Hi

Been spoiled with digital shooting for so many years where I can
correct for colour in photo shop. With slides obviously u need to do
in camera when shooting.

So what are people using on the TL120?

M

Over the last few years I've amassed a number of filters for my 35mm twin rig, which takes 49mm filters. I purchased a couple of 46mm polarizers for my TL-120 before I realized I could use all those filters with a pair of 46 to 49 mm step up rings.

Hi Bob,

At 04:05 PM 7/4/2008, you wrote:

[snip]

But my new goal is to jerry-rig a pair of neutral density grads for the TL-120. I'll post to the group if I come up with something. Has anyone out there done this?

I don't own a TL-120, but if you're thinking about using graduated ND filters on the TL-120, I recommend you go with B+W (brand) 502 filters, but you'll have a hard time finding two that are of the same density and color, much less truly neutral in color.

I had to jump through a lot of hoops (and it took about three months) to come up with a well-matched pair of B+W 502's for my twin-rig rangefinder cameras.  Here's the story, along with a lot of information about why B+W 502's are the ONLY viable option:

Search for this string:   

    Mike Davis , Oct 20, 2007; 04:02 p.m.

at this link:

    http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00MfNR

Then read to the bottom of the thread.

Feel free to read from the top of the thread, of course, if you have time.

Thanks,

Mike Davis

> But my new goal is to jerry-rig a pair of neutral density grads for
> the TL-120. I'll post to the group if I come up with something. Has
> anyone out there done this?

The simple solution is to use a single ND Grad filter, if one has a
problem finding two matched ND grad. filters.


DON

Michael K. Davis wrote:

> I don't own a TL-120, but if you're thinking about using
> graduated ND filters on the TL-120, I recommend you go with
> B+W (brand) 502 filters, but you'll have a hard time finding
> two that are of the same density and color, much less truly
> neutral in color.

Given the troubles you had with quality control of the B+W 502
filters, why are they still your recommended solution, Mike? Do
they have other characteristics which make them very desirable or
are the other potential solutions even less likely to result in
success?
_________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

> The simple solution is to use a single ND Grad filter, if one has a
> problem finding two matched ND grad. filters.

I should add, that I DO use a single graduated ND filter on my MF
stereo camera.

DON

I think it is worth mentioning that there are two different situations being discussed, which require two different solutions.
Mike's solution was the best he could come up with given that he needed it for a two camera variable base rig.
Don's solution - using a single filter on a camera with a fixed base, large enough to cover both lenses, is appropriate for the TL-120.
Likewise, building a single filter holder for my Stereflectoscop is one of the items on my to-do list.

-Bob

ps - Thanks Mike for sharing this fascinating (frustrating?) story - I was planning on buying dual filters for a beamsplitter rig, now, I'll be
a lot more careful about considering it.

>On 7/6/2008 at 10:24 PM dlopp2000 wrote:
>The simple solution is to use a single ND Grad filter, if one has a
>problem finding two matched ND grad. filters.
>DON

>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 7/6/2008 at 3:02 PM John Thurston wrote:
>Michael K. Davis wrote:
>
>> I don't own a TL-120, but if you're thinking about using
>> graduated ND filters on the TL-120, I recommend you go with
>> B+W (brand) 502 filters, but you'll have a hard time finding
>> two that are of the same density and color, much less truly
>> neutral in color.
>
>Given the troubles you had with quality control of the B+W 502
>filters, why are they still your recommended solution, Mike? Do
>they have other characteristics which make them very desirable or
>are the other potential solutions even less likely to result in
>success?
>_________________________
>John Thurston
>Juneau, Alaska
>
>
>

Don,

That's a great idea, using one filter to cover both lenses - to avoid
matching difficulties. I think that would work really well for most
filter types when the lenses are sufficiently close together and you
can mount the filter either flush against the front of both lenses or
in some sort of dual-lens hood that prevents light from reaching the
back side of the filter.

Unfortunately, the B+W 502 filter is only available in round threaded
filter sizes no larger than 72mm - not large enough to cover both of
the TL-120 taking lenses.

In my mind that's a serious limitation because there are no other
brands of graduated, split ND filters that can be positioned
correctly in front of a lens that's NOT mounted on an SLR or a view
camera. Rangefinders and TLRs have always been plagued by this
problem and since the TL-120 does not allow the user to look through
the taking lenses, it's in the same boat.

As I wrote at the link provided in my earlier post:

---
This one make and model of ND grad [the B+W 502] is the ONLY filter
that satisfies my requirements:

1) Round, screw-in mounts that are fast to work with and that won't
interfere with rangefinder framing, focusing, or metering the way
square filters would.

2) A gradient that runs from the horizon all the way to the top of
the filter, instead of just for a few millimeters above the horizon,
as so-called hard or soft gradients do.
---

The biggest challenge with using graduated ND filters in general is
achieving correct placement of the filter's horizon relative to your subject.

The rectangular filters commonly used on SLRs and view cameras, such
as those made by Lee, Singh Ray, Formatt, or Schneider MPTV, would be
nearly impossible to position correctly on the TL-120 and the
uppermost portions of the filter would block your view through the
reflex lens, requiring all framing, focusing and metering to be done
BEFORE you mount the filter. It's because these filters reach their
maximum density just a few millimeters about the waistline that
correct placement is so critical.

Again, the B+W 502's have a density gradient that transitions
uniformly from the waistline of the filter all the way to their
maximum density at the top of the filter. This makes placement much
less critical. Using round B+W 502's, all you have to worry about is
thread it on, then rotate it (while looking at the front of the
camera) to position the highest density at 12 o'clock - making its
waistline level. The gradient is so smooth you'll see no evidence of
any waistline in your final image, but sky is darkened by about 1.5
stops at the very top of the frame, less as you move down toward the
center of the frame.

I've researched ND filters at length, and to my knowledge, there is
only one other solution I can think of that could make use of Don's
suggestion to use a single filter (to avoid the matching
problem). Quoting my post at the link provided earlier:

---
Formatt makes a line of rectangular filters they call their "Blender"
series. These have a gradient that start at one end of the filter and
smoothly transition all the way to the top of the filter. They have
no density horizon at all. These do not require careful positioning,
---

The rectangular, Formatt Blender filters are essentially the same as
the B+W 502's in having a continuous density gradient, but they are
not "split" ND filters. Their gradient runs from the bottom of the
filter to the top instead of from the waistline. This means that you
would be applying some density (probably undetectable) even to your
foreground, but positioning the filter wouldn't be difficult on a
rangefinder, a TLR, or the TL-120. You'd still have to come up with
a suitable mount that prevents light from striking the back of the
filter, and you'd still have the problem of not being able to frame
or focus through the third lens when the filter is mounted, but for
those who routinely shoot from a tripod anyway, taking the filter on
and off wouldn't be any great hardship.

One last warning: Rectangular filters are typically made of an
acrylic resin - they scratch easily -AND- Formatt filters are expensive!

Thanks,

Mike Davis

Why not build and calibrate a filter holder with two stops so you could shift the filter to the taking lenses position just before taking the picture?
For example, on my Stereflectoscop, there is approx 12mm of vertical disparity between the positions of the viewfinder lens and taking lenses.
You could align the filter for the viewfinder, then shift the whole thing down. Sure, it won't be as exact as aligning it through an SLR, but I'd think
it should be possible to come close, and within the tolerances of the graduated line on most filters.

Bob

>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 7/7/2008 at 8:30 AM Michael K. Davis wrote:
>

>In my mind that's a serious limitation because there are no other
>brands of graduated, split ND filters that can be positioned
>correctly in front of a lens that's NOT mounted on an SLR or a view
>camera. Rangefinders and TLRs have always been plagued by this
>problem and since the TL-120 does not allow the user to look through
>the taking lenses, it's in the same boat.
>
>

Michael K. Davis wrote:

> Don,
>
> That's a great idea, using one filter to cover both lenses - to avoid
> matching difficulties. I think that would work really well for most
> filter types when the lenses are sufficiently close together and you
> can mount the filter either flush against the front of both lenses or
> in some sort of dual-lens hood that prevents light from reaching the
> back side of the filter.
>
> Unfortunately, the B+W 502 filter is only available in round threaded
> filter sizes no larger than 72mm - not large enough to cover both of
> the TL-120 taking lenses.

There are two ways you could deal with this by using rectangular
filters.

If you use variable stereo base, or the lenses of a twin rig are just
too far apart to get an affordable rectangular filter, buy a
rectangular filter and cut two circular filters from it and mount them
however you wish. For example, punch out two junk filters that fit
your lenses and mount the cut outs in the filter rings. This will let
you place the gradient's horizon where ever you wish.

If the lenses are close enough together, and you are using a TLR,
measure the vertical distance between the viewing and taking lenses.
Make a sliding mount that lets you put the filter in front of both the
viewing and taking lenses. Set the gradient filter based on looking
through the viewer, and then move the filter down by the amount of the
vertical distance that you measured previously.

I have a Lee Filters combination compendium hood and filter holder
that I use with a set of Lee polyester filters and Lee resin ND
graduated filters on my 4x5 camera. The only problem I've had with
the gel filters was self inflicted, I didn't check that my hands were
clean, and I wasn't careful about holding from the edge and managed to
get my dirty thumb on a red filter. I don't think it really effects
the image, and I don't use that filter enough to bother replacing it.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

That's brilliant Bob! (at least for those who are mechanically
inclined...)

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Bob Schlesinger wrote:

> Why not build and calibrate a filter holder with two stops so you could shift the filter to the taking lenses position just before taking the picture?
> For example, on my Stereflectoscop, there is approx 12mm of vertical disparity between the positions of the viewfinder lens and taking lenses.
> You could align the filter for the viewfinder, then shift the whole thing down. Sure, it won't be as exact as aligning it through an SLR, but I'd think
> it should be possible to come close, and within the tolerances of the graduated line on most filters.

This can't be done with a rangefinder body, but I think it could work just
fine with a Twin- or Tri-Lens reflex. It would allow you to use and
correctly position ANY of the hard- or soft-edge split graduated ND
filters (Singh, Lee, etc.)

The engineering of a filter holder that could do this without scratching
the filter and without allowing light to strike the back side of the
filter is well beyond my abilities, though. :-)

By the way, how wide would the filter have to be to cover both of the
taking lenses on a TL-120? Is 4-inches enough?

Thanks,

Mike Davis

My experience with filters has indicated, to me, that in the case
of polaroid filters, the best are distributed by Vivitar, Hoya and
by Rollev.

I consider the B & W polaroid filters to be over-priced,without of-
fering a comparable increase in quality.

As regard to graduated ND filters, IMO, the best are distributed by
Lee and by Lindahl. It appears to me that B & W grad filters lack
a decent quality control. This opinion, is based on the five B & w
grad filters that I do own.

My MF camera is not an SLR type.

It appears to me that it would be a piece of cake to make a user
friendly, calibrated adapter for a Voigtlander, using a pair of,
graduated ND filters.

DON

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "dlopp2000" wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > The simple solution is to use a single ND Grad filter, if one has a
> > problem finding two matched ND grad. filters.
>
> I should add, that I DO use a single graduated ND filter on my MF
> stereo camera.
>
> DON
>

1) Are you using it on a TL-120 ?

2) What is the brand and size of the graduated ND filter you are
using ?

3) Do you have to remove it when looking through the viewfinder ?

Francois

Michael K. Davis wrote:

> That's brilliant Bob! (at least for those who are mechanically
> inclined...)
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Bob Schlesinger wrote:
>
> > Why not build and calibrate a filter holder with two stops so you
> > could shift the filter to the taking lenses position just before
> > taking the picture? For example, on my Stereflectoscop, there is
> > approx 12mm of vertical disparity between the positions of the
> > viewfinder lens and taking lenses. You could align the filter for
> > the viewfinder, then shift the whole thing down. Sure, it won't
> > be as exact as aligning it through an SLR, but I'd think it should
> > be possible to come close, and within the tolerances of the
> > graduated line on most filters.
>
> This can't be done with a rangefinder body, but I think it could work just
> fine with a Twin- or Tri-Lens reflex. It would allow you to use and
> correctly position ANY of the hard- or soft-edge split graduated ND
> filters (Singh, Lee, etc.)
>
> The engineering of a filter holder that could do this without scratching
> the filter and without allowing light to strike the back side of the
> filter is well beyond my abilities, though. :-)

Lee Filters makes something they call "Rangefinder face blades" that
are used with their filter holders. From their website
<http://www.leefilters.com/> (under accessories):

These calibrated metal face blades simply replace the existing
front blades on the Standard LEE Filter holder, enabling quick and
consistent positioning for graduated filters when used on
Rangefinder cameras.

From the photo I'm not sure how they work on a rangefinder. You can
see an image at:

<http://www.leefilters.com/camera/products/images/ref:C47BD8520A1A0F/>

I think this would work fine on a traditional TLR, but I'm not sure if
the opening on a Standard Lee Filter holder is wide enough for a
Sputnik or a TL120-1. In the photo the circular opening is part of an
adapter, and is the diameter of the filter threads on the camera lens.
Pulling the brass knob lets the adapter drop out of the holder. The
circle that goes up to the edge of the scale is the outer diameter of
the adapter.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

Michael K. Davis wrote:

>
> That's brilliant Bob! (at least for those who are mechanically
> inclined...)
>
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Bob Schlesinger wrote:
>
> > Why not build and calibrate a filter holder with two stops so you
> > could shift the filter to the taking lenses position just before
> > taking the picture? For example, on my Stereflectoscop, there is
> > approx 12mm of vertical disparity between the positions of the
> > viewfinder lens and taking lenses. You could align the filter for
> > the viewfinder, then shift the whole thing down. Sure, it won't
> > be as exact as aligning it through an SLR, but I'd think it should
> > be possible to come close, and within the tolerances of the
> > graduated line on most filters.
>
> This can't be done with a rangefinder body, but I think it could work just
> fine with a Twin- or Tri-Lens reflex. It would allow you to use and
> correctly position ANY of the hard- or soft-edge split graduated ND
> filters (Singh, Lee, etc.)
>
> The engineering of a filter holder that could do this without scratching
> the filter and without allowing light to strike the back side of the
> filter is well beyond my abilities, though. :-)

I replied too quickly. If you go to the "Product literature" section
of Lee Filters' website you get the brouchure for their RF75
rangefinder filter system. Or you can go directly to:

<http://www.leefilters.com/camera/downloads/ref:T485B72EC2620B/>

They show examples from the RF75 used on the Leica M8 and the
Hasselblad XPan and they also show it mounted on a Leica M7 and a
Voigtlander Bessa R4a. If the lens diameter is less than 67mm it
should work on the Mamiya 7.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

Hi Don,

At 02:34 PM 7/7/2008, you wrote:

>It appears to me that B & W grad filters lack
>a decent quality control. This opinion, is based on the five B & w
>grad filters that I do own.

Yes, the B+W graduated ND filters are all over the map in terms of
density and color. It's really hard to find one that is simply
neutral in color. I don't have much experience with their other filters.

Mike Davis

Hi Brian,

At 03:13 PM 7/7/2008, you wrote:

>I replied too quickly. If you go to the "Product literature" section
>of Lee Filters' website you get the brouchure for their RF75
>rangefinder filter system. Or you can go directly to:
>
> <http://www.leefilters.com/camera/downloads/ref:T485B72EC2620B/>
>
>They show examples from the RF75 used on the Leica M8 and the
>Hasselblad XPan and they also show it mounted on a Leica M7 and a
>Voigtlander Bessa R4a. If the lens diameter is less than 67mm it
>should work on the Mamiya 7.

I didn't know that Lee had come out with a holder for rangefinder
bodies. The index marks would help, to be sure, but you'd really
have to do your homework in advance of using them to know where to
set your filter horizon relative to those marks. One way to do it
would be to learn how to correlate the index marks to what you'll get
on film is to experiment with a piece of wax paper at the film plane
as a kind of ground glass, then validate your settings by shooting
film - before going out to shoot for real.

Lee really hasn't solved the positioning problem for rangefinder
cameras - they've just made it a little bit easier. Unfortunately,
even the soft edge grads must be positioned just right to end up with
images that "work" well. If the filter horizon is set too low, you
get a dark strip of ground below the subject horizon. If it's set
too high, you get the bright strip of sky just above the subject
horizon. If I ever find myself using these filters on a rangefinder,
I'd be tempted to "bracket" my filter position, shooting a little
higher and a little lower than where I "think" it belongs.

Mike Davis

Hi John,

At 06:02 PM 7/6/2008, you wrote:

>Given the troubles you had with quality control of the B+W 502
>filters, why are they still your recommended solution, Mike? Do
>they have other characteristics which make them very desirable or
>are the other potential solutions even less likely to result in
>success?

I had somehow overlooked your post until now. I may have answered
your question indirectly with some of the comments I made earlier
today, but just in case...

Yes, the B+W 502's have quality control problems, but they are the
only split graduated ND filters other than Heliopan's that offer a
smooth, continuous density gradient from zero density at the
waistline all the way to the top where maximum density is
achieved. A B+W 502 is supposed to reach a 0.6 (two-stop) density at
the top of the filter. A B+W 501 is supposed to reach a 0.3
(one-stop) density at the top. And for the most part, they do, but
just try and find two that have the exact same color and density, or
even just one that has no color cast (that's truly neutral).

Heliopan's 0.6 and 0.3 split graduated ND filters have the same specs
as the B+W 502 and 501 filters, respectively, but the Heliopans are
much less dense for some reason - making them almost useless in my
opinion. You would have to stack them to achieve useful
densities. In this case, it's unfortunate that Heliopan is very
consistent in producing these filters with very low density. I found
several reviews on various photo forums where people returned their
Heliopan graduated ND filters for the same reason I returned the only
pair I bought - they were just too thin.

To my knowledge, every other split graduated ND filter made lacks the
smooth gradient that starts at the waistline and ends at the top of
the filter - a feature which greatly reduces the need to precisely
position the filter's waistline relative to the subject horizon. The
B+W 502's can just be mounted such that maximum density is at 12
o'clock and then you're ready to shoot. There's no concern for
critical positioning and the resulting images are very natural
looking - completely without the blackened tree tops and artificial
horizons you can get with hard- and soft-edge split ND filters made
by other companies.

As I mentioned earlier, the only other filter (to my knowledge)
that's equally immune to positioning errors, is not a *split*
graduated ND filter - it's density gradient begins at the bottom of
the filter and runs smoothly all the way to the top: the
rectangular, Formatt Blender filters. These are made of glass, so
they are scratch resistant, but more vulnerable to breakage. A 4x4
1.5 ND Formatt Blender is $217.00 (after currency conversion and
before shipping costs) from the U.K. manufacturer:

http://www.formatt.co.uk/hd-glass-filters/blender-n-d/hd-glass-filters.aspx

At $217.00 each before shipping (if they'll even ship to the U.S.),
you can see why I never bothered to buy even one of them, much less
two, but if anyone wants to take the plunge, I recommend you get the
strongest version, the 1.5 ND (5 stops), or at least the 1.2 ND (four
stops). If you get anything weaker, you will not enjoy much of a
gradient from the bottom to the top of your image frame. The TL-120
lenses would be shooting through easily less than half the height of
a 4-inch square filter, so it's impossible for them to enjoy the
entire density gradient unless you mount the filter well out in front
of the lens. Shooting with the 1.2 or 1.5 ND Blender filter seated
close against the front of the TL-120 lenses, you would always just
position it as high as possible so that you have as little density as
possible at the bottom of your image.

Mike Davis