Filters and high mountains

[Steve Goldstein]

This is something I've long wondered about, specifically in regards to areas in the American west above 10,000' (3km+) in elevation. There's more UV and blue up there because there's much less atmospheric scattering, but it's still blue - the intensity changes but not the wavelength. For normal black-and-white landscape work, would a dark yellow (e.g. B+W 023) give significantly different results from a medium yellow (B+W 022)? The curves in my B+W booklet show that both block pretty much all the blue anyway. I'll also have along a Hoya X0, a polarizer, and a dark orange (B+W 041). This is a difficult thing for me to test locally as I live at sea-level on the US east coast and a high mountain around here almost doesn't count as a land feature in Colorado!

I'm completely in the dark as far as color filtration goes. I'll most likely be bringing some Provia. Is a KR3 warm enough for sunny conditions? Too warm?

All advice welcome.

[Jac@stafford.net]

You will have more deeply, naturally polarized skies, and far less haze at 10,000 feet or higher. A deep yellow filter could have more effect than you want. Fortunately you will be able to preview polarization.

Sorry, cannot help with color.

Good luck and enjoy.

[Preston]

Steve,

For color, I suggest either an 81-b, or 81-c. Provia tends toward blue, so a warming filter can be helpful, especially in shade lit by a blue sky. If your scene has a large proportion of clear blue sky, skip the warming filter since it may make the blue too warm.

Added: Here's a listing of Filters by their Wratten Number (http://www.vistaview360.com/cameras/filters_by_the_numbers.htm), along with their effect.

Hope this helps, Steve.

--P

[ROL]

In regards to B/W, I encourage you to play around with the yellows, various films, and developers in different lighting and compositions to see for yourself what floats your visualization boat. The results, though possibly subtle, can make a difference in the mood of your composition. Don't go any stronger than deep yellow (B+W 023) if rendering full scale monotones with panchromatic films. I have used deep yellow with slow 120 films to great advantage when attempting to reveal cloud formations in high elevation skies. I tend to go no heavier than medium yellow (B+W 022) with LF and FP4+, which at 125 would count for a medium speed film the way I shoot. I use polarizers (i.e., a Kasemann warm – useful for color as well) once and a while because it looks so great in the GG, but almost always feel the yellows would have been a better choice once in the darkroom. I am just as likely to shoot naked when the sky is not part of the composition.


Floating Erratics & Cumulus, Tenaya Lake
(B+W 023, 120 Maco UP 25, Rodinal 1:100)
http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/albums/Tuolumne/Floating%20Erratics%20and%20Cumulus%2C%20Tenaya%20Lake.jpg

Tuolumne Spring
(B+W 022, 5x7 Arista Pro 125, PMK Pyro 1:2:100)
http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/albums/Tuolumne/Tuolumne%20Spring.jpg

Cloud's Rest & Mt. Starr King
(Kasemann Polarizer, 5x7 Arista Pro 125, PMK Pyro 1:2:100)
http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/albums/Yosemite/Cloud%27s%20Rest%20and%20Mt.%20Starr%20King.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

With regard to color neg film, I always take into the mtns a light pink skylight filter like a 2A, an 81A for general bluish overcast, and an 81C for deep blue shade under an open sky, esp "northlight" shade. Regarding black and white film, it's all depends on the specific film, and be prepared for me and ROL to have different
opinions, even though we've both taken a lot of shots in the same part of mtns. I like to keep things simple, so generally just backpack with a 25 red and either a
deep green for general pan film, or a mild yellow-green like a Hoys XO when for orthopan films like ACROS. Dayhiking I might throw in a few other choices, depending on the exact film or season, or whim. I've never used anything as weak a yellow for decades, and my negs carry a full range of detail - Sorry, ROL, but it just had to throw that punch! And I use PMK too!

[goamules]

Nice shots ROL! That dome looks strangely familiar....oh yeah, I was on it a week ago!

[Jerry Bodine]

Not sure how high you plan to go, but back in the early 70's on Mt. Rainier I noticed that near the summit (~14,000 ft) the sky was nearly black (e.g., blue-black) to the naked eye when briefly removing goggles, and the Kodachrome II I was using at the time recorded it very accurately without any filters. For b/w, when I initially used Tri-X with a combination of 25 Red + Polarizer on one occasion at lower snowy elevations I got the dark sky I was after but the dark green forest went too dark and barely held detail since both filters tend to darken green, so a bit more exposure would have helped. Something to heed.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from france!

As a European who discovered the crisps, clean, bright skies of the American West when I first visited the States, I can say that those skies and "razor-sharp" landscapes are a blessing. At least outside the hottest days of summer.

The legend says that Saint Ansel, invited by J.H. Lartigue, once crossed the Atlantic and came to the south of France in Arles to attend the Arles Photographic Festival in summer. Saint Ansel only reminds of the magnificent food in the train, and cannot find any words but bitter crticism regarding the hazy skies that we suffer in Western Europe in summer. Especially in Arles which shares with Florida the same 100% of humidity contents in the air ;)

Hence the question of which blue-cutting filter should be used in B&W photography is, as seen with European eyes, only an aesthetic choice.
There is a tradition saying that clouds should be heaviliy emphasised and that "drama" should be obvious in the final print.
I have to admit here that I like this drama, even if is is over-emphasized.

Actually the range of classical contrast filters designed for B&W photography, from light-yellow to dark-red all share the same shape as a step-filter, cutting-off short wavelengths and letting only yellow, orange and red go through.
Only the cut-off wavelenth changes from light yellow to dark red.
So in fact the choice of such a the filter is an aesthetic choice, not a technical choice thanks to the very low scattering of light in the Wild West as mentioned before.

Regarding colour photography above 3,000 metres of elevation, I have dozens of colour slides [unfortunately, in film formats strictly prohibited here] that I have taken in the Alps that qualify for this extreme situation, and I have always simply used an UV-blocking filter, more as a protective filter than a real colour-correction filter.
Actually, modern colour films combined with modern lenses and their multi-coating, will filter-out UV rays as efficiently as any UV-filter. But from dawn to dusk, for sure, colour temperature changes and some colour-correction filters might be useful.

Regarding the use of a polarizing filter at high altitudes, the only "caveat" I would mention here is that if you combine an ultra-wide angle lens with a polarizing filter aiming at a landscape with a large amount of blue sky, the combination of the natural vignetting inside the lens (visible in the corners of the image, if you do not use a concentric compensating filter) plus natural polarizing of the sky (maximum effect when aiming at 90° from incident sun rays) can yield unpredictable results that are not very pretty, "un-natural", when eventually printed.

Hence another question is : should landscape photography appear as "natural" ?

[Drew Wiley]

I was sorting thru my UV filters last nite, looking for a particular type in a particular size for my next high country excursion. Even these differ film to film. Even different chrome films responded differently. But in reviewing this immediate thread, I did notice that ROL sometimes uses a polarizer. I never do. They do indeed need to be used very circumspectly or they render a fake look. One more optional gadget. But if you do get one, buy the Kasemann like he uses, so it won't fog up in sudden weather changes. What is "natural" really depends. It's all a game of illusionism. Some of AA's most famous prints look theatrical to me. But he did famously know how to perceive light. You have to spend some time in the Sierra to appreciate just how sensitive he was to its moods. But advice-wise, a lot of things hesaid are obsolete - the films, filters, even quality of the light itself, all have somewhat changed, as have all the available printing papers.

[Joe O'Hara]

Emmanuel, I enjoyed your wise and well-expressed comments very much. Regarding polarizing filters, my rule is: wide-angle lens, sky in the picture, polarizing filter, choose any two of those. Just saying what you said in a different way.

Cheers to you from hot and hazy New Jersey, where clear skies are seldom seen this time of year.

[David Lobato]

ROL mentioned shooting without a yellow filter when the sky is not in the frame. I learned the hard way with b&w film that a yellow filter excessively darkens shadows because they are filled by the blue light from a clear sky. I have lost too much detail in shaded areas that way. Same goes for orange and red filters. With color film you go easy with a polarizer and simply dial down less of its effect. With a little practice a spotmeter can be used to adjust the polarizer's effect by comparing the polarized brightness (or EV) value of the clear sky to the brightness of the landscape.

I like polarizers to increase saturation in foliage. Even a hazy sky reflects off the surfaces of leaves. Scenes with small brooks and wildflowers are abundant in the mountains, and a polarizer is certainly useful.

[Steve Goldstein]

Thanks to everyone for your comments. It's useful to hear different opinions with the reasons behind them. I think I'll tend towards the lighter filters and leave the stronger ones at home, except possibly for a dark green that I'd like to experiment with. And I'll certainly take the polarizer, I'd forgotten about how strongly polarized the sky is out there!

[Drew Wiley]

David - I dislike polarizers for exactly the same reason some people like them. I relish the world of subtle layers of reflection upon reflection. But the other nite I was looking thru Shirakawa's famous book of Himalayan photographs - he was a polarizer addict; and at those extreme altitudes, the deep blue sky often went nearly black. But shadows also go deeper blue, so you have to have an exposure and development regimen which accomodates that. Deeper filters can be wonderful for bringing out texture in rock and snow. Once you kinda find your personal style as far as filter use goes, then you might understand why someone like me prefers very
long-scale, short-toe films in the high contrast of mtn scenes. In rain or mist or falling snow, it's a different story or course. Good luck!

[David Lobato]

Polarizers require careful application (if at all) at altitude when the sky is involved. That's why I advised using a spotmeter to gauge the effect while taking readings and rotating it in front of the meter. When the sky EV value is 1 or more stops darker than the ground, the polarization is too strong. They still help foliage saturation with color film, and the absence of sky in the picture. I also prefer long scale representations with lots of shadow detail, thus my caution on yellow filters with b&w film. My main point it to be aware of the unintended effects of the filters at high altitude and be analytical in their application. Most of the time I avoid polarizers at high altitude or with water scenes, been disappointed too often.

[Jim Andrada]

Well maybe the mountains around Tucson don't qualify as "high mountains" - they're just short of 10,000 feet, but the thing that surprises me in this area is the amount of haze in the air during summer.

[Drew Wiley]

Haze is a very good reason to have a stronger filter on hand. In the Sierras, pollen haze is a significant factor below 8000 feet. On the east side, dust storms over
Owens Lake can kick up dust considerably higher. The you've got forest fires, which can siphon up the canyons and over high passes; and in one case, I started
smelling forest fire smoke from the west side of the Sierra clear over on the west side of the Utah desert! Satellite imagery during big fires or dust storms nowadays make it pretty obvious that this is not an exaggeration. It's a bit amazing how much detail will come thru a hazy situation using a deep red filter. Sometimes I like the effect of haze - the kind of atmospheric layering that gives a sense of scale - something I miss in much of the AA-cloned school of landscape work. I even carry a blue filter sometimes to accentuate haze. No hard rules here. Just gotta find your own path. But it's always fun to experiment, and sometimes necessary. A filter set that works beautifully here on the coast might not be the best in the mountains. Side by side practice shots with something cheap like 35mm or roll film are a wise way to plan for more serious work.

[tgtaylor]

A UV filter will help in eliminating unwanted haze and a strong UV filter is recommended for high altitude film photography where UV is stronger.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Different kinds of color film ideally need slightly different UV filters. Some respond best to almost colorless filter (actually they're very pale yellow), some to a light pink skylight filter, some to pale magenta. Good multicoated ones cost a bit, but large format color work in general is expensive - so I get nitpicky in this respect.
This year the only color film I'm using at altitude will be Ektar, so will carry a Singh-Ray KN light salmon filter (similar to a 2B skylight). For actual color temp corrections, I'll also pack an 81A and 81C, plus two or three filters for black and white film, which in this instance will be ACROS. Two weeks in the backcountry
makes one think long and hard over food versus gear options. As you eat the food, the pack gets lighter.

[tgtaylor]

You don't rally need a cc filter with color negative film as you correct the color with the filter pack when printing. Doesn't hurt, of course, but why place a filter in front of the lens when it is not needed?

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Thomas - cc filtration and color temp balancing are two different kinds of problems, and the latter cannot generally be corrected either in the darkroom or in PS if
it's a significant error. A serious problem in color balancing means that one of the dye layers has not received sufficient exposure relative to the other two, so even if you rate the ASA lower, you're still essentially forcing that part of the film curve down lower onto the geometry where either the shape of the curve changes, or downright overlaps with an adjacent curve, in effect, making it impossible to resolve certain related hues. People generally ignore this problem with color neg films because they assume certain errors are inherent. That's relative. In landscape work with a film like Ektar, the performance can be significantly improved by doing it right in the first place - at the time of exposure. It's really no different than chromes. But when we take a chrome and slap it on the lightbox we can instantly evaluate the effect, and whether or not we like it. I remember landscape photographers screaming when ole Ektachrome 64 was discontinued, cause they got addicted to its overt blue bias. When a chrome film does the same thing, they scream, cause they're used to shadows artificially warmed for "pleasing skintones". Ektar isn't like that. It's more like a neg film with power steering - steep pointy dye curves - high performance but finicky. Treat it like a
chrome with respect to care during exposure and you'll have far less trouble printing it. I won't get into an argument here with those who think they can "fix
anything" in PS afterwards. Maybe there's some insanely complicated way of dithering this or that, but once the dye curves are mixed, they're mixed, and no
simple curve or layering adjustment is going to solve that kind of problem. Far easier to do it right in the first place, within reason. ...

[Drew Wiley]

I made an obvious typo there - it's traditional color neg film that is engineered for skintones, not chromes. And sure, overall color balance of the shadows can be
corrected in general, but resolving hues is a completely different subject. It's a lot like mixing paint. If you mix a certain amount of green and magenta paint, you
end up with a complex neutral than simply cannot be cleaned up. It's going to remain "dirt" no matter what you add next. Paint that beige-inflected stuff on a wall
and view it thru a cc filter, and it's stills dirt, just slightly different colored dirt overall. People are used to color neg hues being contaminated and muddy. But they
don't always have to be. Ektar can be relatively clean compared to the other options if you understand how to control it. But of course, it doesn't have quite the
latitude of options like Portra, if that is your priority, or if you want something less saturated. Contrast up or down can be controlled in various manners, either in
the darkroom of digitally; so that's not the key issue.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Sorry for answering late to Joe O'Hara, regarding haze, what I can add, is that in France there is a special place behind the mountains in the Alps, named Briançon (not to be confused with Besançon) where "they" enjoy, according to advertising tourist brochures, 300 days of sunny days per year and where the air is really clear and dry.
The reason is that the Briançon valley [the river is named : La Durance] is well shielded from western winds and rains by the Écrins mountain range. Hence, if you go there, usually you won't need any haze-cutting filter ;)

[Joe O'Hara]

Good to know. I'll keep that in mind if I should have the opportunity to travel to France some day.