[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Rollei] Rolleinar 8/500 provenienceKinda OT

- --- Tim Ellestad <ellestad  > wrote:
> Jon -
> I know what you are saying, but having done a fair
> amount of fairly distant
> telephoto photography in the last 5 years, I found
> image warming to be a
> necessity (R 1.5 or more).  Based on pix taken years
> ago sans filter, I'm
> afraid that aerial haze (some of which is visible
> blue) has increased, at
> least where I have been working.  I'm sure that I
> got many more bell-clear,
> filter-free days in years past. 

     I can only speak for my own experience, which is
sorta ass-backwards per the realities of pollution.
When using mirror lenses (and regular glass ones) in
the Philadelphia area 20+ years ago, skylight filters
were de rigeur. In more recent times (about 8-10 years
ago), the skylights were warming things up a bit too
much. In fact, I thought for a while that Kodachrome
was being made warmer than usual. When I stopped using
skylight filters, everything was as it was supposed to
be. This at a time when Philly was being gored by the
EPA for non-compliance with clean-air standards set a
number of years before. The new standards threatend to
force the city and environs to mandate car-pooling
(with more than one body in the vehicle) like
Washington, D.C. What was happening was the pollution
levels were actually higher than they were when the
standards were adopted originally instead of dropping.
Now, that is really strange. In Philadelphia, aerial
haze is very evident even on the sunniest winter days.
At least, it was 7 years ago, yet I found it easy to
get haze-free shots with long-focus, tele, and mirror
lenses, whether close (within, say, 20 feet) or
distant (about 1/2 mile away). Perhaps because most of
my work was in a swamp area, the temp difference close
to the water kept down the normal heat haze, but even
in shots taken on the in-land there was no problem
with haze. And we're talking about summer weather when
the ozone and particulate matter are at their worst.
Now, my wife went to Calif. about 12 years ago (L.A.
area) and, even though she said she saw only some
evidence of smog, the pictures she took were
absolutely awful with aerial haze. It seems you can't
take a photo further away than about 200 feet before
the subject is obscured with a dirty haze. And she
used a skylight filter for "protection" of the lenses.
Tiajuana was better, by far. My shots with Tech Pan
since I started using it intensively about 15 or more
years ago don't seem to have been affected. Since
moving to Georgia, the use of a skylight or UV appear
to be quite neccessary again with color film. This I
attribute to the large amount of dust (from red clay)
and tree pollen (mostly pines) in this mostly parched
(except in the winter) area of the country. Also, I
think the higher temps have a good deal to do with it,
too, how I don't know, outside of heat haze. 

 Maybe that's why
> the manufacturers put the
> skylight filters in as default.  I'm wondering if UV
> levels are up as well -
> it seems that skin cancer rates have risen
> dramatically (I know there is a
> sociological component to this, however).

     UV levels are definitely up and affecting people
in ways they rarely think about. The first thing to be
impacted are, of course, the eyes. The rate of
cataracts is beginning to get alarming. And, yes, skin
cancers have gone up in number even more alarmingly.
Burning of the retina is more common than in the past.
Glaucoma, although technically a fault within the
eyeball rather than from outside influences is also on
the rise. I am not conversant with pigmentosa
diseases, but I'm sure their numbers are not dropping.

> There still ought to be a clear optical flat option
> for close shooting,
> though.
> Just my notion.

     And mine, too.

from Deepinaharta, Georgia

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!


End of Rollei Users list digest V8 #49