Filters lighten whatever the color of the filter is relative to the other colors and darken complementary colors relative to the other colors. Skin is yellow/red. Hence, blue and green filters darken skin, whereas yellow, orange and red lighten it.
Filters lighten whatever the color of the filter is relative to the other colors and darken complementary colors relative to the other colors. Skin is yellow/red. Hence, blue and green filters darken skin, whereas yellow, orange and red lighten it.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I understand that only testing will answer my question, but, as I said in my post, I'm trying to minimize the variables so as not to be overwhelmed with too much "data."
So let me ask this, I am shooting Ilford Delta 100. Which of all the filters (the ones I have at least, the common ones: orange, yellow, green, red) will make whites "lighter" and the blacks "darker"? Will any of these filters give me these two extremes?
So what will yellow, orange, or red do to black?Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt
I did and didn't quite get what I wanted. A little but not really, that's why I'm asking to see if anyone had actually tested this.
This link didn't work for me.
Thanks all!
--Mario
Put simply, if shooting B&W of a light skinned person, using an orange or reddish filter will lighten their skin and perhaps even out some skin imperfections. A red filter could reduce or eliminate the appearance of freckles on a person (which may or may not be the desired effect). Using the opposite, such as a blue or green filter on that same person will darken certain tones and bring out every skin imperfection that person has (hint: it's generally not a good look).
In Photoshop, open up a color portrait and play around with the color filters and view the result as a monochrome image - you can get a good idea of the effect of various color filters on the resulting monochrome image real quick...
Presuming you're talking about colors and not skin tones, none of the color filters
will have any effect on the color black, since black is absorbing all the color wave lengths.
White is reflecting all the color wavelengths so adding a color filter whites would
be a darker than what you would get shooting BW film without a filter.
It sounds like what you're looking to achieve is better done manipulating in the dark room or photo editing software.
You can also take a look at this example, unfortunately the picture is small but it does show the effect of color filters
on BW film - http://www.alanrossphotography.com/m...using-filters/
Last edited by Jim C.; 20-Apr-2016 at 12:08. Reason: added link
One other effect filters can have is that they might change the contrast of the film, and so that might effect white, black and gray tones in the scene. David Kachel had an article about this a number of years ago. With many older films, for example, using a red filter increased contrast, but with TMX and TMY it lowered it. With those films a green filter increased contrast. So if you need to be super precise about contrast, you'd have to run your own tests.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
When is black ever black? Never, unless one is placing shadows values clear below the toe of the film, wholly underexposed. In outdoor shade under a clear sky, shadows are inflected with blue, and can be dramatically affected by a colored filter. Nor is there even such a thing as black paint. It will have colored reflections of some form, or be composed of a "black" pigment with either a green or purple bias. It like assuming green in natural foliage is actually green. Wait till Fall and you encounter all the underlying reds, oranges, and rust hues after the dominant chlorophyll is lost. But they're there all along and will influence filtration. Skintones are even more complex. Not hard to deal with with a pinch of experience, along with the correct film. A common situation would be a wedding, where the groom might be in a dark suit and the bride in brilliant white; then throw in a mixed ethnicity group shot or whatever. That's why I prefer films like TM100 for portraiture: long straight line well into the toe, with soft edge effect yet ability to hold a lot of detail. But take a modern sweeping curve film
like Delta 100 - about the closest we're going to come to classic Plus-X portrait film - and yeah, you get wonderful high key separation, but mud in those lower
tones, so critical to such scenarios. Well, maybe you covet that Irving Penn look instead. Fine; if you only want blondes in white. Otherwise....
In your list of variables you have missed out the hardness/softness of the light and the size of the light source, both of these variables are right at the top of my concerns when shooting a portrait. Personally filter wise I have used a #11 Green most often for portraits, to darken the reds.
What I am interested in at the moment is mixing hard and soft light. So using a gridded reflector for the main light then controlling the effect with a softbox directly behind the main light. That way you can use the gridded light to provide the punch, and the softbox to moderate it without one fighting against the other (in theory). Bowens have some good tutorials on portrait lighting on youtube, for digital or course, but a good starting point. Controlling contrast through the light source makes a lot of sense - you don't lose film speed to filter factors, and you can convert your style to colour film or digital more easily.
Not just books. Get ahold of some classically lit old B&W movies. A favorite of mine is On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando. Brilliant lighting technique. Also a lot
of Hollywood stills by people like Hurrell were done with a mix of diffused light and fresnels. But these guys also did a lot of not only makeup, but red dye and soft pencil smudge on the negs prior to printing. That why they preferred as big a neg as possible, even 11x14. I don't do this kind of work very often, so use a minimum of gear: a few Lowell hotlights, a classic Arri fresnel, and standing diffuser panels, plus a few scrims. Since I charge by the print, not by the job, everything is done in the darkroom. No Photoshop. They wouldn't come to me otherwise. Something to be put in a picture frame, custom made too. But 8x10 film, and yes, usually the equivalent of that #11 filter on hand.
here it is again, sorry it didn't work the last time
http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?...an-film.71898/
here is a google search ...
site:apug.org "ortho not pan"
if the link didn't work, cut and paste that string into your google search
it is the first thing that pops up
john
Then there's Orthopan, basically pan but with reduced red sensitivity, and effectively a bit more green sensitivity. The only version of this still on the market is Fuji ACROS. It gives you the look of pan film with that no. 11 filter on it, without using any filter. My only objection to it as a portrait film is that I like a little more
speed. For all practical purposes I rate it at 50 if I expect decent shadow separation. With TMY or TMX I can use full box speed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks