Do you use filters regularly for B&W?

[Windscale]

Forgive me for being ignorant. I have not done much B&W in the past but I do want to approach it seriously. What I would like to find out is that how many of you use colour correction filters regularly? Do most of you carry a handful of filters with you when you go out? Would any of you think that it is better to take care of things in the D&P stage?

[Double Negative]

Color correction? No - doesn't apply. But your typical yellow, green, orange and red filters... Occasionally. I haven't much if at all in the past, but I may start now that I"m shooting film again. Depends on what you shoot, really.

[Aziz]

I always carry my medium yellow filter with me. I use it for a few different purposes, one being a 1 stop nd filter if i need it.

[back alley]

no filters anymore...

[35mmdelux]

no filters anymore; HP-5 straight on is good enough for me.

[David Goldfarb]

Yes, pretty often. I'm usually using a medium yellow filter outdoors or maybe orange if there are nice clouds, sometimes light yellow just to cut through haze, if I don't want a strong filter effect. Indoors, not so much.

[Gumby]

Often use a yellow; sometimes orange. I own red filters but they are just novelties.

[lorenbliss]

I equip a lens with a skylight filter the moment I take it out of the box. Every lens I own is so equipped. This protects the front element of the lens , also -- on the very rare occasions I shoot color -- eliminates the blue shift of Ektachrome, which though substantially minimized in recent years is still evident on unfiltered images made in what I consider the best photographic light of all (that is, a cloudy day). As to other filters, I use them as necessary: Y2 or R1 to emphasize clouds in BW, etc. However with most traditional rangefinder cameras we have to remember to calculate filter factors into the exposure for the same reason we have to remember to remove lens caps: unlike with SLRs, we're not looking through the lens. As to which filters are used for what purpose, the filter manufactures typically include excellent data tables with each filter, but the best summary of filter applications I have found anywhere (would it had existed when I was teaching) is the one on Wikipedia, linked here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter

I hope this helps.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I never do. I won't use skylight/uv type filters to protect lenses, they reduce image quality and yes I can see the difference with all but the best (B+W or Heliopan) filters. When I was a student years ago i tried to accumulate a set of the colored filters for BW and got a few but they were all different sizes and i never got a full set for any one filter size I need. Since I didn't have what I really needed and couldn't afford them once I graduated, I just shot without them and I think I have gotten good results.

[c.poulton]

I have a set of B+W red filters for when I am shooting architectural scenes and want to emphasis the sky/clouds. Otherwise I shoot with a UV if I feel I need the extra protection - rainy days, on the coast, sandy environments, etc.

[dof]

Not with the rangefinder; perhaps due to my primary association with it being a more spontaneous kind of camera. I am often tempted to not even change lenses unless I really *have* to for a shot.

Now on the Hasselblad, a yellow, yellow/green and red filter are always in the bag and often on the lens.


-j.

[lorenbliss]

As to the alleged loss of quality imposed by filters, perhaps it happens, and perhaps it might be evident at something like 25 diameters enlargement, but on 35mm film at any reasonable print size (up to 11x14 equivalent), not even the most discerning editors can tell the difference. The bottom line is the bottom line: it is a helluva a lot less expensive (and a helluva lot better for your subsequent insurance premiums) to replace a $12-$24 skylight filter than a $400-$2000 lens. If I'm that concerned about image quality, I'll go to a larger format.

[David Goldfarb]

I only use protective filters if there is an obvious hazard--water, sand, crowds. I do usually use a lens shade (presuming I have one that will work with the lens in question), and use a lens cap to protect the lens.

The bottom line is the bottom line: why spend the money on an expensive lens, if you're going to reduce contrast and light transmission by adding two air-glass surfaces? A multicoated filter will reduce this problem, but still, unnecessary glass is unnecessary glass. A filter shouldn't reduce resolution, unless it's so cheap that it isn't optically flat. The main issues are flare and transmissive light loss.

[back alley]

in winter i shoot in snow and wind. in summer, there is wind and sand from the road and i mostly shoot on the street...so i do use uv filters - expensive ones (but i try to buy used) for protection.

i don't use any other filters though preferring to boost contrast in photoshop.

[FPjohn]

Medium yellow or yellow-green outdoors.

yours
FPJ

[Bob Michaels]

Decades ago I succumbed to the "more complex must mean better" thinking and tried to use either yellow, orange, red, or green filters plus sometimes a polarizer for most b&w shots.

Nowadays, I very very infrequently use an orange filter when shooting MF b&w. But most of the time, and always shooting 35mm, I use nothing but my brain to expose correctly.

[oftheherd]

My personal preference is to use a UV filter on my lens at all times to protect it. I have one on most of my lenses. Those who do not wish to do so are welcome to their opinion as well.

As to the question of filter use from the OP, I had gotten away from photographing as much as I used to. When I used to take more photos, I didn't hesitate to use a filter in color or b/w film use. If I didn't think I needed one, that was just as well too.

I am fortunate to have an extensive set of filters in various colors for b/w, as well as in various sizes. Also color correcting filters for color films. I don't think I just have to have a filter to take a photo. But if a filter I have will help the photo in my estimation, on it will go. My 35mm Fujica kit bag has about 12 or 15 filters in it. Other kits have their share too.

But that is just me. Not everyone believes in it. In days past, I experimented with filter use and found when I thought it helped. That is when I will try to use one.

[mh2000]

occasionally used to use yellow and green filters, but mainly because I was outside with film rated at 800 in cameras with top shutter speeds of 1/200-1/500th.

Regarding protective filters... a buddy and I went back and forth with that argument for a long time... until some weird flare destroyed all the important images from a commercial shoot that could not be repeated... ouch! Cost him a lot of money and stress for nothing.

>>The main issues are flare and transmissive light loss.

[mh2000]

that said... I do like seeing crappy old UV filters on lenses when I buy a vintage camera off ebay

:)

[chippy]

Forgive me for being ignorant. I have not done much B&W in the past but I do want to approach it seriously. What I would like to find out is that how many of you use colour correction filters regularly? Do most of you carry a handful of filters with you when you go out? Would any of you think that it is better to take care of things in the D&P stage?

Windscale a basic rule should be not to use a filter unless there is a specific reason to do so.

having said that however filters and B/W photog go hand in hand. i suspect that many responces here on RFF where a number of people dont use them is inherent to the type or style of photography that is often associated with rangefinder cameras that make up the bulk of phtographers here obviously(spontanious, candid, streetshooting ect).

UV filters on modern muticoated lenses are usefull beyond their intented purpose to protect the lens and rarely if ever are the cause for an adverse effect on the final image (i.e flare), the same image taken without the UV filter on would likely had shown some effect anyway--the best solution is to use a lens hood. but nobody likes to use a hood do they ;) even though its the single best thing to put in front of your lens.

the old pinkish Uv filters are also usefull for a slight seperation between blue sky and white clouds as well.

a yellow filter generaly has little effect on most images if left on (does increase exposure time tho) but is most useful for seperating the blues (sky and cloud)and does increase contrast of the shadows which are made up with blue light.it can also bring out the foliage in a picture as well. I use yellow often

greens i find are a waste of time (probably the photography hoax of the last century) and only do what yellow does but increase exposure time more (OK if thats what you need-kinda like puting an ND filter on-i use ND often by the way-because i use modern fast films and vintage slow shutters)

blue filters same thing--but they do look pretty in the collection tho

orange and reds are usefull for increasing the effect in the picture-the darker red to black (72 i think it is) is more so with infared film.

[Dante_Stella]

Filters are really only useful if you do your own processing. And if you apply the stated factors, nothing will come out like it should.

That said, you can't entirely replicate the look of contrast filters using darkroom tools only.

I use one contrast filter only.

Dante

Forgive me for being ignorant. I have not done much B&W in the past but I do want to approach it seriously. What I would like to find out is that how many of you use colour correction filters regularly? Do most of you carry a handful of filters with you when you go out? Would any of you think that it is better to take care of things in the D&P stage?

[chippy]

Would any of you think that it is better to take care of things in the D&P stage?

whenever possible its always better to get the image the way you want or as close as you can imagine in the camera first-if there is little difference in greyscale between, for example, cloud and sky to begin with on the neg, then there isnt much post D&P can do-you need something to work with on the neg first

[oftheherd]

...

greens i find are a waste of time (probably the photography hoax of the last century) and only do what yellow does but increase exposure time more (OK if thats what you need-kinda like puting an ND filter on-i use ND often by the way-because i use modern fast films and vintage slow shutters)

blue filters same thing--but they do look pretty in the collection tho

...

Said tongue in cheek I presume, sir. Greens can be useful for portraits, especially in caucasian skin, as they can render human skin a little smoother, giving a better looking complexion. Reds can be used to lighten human skin in b/w. It has been used to slightly lighten very dark African American skin when necessary to do so, especially to contrast in against other backgrounds.

Greens and blue, in b/w, will lighten their own color. The classic example from Kodak was a green in b/w to separate rose blossoms from their leaves. Or, you could use the red to lighten the blossoms and darken the leaves.

You probably won't use them often for things like that, but they do have their use.

[chippy]

Said tongue in cheek I presume, sir. Greens can be useful for portraits, especially in caucasian skin, as they can render human skin a little smoother, giving a better looking complexion. Reds can be used to lighten human skin in b/w. It has been used to slightly lighten very dark African American skin when necessary to do so, especially to contrast in against other backgrounds.

Greens and blue, in b/w, will lighten their own color. The classic example from Kodak was a green in b/w to separate rose blossoms from their leaves. Or, you could use the red to lighten the blossoms and darken the leaves.

You probably won't use them often for things like that, but they do have their use.

Hi oftheherd, probably slightly tounge in cheek but thats kinda how i do feel about them though

I agree about the use of red filters- i do use them, and the kodak example i find interesting (if not typical advertising hype), i agree with the red part but i find the green filter does nothing much a yellow wont do. at least i remember testing the green and yellow coinsidently with a red rose against the foliage as well and it didnt seem to make a difference

its interesting because i was recently reading some old photo magazines that had articles about the green filters, and a number of advertisments for their use. old style ortho film (can still get it now of course) made the red in peoples faces appear blotchy and were often retouched after to overcome it, then the early Pan films were said to have dip in sensetivity in the green and over sensitive to reds (and blues)causing faces to look pale hence the need for the green filters to overcome it, so they say. a later article in a different magazine measured them all and found that green didnt do anything that yellow didnt do already all things being equal, nor did it actually fix the problem with pale faces with the early Pan film, what did cure it was the introduction of balanced pan film and it my feeling that the green filters got the credit and the idea that green filters were usefull has just stuck all these years later. its an old debate but i havnt really noticed any beifit to using a green or blue filter--well the blue filter from what i remember did make the pictures...hmm cant think of the word but not better

I am happy to learn different ,but i just dont see any real need for them at all now with modern balanced films that aren't over sensitive to reds and blues but out of curiosity i will give it a test again on portraiture. the argument about how the filter will lighten its own colour on the surface is a compelling one (because it seems logical) but in practice it doesnt seem to work for green and blue filters within the usefullness of taking pics i find

[maddoc]

I have UV filters on all of my lenses, the possibly negative effect on contrast (and flare) rather than cleaning the front element getting fogged by all kinds of aerosols. (I have to wipe the filter at least all two weeks ...)

For my 5 lenses all with different filter-sizes / types, I have narrowed down filters to one medium red / yellow for my Super-Angulon-M (scenery in BW), one series vii in medium yellow for my 35 Summilux, and one medium green and one yellow-green for my 90mm Summicron-M (skin-tones in BW).

[Haigh]

I carry a light yellow filter just to give the sky a little more contrast.

Gary Haigh

Australia

[oftheherd]

Hi oftheherd, probably slightly tounge in cheek but thats kinda how i do feel about them though

I agree about the use of red filters- i do use them, and the kodak example i find interesting (if not typical advertising hype), i agree with the red part but i find the green filter does nothing much a yellow wont do. at least i remember testing the green and yellow coinsidently with a red rose against the foliage as well and it didnt seem to make a difference

its interesting because i was recently reading some old photo magazines that had articles about the green filters, and a number of advertisments for their use. old style ortho film (can still get it now of course) made the red in peoples faces appear blotchy and were often retouched after to overcome it, then the early Pan films were said to have dip in sensetivity in the green and over sensitive to reds (and blues)causing faces to look pale hence the need for the green filters to overcome it, so they say. a later article in a different magazine measured them all and found that green didnt do anything that yellow didnt do already all things being equal, nor did it actually fix the problem with pale faces with the early Pan film, what did cure it was the introduction of balanced pan film and it my feeling that the green filters got the credit and the idea that green filters were usefull has just stuck all these years later. its an old debate but i havnt really noticed any beifit to using a green or blue filter--well the blue filter from what i remember did make the pictures...hmm cant think of the word but not better

I am happy to learn different ,but i just dont see any real need for them at all now with modern balanced films that aren't over sensitive to reds and blues but out of curiosity i will give it a test again on portraiture. the argument about how the filter will lighten its own colour on the surface is a compelling one (because it seems logical) but in practice it doesnt seem to work for green and blue filters within the usefullness of taking pics i find

Boy do I envy you your collection of magazines and books. I hung on to mine as long as I could, but space and a house fire robbed me of a fairly nice collection of both.

Thinking back on the green filters, I don't recall if I read that or if it came from a one week class on photography I got from the US Army. I know that is where I first learned about the red filters. I think I may have done some minor experimentation with green, but with oriental skin and that may have been the difference. Now that I have given it some thought, I wasn't so impressed with my results. More melanin than caucasian skin and that might have been the difference.

Since it sounds like you have done more extensive and recent experimentation, I bow to your knowledge. But if you do try some more, I hope you will let us know your results.

[John Rountree]

No one has mentioned the use of a neutral density filter. I use a 2X ND filter often to allow for a narrower depth-of-field without changing the relative tones on the negative. Actually I would like to get a 6X filter to add to the kit. I wholly agree that putting a $10 pice of glass in front of a $300 pice of glass is nonsense. It's like good whisky. The whisky makers have access to all the water they want, so why would you add more? Lens makers have all the glass they need, so....

[Windscale]

Thank you for all your contributions. I feel I have learnt more in a day than in a normal year. I shall experiment and get some experience myself. The original idea for posting this thread was that I was just given a stack of B&W colour filters of various colours and I did not know what to do as almost all my photography was colour. Well, it is never too late to take on something from scratch. Thanks again.

[chippy]

Since it sounds like you have done more extensive and recent experimentation, I bow to your knowledge. But if you do try some more, I hope you will let us know your results.

complimentory as always oftheherd but we all have our pockets of knowledge and experiance. mine i am sure is quite small. i would have liked to have been involved in half the things you have.

reading the old stuff is a hoot though, very interesting and often reveals that in times gone by they really knew thier stuff and we often seem to try or pretend to reinvent the same things nowadays.

[chippy]

No one has mentioned the use of a neutral density filter. I use a 2X ND filter often to allow for a narrower depth-of-field without changing the relative tones on the negative. Actually I would like to get a 6X filter to add to the kit. ....


indeed i wholy agree that they are one of the most useful (actually i did mention it in my earlier post). i use them often, particularly since i often use vintage shutters. the ND's are ideal to use todays faster film speeds in the old cameras and be able to open up the aperature without running out of shutter speed.