Most important filters

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

Don't underestimate the utility of a polarizing filter with B&W - controlling the reflectance of various elements in the image is really useful.

[chuck94022]

Are you printing digitally or in a darkroom? B&w or color? If you're printing digitally you don't need any of the traditional yellow, orange, etc. filters for b&w, you can do the same thing and better in Photoshop. A polarizing filter is still useful and I carry a couple graduated ND filters too. I would guess the same is true for color, i.e. you don't need the traditional color balancing filters, but I don't do enough color to really know.

As I stated before, unless you are shooting color film, in order to accomplish the separation of tones that black and white film frequently requires, you need to do this by filtering in camera. Consider Peter's example - once you've scanned the B&W film of the apple tree, shot without filters, into Photoshop, there is no tonal separation between the originally green leaves and red apples. They will both be a similar shade of grey. No Photoshop filter will be able to help at that point.

Sure you can darken large expanses of blazing white sky, but you'll struggle to pull out the white clouds, I think. In that case, doable, but not as good or as easy as just doing it in camera.

On the other hand, if you shoot C-41 color negative, you get just about the same latitude as black and white film, but you can do the filtering in Photoshop, because you've retained the color information needed by the filters. The tradeoff is resolution. C-41 color negative does not resolve as finely as B&W. That may not be important, depending on the eventual use of the image. But personally, I sort of like sticking with black and white film if I'm shooting a black and white scene. The film is easier to process, I feel I have more control of the development process, and I know I'm maximizing resolution. (And I much prefer the look of a sheet of black and white negative to a sheet of orange masked C-41 negative.) Oh, and getting the color balance right on C-41 is an art. While that doesn't matter too much if you're going to desaturate it anyway, it may matter to get the color right if you are then going to apply photoshop filters.

But after all that, if I'm missing something, do feel free to show me the error of my ways...

[Brian Ellis]

As I stated before, unless you are shooting color film, in order to accomplish the separation of tones that black and white film frequently requires, you need to do this by filtering in camera. Consider Peter's example - once you've scanned the B&W film of the apple tree, shot without filters, into Photoshop, there is no tonal separation between the originally green leaves and red apples. They will both be a similar shade of grey. No Photoshop filter will be able to help at that point.

Sure you can darken large expanses of blazing white sky, but you'll struggle to pull out the white clouds, I think. In that case, doable, but not as good or as easy as just doing it in camera.

On the other hand, if you shoot C-41 color negative, you get just about the same latitude as black and white film, but you can do the filtering in Photoshop, because you've retained the color information needed by the filters. The tradeoff is resolution. C-41 color negative does not resolve as finely as B&W. That may not be important, depending on the eventual use of the image. But personally, I sort of like sticking with black and white film if I'm shooting a black and white scene. The film is easier to process, I feel I have more control of the development process, and I know I'm maximizing resolution. (And I much prefer the look of a sheet of black and white negative to a sheet of orange masked C-41 negative.) Oh, and getting the color balance right on C-41 is an art. While that doesn't matter too much if you're going to desaturate it anyway, it may matter to get the color right if you are then going to apply photoshop filters.

But after all that, if I'm missing something, do feel free to show me the error of my ways...

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.

[Sevo]

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 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.

Well, you can PAINT the same effect - and could indeed even do so on a green tree with green apples, or add apples to a tree that never had any. But that is not separation, and many might argue that it is not even photography.

[Brian Ellis]

Well, you can PAINT the same effect - and could indeed even do so on a green tree with green apples, or add apples to a tree that never had any. But that is not separation, and many might argue that it is not even photography.

Oh please. I wasn't talking about painting on a print. "Painting" in Photoshop in the context of this discussion refers to a way of dodging and burning without actually using the dodge and burn tools.

[Peter De Smidt]

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 Ellis]

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.

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.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that we all have our preferred working methods and if someone who uses Photoshop wants to buy a set of b&w filters, adapters, something to carry them in, etc. and use the filters to create tonal separation rather than doing it in Photoshop that's fine with me.

[Kevin Crisp]

For B&W I take a light yellow and a medium yellow and never use anything else.

In one of his newsletters, Fred Picker said something like 'if you use a filter, take a second one without it so you have a negative to print.' I haven't gone quite that far.

[Vaughn]

Yellow is the only one I ever use, but not often. That and remembering to keep out the one between my eyes and my brain.

[SAShruby]

Clear or UV filter, it helps to get UV light out when photographing dunes ...