Filters you would not leave home without? => Giving life to the image.

[l2oBiN]

Beyond the gold and blue polarizer, the ND grads and the standard polarizer, which s do you rely on to make the best of the situation?

[Vaughn]

none.

But I do have a yellow filter -- nice for in the Fall under the redwoods to pick up the luminosity of the yellow leaves, and occasionally to darken the sky a little -- I prefer very light skies for most images. Used for perhaps 1 image out of 50.

[lenser]

For color, a regular polarizer and an 81B for warming, especially on skin.

For B&W, the Polarizer plus a yellow and red, often used with the polarizer for very saturated sky tones and cloud separation. Rarely a green.

ND for both, but rarely used.

[Kirk Gittings]

No. 16 yellow-orange.

[Curt]

K1 and / or K2.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wratten #12, #25, #57, #87.

[DanK]

B&W only for me...

Deep Yellow 15 and 25A Red...

Thanks,
Dan

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Gotta love my #11.

[Two23]

I only shoot b&w in LF. I carry red #25 & #29, orange, yellow-green, green, blue. I bought a set of three ND filters to slow exposures down for my Petzval and Imagon lenses. With my Nikon DSLR, I am a polarizer addict for daytime shots. I do not own a b/y polarizer, do sometimes use an ND grad (Hitech P)


Kent in SD

[dsim]

Tiffen 812 for Provia.

[Steve Smith]

Yellow, orange, red and polariser.



Steve.

[BennehBoy]

85B, I shoot EPY.

[cjbroadbent]

Like Ben, 85B alone.
Good for EPY with long daylight exposures. Good for black and white with skies and faces.

[BennehBoy]

Hey Chris, these portraits are fantastic, got any more? flickr account?

http://www.christopherbroadbent.pro/Portfolio/target184.html

http://www.christopherbroadbent.pro/Portfolio/target185.html

[rdenney]

I don't use filters that often, but when I do, it's a polarizer (with color) and either yellow or red (for black and white).

But I don't think filters give life to an image. I think they are tools for managing the image--the life has to already be there and the tools help the photographer manipulate technique. They are cutting tools, in the sense of the tired old joke that goes: "Wow! That's a great sculpture of a bear. How did you do it?" "I started with a big hunk of rock and chipped away everything that was not bear."

Rick "who uses filters mostly to darken what isn't important" Denney

[Vaughn]

That was my first thought also, Rick. It is light that gives life to images (along with our vision, imagination and skill -- knowing what part is not the bear, LOL).

Filters remove the life-giving light, so IMO, should be used carefully and not automatically.

Vaughn

[Preston]

I rarely use filters for my color work. When needed, I will use an 81-a or b, polarizer, or S-R ND Grads.

--P

[Robert Hughes]

B&W: Red & orange for skies, green for paper negative contrast control, polarizer for glass & water.

[johnmsanderson]

I stopped using filters for color. I found the extra time to install the polarizer and step up rings, plus the reduced exposure to be more trouble than it's worth.

I would still like some graduated NDs, though.

[Brian Ellis]

I leave home without any filters except a polarizer. Photoshop pretty much eliminates the need for the old b&w standbys like red, green, orange, and yellow as well as warming filters.

[Wayne Crider]

I generally always carry a yellow, #11 and a soft 2 stop graduated ND. When on the shoreline a UV.

[Sirius Glass]

I leave home without any filters except a polarizer. Photoshop pretty much eliminates the need for the old b&w standbys like red, green, orange, and yellow as well as warming filters.

Not exactly the same. Beside changing the contrast, simplistically: red lightens red, green lighten greens, orange lighten oranges and yellows lighten yellows.

Believing Photo$hop can do everything filters or a darkroom can, is not being honest with oneself. :eek:

Steve

[Brian Ellis]

Not exactly the same. Beside changing the contrast, simplistically: red lightens red, green lighten greens, orange lighten oranges and yellows lighten yellows.

Believing Photo$hop can do everything filters or a darkroom can, is not being honest with oneself. :eek:

Steve

LOL

[Sirius Glass]

Brian, I am glad that you enjoyed that.

[Zaitz]

Not exactly the same. Beside changing the contrast, simplistically: red lightens red, green lighten greens, orange lighten oranges and yellows lighten yellows.

Believing Photo$hop can do everything filters or a darkroom can, is not being honest with oneself. :eek:

Steve

No kidding.

[Leigh]

Believing Photo$hop can do everything filters or a darkroom can, is not being honest with oneself. :eek:
Absolutely true. :cool:

- Leigh

[Lenny Eiger]

I have a set of beautiful filters, made by Lee, I think. There seems to be no reason to carry them around. I don't like black skies at all. If I want to pick up the delicacy of the light in one area, like leaves, I just pull up on the curve, or mask the area, then pull up on the curve... I really don't see the need for filters any more...

I am often disagreeing with Brian, but I have to agree with him on this one. If you are one of those who uses Photoshop, and you know your masking well, I can't see the use...

I am willing to have my mind changed (as I still have the filters) and would be interested if someone could make a case for using filters in the field when digital printing is to be utilized.

Lenny

[sanking]

If you are shooting IR film that is sensitive to both visual and IR radiation you will need a deep red filter, something like a R72, to block visual light get the IR look. I don't believe there is any way to replicate this look with Photoshop , though there is an IR filter for conversion of RGB to B&W that comes pretty close if you start with a scan of color film.

Sandy King

[Leigh]

If you are one of those who uses Photoshop, and you know your masking well, I can't see the use...
I agree completely.

Filters are of no use to those who do computer graphics. :eek:

But they're very useful to photographers. :cool:

Whether or not a particular shooter chooses to use them is an artistic decision.

- Leigh

[Steve Gledhill]

All the usuals for B&W but also 47B - deep blue. Without it some rock formations are dead flat. With it they pop. I learned about its use when photographing rock art but found that some rock responds beautifully to it. Dark green has a similar effect though I don't have one.

It's a 3 stop filter but the dark blue makes it a devil to focus through. It's probably best to focus without then just add the filter prior to exposure.

[Lenny Eiger]

I agree completely.
Filters are of no use to those who do computer graphics. :eek:
But they're very useful to photographers. :cool:
Whether or not a particular shooter chooses to use them is an artistic decision.
- Leigh

Leigh, I hope we're not starting this again. Just because someone uses a computer doesn't mean they're doing graphics vs photography. It's just the printing mechanism. Get over it. My question was a serious one....


Lenny

[Vaughn]

All the usuals for B&W but also 47B - deep blue. Without it some rock formations are dead flat. With it they pop. I learned about its use when photographing rock art but found that some rock responds beautifully to it. ...

Are you referring about the filter's effect primarily on reddish rock? Thanks...

[Steve Gledhill]

Are you referring about the filter's effect primarily on reddish rock? Thanks...

I am - as well as the effect on some reddish wood. For some rocks and woods it has the effect of increasing the contrast. Obviously blue darkens red, but in the context of the other tones in some rocks and some wood it tends to increase overall contrast. But it's not a panacea - it's worthy of some experimentation before committing. You might end up flattening rather than increasing contrast if you don't judge it right; though flattening might be what you're looking for of course. A real problem with using dark blue is that it's almost impossible to see through - or at least my eyes find it so. But to film it's another 3 stopper, like red. I can see and judge much better the effect through a red than a blue.

[Zaitz]

Why the heck would you want to spend the time masking the flower off and trying to get it to look right when a filter weighs nothing and fits in a pocket?

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9628/flwoer.jpg

[Brian Ellis]

Why the heck would you want to spend the time masking the flower off and trying to get it to look right when a filter weighs nothing and fits in a pocket?

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9628/flwoer.jpg

You don't always have to mask something off in order to use Photoshop filters. I sometimes use the Photoshop filters without masking anything off. And I use them because they're almost infinitely adjustable. I can have a dark red filter, a darker red, a light red, a lighter red, almost any strength of almost any color, warming, or neutral density filter I want. I also can experiment without being stuck with what I have on the negative. Yellow filter didn't give the look I want? Let's try an orange. Orange too light? Let's try a darker orange. And of course it's very nice to be able to mask if I want to and apply the filter effects to only part of the image. Red filter darkened the sky nicely but look how it's turned the green foliage black. O.K., let's just mask the foliage and apply the red filter only to the sky.

There are other reasons (e.g. I save some space and weight in the backpack) but those are the main ones.

The OP asked about the filters that people carried and found essential. I told him what I carried. I didn't say what I did was better than what anyone else did or that others should do what I do. If you or anyone else prefer to use filters on camera that's fine.

[Lenny Eiger]

Why the heck would you want to spend the time masking the flower off and trying to get it to look right when a filter weighs nothing and fits in a pocket?

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9628/flwoer.jpg

Very good example. I don't shoot this kind of thing, but if I did, I grant you, this is a good justification for using a filter....

My general way of shooting, as I think out loud here, is to see something in the light of an area, and want to reproduce it. I may have to add a little contrast to bring it out, but not much... I wouldn't normally see a red rose on top of a green leaf and want to separate it... the only thing I might try is to enhance what I am seeing - against the nature of the film's spectral sensitivity - and I don't think there's a magic bullet for that.

Great example, tho'. Thanks.

Lenny

[Zaitz]

You don't always have to mask something off in order to use Photoshop filters. I sometimes use the Photoshop filters without masking anything off. And I use them because they're almost infinitely adjustable. I can have a dark red filter, a darker red, a light red, a lighter red, almost any strength of almost any color, warming, or neutral density filter I want. I also can experiment without being stuck with what I have on the negative. Yellow filter didn't give the look I want? Let's try an orange. Orange too light? Let's try a darker orange. And of course it's very nice to be able to mask if I want to and apply the filter effects to only part of the image. Red filter darkened the sky nicely but look how it's turned the green foliage black. O.K., let's just mask the foliage and apply the red filter only to the sky.

There are other reasons (e.g. I save some space and weight in the backpack) but those are the main ones.

The OP asked about the filters that people carried and found essential. I told him what I carried. I didn't say what I did was better than what anyone else did or that others should do what I do. If you or anyone else prefer to use filters on camera that's fine.
Those adjustments in Photoshop are assuming you shot the original in color?


Very good example. I don't shoot this kind of thing, but if I did, I grant you, this is a good justification for using a filter....

My general way of shooting, as I think out loud here, is to see something in the light of an area, and want to reproduce it. I may have to add a little contrast to bring it out, but not much... I wouldn't normally see a red rose on top of a green leaf and want to separate it... the only thing I might try is to enhance what I am seeing - against the nature of the film's spectral sensitivity - and I don't think there's a magic bullet for that.

Great example, tho'. Thanks.

Lenny

Not a problem. Everyone has there own way of shooting. I am not one to worry about weight. So, for me, I would rather bring the red filter to try and get that 'monolith' sky look than do it in CS5.

[Brian Ellis]

Those adjustments in Photoshop are assuming you shot the original in color? . . .

Yes, using a filter adjustment layer (red, green, blue, etc.) assumes that the original was in color and was converted. If I started with b&w film I'd do the same thing but in a different way (e.g. by using a curves adjustment layer on the area to be adjusted).

[Robert Hughes]

If you shoot in color and are running it through Photoshop anyway, why bother using film? Use a digicam and save yourself the trouble and degradation of conversion.

[Brian Ellis]

If you shoot in color and are running it through Photoshop anyway, why bother using film? Use a digicam and save yourself the trouble and degradation of conversion.

Because I enjoy using a large format camera, because I like the qualities of film, and because that's what I'm used to using. However, I do use a digital camera, more and more these days though it's not a "digicam."

[Robert Hughes]

I do use a digital camera... though it's not a "digicam."
Oh, yeah, says who? (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Digicam)
"A digital camera (or digicam) is a camera that takes video or still photographs, or both, digitally by recording images via an electronic image sensor. "

PS I'm just jerking you chain. But seriously, I shoot only b&w in film, and filters are the best way to isolate colors in that medium.

[Lenny Eiger]

If you shoot in color and are running it through Photoshop anyway, why bother using film? Use a digicam and save yourself the trouble and degradation of conversion.

I will say a digital camera is easier than doing film and a drum scan. However, I happen to have a drum scanner and the results are quite a lot better than what a digicam can do. It all depends on the type of images you are taking.

For folks of the journalistic bent, the print is less important than the story that is being told. For others, it is the impact of saturated color or contrasty black and white. I am interested in light and subtlety, and large format is required... digicams just won't do.

I make these distinctions without suggesting one way is better than another. I think great journalism is wonderful, for example. I'm a fan. It's just not what I do.

Lenny

[Brian Ellis]

Oh, yeah, says who? (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Digicam)
"A digital camera (or digicam) is a camera that takes video or still photographs, or both, digitally by recording images via an electronic image sensor. "

PS I'm just jerking you chain. But seriously, I shoot only b&w in film, and filters are the best way to isolate colors in that medium.

Different people sometimes do things differently and have different preferences. Often there is no single "best" way. I used filters for many many years. In fact I have a large box that originally held 250 sheets of Ilford paper that's now full to the brim with red, green, orange, yellow, and blue filters in sizes ranging from 39mms to 82mms as well as adapter rings in at least 10 different sizes. And that's after selling all the B+W filters I used to have. I find that Photoshop works as well or better for me so for me it's the best way.

The term "digicam" is usually used, at least in my experience, to distinguish a point and shoot digital camera from a digital SLR. That's why I said mine wasn't a digicam.

[john biskupski]

This is a question please related to this debate for those using PS instead of filters. If I want to replicate the b&w look of a dark sky and massive billowing clouds on a shoreline which are really accentuated by film + polariser + red filter versus using PS after scanning film shot without filters, can I achieve the same look, or do I just get a very dark sky and some cloud outlines? In other words can PS restitute to film shot without filters those wonderful great cloud formations, which on a neg would be much less significant if shot without filters?

[pdmoylan]

JohnM,

A trick of the trade for filter exposure correction is to use a calibrated 35mm or DLSR with a same make polarizing (or other) filter (at comparable focal lengths) to calculate light loss. Since I do not use the polarizer at full throttle all the time, this is a useful and accurate technique.

[Brian Ellis]

This is a question please related to this debate for those using PS instead of filters. If I want to replicate the b&w look of a dark sky and massive billowing clouds on a shoreline which are really accentuated by film + polariser + red filter versus using PS after scanning film shot without filters, can I achieve the same look, or do I just get a very dark sky and some cloud outlines? In other words can PS restitute to film shot without filters those wonderful great cloud formations, which on a neg would be much less significant if shot without filters?

You see dark skies and bright billowing clouds when you're making photographs? I only see them when I'm doing something else. When I'm photographing the skies are always a dull gray. : - )

I can't answer your question for certain because there are too many variables and it depends a lot on the situation (also, since in Photoshop I can easily eliminate the vignetting a polarizer often produces in that situation I'd still use a polarizer, it's only the red filter I'd dispense with). But in general, yes you can duplicate that look in Photoshop. However, it could be difficult depending on the scene - e.g. are there a lot of tree branches sticking up in the sky, how much difference was there between the clouds and skies in the negative, etc.

As an aside, I actually never combined a red filter and a polarizer even when I did use a full complement of filters. So even if I still carried all those filters I wouldn't have used a red and a polarizer in the situation you describe because I don't like the artificial black sky those two filters tend to produce and because I think it's bad practice to use two or more filters together though I know many people do it.

[Lenny Eiger]

can I achieve the same look, or do I just get a very dark sky and some cloud outlines? In other words can PS restitute to film shot without filters those wonderful great cloud formations, which on a neg would be much less significant if shot without filters?

John, I sincerely believe that PS can do this easily.... in fact, I've just done it for a client who likes just that sort of treatment.... The wonderful thing about curve adjustments is that they pull along all the values in a related way. Its far more controllable than working in a darkroom. It isn't like simple burning and dodging at all... altho' that is also available.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that working on a computer is better than working in a darkroom. Each has its advantages, arguably the darkroom is more fun altho' smellier. Being able to control very specifically the tonal scale of a particular area is one of the main advantages of working with PS.

Of course, there is also the opportunity to do it poorly and make a mess, in either modality...

Lenny

[john biskupski]

Thanks for comments guys. In a way I was hoping what you say would be the case, for the reason that I am not well organised with filters with respect to LF lenses. Every lens seems to need a different filter size, and I have shied away so far from lugging around a chunky Lee or Cokin filter holder system. Unlike with 35mm or MF, where lens filter sizes are somewhat standardised (Nikon 52mm, Hassie B60, etc), and where I would not have dreamt of not taking filters along (even if I was still going to scan the neg).

[Hector.Navarro]

polarizer, yellow #8 & red #25

[cpercy]

I am getting ready to leave on my quadra-annual photo mecca to Echo Park where I have been going to photograph with my best friend for the last 30 years. This will be the first time I will be going without any 4x5 & 5x7 B&W film in tow, and this thread has reminded me I can remove all those filters from my pack. I have decided due to not being as spry as I used to be, I will take a 6x9 Arca-Swiss View with 120 Portra 400 and scan the negs for B&W "computer graphic printing" later. I have never carried a polarizing filter but after reading this thread I think, I might have to get one. I have also been told pull processing Portra 400 exposed at 200 will exceed a N-2 B&W development anyone have any comments on that?

[Helen Bach]

... I have also been told pull processing Portra 400 exposed at 200 will exceed a N-2 B&W development anyone have any comments on that?

This is a bit off topic, but now that you have asked...

Don't bother with pull processing. Just be aware that Portra 400, like most modern colour neg, has enormous 'overexposure latitude' (ie lots of curve above the 18% aim density point - if you use aim density) so use it by lowering the speed setting on your meter below the box speed if metering in a manner equivalent to an incident reading in full illumination. If your metering method is equivalent to an incident reading in the shadows then use box speed for that. The fact that you then scan the neg means that the small deviation from parallel linear RGB curves up near the film's shoulder need not matter. It is correctable in post.

Best,
Helen

[jayabbas]

I never leave home without my " Brita ".

[ic-racer]

What! 52 posts and not a single WITH and WITHOUT example to show what you like???

[Brian Ellis]

None. Photoshop does the same thing only better as the red, orange, yellow, green, and blue filters I used to carry for b&w. The only filters I carry any more are polarizers and neutral densities.

[Robert Hughes]

None. Photoshop does the same thing only better as the red, orange, yellow, green, and blue filters I used to carry for b&w.
Hold on there, partner. Are you saying that you can replicate a red filter using Photoshop - on a black & white image? Tell us more...

[Sirius Glass]

None. Photoshop does the same thing only better as the red, orange, yellow, green, and blue filters I used to carry for b&w. The only filters I carry any more are polarizers and neutral densities.

Aside from violating some laws of optics and physics, there is no way that "Photo$hop does the same thing only better ..."

So explain how a red filter which lightens red and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a orange filter which lightens orange and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a yellow filter which lightens yellow and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a green filter which lightens green and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a blue filter which lightens blue and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
Is there a pattern here or did I miss something.

What I often see that others have done with Photo$hop are increase the edge contrast to produce digital artifacts and hard lines that do not exist in the real world, add repeated digital artifacts across clear blue skies, over saturate colors, ...

Steve

[Hector.Navarro]

I only shoot b&w, my filters are yellow #8, red #25 and polarizer.

[l2oBiN]

Seems like red is the norm in at least every bw shooters bag... I found that red is quite indispensable for that "cloud pop" in bw.. Gives it more oommff.. Although unnatureal.. What about yellow? I can't seem to get enough out of it.. It's too "natural"?

[Brian Ellis]

Aside from violating some laws of optics and physics, there is no way that "Photo$hop does the same thing only better ..."

So explain how a red filter which lightens red and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a orange filter which lightens orange and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a yellow filter which lightens yellow and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a green filter which lightens green and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a blue filter which lightens blue and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
Is there a pattern here or did I miss something.

What I often see that others have done with Photo$hop are increase the edge contrast to produce digital artifacts and hard lines that do not exist in the real world, add repeated digital artifacts across clear blue skies, over saturate colors, ...

Steve

I'm not sure what you mean by "is there a pattern here or did I miss something." But I guess I'd have to say you missed something. If you wanted to learn Photoshop and were willing to devote the necessary time and effort you'd know the answers to your questions (there are probably at least 8 or 10 different ways to darken or lighten colors). And if you don't want to learn how to use Photoshop there's no point in my taking the time and trouble to give you a tutorial.

If you see digital artifacts, hard lines, and over-saturation in prints others have made using Photoshop you're seeing the results produced by someone who either doesn't know better or doesn't care enough to produce better work. Or maybe the results just aren't to your tastes (e.g. how much saturation is "oversaturation"?)

When I taught the Beginning Photography course at a university years ago the prints produced in the darkroom by my students were often pretty bad, especially at the start of the course - too much contrast, too little contrast, too dark, too light, obvious dodging and burning, etc. etc. But that didn't mean there was something wrong with darkrooms. It just meant the students didn't yet know how to use the tools of a darkroom very well. The same is true of Photoshop. Just because you've seen bad results doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Photoshop. It just means someone hasn't used the tools correctly or hasn't used them to your tastes.

[Brian Ellis]

Seems like red is the norm in at least every bw shooters bag... I found that red is quite indispensable for that "cloud pop" in bw.. Gives it more oommff.. Although unnatureal.. What about yellow? I can't seem to get enough out of it.. It's too "natural"?

In my experience yellow works to darken blue skies best when the sky is a deep rich blue, such as you find at higher altitudes. It didn't have much effect on the pale, almost light cyan, skies I used to see a lot in Florida. Maybe you're not seeing much effect from a yellow filter for the same reason.

A red filter may be o.k. in some situations but it tends to turn green foliage black, which isn't good if you want to retain texture or detail in the foliage. I often preferred an orange filter as a compromise between yellow and red - it darkened the sky less than a red filter but more than yellow and didn't have as drastic an effect on green foliage as a red filter. Also, many red filters have a factor of 8 so they require about three stops more exposure, which may mean you aren't left with an aperture small enough to produce the depth of field you need.

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not sure what you mean by "is there a pattern here or did I miss something." But I guess I'd have to say you missed something. If you wanted to learn Photoshop and were willing to devote the necessary time and effort you'd know the answers to your questions (there are probably at least 8 or 10 different ways to darken or lighten colors). And if you don't want to learn how to use Photoshop there's no point in my taking the time and trouble to give you a tutorial.


I have worked with both Phot$hop and GIMP extensively and they do not produce that same results that film does in the cases that I stated.


If you see digital artifacts, hard lines, and over-saturation in prints others have made using Photoshop you're seeing the results produced by someone who either doesn't know better or doesn't care enough to produce better work.

Yes a lot of the work I see commerically available, especially at "Art Fairs" have been made sloppily.


Or maybe the results just aren't to your tastes (e.g. how much saturation is "oversaturation"?)

I am referring to the prints that have all the colors of every photograph on display be so overstaturated that the colors look like Day-Glo! Come on, are you going to tell me that you have never seen that?

[Larry Gebhardt]

Aside from violating some laws of optics and physics, there is no way that "Photo$hop does the same thing only better ..."

So explain how a red filter which lightens red and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a orange filter which lightens orange and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a yellow filter which lightens yellow and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a green filter which lightens green and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a blue filter which lightens blue and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
Is there a pattern here or did I miss something.

What I often see that others have done with Photo$hop are increase the edge contrast to produce digital artifacts and hard lines that do not exist in the real world, add repeated digital artifacts across clear blue skies, over saturate colors, ...

Steve

If you shoot the scene on color film you can scan and use photoshop to replicate the scene as shot on black and white film. It won't be an exact result because the two films have different responses, but it will be very close.

As to explaining it, add a Black and White layer and adjust the color sliders. You can replicate any color filter you want that way.

Also, it's much harder to print the photoshop file in the darkroom, so I still carry filters and black and white film. If I scanned all my work I would probably just carry color neg film and a polarizing and ND filters.

[Sirius Glass]

So explain how a red filter which lightens red and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a orange filter which lightens orange and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a yellow filter which lightens yellow and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a green filter which lightens green and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a blue filter which lightens blue and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
Is there a pattern here or did I miss something.

I was referring to shooting black & white film with these filters, not using these filters with color film and then converting to black & white.

If I want black & white, I shoot black & white film.
If I want color, I change the film holder [or with the Hasselblad, film backs; for 35mm I switch cameras], then I shoot with color film.
I keep each with its own kind. :)

[Larry Gebhardt]

I was referring to shooting black & white film with these filters, not using these filters with color film and then converting to black & white.

If I want black & white, I shoot black & white film.
If I want color, I change the film holder [or with the Hasselblad, film backs; for 35mm I switch cameras], then I shoot with color film.
I keep each with its own kind. :)

Then you will still need your filters ;) But the other way is a perfectly functional alternative.

[Brian Ellis]

I have worked with both Phot$hop and GIMP extensively and they do not produce that same results that film does in the cases that I stated. . .
I am referring to the prints that have all the colors of every photograph on display be so overstaturated that the colors look like Day-Glo! Come on, are you going to tell me that you have never seen that?

Sorry, I didn't realize you had worked extensively with Photoshop. From your signature line, in which you say you leave digital to urologists, I assumed you hadn't. But if in fact you have then you must know how the effects of the filters under discussion can be replicated (and IMHO improved upon). And if you couldn't do that it just means you couldn't, it certainly doesn't mean others can't.

I'm not trying to tell you anything about a Day-Glo look or anything else. All I suggested was that saturation is a matter of taste. Some people like a lot of saturation and somewhat unnatural colors, others don't. Some people use Velvia, others don't. It's not a subject that's peculiar to Photoshop.

[Marko]

I have worked with both Phot$hop and GIMP extensively and they do not produce that same results that film does in the cases that I stated.


I was referring to shooting black & white film with these filters, not using these filters with color film and then converting to black & white.

If I want black & white, I shoot black & white film.
If I want color, I change the film holder [or with the Hasselblad, film backs; for 35mm I switch cameras], then I shoot with color film.
I keep each with its own kind. :)

Your preference, of course, does not change the fact that better and more precise results can, demonstrably, be achieved in Photoshop. Just like your admitted inability to do so doesn't mean it can't be done.

FIY, neither Photoshop nor any other tool, computerized or manual, won't do anything by itself. It's the operator that does it and his/her skill directly determines the quality of the output. IOW, GIGO.

And by "better" I mean results that can fairly easily be accomplished in Photoshop that are not possible using lens filters. Such as local filtration - application of, say, red filter to the sky, yellow-green to foliage and no filter to the rest of the image.

[Arne Croell]

My standard set is for traditional b/w is 6 filters: Polarizer, blue-green (B+W 470, discontinued, but the new B+W 039 is similar), yellow-green (B+W 060), dark yellow (Heliopan 15), red orange (B+W 041), dark red (B+W 091) . The one I use the most is the red-orange one, replaced by dark yellow higher in the mountains or with deep blue skies. The dark red filter is the one I use the least and practically never for skies. Yellow green for just a light effect, and blue-green is good for separation in red sandstone. If I only carry one, its the orange one.

[Ari]

I never saw the need for filters when I had a proper darkroom, I just dodged and burned to my satisfaction to get the tones I wanted.
And now, I'm learning how to get the same results through the magic of PS.

[Brian Ellis]

Then you will still need your filters ;) But the other way is a perfectly functional alternative.

Actually he doesn't need the filters with b&w film. Different methods may be used than with color but it's certainly feasible to substitute Photoshop adjustments for the standard b&w colored filters when starting with b&w film.

[Greg Miller]

Aside from violating some laws of optics and physics, there is no way that "Photo$hop does the same thing only better ..."

So explain how a red filter which lightens red and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a orange filter which lightens orange and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a yellow filter which lightens yellow and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a green filter which lightens green and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
So explain how a blue filter which lightens blue and darkens other colors can be duplicated in Photo$hop?
Is there a pattern here or did I miss something.

What I often see that others have done with Photo$hop are increase the edge contrast to produce digital artifacts and hard lines that do not exist in the real world, add repeated digital artifacts across clear blue skies, over saturate colors, ...

Steve

These samples, done in just a few seconds in Photoshop on a color image, demonstrate a neutral B&W conversion, a red filter, a green filter, and a mix of red, green, yellow, and magenta filters. With no masking. The strength of each filter can be adjusted easily as well. The real beauty of this is the ability to use multiple filters on one image in varying strengths.

It may or may not suit your sensibilities, but it certainly can be done and offers new or different ways to execute one's artistic vision.

[Brian K]

Regarding the need for B&W contrast filters versus doing PS color channel editing. The PS affects are applied to an existing piece of film. And you can not filter the loss of detail due to haze at the time of capture with a PS edit. You can try to make the contrast better, but you are attempting that on a piece of film where the detail does not exist.

Further, on a already exposed B&W negative you can not make a major change post exposure to separate white clouds from a white sky. You need to have used a yellow, orange, red, etc first to create that separation of tones. With PS you can only work with what is on the negative. So it is imperative to first put the information on film that is required to produce this image to your liking and then use PS to tweak that image.

[Ari]

I just wanted to add, Silver Efex does a decent job of rendering filter effects in B&W photos, and is my preferred method, but the photo must be in RGB.

[Marko]

Regarding the need for B&W contrast filters versus doing PS color channel editing. The PS affects are applied to an existing piece of film. And you can not filter the loss of detail due to haze at the time of capture with a PS edit. You can try to make the contrast better, but you are attempting that on a piece of film where the detail does not exist.

Further, on a already exposed B&W negative you can not make a major change post exposure to separate white clouds from a white sky. You need to have used a yellow, orange, red, etc first to create that separation of tones. With PS you can only work with what is on the negative. So it is imperative to first put the information on film that is required to produce this image to your liking and then use PS to tweak that image.

Applying RGB channel adjustments to a scan of a B&W film wouldn't make much sense.

The basic idea is to use color capture (either film or digital) and then convert it to B&W. That way, all the information is already there, we are simply adjusting (i.e. filtering, which is really an obsolete term in this sense) the intensity of each color channel in the mix, either globally or locally.

While traditional is performed in a limited number of discrete steps, the channel adjustment process is continuous in both color response and intensity and can be either local or global in application.

As a post scriptum, the conversion does not necessarily need to be B&W, it can, and usually is monochrome, with toning already taken care of in the process without separate step. Or perhaps duo- or even quad-tone, for split-toning and other types of end-results. But that's another topic...

[Brian K]

Applying RGB channel adjustments to a scan of a B&W film wouldn't make much sense.

The basic idea is to use color capture (either film or digital) and then convert it to B&W. That way, all the information is already there, we are simply adjusting (i.e. filtering, which is really an obsolete term in this sense) the intensity of each color channel in the mix, either globally or locally.

While traditional is performed in a limited number of discrete steps, the channel adjustment process is continuous in both color response and intensity and can be either local or global in application.

As a post scriptum, the conversion does not necessarily need to be B&W, it can, and usually is monochrome, with toning already taken care of in the process without separate step. Or perhaps duo- or even quad-tone, for split-toning and other types of end-results. But that's another topic...

Marko I was talking about B&W film.

[Marko]

I know, Brian. That's what I was responding to.

As I said in the first sentence, applying RGB channel adjustments to a grayscale image does not make much sense.

The whole idea behind using PS instead of standard lens filters is based on using color image (either scan or direct capture) and then applying channel adjustments for conversion and filtration.

If you need/want to use B&W film, you have to use lens filters.

[Sevo]

The whole idea behind using PS instead of standard lens filters is based on using color image (either scan or direct capture) and then applying channel adjustments for conversion and filtration.


And it does not allow for the same range of effects as black-and-white filters, as the band arrangement and spectral response of each band is inevitably that of the film's layers.

[rdenney]

I never saw the need for filters when I had a proper darkroom, I just dodged and burned to my satisfaction to get the tones I wanted.
And now, I'm learning how to get the same results through the magic of PS.

That only works if the subject brightness range falls within the usably linear response of the film and developer combination. It's easier now with compensating developers, but even if I learn to achieve 18-20 stops of range, I have a bunch of old negatives that are closer to 10 or so. Dodging and burning in won't bring up separation that is not there.

If you try to expand the densities compressed into the toe of the response curve too much, the result will be grainy and mottled. It would not be any easier to separate them out in a darkroom (in fact it would be harder), but it would be easier in both cases if the whole portion of the image compressed down into the toe were moved more into the center of the response using filtration at time of capture.

Yes, one can extract black and white from color, and apply filtration when they do so. But while color negative film is pretty wide (maybe 10 stops of SBR), it would be wrong to assume that black and white techniques have stopped in the time color negative techniques have improved so much.

Some will be able to get what they need applying filtration at the time they convert a color image to black and white. Some will be able to get what they need with selective dodging and burning in (either in the darkroom or in Photoshop). Neither will achieve everything that could be achieved these days using black and white film processed for maximum range, with the appropriate filtration applied at the camera.

Rick "thinking everyone is talked past each other" Denney

[Marko]

Some will be able to get what they need applying filtration at the time they convert a color image to black and white. Some will be able to get what they need with selective dodging and burning in (either in the darkroom or in Photoshop). Neither will achieve everything that could be achieved these days using black and white film processed for maximum range, with the appropriate filtration applied at the camera.

Rick "thinking everyone is talked past each other" Denney

It's not so much a case of talking past each other as it is of the inherent subjectivity of the topic itself. When the title question is subjective to begin with, subjective responses based on each respondent's personal preferences are only natural.

Yes, B&W films' spectral response and DR differ greatly from those of color films. But then again, those differences exist even between different B&W emulsions themselves, and they are not too subtle either. And they can be even more pronounced in certain developers too. We all make our choices based on our preferences.

But the really funny thing is that the original question was completely neutral in regard to the type of film or even medium. The thread title simply says "Filters you would not leave home without..."

I wonder if the discussion took the course it did because most people here use B&W film or is it just another way to flog the same old, long-dead digital vs. film horse? Or perhaps a little bit of both?

[rdenney]

I wonder if the discussion took the course it did because most people here use B&W film or is it just another way to flog the same old, long-dead digital vs. film horse? Or perhaps a little bit of both?

I don't think it's the latter in this case. There really are instances when black and white film can capture a subject brightness range beyond that of a single digital image, and do it with greater resolution and acutance than when using color film. For photos where color film or color digital capture provides everything one needs, one can do a lot of filtering with channel selection in Photoshop, but I think it's reasonable to say that neither color film nor current digital processes can do everything black and white film can do in situations that are not irrelevant at all.

Of course, I was responding also to the statement that darkroom skills replace filtration. Filtration is one of the key tone management tools used by Adams in the Zone System, because it could be used to move tones from their actual value to values closer to the photographer's visualization. That's hard to do with dodging and burning in for many subjects, including overexposed skies and yellow leaves against a blue background.

It's easy for people to trot out boundary conditions to argue in a debate about mid-range situations, but sometimes people arguing on the basis of mid-range situations extrapolate them to the boundary conditions also. Both are logical fallacies, and that's what I was detecting here.

Rick "but if you want to make it a digital vs. film debate (again), be my guest" Denney

[Marko]

I don't think it's the latter in this case. There really are instances when black and white film can capture a subject brightness range beyond that of a single digital image, and do it with greater resolution and acutance than when using color film. For photos where color film or color digital capture provides everything one needs, one can do a lot of filtering with channel selection in Photoshop, but I think it's reasonable to say that neither color film nor current digital processes can do everything black and white film can do in situations that are not irrelevant at all.

Of course. But that should go without saying in a serious photo forum, just like the fact that both B&W and color emulsions vary greatly among themselves and that one should pick one or the other according to the situation and the desired results.


It's easy for people to trot out boundary conditions to argue in a debate about mid-range situations, but sometimes people arguing on the basis of mid-range situations extrapolate them to the boundary conditions also. Both are logical fallacies, and that's what I was detecting here.

But some people seem to be a bit too sensitive to other people's preferences and the topic did include a bit of a dead horse flavor and that's what you and I both are detecting here.


Rick "but if you want to make it a digital vs. film debate (again), be my guest" Denney

NO! It would be really, really nice if we could have a conversation about photography and different ways we go about it without antagonistic BS, that's all I'm saying.

[Milton Tierney]

On your page, building a 16x20, nice pics and woodworking job. But, why did you use red oak and not hard maple?

[rdenney]

Of course. But that should go without saying in a serious photo forum, just like the fact that both B&W and color emulsions vary greatly among themselves and that one should pick one or the other according to the situation and the desired results.

I have found from long experience that a group of experts need the obvious to be stated clearly more than a group of beginners. Go to any standards meeting, and see how much arguments clear up when the experts agree to write down the obvious stuff first.

Rick "been there; done that" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

Regarding the need for B&W contrast filters versus doing PS color channel editing. The PS affects are applied to an existing piece of film. And you can not filter the loss of detail due to haze at the time of capture with a PS edit. You can try to make the contrast better, but you are attempting that on a piece of film where the detail does not exist.

Further, on a already exposed B&W negative you can not make a major change post exposure to separate white clouds from a white sky. You need to have used a yellow, orange, red, etc first to create that separation of tones. With PS you can only work with what is on the negative. So it is imperative to first put the information on film that is required to produce this image to your liking and then use PS to tweak that image.

You're right. Photoshop can't separate white clouds from a white sky. Neither can a red, yellow, orange, etc. filter.

With respect to haze, depending on a lot of variables there actually are Photoshop techniques and plug-ins that can be used to improve matters and bring out detail or improve contrast otherwise lost due to haze. In my experience the usual advice for haze and b&w film - which IIRC is to use a red filter or a "UV/anti-haze" filter - never worked very well, any improvement vs no filter was minimal at best. I can do better in Photoshop most of the time.