But one has more freedom for further creative modifications if the base itself is very solid. You can blur any sharp image, but the other way only works in action movies where crops of single frames of 240p/12fps surveillance cameras magically sharpen up to the same quality as if that cropped area was taken with a slightly stopped down 400mm/2.8.

The effect of the Glimmerglass filter shows most obviously in the sun-bright portion at the top edge of the image where the white sun suddenly blooms, the white glow spreading out over the leaves and the tree trunk. There is a lowering of contrast—the Glimmerglass image might initially look dull in comparison. I’m not sure if there is a loss if resolution or not—higher contrast can give the illusion of sharpness and lowered contrast thus seems less sharp. In the filmmaking world you don’t have that same pressure to find the ultimate in sharpness. A moving image is extraordinarily forgiving of what would be unthinkable in still photography. A little unsharpness passes without comment in a movie while the still frame from that image would be cast to the darkroom floor. In the film days it was not uncommon for focus in a motion picture to be off a bit now and then (it’s still not as rare as you might expect). Even big-budget films went to print with misfocused scenes. If I read it another way, it may be that the model is supposed to see the "Sparkle" in the filter - and that is supposed give the model the added confidence (?) Might be cheaper to just glue some glitter to the front of your camera? Earlier we saw flare from the filter and here it is again, though brighter and clearer. And again we see that it is not even—is there something in the flare? And there is—a picture of the Moon. With greatly reduced exposure the details of its surface are clear, the focused light having bounced off the flat filter in some way. There’s a coolness factor here that cannot be denied. I think it’s a bit of the same situation here. Sure, one can get very respectable to good results from really bad lenses if talented — I’m looking at you, Bastian!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.

ColorCore® Technology (per < link > The Tiffen ColorCore technology is a secret proprietary formula...) But followers have to, by definition, be following and that implies that somebody is out there in front. With diffusion filters that is certainly not me—adapting old lenses to modern cameras is a well-established corner of the photo world and diffusion fits into that same corner as well, although even there it’s sort of a niche, a corner within a corner. Perhaps we can add a bit to that little group—put the Glimmerglass on the fast Fuji 50 and see what happens? 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.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.

Even after I introduced the thought that we were looking at sharpness, even after I set the stage, were your first thoughts when you looked at the images about sharpness? Or were they about color, about the ocean, and most of all about the dolphins? When a light source is overexposed it blooms—it spreads out over the adjacent parts of the image. The diffusion filter strengthens that spreading and here you can see the Moon has bloomed out to many times its original size. In this particular case I find this extreme blooming undesirable although no doubt good use could be made of this effect. I have never been a huge fan of these so called “effect filters” but my friend Simeon Kolev showed a few cool pictures where he used these Diffusion filters to good effect, so I decided to give it a try.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. More Samples Sony A7III | 28mm | Tiffen Glimmerglass1 Sony A7III | 28mm | Tiffen Glimmerglass1 Sony A7III | 28mm | Tiffen Glimmerglass1 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/2.8 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Further Reading Taking pictures in the dark with point light sources in the frame the effect is also similar to what you get when shooting analogue Cinestill 800T film.