Tiffen 77GG1 77mm Glimmer Glass 1 Filter

Product Information

Books On My Desk: Robert Adams’ Photographs ( not in the way you think I mean) and Bruce Conner’s Attic The foggy effect these filters give at night isn’t overly easy to replicate in post – at least for me – but in many situations the K&F 1/2 also yielded unexpected and/or undesirable (side) effects. The number of pictures where I thought it actually added something to them was rather small and life is definitely too short to always take a picture with and without filter to blend them together in post afterwards. All of these filters seem to contain a higher density of very small implanted particles/defects. Those lead to a mixture of diffractive and scattering effects in the path of the light travelling through the optical system. Without going too much into detail most of those effects will lead to blurred light sources where the blurring might be well approximated by the superposition of some gaussian blurs with a filter specific distribution of different radii (it‘s not exactly gaussian, but close enough to keep that simple model — which is also implemented in most photographic/image manipulating software). Hence, yes, theoretically one should be able to recreate these effects quite easily with some work. Tiffen is indeed a lot better at what it does. No wonder they are quite known in movie scenes. I do have Glimmerglass 2 and it does effect only highlights as well, while retaining sharpness and contrast over all other image parts. The effect is a bit stronger than the glimmer glass 1 that you used.

The Moon in this image dominates the composition and the difference between the Glimmerglass-filtered image and the straight image couldn’t be starker. They are different photographs. The dark foreground areas of the photograph look identical in each and yet in one the diffuse glow around the Moon renders a different Moon entirely. Again, one is not better than the other—that depends on the photographer’s intent and the viewer’s taste—but the different possibilities are clearly, and literally, illuminated. Note in the Glimmerglass photo the ball of greenish light—lens flare from the surface of the filter. The flare is not evenly toned—more on that later. That’s why the errors occur but why do they keep them? Why doesn’t the director of the film just reshoot the scene, especially with a big-budget film? The reason is that sharpness is not the be-all, end-all deciding factor in the success of a scene. There are a host of things going on and a little unsharpness can be easily overlooked if the overall sense of the scene is powerful, if the actors did something really special, if all of the complex camera movements, lighting, everything, all came together to cast some magical spell, some primordial connection between the filmmaker and the audience. Or sometimes filmmakers just didn’t notice (they review scenes during the shooting on monitors that are much smaller than the big screen) or they noticed but they’d already moved on to something else. The X100V doesn’t initially appear to be able to accept filters. There are no screw-in threads visible. But there’s a “secret” ring around the lens that unscrews to reveal threads, but these threads cannot accept filters. You need to buy an adapter to screw into those threads that has its own threads that filters can screw into. Make sense?For the displayed use cases (e.g. in the city) those filters reviewed here may be the smarter choice than a undercorrected lens or software based solutions as the results seem to be nicer.

thanks for this nice short review. I don’t like the idea of worsening the optical qualities of a good lens either. But indeed, the achievable looks may be quite nice. I think I’ll give some NiSi filters a try as well. But there are situations where doing everything in software isn‘t viable or simply not wanted. First, if you shoot video, it will cause very heavy workloads in post. Second, if you shoot on film…well, that‘s obvious. Third, if you‘re a purist and don‘t want to treat every image in post, or if you try to improve your “analogue” photographic skills. For astrophotography the better way to highlight brighter stars in images may be the use of some of the quite good Samyang lenses which are known to show slightly undercorrected spherical aberration leading to a similar effect while maintaining comparably high contrast and resolution in the whole frame. These filters are made by several manufacturers these days and they come in different strengths. Filters with the same nominal strength from different manufacturers do not necessarily offer the same degree of the effect though, which makes it especially hard to find the best one for your needs. People say that Glimmer Glass gives the most sharpness, I can’t really tell myself. The two Tiffen filters seem equally sharp, Cinebloom maybe a bit less sharp (maybe).The Glimmerglass series of filters also has a benefit of sparkling when viewed, which can add reassurance to your talent when shooting beauty; that way you can fully concentrate on the look of your shot."

All the photos are shot with the Fujifilm X-T3 + Fujifilm XF 35mm f2.0 R WR on a tripod. Test #1 – Statue at Vestre Cemetery I’ve been asked a few times recently what adapter and filters I use on my Fujifilm X100V. I will state right off the bat that my choices aren’t necessarily the “best” ones, it’s just what I’ve done. There are likely better options, and perhaps different choices that would be better for you, so keep that in mind. With that said, let me get right into the adapter and filters that I use on my Fujifilm X100V.

Feeling is what matters, more than technical perfection. Sometimes ultra-sharpness contributes to that feeling. Sometimes a softness in the image contributes to that feeling. That’s where the Glimmerglass filter comes in. This filter, made by Tiffen, is one of a number of diffusion filters that do not simply “fuzz” the image but do something far more interesting. I bought one in a size to fit the new fast Fuji 50mm f/1.0 and thought it might be worthwhile to shoot this lens, which already has a sort of diffusion look built-in when shot at f/1.0, and to see what the combination would produce. It’s fine, it’s an interesting look, it just starts to sort of blend after a while. Filmmakers, just like still photographers, tend to be fad followers. The Glimmerglass1 was more to my liking as it really seemed to only affect the parts of the picture it is supposed to and I may keep it for the next time I take pictures at a fair or do automotive photography during the blue hour.