Filters for B&W

[cyrus]

OK so I am going to splurge a bit for some filters for my 4x5 polaroid conversion. I have obtained a 52mm adaptor to put on it, mainly to hold a lens shade (previous genuine original lens shade popped off and fell on the middle of a road in Rome, and was prompty crushed by a passing truck. For a brief moment, I literally considered diving after it.)

I suppose an orange filter and a UV haze filter are required. Should they really be coated for use on a Ysarex lens? And I suppose a center filter with soft edges for portraits is nice too though I consider it to be a luxury (I'm from the "dab a bit of petroleum jelly on a UV filter and attach it with duct tape" school of photography - in other words, a cheap bastard.) Any other suggestions? Polarizing lens you say? Really?

[Ron Marshall]

I would skip the UV filter. I find that I use a colored filter for most shots, so if the UV is there as lens protection it must be removed and replaced each shot.

For color a polarizer is useful to darken skies and to reduce unwanted reflections.

For B/W Wratten #8 yellow, #12 deep yellow or #15 orange and #25 red.

Buy coated and quality filters, Heliopan, B+W, Hoya. Buy for your largest lens diameter and get step-up rings for smaller lenses. 67 mm is usually big enough.

[poco]

"in other words, a cheap bastard"

Okay, seeing as how you're a fellow tightwad, you might try my solution to filters: buy a big new set of multicontrast printing filters and for less than $40, you get 10 different filters going from pale yellow to deep red. Works great.

[Donald Brewster]

I'll second in total what Ron said. I started with the traditional yellow, green (for portraits) and red, and added here and there. I've since found I use orange the most. Do get good filters -- I've never regretted buying a B+W or Heliopan filter -- though I will say the multi-coating isn't necessary IMHO. Can't say that about the others.

[raucousimages]

I looked up the transmitance curves for several filters (8, 12, 15, 25, 29 and a couple of others) then found LEE theaterical gells with the same curves (or close), cut them to 4X4 and use them. Cost about 22 cents each. I tested a Lee "#25" (22 cents)against a Kodak gell ($26.00) and Hasselblad ($69.00). Same roll, exposure, developement and printing. No one has been able to tell the difference on an 11X11 glossy print (Ilford RC) without a loupe.

[cyrus]

"in other words, a cheap bastard"

Okay, seeing as how you're a fellow tightwad, you might try my solution to filters: buy a big new set of multicontrast printing filters and for less than $40, you get 10 different filters going from pale yellow to deep red. Works great.

Considered it but they scratch too easily. And a box of variable contrast printing filters isn't really less expensive than a couple of tiffen filters

[cyrus]

I would skip the UV filter. I find that I use a colored filter for most shots, so if the UV is there as lens protection it must be removed and replaced each shot..

Can't you just screw the colored filter over the UV filter?



For color a polarizer is useful to darken skies and to reduce unwanted reflections.

What about for B&W? SHould have the same ffect of darkening skies since hte polarization of the light is still the same regardless of the film used. Same goes for cutting down reflections and "hotspots" etc...right?

IS there really an observable difference between a Tiffen and a Hoya etc?

[cyrus]

I looked up the transmitance curves for several filters (8, 12, 15, 25, 29 and a couple of others) then found LEE theaterical gells with the same curves (or close), cut them to 4X4 and use them. Cost about 22 cents each. I tested a Lee "#25" (22 cents)against a Kodak gell ($26.00) and Hasselblad ($69.00). Same roll, exposure, developement and printing. No one has been able to tell the difference on an 11X11 glossy print (Ilford RC) without a loupe.

What about the distortion effect of the thin material as well as the light scattering?

[Ron Marshall]

Yes, a polariser will work with b/w as well. I often use a #12 and a polariser together to darken skies without darkening foliage.

You could use the UV as well, but with shifts or a smaller image circle there might be vignetting.

Gels are easily damaged and difficult to keep clean.

[Nick_3536]

I know lightling gels are cheap but so are used filters in the 52mm size. Even brand new Hoyas aren't much more money then lighting gels.

[cyrus]

green (for portraits)

What does that do? I've heard of using yellow for portraits, to reduce freckles and skin blemishes. I would assume that green results in lighter skin tone?

[Donald Brewster]

Wratten #11 (or Green 1). For all pan films. I find it makes a better outdoor filter with more pleasing flesh tones in portraits against the sky than can be obtained with yellow filter. I also find useful for landscape photos, flowers, blossoms and has a more natural sky appearance.


Wratten #13 (or Green 2). A classic for male portraits in tungsten light. Makes flesh tones deep, giving men a rugged and swarthy look. Can also be used for landscapes to lighten foliage (pan film only).

[mdd99]

>>Is there really an observable difference between a Tiffen and a Hoya etc?<<

Tiffen filters are uncoated, as a rep recently told me, because most people don't properly clean their filters, resulting in cleaning marks. They also are trying to keep their costs affordable to the everyday snap shooter, which is their target market.

Hoya filters, even the standard line, are coated, which will help reduce flare, as well as give the glass extra protection.

I use B+W and Heliopan, multicoated (Hoya also makes multicoated), and they use brass rings. Both brands are equally superb. It doesn't make sense to put cheap glass on your expensive lenses.