Front Element Condition

I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's pretty
good. And succinct.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ment-scratches


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Blinky the Shark wrote:
I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's pretty
good. And succinct.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ment-scratches


Yeah, but look how minor the damage was... (gulp)

It would be interesting to see a comparison image from the same lens
undamaged vs damaged, *but shot into the light*.

Mark Thomas wrote:
Blinky the Shark wrote:
I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's
pretty
good. And succinct.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ment-scratches


Yeah, but look how minor the damage was... (gulp)

It would be interesting to see a comparison image from the same lens
undamaged vs damaged, *but shot into the light*.

One of my hassy lenses has a hard clear plastic lens cap. I've
forgotten to take it off a couple times (though I discover it at some
point before the roll is done...).

When I got the slides and prints, the images appear only slightly soft
at first glance. (And in the small 5x5 proofing prints, you can't tell
at all unless you use a mag glass, it's only at scan time that they show).

After that happened a couple times I took a heavy black marker to it.
(If I'd use the hood more often it would not happen at all... alas).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Larry Thong wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

One of my hassy lenses has a hard clear plastic lens cap. I've
forgotten to take it off a couple times (though I discover it at some
point before the roll is done...).

When I got the slides and prints, the images appear only slightly soft
at first glance. (And in the small 5x5 proofing prints, you can't
tell at all unless you use a mag glass, it's only at scan time that
they show).

Only proves that you are using cheap crappy glass.

Go learn to read.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Mark Thomas wrote:
Blinky the Shark wrote:
I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's
pretty
good. And succinct.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ment-scratches


Yeah, but look how minor the damage was... (gulp)

It would be interesting to see a comparison image from the same lens
undamaged vs damaged, *but shot into the light*.

Wouldn't the "acid test" be to see what their reaction would be to a
customer returning a lens in this condition? 8-)
I suspect that if none of the fragments are small enough to fall out and
the cracks are essentially straight through ( | rather than / or \ ) the
thickness of the lens, it should only dim the image slightly.

Not something I'd want to try with my lenses, though. :-o

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:06:47 -0800, Blinky the Shark
wrote:


I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's pretty
good. And succinct.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ment-scratches

In astronomy it's not uncommon to fix a mirror that has a bad scratch or chip by
covering it over or filling it in with flat-black pigment. The images are again
good as new. There is one famous case of a large diameter research telescope
mirror that was shot at a few times with a gun (disgruntled employee, if I
recall), causing huge chinks and conchoidal fractures in it. They filled in the
large holes, painted them black, and the telescope still had most of its
original quality. As long as the lenses' curvatures hold their integrity, you
can get by with quite a bit of defects.

Think of it like putting a chain-link fence-wire up near to your lens and
letting the fuller diameter of the lens shoot around it. Some loss of contrast
due to the illuminated wire but the image itself is still good. If you had a
black magic-marker with you (which I keep in my camera bag) you can blacken that
wire and get a photo as if that wire wasn't even there. (There are some places
where they just won't let you in, or you get shot at if you hopped their fence.
You have to resort to creative methods to get a good photo through some
tight-knit fences. Just a little real-world photography tip from a
pro-photographer, for all those pretend-photographer net-parroting trolls in
this newsgroup. Now they have a new "poly-wanna-cracker" that they can
net-parrot all over the place.)

I have one favorite filter repaired by blackening its defects. It's an antique
filter that was originally designed to enhance flesh-tones. (circa 1950's I
would guess) While on one of my treks I found it in a small photo-shop in a
little Rocky Mountain town. I was originally looking for inexpensive
filter-cells because I needed to build something while on-the-road. When
rummaging through the shop owner's "bargains" box looking for busted filters
that I could disassemble for the parts needed, I spotted one with an unusual
hue. It had a large conchoidal fracture that entered into the filter's surface a
good 2cm. Before committing/destroying this odd filter to my build-it project I
thought I'd test it first to see what it could do--it being such an unusual dark
brownish-orange filter that I've not seen before. For autumn photos it greatly
enhances all the yellows, golds, crimsons, and reds of foliage, as well as
brightening any remaining greens while also deepening blue skies--just what you
want for the right eye-popping balance of fall's contrasting colors. The
camera's auto white-balance compensates for the filter's strong color-shift
while in turn it is boosting the pass-through colors. This is not unlike how a
polarizer will change the original scene's lighting but it can't be duplicated
in editing. The way this filter helps to attenuate and enhance certain
color-bands cannot be duplicated in editing. (I've tried.)

When I found how well it improved fall photos in such a unique way it became
clear that it needed salvaging. I filled in its large fracture with a black
sharpie marker, as well as drawing a black line over another small hairline
crack on another edge. Any contrast robbing problems it had were now gone. It's
a favorite for fall photos and the only color-filter that deserves to be in my
bag for color photos, these days. (Not counting the IR ones.)

Alan Browne wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:
Blinky the Shark wrote:
I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's
pretty
good. And succinct.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ment-scratches


Yeah, but look how minor the damage was... (gulp)

It would be interesting to see a comparison image from the same lens
undamaged vs damaged, *but shot into the light*.

One of my hassy lenses has a hard clear plastic lens cap. I've
forgotten to take it off a couple times (though I discover it at some
point before the roll is done...).

When I got the slides and prints, the images appear only slightly soft
at first glance. (And in the small 5x5 proofing prints, you can't tell
at all unless you use a mag glass, it's only at scan time that they show).

After that happened a couple times I took a heavy black marker to it.

A home-made ND filter!


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On 11/26/08 5:55 PM, in article
, "Larry Thong"
wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

When I got the slides and prints, the images appear only slightly
soft at first glance. (And in the small 5x5 proofing prints, you
can't tell at all unless you use a mag glass, it's only at scan
time that they show).

Only proves that you are using cheap crappy glass.

Go learn to read.

LOL! Go put me back in your killfile.


Difficult when you keep nym-shifting, asshole.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:49:20 -0500, "Larry Thong" wrote:

Only proves that you are using cheap crappy glass.

Tell me, what would happen if one used expensive crappy glass?

Blinky the Shark wrote:
I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's pretty
good. And succinct.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...ment-scratches

Just a tiny bit of damage for that one ;-)

The only time you will obviously notice front scratches and interior
dust is in a situation like this:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography...6-28-07/pg1pc5
-where different optical principles apply... note the repeating dust
patterns in each circle, slightly offset.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam