Most important filters

[chuck94022]

What follows deals only with b&w film, as I said in my original post I haven't used color film enough to discuss its use with Photoshop.

The red apple-green leaf example is actually the example I've used here myself many times over the years to illustrate the effect of b&w filters (in fact I never saw anyone else use it until Peter's post though I'm sure somebody else somewhere must have used it before me). Creating the desired contrast in that situation in Photoshop is a simple matter, e.g. with layers and a curve or by selections and/or painting or in various other ways. And the nice thing about Photoshop vs a traditional red or green filter is that I can easily control the degree of separation, I'm not locked in (MOL) by the negative.

You mention that no Photoshop filter will create the desired separation in the apple-leaf example. That may or may not be true depending on just how similar the tones are (it would be unusual for them to be identical and unless they were essentially identical you could convert the image to RGB and then use the filters). But even if true there are many other ways in Photoshop to alter tones besides using the Photoshop filters. In fact the filters aren't necessarily the best or easiest way to create separate tones even when they could be used for that purpose.

The white sky example you give (blazing white sky with white clouds) actually isn't a kind of sky I recall ever seeing. But if I did no traditional filter will change the blazing white sky to make the white clouds stand out. Traditional b&w colored filters create contrast between similar tones by allowing some colors to pass through while others are retarded. Those filters won't create contrast that doesn't exist in the first place. Nor will Photoshop, though with Photoshop there are other things I can do to alter the sky.

If you want to think your b&w filters are giving you something you couldn't get in Photoshop that's fine with me, I'm not going to get into a protracted argument with you. But believe me, I used film and filters for many many years, I've now been using Photoshop for many years (though I'm not a Photoshop expert by any means). I know what I can and can't do with both.

I'm not trying to get into a protracted argument about this. My point is simply this: filters in PhotoShop that are intended to simulate camera filters are designed to work with a color source. A PhotoShop based red filter will process data in the RGB channels to do its thing. If all you present is an original black and white source, these filters will not operate as intended.

Yes of course if there is any tonal separation at all (as we discussed with the red apples and green leaves) you can find many ways in PhotoShop to grab those individual tones and alter them to your hearts content. I don't deny that, I do it all the time. But that is not the point of my statement, which is quite simple - the "simulated camera filters" you can use in PhotoShop are designed to work against a color source. That is the full extent of that statement.

My point on a blazing white sky was the problem you have if you have black and white film that is insensitive to the blue sky, and instead renders it very white. I have no doubt you can PhotoShop your way around that, so go ahead, knock yourself out. But doing that is not simply a matter of presenting a PhotoShop simulated orange or red filter with a black and white image and expecting it to do the right thing, as previous posters implied in their posts, whether they intended to or not.

I will continue to maintain that if you want to use PhotoShop to simulate the use of in-camera filtration by using simulated PS camera filters, you are best off starting with color film. For what you are trying to do, the small loss of resolution is probably not an issue. But if you like working with black and white film, your processing workflow is made much easier if you do in-camera filtration. Polarizers and ND filters add another dimension that are difficult to accomplish in post, regardless of the original film type.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not trying to get into a protracted argument about this. My point is simply this: filters in PhotoShop that are intended to simulate camera filters are designed to work with a color source. A PhotoShop based red filter will process data in the RGB channels to do its thing. If all you present is an original black and white source, these filters will not operate as intended.

Yes of course if there is any tonal separation at all (as we discussed with the red apples and green leaves) you can find many ways in PhotoShop to grab those individual tones and alter them to your hearts content. I don't deny that, I do it all the time. But that is not the point of my statement, which is quite simple - the "simulated camera filters" you can use in PhotoShop are designed to work against a color source. That is the full extent of that statement.

My point on a blazing white sky was the problem you have if you have black and white film that is insensitive to the blue sky, and instead renders it very white. I have no doubt you can PhotoShop your way around that, so go ahead, knock yourself out. But doing that is not simply a matter of presenting a PhotoShop simulated orange or red filter with a black and white image and expecting it to do the right thing, as previous posters implied in their posts, whether they intended to or not.

I will continue to maintain that if you want to use PhotoShop to simulate the use of in-camera filtration by using simulated PS camera filters, you are best off starting with color film. For what you are trying to do, the small loss of resolution is probably not an issue. But if you like working with black and white film, your processing workflow is made much easier if you do in-camera filtration. Polarizers and ND filters add another dimension that are difficult to accomplish in post, regardless of the original film type.

From my previous messages:

"Creating the desired contrast in that situation in Photoshop is a simple matter, e.g. with layers and a curve or by selections and/or painting or in various other ways." Note the absence of any mention of using Photoshop filters.

Or this:

". . . there are many other ways in Photoshop to alter tones besides using the Photoshop filters. In fact the filters aren't necessarily the best or easiest way to create separate tones even when they could be used for that purpose."

[Peter De Smidt]

I wrote:
"Some things are time consuming to select on a BW image in Photoshop. Using a filter on camera takes only a few seconds. They aren't expensive, and they don't take up much space. For 75% of the time, I don't use them, but for the other 25%, I'm glad to have them. But that's me. We all have our preferred working methods."

Brian responded:

Yes, and if the only way to alter tones in Photoshop was to create selections that would be a very good reason to use filters instead. But that isn't the case.

It's true that I used the term "select", but I wasn't using it as a Photoshop term of art. I had in mind any operation where you apply an effect (curve, filter, adjustment....) to one part of an image and not to another. This can be done by using a selection tool, of course, but it can also be done by painting or a number of other ways. I should have been clearer. In any case sometimes a locally applied change is a very easy thing to do in Photoshop, and other times it is not. For instance if the apple tree has a whole bunch of apples, or your photographing on orchard instead of one tree, painting them all gets rather tedious. Skylines as well can be a pain, as can hair, and there are no doubt other situations.

I use one size of filters. This requires a few step-up rings, but those are cheap-as-dirt these days.

[David R Munson]

I like my filters and prefer getting what I want IN CAMERA to the greatest extent that I can. In fact, not getting it in camera when it might be as easy as screwing on a filter seems downright foolish when one considers the additional time and effort that might be necessary to approximate in Photoshop what you failed to get in real life at the time of exposure. If you want to do your filtration in Photoshop, shoot color film. Otherwise, you're just complicating things for yourself.

To get back to the original question, I carry yellow, orange, red (29), blue, and a Polarizer. Mine are all in 67mm and I use step rings to adapt to smaller lenses, though now that I have an RB67 again I'll have to get some in 77mm as well.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . If you want to do your filtration in Photoshop, shoot color film. Otherwise, you're just complicating things for yourself. . ..

Thanks David, I appreciate your advice. But I prefer to use b&w film for b&w photography. And with all due respect, I'll decide what's foolish and what's complicating things for me and what isn't. It's not like I have no experience using filters or using Photoshop. I used filters for many years. Considering the benefits of doing the same thing in Photoshop, I now prefer to not use the filters. You have your preferences, I have mine. I don't tell you what's foolish or what's complicating your life and I don't tell you what film to use. Please do me the same courtesy.

[David R Munson]

I'm not telling you to do anything or telling you how to work, only sharing my opinion on working methods. Your defensiveness is not my discourtesy. Was my comment even aimed specifically at you? I don't seem to see your name appearing anywhere in my post.

[BrianShaw]

... as a general comment to nobody at all...

I am not a skilled photoshop user an ddon't even like working images on comptuer very much, and my experience/opinion is quite the same as David Munson. I suppose more skilled photoshoppers may have differenct experience/opinions.

[E. von Hoegh]

The most important filters are the ones you don't have with you when you need them. An excellent argument for using only a few filter types and keeping them with you at all times, even when the camera(s) are at home.

[Doremus Scudder]

I like my filters and prefer getting what I want IN CAMERA to the greatest extent that I can. In fact, not getting it in camera when it might be as easy as screwing on a filter seems downright foolish when one considers the additional time and effort that might be necessary to approximate in Photoshop what you failed to get in real life at the time of exposure. If you want to do your filtration in Photoshop, shoot color film. Otherwise, you're just complicating things for yourself.

+1


... and, what if you might want to print traditionally someday? Or, if like me, you always print traditionally...

There are lots of reasons to use filters to alter the tones negative itself, not least of which is the "look" of analogue, which, for me, is never quite the same as PhotoShop manipulations.

Best,

Doremus

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not telling you to do anything or telling you how to work, only sharing my opinion on working methods. Your defensiveness is not my discourtesy. Was my comment even aimed specifically at you? I don't seem to see your name appearing anywhere in my post.

I don't see my name in this message either. But I'm pretty sure it's directed at me.