Black and white filters - Hitech quality?

[Meekyman]

Hello Everyone,

I am thinking of using black and white film (Ilford delta 100) in my newish 5x4 camera. From what I've read, a few filters would be useful...yellow/yellow-green and orange are what I had in mind.

I've had my fingers burnt in the past using Hitech ND grad filters on digital - the magenta cast phenomenon, so I switched to Lee.

Now, Lee filters are costly and considering that I am now looking at coloured filters, I'm thinking that Hitech may be OK? Does anyone have first hand experience of using Hitech/Lee filters on black and white and can offer comments?

Cheers

Graham

[lenser]

You might also consider Cokin. They work quite well for me and I would add a red and green and a Polarizer to your list.

[Ed Bray]

I use 100mm x 100mm Hitech Contrast Filters with Black and White films although I have adapted them to 125mm x 125mm to enable there use in my Horseman Pro lens hood that I have adapted to fit on my Canham MQC 5x7. I also use Lee 100mm x 150mm Grads.

The Canham Pro Lens Hood does not have slots for filters or vignettes so I adapted my Horseman Pro Hood to fit the Canham as it does have these facilities.

[Lenny Eiger]

If you are going to scan, you probably won't need them at all. Save your money and learn your masking in PhotoShop....

Lenny

[C. D. Keth]

What do you like to shoot? That would affect what filters would be prudent to get first.

[John Kasaian]

Which lens do you use? My 240 G Caron uses all the old filters that fit on my Nikon SLR. You might also find old Wrattans pretty cheap on Ebay, especially Series VI and VII. I also use Lee filters and I like them a lot (I have a pretty eclectic filter kit!)

[Tim Hodgson]

If you are going to scan, you probably won't need them at all. Save your money and learn your masking in PhotoShop....

Lenny


Lenny ...

It is my understanding that the use of filters in B&W photography will directly enhance or increase the amount of detail that the film captures. For instance the use of a red filter will enhance the level detail in a blue sky and clouds, over the same shot without the red filter.

Am I incorrect in this thinking? Can the same level of detail be achieved using a mask in Photoshop after the unfiltered negative has been scanned?

Tim

[Brian Ellis]

Lenny ...

It is my understanding that the use of filters in B&W photography will directly enhance or increase the amount of detail that the film captures. For instance the use of a red filter will enhance the level detail in a blue sky and clouds, over the same shot without the red filter.

Am I incorrect in this thinking? Can the same level of detail be achieved using a mask in Photoshop after the unfiltered negative has been scanned?

Tim

This may be just a matter of terminology but the standard colored filters in b&w photography (yellow, orange, red, green) aren't generally used to enhance detail. They're used to separate tones that otherwise would tend to merge in a b&w photograph.

[patrickjames]

I have never had an occasion to disagree with Lenny but I think he missed the boat on this one. Why not make the image you want in the camera? Why waste time in Photoshop?

You don't say what lenses you have. I have never been fond of the slip in filters with holders. I have tried lots of solutions and the best one that I have found is using a Pentax gel holder that takes 77mm filters on the front and has a 67mm clip on for the lens. It is very fast and can be used with both filters and gels which makes it very flexible. I simply step all my lenses to 67mm if they are not already. If you use larger lenses (or perhaps super wides) it won't work obviously. The gel holder was incidental to a 6x7 kit I bought a long time ago but I haven't seen one since. It might be very difficult to find if you go looking for one.

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

I agree with the last post that I would rather try to get it right in camera, rather than sat at a computer. I am like that with digital, so really want to be with film!

I know this is like asking what's better, tea or coffee but are yellow-green and orange good first choices? I've seen the effects of red filters, sometimes I like sometimes looks too much.

Cheers

Graham

[Heroique]

Now, Lee filters are costly and considering that I am now looking at [b/w] filters, I’m thinking that Hitech may be OK? Does anyone have first hand experience of using Hitech/Lee filters on black and white and can offer comments?

The Lee b/w polyester set, including the gel snap holder, is only $65.

I've used this durable set from the beginning, with great results.

You would, of course, need the Lee regular holder (2nd image) for the 4"x6" GND filter. This regular holder (which snaps onto an adapter ring, and rotates around it) will also hold the 4"x4" b/w polyester filters.

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=Meekyman;1002026] . . . I know this is like asking what's better, tea or coffee but are yellow-green and orange good first choices? I've seen the effects of red filters, sometimes I like sometimes looks too much.[QUOTE]

I'd forget yellow-green at first unless you have some particular need for it. If you're primarily going to be doing landscapes, and if you're only going to buy two at first, I'd suggest orange and green. Darkening blue skies is, as you know, a common use for a filter. And for that purpose I found orange to be a nice compromise between yellow, which for me often didn't darken the skies enough except at higher altitudes, and red, which may be good for skies but also tends to turn green foliage black.

I suggest green on the assumption that you'll be including green foliage in a lot of your photographs and a green filter will tend to lighten the foliage and therefore separate it from whatever other colors are around it. But it really depends a lot on exactly what you photograph and under what conditions. I'm a believer in the theory that the use of filters should be kept to a minimum and used only when you know exactly what you're trying to accomplish with them.

[sanking]

I have never had an occasion to disagree with Lenny but I think he missed the boat on this one. Why not make the image you want in the camera? Why waste time in Photoshop?



I don't agree with Lenny on this either.

Test yourself. Shoot the same scene with color negative and B&W film. To highlight the difference choose a scene that has strong color contrast. Scan the color negative and the B&W film. Convert the color negative film to B&W in PS using Convert to Black and White, using the color filters to control tonal contrasts. Now see what you can do to change contrast with the B&W scan. Unless you are a magician with PS you will find that tonal controls with the B&W scan are much more limited than with the scan of the color negative film.

Now consider this. If you are photographing a given scene with panchromatic B&W film, and understand how to use color filters, the tonal control is almost as if you were standing there making an image on color negative film.

Can you make good prints in B&W without using filters? Of course, but why would you deny yourself this tonal control when you have already made a considerable effort to put a view camera on the tripod and carefully composed the scene?

Sandy

[Meekyman]

Thanks everyone.

Brian...sure, I am into landscapes so your suggestions sound good. I also agree on only using a filter when you want it's effects and not just because you have it!

Heroique...thanks for the heads up about the polyester set. I already have the Lee holder/adapter system (as well as Lee ND grads, polariser etc.). Do you find the polyester filters durable? Easy to scratch? I look after my kit well, but just in general use?

Thanks

Graham

[Heroique]

Heroique, thanks for the heads up about the polyester set. I already have the Lee holder/adapter system (as well as Lee ND grads, polarizer etc.). Do you find the polyester filters durable? Easy to scratch? I look after my kit well, but just in general use?

I take care of them – always in their case if not in use. I certainly don’t toss them around like frisbees when setting up or taking down. Plus I pack/store them so they won’t get bent or punctured. So, after years and years, my impression is that they’re durable. No scratches that matter, no cleaning ever done. My only issue is that the black frame on one filter occasionally tries to loosen, but that’s easy to fix in an instant. Overall, a useful set for a good price. Lee also offers ND (not GND) polyester filter sets, but it looks like you already have ND filters.

[vinny]

I have a lee polyester set I'd be willing to sell if you're interested. I won't be home til the end of the month though.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I don't know what kind of lenses you have for your large format camera. But you probably paid a lot of money for them, and you keep them clean, etc.

So if you are going to use filters use good ones that are clean, scratch free, and flat. I use B & W, Zeiss, or Hasselblad filters. They all work very well.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have never had an occasion to disagree with Lenny but I think he missed the boat on this one. Why not make the image you want in the camera? Why waste time in Photoshop?

You have to take my bias into account. First off, I don't like very contrasty images and I don't like dark/black skies. That eliminates some of the filters. When I tried a yellow filter a year or two ago I found the effect to be quite subtle, something I could easily have changed in the post processing. Certainly a polarizer can be useful.

Second, I've been doing this for a very long time, my Dad was a photographer - I grew up with the spectral response curve of b&w film. When I look out there and previsualize, that's what I see. This is not a small factor. I remember when I made the change from darkroom to platinum printing, many years ago. I took some time, the better part of a year, but I noticed that I was actually seeing differently. The print medium was teaching me how to see. If you do enough shoot, develop and print, you get to have this happen to you. If you add filters (or other variables - maybe changing developers all the time) to the mix, your previsualization may suffer. (Or, let's just say maybe mine might, it's quite possible that others are better than me at this.)

In Photoshop these days the most I do is control a sky a little here and there and build an expressive print. That's easy enough to do.

I have seen some interesting examples where certain objects were brought out of the scene using a filter. I'm not denying it exists. It's just not the way I think about things.

It's very much the same if you use one lens for a long time. It teaches you what fits inside of its dimensions. I wouldn't consider going outside of the 4:5 form factor, it would mess up the tuning of my eyes. Most of the photographers in the history of photography, used one lens and one camera for many years at a stretch (with some notable exceptions). If you mess around with 9 different lenses you can miss out on clearly identifying images/frames in your view.

I have always been after the subtlety of the seeing. Consistency helps a great deal.

As to making the "image we want in the camera" I think its a great goal. However, I think that part of the magic of photography is that most of us are still surprised when it works.

By all means, if anyone is interested in filters, go right ahead. However, as with a battery of 9 lenses, I don't consider them "essential" in a landscape photographer's backpack. This is opinion, of course. I am not attempting to set a rule. I could also be wrong. If someone wants to point out an example of where they might be really useful, and explain how I might be missing something, I'm all ears. I'm here to learn as well.


Lenny

[sanking]

I use the Lee B&W polyester filter set described earlier with a Lee wide angle bellows lens hood. The filters drop straight into a slot on the bellows hood. If you handle the set carefully in use and store it well the filters will last a long time. I am now in my second replacement set in about 15 years of using this system.

Since my practice is to always use a lens hood to prevent flare it is a simple proposition to use a filter or not. If the scene is one where I can obtain some needed separation of tonal values I use a filter. If you really understand how filters work with B&W panchromatic film it is a kind of no-brainer to look at the scene and quickly figure out if it is worth the trouble to use a filter. In many cases the tonal relationships can be transformed in PS, but in other cases there are some effects that can not be fully achieved unless you use the correct filter when you make the negative.

I spend too much time with PS as is. Any practice in the field that takes only a few seconds and can save time later in editing is worth the trouble to me.

Sandy

[Bernice Loui]

This got me thinking about color B&W filters...

There are three sets of B&W color filters in the gear collection. One set of Sinar/Hi-tech 100mm square polymer, One set of Sinar 105mm glass, One set of Tiffen Series nine. They are set up with more than one Sinar filter swiveling holder and/or 100mm three slot holder. These are also used on other lensed by threaded step rings.

Of the three, the 105mm Sinar glass appears best due. thinner glass and anti-reflection coating. The 100mm square polymer color filters work fine except the polarizer which died years ago by separation resulting in the polarizing element turning clear-yellow. The neutral density filters have some degree of color cast to them which is OK for B&W, not for color back when I was making images in color.

With all this, I got to thinking about how often these color filters are used for the B&W images made.. It turns out, very few and when they are used these days and before I stopped making B&W images years ago. If a color filter is used the yellow is it. Many years ago when I got serious about B&W images, there was much experimentation with color filters and in time their use began to pass. These color filters do and can indeed increase/alter/change the overall contrast ratio/balance of a B&W image from subtle to hitting one in the eye with drama with the altered contrast ratio.

For me, it has become trying to render more of what the tonal range many have been rather than trying to alter them in ways that very significantly deviate from what they were. Or, reaching the place where lower contrast images are preferred in rendered in a way that does not draw the viewer into the image for only a moment, but inviting the viewer to examine and discover what the image has to offer if they are attentive, aware, interested and greater involvement with the image.

There is no correct or wrong to this, it is a matter of individual artistic expression, no more , no less.


Bernice

You have to take my bias into account. First off, I don't like very contrasty images and I don't like dark/black skies. That eliminates some of the filters. When I tried a yellow filter a year or two ago I found the effect to be quite subtle, something I could easily have changed in the post processing. Certainly a polarizer can be useful.


Lenny

[Bill McMannis]

You might also consider Cokin. They work quite well for me and I would add a red and green and a Polarizer to your list.

Another vote here for the Cokin. My Cokin Pola-Red and Pla-Yellow are my most used filters for B&W.

[tgtaylor]

With the possible exception of the ND's and ND Grads, the quality of the Cokin resin filters are as good as the Lees, HiTech,s etc., (the Coking Grads supposedly have a color cast) and are a bargain price-wise. The Cokin Z holder is also a bargain and will accommodate the 4" filters of all brands regardless of thickness and you don't need to carry the little screwdriver.

If I were buying filters I would get glass (e.g., Schneider) and not resin. No matter how careful you are, scratches are inevitable with resin.

Thomas

[vinny]

With the possible exception of the ND's and ND Grads, the quality of the Cokin resin filters are as good as the Lees, HiTech,s etc., (the Coking Grads supposedly have a color cast) and are a bargain price-wise. The Cokin Z holder is also a bargain and will accommodate the 4" filters of all brands regardless of thickness and you don't need to carry the little screwdriver.

If I were buying filters I would get glass (e.g., Schneider) and not resin. No matter how careful you are, scratches are inevitable with resin.

Thomas

What screwdriver? For what?

[Heroique]

What screwdriver? For what?

For the Lee holder (which he’s comparing to Cokin).

2mm guides for unframed polyester filters, 4mm guides for framed (or resin).

A Lee slotted hood requires no screwdriver. Me, I have a Lee un-slotted hood. Using its two backside brackets, I place it on the holder’s outermost (4mm) guides – or when not using a holder, directly on the lens adapter ring.

[vinny]

Thanks. I have the Lee holder with hood so i've never needed a screwdriver. I also had a cokin (p) until larger filters were needed.


For the Lee holder (which he’s comparing to Cokin).

2mm guides for unframed polyester filters, 4mm guides for framed (or resin).

A Lee slotted hood requires no screwdriver. Me, I have a Lee un-slotted hood. Using its two backside brackets, I place it on the holder’s outermost (4mm) guides – or when not using a holder, directly on the lens adapter ring.

[sanking]

By all means, if anyone is interested in filters, go right ahead. However, as with a battery of 9 lenses, I don't consider them "essential" in a landscape photographer's backpack. This is opinion, of course. I am not attempting to set a rule. I could also be wrong. If someone wants to point out an example of where they might be really useful, and explain how I might be missing something, I'm all ears. I'm here to learn as well.


Lenny

Lenny,

I fully understand the fact that how and why we choose to photograph is a personal decision, and that there are no rights or wrongs. Same could be said about most decisions in life that require some interpretative choices. And by no means do I consider filters essential to B&W photography. Same goes for other decisions, such as format size, digital versus analog, silver gelatin versus platinum, etc. etc.

But the point is this. All of these choices result in something that is different and unique. Making a negative with B&W film, with the proper filter, can in some cases give a different interpretation than making the exposure without a filter and then trying to replicate the results in PS. I personally spend a lot of time in PS to interpret an image as I "saw and wanted it." But there are situations where if I make the wrong decision in exposure I find myself in a situation where "you can not get there from here." If you can get there from anywhere, more power to you.


Sandy

[Lenny Eiger]

But the point is this. All of these choices result in something that is different and unique. Making a negative with B&W film, with the proper filter, can in some cases give a different interpretation than making the exposure without a filter and then trying to replicate the results in PS. I personally spend a lot of time in PS to interpret an image as I "saw and wanted it." But there are situations where if I make the wrong decision in exposure I find myself in a situation where "you can not get there from here." If you can get there from anywhere, more power to you.
Sandy

I am certainly not going to claim I can get "there" from anywhere. Like you, I've been doing this a long time and some of it works very well. I never imagine I know it all.. there are so many areas of photography it would be impossible. However, that said, I've ignored filters the entire time. I just never bothered.

I have a nice set of filters and holder from Lee. I tried them out but there was nothing I saw that made me want to carry them around. I've been listening to this discussion with interest to see what I might learn. Someone said I missed something and my ears perked up. I reviewed what they all do again and they generally do stuff I don't want. (Darken skies.)

As I sit here thinking thru this I think my attitude has to do with how I shoot. I do my best to get "present" wherever I am. I'd like to see something magical and unnoticed. I am interested in images that are done with respect, and an appreciation of where one is. I like the subtleties of light. I like the deep woods and ravines, especially. When I photograph I am focused primarily on my attitude and seeing. When images fail its generally not because of the print. Its because there's nothing there. I've may have a great composition, but all the angles are bringing the eye to a place that makes one wonder why I took the photograph in the first place. I needed to see deeper, to understand where I was. Perhaps to actually understand something that can be articulated in a visual language.

The print quality I want I've gotten from a little enhancing, staying true to what was there in the first place, rather than lots of manipulation. I print on papers I love with delicate inks. I went to this page: http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/blackwhite There is a fairly useless comparison there about a third of the way down of the b&w filters. Right below is an image by Charlie Waite. I would never photograph like that. Of course, he has every right to. However, we are looking at very different things. I can see why an orange filter would be useful for his kind of image. I just can't see how they would be useful to me...

That doesn't mean they wouldn't be. It just means I don't see it....

Lenny

[patrickjames]

Lenny, the early post of yours that I responded to was probably poorly worded and gave the impression that everything can be done in Photoshop, which of course it can't, and was why I responded about you missing the boat.

I shoot practically everything with a filter in place. The few times I don't use a filter would be indoors and in extremely low light for obvious reasons. Filters are an integral part of the process for me. It is a way for me to decide what the tones will be by using only some of the light that is there. Ironically, the one filter I don't use is a polarizer. I just prefer natural reflections. With lot of what I do these days a polarizer would ruin the photo.

I have to admit though that I am not in search of the traditional "perfect" print with detail everywhere (although I can make it) that seems to be the holy grail of most large format photographers. If you make images that way, more power to you, and I can appreciate them, but it isn't for me. Chacun à ses goûts. As far as I am concerned, as long as the photo is good, technical issues don't matter that much.

[tenderobject]

Hey guys. I know this is a bit off topic. slight. What can you say about filter rings vs. cokin type filters? i'm thinking of getting a filter set. actually i bought red kenko filter and mamiya yellow filter recently. the kenko has some smudge inside the glass dunno when i put it against a strong light i could see it. so now, i'm thinking of getting a filter set. the cokin p filter set is cheaper compare to what i saw on the bay (tiffen black and white filter set). i'm considering the filter rings for compactness what do you think?

thanks guys!

[Drew Wiley]

Polyester filters are pretty marginal optically - inferior even to old-time gels. I don't like them at all for actual photographic use. Optical resin filters are better, but also fragile, and much more expensive. One doesn't really need all that many filters
for basic black and white shooting. Might as well get the best glass ones you can afford. Coated or multi-coated glass is also a lot easier to keep clean, and way less prone to condensation problems. Cheap filters just make an expensive lens act as if
it were cheap too. Take some experience to know what exactly you need in terms of filtration - has a lot to do with personal
style, the subject-matter involved, even the specific film you use...