Filters---8, or 12? or 15?

[John Kasaian]

So I'm slowly putting together a filter kit for B&W 8x10 based on 67mm which will cover most of my lenses, replacing my worn out Lee rubber band based system. 67mm Filters ain't cheap so being a bottom feeder, I'm buying used filters so I'm limited by whats available on the used market. While I would like B+W or Heliopan, I've never had a complaint with Tiffen, Hoya Vivitar or Singh-ray so they're my preference over the used unknowns. So far I've collected a Yellow Green (Green#11) Orange (#21) and a Blue (#80B for foggy landscapes---hey it only cost me $4) but I still lack a Yellow filter, so I'm wondering which one to be on the look out for ---#15, #12, or #8? Which would be the most useful? I'm guessing #15 should be out of the race as it is close to the #21 I already have. Some have told me that haze being so bad because of pollution, a #12 is preferable to Ansel's fave #8.
What say you experts?

[Jac@stafford.net]

John, I have no idea if they would work with your lenses, but I have all of Linhof's filters from IR to polarizers and their filter holder/lens shades. All together it was economical compared to matching conventional filters. I am set for life.
.

[neil poulsen]

Ansel Adams also spoke well of 12. Between 8 and 12, the latter is my preference. Depending on the circumstances, it can render quite a dark sky.

Added later, I use HP 5 film.

[John Kasaian]

Thanks!

[Lachlan 717]

15 for me; too little effect (skies) with anything less.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hi!

What follows might not be very helpful in the field, but I have re-plotted transmission curves for useful Wratten filters.
See the attached pdf chart
wratten-3-29.pdf

In the series:
3 4 8 9 12 15 16 21 22 23A 24 25 26 29
all filter curves exhibit exactly the same shape, it is a simple "step-shaped" curve, cutting wavelengths shorter than a certain limit, only the cut-off wavelength gradually moves from 460 nm (in the blue region, for #3 = light yellow) to 620 nm (in the red region, for #29, deep red).

Hence, which # you need depends on the subject ;)

I mainly use #8, medium yellow and an orange which is probably #21 or #22.

#25 is the red separation filter for analogue photogravure or tricolor photography with B&W film.

Not kidding, several of those filters are probably unavailable, or useless, today ... however IMHO it is interesting to consider them as part of the same family, namely the "single step" curve, from "blue-cutting" filters to "blue and green" cutting filters.

I have taken the data from this document available on the 'net
http://www.karmalimbo.com/aro/pics/filters/transmision%20of%20wratten%20filters.pdf

The first page of this document has a very short description of each filter and its use.

originally published in
CRC Handbook Chemistry & Physics 74th/1993/94 / Inc., CRC Press (ISBN 0849304741)
Transmission of Wratten® Filters
Compiled by Allie C. Peed, Jr. for The Eastmann Kodak Company

[John Kasaian]

Wow! Thank you, Emmanuel!
With my Lee polyester filters I did pretty well with a #8 and a #21 for most of my landscapes.

[cowanw]

Number 12 for me, which should be a minus blue, less than 500 nm, at a 1.5 factor.
Still you really have to try them. they just move up stepwise like soldiers and you pick what you like.
Here is a wee graph of the yellows in the bottom left corner of the main advert.
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/cameras-accessories/heliopan-filter-medium-dark-yellow-12-diameter-24mm.html

Ah, Emmanuel did it better!

[Doremus Scudder]

A #12 filter will likely be harder to find than a #8 filter. #15 is billed as "deep yellow" but is really and orange (G in the Hoya designation) filter. I find it a bit too strong when I want yellow filtration, but just right when I need something intermediate between yellow and red. FWIW, my stripped-down filter kit is: #8, #11 (yellow-green), #15, #25, 80A (which I use like I would a #44 filter to achieve ortho effects on panchromatic film) and a polarizer.

Best,

Doremus

[Mark Sampson]

Choice of these filters is driven by 1) personal taste and 2) the atmosphere where you are shooting. Where I live, at low altitudes in the humid East, the yellow filters have less effect than in the dry West. So I've used all of the filters mentioned.
But my taste in pictures doesn't call for really dark skies very often.
I generally use a #8 or #9 (gel). My favorite is the lighter #6; the 12 and 15 over-correct for my taste. That's in upstate NY (humid, often gray) and on Cape Cod. There when the day is right the skies can be so deep blue no filter is required, and I have sometimes struggled to print over-filtered negatives. When in Arizona and New Mexico, a #8 filter has worked the best.
You live in California, near the Sierra, so I imagine high altitudes and dry air. And I don't know how you like your pictures; still I think a plain old yellow #8 will serve you very well.

[Vaughn]

And 3) What film you are using. I liked a light yellow back in the day, but found that TMax films did not need it...and darkened the sky too much when I did use one.

I am another one who prefers a lighter, more natural sky. But I understand the desire to compensate for the lack of the impact of blue in the sky by making a more dramatic dark sky...or whatever reason one has for doing so...plenty of valid ones.

I use a yellow filter now mostly in the fall to brighten up the yellow leaves amongst the redwoods.

[Merg Ross]

And 3) What film you are using. I liked a light yellow back in the day, but found that TMax films did not need it...and darkened the sky too much when I did use one.

I am another one who prefers a lighter, more natural sky. But I understand the desire to compensate for the lack of the impact of blue in the sky by making a more dramatic dark sky...or whatever reason one has for doing so...plenty of valid ones.

I use a yellow filter now mostly in the fall to brighten up the yellow leaves amongst the redwoods.

Good point about type of film. I was raised using a K2 (Yellow-#8) and have found the (Orange #16) useful along with the (Green#58). Keep it simple!

[John Kasaian]

Thanks, Merg!

[Martin Aislabie]

What filter you need depends great deal on the type of skies you encounter when shooting.

If you shoot most of the time under the very deep blue skies of the dry atmosphere of the western deserts, then a fairly pale yellow (08) is all I found I needed (I don't like my skies to be too dark)

However, if you shoot under paler, more water laden skies, then you might prefer a darker yellow (No 12 or 15)

Martin

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Too dark skies look unnatural, for example when the sky is already deep blue and you use an orange or a red filter that gives you white clouds on an almost black sky. A #3 or #8 yellow would look best then, like Martin said.


However, if you shoot under paler, more water laden skies, then you might prefer a darker yellow (No 12 or 15)

Yes, and the #15 or #16 (yellow-orange) would also cut through haze and sharpen up details like mountains and trees in the distance, wich is good to know if you want that or not.

[LabRat]

Yellow/Orange filters will penetrate haze well, but non Y or O objects will be considerably darkened, so water, foliage, etc will photograph darker (maybe too much), and desert sands in sunlight might be too bright... Test first at your usual photo sites before jumping in whole hog...

If you just need a little haze cutting/a little extra contrast, you can use a polarizer or light ND filter (just like your sunglasses)...

Steve K

[David Lobato]

I have photographed quite a bit at high altitudes in Colorado where UV light is strong on a clear day. A yellow filter will drop the shadow values unexpectedly due to the strong blue light. Once with a yellow filter I tried to brighten yellow Fall aspens but the shadows were so dark I could not make a good print. A polarizer would have been a better choice.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

More curves

From Doremus Scudder
" ... my stripped-down filter kit is: #8, #11 (yellow-green), #15, #25, 80A (which I use like I would a #44 filter to achieve ortho effects on panchromatic film) and a polarizer. "

and from Merg Ross
"I was raised using a K2 (Yellow-#8) and have found the (Orange #16) useful along with the (Green#58). Keep it simple!"

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on the specific film. But I tend to go with the hard multi-coated Hoya filters instead of the soft B&W ones, except for the 22 deep orange. Hoya jumps from a light orange right up to the 25 red. Tiffen filters smudge up easily, though they do have a big selection. I rarely carry more thsn three contrast filters at a time, but the specific choice varies with the film and topography. I like a deep green in the desert.

[Martin Aislabie]

I have photographed quite a bit at high altitudes in Colorado where UV light is strong on a clear day. A yellow filter will drop the shadow values unexpectedly due to the strong blue light. Once with a yellow filter I tried to brighten yellow Fall aspens but the shadows were so dark I could not make a good print. A polarizer would have been a better choice.

Polarizers darken the shadows too.

You really need to watch your exposure with polarizes so that you don't loose the shadow details.

Martin

[Drew Wiley]

Did you find filters yet, John? I ran into my ole stash of 77mm glass Tiffens, incl #12 yellow, all in fine shape. You'd just need a step ring and your Stetson cowboy hat for a shade, with the XX's on the hat matched to the filter factor, as usual. If you want them just PM me your address. Free. But you might get a surplus porch cat in the package too!

[John Kasaian]

Did you find filters yet, John? I ran into my ole stash of 77mm glass Tiffens, incl #12 yellow, all in fine shape. You'd just need a step ring and your Stetson cowboy hat for a shade, with the XX's on the hat matched to the filter factor, as usual. If you want them just PM me your address. Free. But you might get a surplus porch cat in the package too!
I'd have to pass on the porch cat---I'm allergic. PM on the way

[Greg]

Back in the 1970s, I was at RIT. One of my teachers (George DeWolf comes to mind but I don't think it was him) taught a double exposure technique. Part of the total exposure was made without a filter, and the other part of the exposure was made with a Wratten 25 filter. Self cocking shutter almost a necessity. You'd think that you'd get some blurs or double imaging from movement of the subject (wind) between the two exposures, but in practice just never seemed to be the case. Computing the two exposures was a pain, though final image results seemed always to be ideal and worth the exposure computations. Just passing this technique on....

[peter schrager]

Go to lone pine and use a #8 filter
Useless

[Ken Lee]

You might find this brief article helpful: Polarizer + Yellow Filter for a Natural Looking Scene (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#polarizer)

[John Kasaian]

Go to lone pine and use a #8 filter
Useless
So what? Use a #12? #15? What do you recommend?

[John Kasaian]

You might find this brief article helpful: Polarizer + Yellow Filter for a Natural Looking Scene (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#polarizer)

Very cool. Thanks!

[j.e.simmons]

I regularly use my Kodak K-1, K-2 and K-3 glass/gel filters, but then my soprano sax was made in 1928, too.

[John Kasaian]

I regularly use my Kodak K-1, K-2 and K-3 glass/gel filters, but then my soprano sax was made in 1928, too.
Cool! My Buescher Alto is a 1926.

[Martin Aislabie]

You might find this brief article helpful: Polarizer + Yellow Filter for a Natural Looking Scene (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#polarizer)

I can vouch for the yellow + polariser giving a negative the resembles fairly reasonably what you see.

I have been using it off and on for a couple of years, after Ken suggested it on this forum.

Martin