power to the photographers who can afford the best because if you want to take the great photos then buy the expensive cameras and lenses.
I am not trying to win an argument, I just want the less affluent to have a good time with photography and do their best to buy what they can afford.
nice explanation. your thoughts on affordability are true. just because a person cannot afford top of the line lenses, should not keep them from getting a less expensive oem lens. and these days, as hardly no one prints anymore, and as you don't have an ad director grafted onto your back, and oem lens will do just fine!!!
mwsilvers wrote:
The Link Sondek and the SOTA are high end audio turntables. Not sure why he brought them up.
the reason i brought them up, is it is another endless argument. folks who want to use lens hoods, will. those who don't won't simple as that.
in re: the turntables, back in the 1970s column after column, articles, and editorial letters were full of the "which one is better". it went on and on. and no one ever figured out the best turntable was the one your local stereo shop sold you and could support.
the endless round of filters/lenshoods is the same thing. evidently metaphors go here to die.
KlausK wrote:
Thanks. I thought it was fungus, but it does look oddly symmetrical.
my pleasure. among large format photographers it is called "schneideritis", as lens elements from schneider kreuznach sometimes would separate and the little dots are just what you are seeing. i don't believe, from your image, that this should interfere with using your lens.
good luck with it.
sirlensalot wrote:
It is still a form of PP.
nope. post processing refers to computerisation processes. while negatives may be bleached, spotted and tinted, the CONTENT of the negative is not changed. and so, the baseline remains; unlike digital which has no baseline, unless you are a law enforcement agent using one of the modified cameras which enters a code on the image, to ensure credibility as evidence.