Filters for B&W

[AdamD]

I'm a little confused about the ways to control exposure with filters when shooting onto B&W film.

Are GND filters used in combination with B&W film? If so, what filters or types of filters do you use?

Are polarizing filters used with B&W film? Think so, what do you suggest?

I'm thinking that B&W film use different types of filters than color film, so maybe someone can explain that too and how to best approach the "filter gear" problem?

I only have one lens now, the Fuji W 150mm f5.6 and I know I will likely go with a 90mm and 300mm at some point. I'm not a 100% sure these future lenses will have the same threads so I was leaning towards the square Cokin P rig. But I seriously don't know any better right now.

Thoughts?

[Bob Salomon]

ND, GND, Pols and color contrast filters are all used by B&W as are some UV filters and IR filters.

[John Kasaian]

Steve Simmons Using the View Camera has a good chapter on what different filters can offer using B&W film. What you'll want depends a lot on foliage, the sky, and color of rocks as well as the ability to lengthening exposure times with a ND. If you want to use your filters on multiple lenses consider which size filter fits the largest lens you want to add to your kit and purchase lenses in that size, using step rings to fit your lesser diameter lenses. Another solution is Lee polyesters with gel-snap holders. There are other ways to cook this goose as well.

[Peter De Smidt]

I occasionally use a polarizer with BW, mainly to cut down on reflections in glass or similar. My most used filters, though are a yellow/green or an orange filter. Mostly these are used to darken blue skies, but they can be used to increase the contrast between colors. A filter lightens objects of it's own color, and it darkens complimentary colors. For example, yellow darkens blue, green darkens magenta..... For instance, a red object and a green object look very distinct, because we see in color, but they might reflect the same amount of light. With BW pan film, in this situation, they will be the same color gray. One could use a red filter to lighten the red and darken the green, a green filter to do the opposite, or a less strong filter ...

I don't use grads with BW, because they are expensive, fiddly, and there can be problems where the transition doesn't match the scene. I simply give enough exposure to get good separation in the darkest tones and let the brighter tones fall wherever. With good development, even very bright densities aren't a problem. (I scan. This might be more of a problem with optical printing.) This worked fine for me the other day with a hazy sun in the photo. Even that wasn't too dense to scan well. But if the range is crazy extreme, I would shoot two negatives, one optimized of the darker areas and one for the light, but I'm trying to remember when I last needed to resort to that....I can't.

[Doremus Scudder]

Read and digest this: https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/C1x9LZAkTES.pdf It's the B+W Filter Handbook. Note that the numbers in parentheses after their filter number are the Wratten equivalents. When using filters with black-and-white film, just keep in mind that colored filters lighten the same colors as they pass and darken the others, e.g., a green filter lightens green and darkens red, etc.

FWIW, I use a polarizing filter with black-and-white film often, it darkens skies without affecting shadows. I routinely carry yellow (#8), orange (#15), green (#11), red (#25), a linear polarizer (circular is not needed except with a beam-splitting mirror), and an 80A color-conversions filter. This latter is a way to approximate the effect of orthochromatic film with panchromatic film; a Wratten #44 is better for this, but only comes in gels (I have those too, but glass filters are easier to use in the field).

I hate graduated ND filters and never use them. I'd only use a UV filter or "skylight" filter to protect the lens from mist or rain. Otherwise a #8 yellow does the job.

Best,

Doremus

[Corran]

I do occasionally use GND filters on b&w, especially with reflections where I want equal exposure and the reflection usually needs one stop extra exposure, and open skies which, especially since down here in the humid south, orange/red filters don't do nearly enough at times.

It comes down to what you want to show and what the situation calls for. I used a polarizer yesterday to cut down on reflections on water and the blue sky. You'll probably have to try things to see what you like. A friend/mentor of mine uses no filters ever because he wants to photograph exactly as the scene is and not "modify" anything, which is his choice...even if I don't agree with him :).

[AdamD]

Ok check it out. I shot these today. Now bear in mind, hand held my DSLR and scanned these. The actual negatives look better, but I just wanted to get these posted for you to look at.

I also did some poor quality post processing.... See what I mean about the sky being blown out or just washed out. How can I control this? I'm assuming filters are what I need here. But what to use? GND filters seem to make sense to me, but I don't understand what other filters to use in this case.

Also, look at the one image with the in close mountains. Why does the sky look molten?

Anyway, what do you think? And how would you handle these conditions?

Many thanks!!

Adam

P.S. I can't seem to upload the images....:(

Anyone know the trick to uploading images?

[Peter De Smidt]

If the sky is blue, then yellow, yellow green, orange, and red filters will darken the sky, going in order from the least amount of darkening to the most. Orange and red will also darken green foliage.

[AdamD]

What I don't understand is, when the sky is blue and 3 to 4 stops brighter than the foreground, will a yellow filter "correct" the exposure? Will the darkening of the blue frequency effectively balanceing the exposure? What I mean by balance is to reduce the difference between foreground to sky to 2 stops from say 3 or 4 stops. In this case, I need to darken the sky by 1 or 2 stops to balance the exposure. Am I making sense?

If so, how many stops will a yellow filter bring down a blue sky? How about yellow orange?

If not, how would you accommodate a 3 to 4 stop variance between sky and foreground? For me in Arizona, that's a normal day; a ton of sunshine!!

[Bob Salomon]

What I don't understand is, when the sky is blue and 3 to 4 stops brighter than the foreground, will a yellow filter "correct" the exposure? Will the darkening of the blue frequency effectively balanceing the exposure? What I mean by balance is to reduce the difference between foreground to sky to 2 stops from say 3 or 4 stops. In this case, I need to darken the sky by 1 or 2 stops to balance the exposure. Am I making sense?

If so, how many stops will a yellow filter bring down a blue sky? How about yellow orange?

If not, how would you accommodate a 3 to 4 stop variance between sky and foreground? For me in Arizona, that's a normal day; a ton of sunshine!!

The filter will have the same filter factor (reduction) for the entire scene. If you want to want to balance the bright sky to the foreground you would use a graduated ND filter. That would let you selectively darken the sky to the rest of the scene.

[Peter De Smidt]

Really? A red filter will darken blue sky exactly the same as it will darken a red apple?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, there are green apples too. It will darken those. "Blue" sky is a relative term. Inhabitants of LA think scudgy brown is blue. Grad filters won't accentuate the difference between blue sky and clouds like a contrast filter will because they just overall darken a whole section of the scene regardless; I never had a high opinion of grads, especially since a former resident up the hill from me with his name on a brand of them did such awful fake-looking shots with them himself; but they do make more sense in color photography than black and white.

[Doremus Scudder]

What I don't understand is, when the sky is blue and 3 to 4 stops brighter than the foreground, will a yellow filter "correct" the exposure? Will the darkening of the blue frequency effectively balanceing the exposure? What I mean by balance is to reduce the difference between foreground to sky to 2 stops from say 3 or 4 stops. In this case, I need to darken the sky by 1 or 2 stops to balance the exposure. Am I making sense?

If so, how many stops will a yellow filter bring down a blue sky? How about yellow orange?

If not, how would you accommodate a 3 to 4 stop variance between sky and foreground? For me in Arizona, that's a normal day; a ton of sunshine!!

A color contrast filter from yellow-red will darken blue skies. In extreme cases up to 3-4 stops when using a red filter and with a really saturated blue sky (often too much for my taste). A yellow filter with a milky blue sky will have a very small effect. Looking through the filters will give you an idea. Metering through the filters and comparing the blue sky reading through the filter to a neutral-colored object (grey, white) will give you a rough idea of just how much the filter will darken the sky in comparison. Granted, this is somewhat approximate, but it's better than guessing. After a while, you'll learn which filters give more or less exposure than your meter reading and learn how to compensate.

Polarizing filters often work well and it's easy to judge what you'll get just by viewing through them. Just be careful with wider lenses as the polarization across the sky is not even and a large expanse of sky may be well polarized on one side and hardly polarized at all on the other.

"Balancing" sky and foreground is often an exercise in futility. Graduated ND filters always look fake and darken any object that protrudes into the sky. Nothing worse IM-HO than a tall tree that's light and full of detail in the bottom half of the print and black and featureless in the top half...

What's wrong with light skies anyway? That's how they should be much of the time. I try to use the light as it is or come back later. Sure, I'll burn the sky in certain prints but rarely 3-4 stops worth; too much burning gives the same fake look as a graduated ND filter.

Best,

Doremus

[Corran]

Graduated ND filters always look fake

I beg to differ...

I'm sure I could show you a few where you'd have no idea I used a GND filter. Yes trees shooting up in the sky can be problematic though.

We perceive colored skies differently than b&w film renders and especially with regard to dynamic range, so, I would posit that oftentimes a well-placed GND in certain situations will look more "true-to-life" than a straight shot.

At the end of the day the OP must try things for themselves as likely he has his own sensibilities in this regard.

[Drew Wiley]

I appreciate your qualifier, "well-placed" ND grad. That might be realistic with a consistent horizon line on a prarie or above an ocean surface, but imposes quite a challenge in jagged mtn and tree skylines where many people seem to want to use them.

[Kiwi7475]

A color contrast filter from yellow-red will darken blue skies. In extreme cases up to 3-4 stops when using a red filter and with a really saturated blue sky (often too much for my taste). A yellow filter with a milky blue sky will have a very small effect. Looking through the filters will give you an idea. Metering through the filters and comparing the blue sky reading through the filter to a neutral-colored object (grey, white) will give you a rough idea of just how much the filter will darken the sky in comparison. Granted, this is somewhat approximate, but it's better than guessing. After a while, you'll learn which filters give more or less exposure than your meter reading and learn how to compensate.

Polarizing filters often work well and it's easy to judge what you'll get just by viewing through them. Just be careful with wider lenses as the polarization across the sky is not even and a large expanse of sky may be well polarized on one side and hardly polarized at all on the other.

"Balancing" sky and foreground is often an exercise in futility. Graduated ND filters always look fake and darken any object that protrudes into the sky. Nothing worse IM-HO than a tall tree that's light and full of detail in the bottom half of the print and black and featureless in the top half...

What's wrong with light skies anyway? That's how they should be much of the time. I try to use the light as it is or come back later. Sure, I'll burn the sky in certain prints but rarely 3-4 stops worth; too much burning gives the same fake look as a graduated ND filter.

Best,

Doremus

Why assume that the grad filter is 3 or 4 stops? I agree that that is excessive and will always look weird or fake. Traditionally, the need to use a grad is typically just to reduce the dynamic range a bit. I doubt anyone needs to compress the dynamic range by 4 stops, from like 13-14 stops dynamic range to 9-10 that can fit in b&w film. Usually a 1 or 2 (tops) stops is more than sufficient (unless you have extreme conditions such shooting a sunset straight into the sun). They also make the scene more natural to the eye because of how we perceive the color of the sky. And generally one uses “soft” rather than “hard” grads — also helps with making protruding elements not obviously “darkened”.

If your shooting slide and there’s a sky, you’re almost obligated to use one as they only have 5-6 stops of dynamic range.

Finally you can dodge during printing or even easier retouching it after scanning the negative and that removes any artifacts on protruding elements, and balances the image.

[Drew Wiley]

I find most ND grad use a default for not knowing how to choose and use the correct film to begin with. In black and white work, mastering a film with greater linearity allows selective expansion/contraction of detail itself, and not just broad generic areas. Add to this contrast filters, VC paper, masking, etc, and you've got quite an arsenal already and no logical need to fuss around with a linear grad. With chrome film trannies, there is a very fine line between finding a tad more wiggle room in exposure and making something look fishy. There's nothing quite as annoying than seeing a brilliant sky and foreground suspiciously similar, or even worse, a reflection in a pool louder than what it's reflecting. I've spent a lot of my life outdoors intently enjoying the light, and I think it deserves respect for what it actually is, and not just cheap lipstick. All tools are meant to be used; yet, at the same time, it means that any of them are capable of abuse.

[AdamD]

[QUOTE=Kiwi7475;1536109]Why assume that the grad filter is 3 or 4 stops?

It was an example just to illustrate the problem.

If my sky is 4 stops brighter than my foreground, I would like to bring it down to just 2 stops. That means I need to take 2 stops out of the sky.

How do you do that?

I'm gathering a yellow filter, but what I don't understand is, how many stops will a yellow filter darken the sky? 1 stop? What about a yellow orange filter? 2 stops?

I've come to this conclusion, b&w film doesn't tend to need GND filters, but instead color filters. That was confusing to me initially. But now I don't quite understand the relationship between the filter and the impact it has on the intensity of the light. I get the color shift, but not the impact.

[BrianShaw]

Did you look at the B+W filter catalogue that Doremus provided a link? That or the Hoya or the Tiffen catalogue... and innumerable web sites show examples of the impact of contrast filters. Plus they cite the filter factors.

[Drew Wiley]

It's just basic color wheel theory, except that b&w films see color values somewhat different than we do. Nearly every situation of natural lighting can be a bit different because you're rarely dealing with pure blue or red or whatever. Even foliage greens reflect quite a bit of red light too, apparent in Fall when chlorophyll is gone and red or yellow leaves remain. So it takes some experience to realistically assess the impact of a given contrast filter on any specific scene. But if you want to get a general impression of how a deep red filter, for example, affects scene contrast, just get a pair of red glasses from someone who sells lasers, and view the world around you.

[Kiwi7475]

[QUOTE=Kiwi7475;1536109]Why assume that the grad filter is 3 or 4 stops?

It was an example just to illustrate the problem.

If my sky is 4 stops brighter than my foreground, I would like to bring it down to just 2 stops. That means I need to take 2 stops out of the sky.

How do you do that?

I'm gathering a yellow filter, but what I don't understand is, how many stops will a yellow filter darken the sky? 1 stop? What about a yellow orange filter? 2 stops?

I've come to this conclusion, b&w film doesn't tend to need GND filters, but instead color filters. That was confusing to me initially. But now I don't quite understand the relationship between the filter and the impact it has on the intensity of the light. I get the color shift, but not the impact.

Sometimes we may overthink things too much.
A yellow/orange filter will introduce 1.5 to 2 stops loss, a red typically 3 stops, but in the end the manufacturer tells us that or we can find it ourselves with a meter.
Now, it is also a tuned color filter and as such it will change the transmission depending on the wavelength. If I have a red rose and use a red filter, I will lose ~3 stops, the rose will appear basically white, and any greens will get darker. With a green filter maybe I lose ~1 stop and the rose will appear dark and the leaves fairly light.
You can’t make a general rule because it depends on what your camera is looking at. Even the same red filter may give you a different effect for the sky at a different time of the day!
So I’d suggest to just account for the nominal filter loss and consider that generally you will darken/lighten according to what you have in front of you based on general rules.

[tuco]

... What I mean by balance is to reduce the difference between foreground to sky to 2 stops from say 3 or 4 stops. In this case, I need to darken the sky by 1 or 2 stops to balance the exposure. Am I making sense? ... If so, how many stops will a yellow filter bring down a blue sky? How about yellow orange? If not, how would you accommodate a 3 to 4 stop variance between sky and foreground? For me in Arizona, that's a normal day; a ton of sunshine!!

Your 'balance' from using colored filters will come in the form of tonality changes. The filter will drop the EV values of the entire scene as already noted. But darkening say the sky a little in tonality with a colored filter may look like you've reduced the exposure for that area for instance.

There a lot of factors besides a colored filter that determine how dark your sky will get when using them. How blue the sky is and where you placed your middle grey exposure will affect the outcome, for example. If you are in the city and use a yellow or orange filter, chances are a the filter will not darken your sky as much as being up high in the mountains in a remote area. I can't give quantitative values except to say a red filter will darken the sky more than a orange and an orange will darken it more than a yellow. Consult a Color Wheel to see why. Colored filters lighten their color and darken the opposite color as seen on a color wheel and to a lesser degree with adjacent colors the further away from the filter color you get.

Graduated filters can help but they are not always the answer. If you have say tall trees or building protruding into the sky, the grad ND will darken them too. With BW film, you can compress your highlights when developing the film. That is how you can tackle your problem. And you can use the colored filters to aid in separating colors that would otherwise reproduce to a similar shade of grey without their use.

[Doremus Scudder]

I beg to differ...

I'm sure I could show you a few where you'd have no idea I used a GND filter. Yes trees shooting up in the sky can be problematic though.

We perceive colored skies differently than b&w film renders and especially with regard to dynamic range, so, I would posit that oftentimes a well-placed GND in certain situations will look more "true-to-life" than a straight shot.

At the end of the day the OP must try things for themselves as likely he has his own sensibilities in this regard.


Why assume that the grad filter is 3 or 4 stops? ... Usually a 1 or 2 (tops) stops is more than sufficient (unless you have extreme conditions such shooting a sunset straight into the sun). They also make the scene more natural to the eye because of how we perceive the color of the sky. And generally one uses “soft” rather than “hard” grads — also helps with making protruding elements not obviously “darkened”.

If your shooting slide and there’s a sky, you’re almost obligated to use one as they only have 5-6 stops of dynamic range.

Finally you can dodge during printing or even easier retouching it after scanning the negative and that removes any artifacts on protruding elements, and balances the image.


Corran and Kiwi,

I guess I shouldn't be so offhand with my remarks :) It's just that I see so many instances of badly-used GND filters that I have an allergic reaction whenever I see another (and I'm including cinematography, television shows, Peter Lik and his ilk and the horrible background slide show on my Chromecast as well as art photography).

And, the reference to "3-4 stops" was from the OP and in response to how color filters work; I wasn't referencing GND filters.

Any tool in the hands of a sensitive craftsman will deliver good results. And, I'm aware that transparency film poses a particular problem due to its limited dynamic range if one wants the transparency itself to be the finished product. I imagine that if I were still shooting transparency film, I'd likely look into using GND filters... However, with negative materials, black-and-white in particular, and transparencies that get scanned and post-processed, judicious burning, etc. can do the job as well as a GND. And, I really hate overly-burned in skies (with the attendant dark trees, etc.) as much as I do indiscriminate use of GND filters.

And, it should be obvious when I'm posting something that is opinion rather than fact; of course the OP and anyone else is welcome to disagree, even when I'm right :)


... I'm gathering a yellow filter, but what I don't understand is, how many stops will a yellow filter darken the sky? 1 stop? What about a yellow orange filter? 2 stops?

I've come to this conclusion, b&w film doesn't tend to need GND filters, but instead color filters. That was confusing to me initially. But now I don't quite understand the relationship between the filter and the impact it has on the intensity of the light. I get the color shift, but not the impact.

Adam,

How much a yellow filter will darken a blue sky depends on how blue the sky is. Same goes for red and orange. Read my previous post again and peruse the filter catalog I linked to. All the answers are there. Please, if you want us to help you, make the requisite effort to make that possible.

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

I think the question Adam has is as follows. If let's say we use a orange filter to darken the sky. The filter manufacturer says add two stops. Well, let's say the entire picture has a lot of blue in it. Would we need to expose even more because the filter is blocking light? O do we keep it at 2 stops. Or let's say the opposite. The scene actually has a lot of orange which will pass the color. Should we reduce the stop from 2 to let's say 1 or 1/2 stops since the orange filter is passing more of the orange color?

In other words, does the colors in the scene affect the amount of stops? Actually, that's a question I have in any case.

[tuco]

That makes sense, Alan. And it seems so variable how would it be quantified. Maybe it has been done.

[Doremus Scudder]

I think the question Adam has is as follows. If let's say we use a orange filter to darken the sky. The filter manufacturer says add two stops. Well, let's say the entire picture has a lot of blue in it. Would we need to expose even more because the filter is blocking light? O do we keep it at 2 stops. Or let's say the opposite. The scene actually has a lot of orange which will pass the color. Should we reduce the stop from 2 to let's say 1 or 1/2 stops since the orange filter is passing more of the orange color?

In other words, do the colors in the scene affect the amount of stops? Actually, that's a question I have in any case.

Alan,

You've uncovered the heart of the problem here. The manufacturers lie about filter factors! :)

Really, like most things, the closer you look at this topic, the more complex it becomes.

First, filter factors are approximate compensations to get a similar exposure for neutral-colored objects. They change around in reality based on the light source (daylight vs tungsten vs warm light at sunset vs skylit shadows, etc.), the spectral sensitivity of the film (pan, ortho, extended red sensitivity, etc.) and the colors in the scene (use a red filter to photograph a scene with nothing but saturated blue and green and you'll get just about nothing... regardless of how much you expose).

Let's take your example: We use an orange filter and hope to darken the sky using panchromatic black-and-white film. We compensate using the filter factor given by the manufacturer (two stops in this case) and we assume that the lighting (daylight here) is the same as what the manufacturer used to come up with the filter factor.

A grey card in the scene would be rendered the same middle grey as it would if we had made the photo without a filter and at the original exposure. That's what the filter factor is based on.

The blue sky will be darker in the final print (lighter in the negative) than a non-filtered photo. How much darker? That depends on how saturated blue the sky was at the time. Milky-blue sky at the seaside = less darkening. Jet-blue sky at 10,000 feet in clean alpine air = a whole lot of darkening. How do you determine how much darkening you will get before you make the photo? Many just guess, based on experience. I meter through the filter knowing that I'm not going to get a 100% accurate reading and adjust my results with the data I have from testing and taking notes; still not 100% accurate but better than guessing.

You see, coming up with a precise measurement of exactly how a given filter will affect a given object is difficult. We photographers in the field don't have the tools to make such measurements and have to guess, guesstimate, do our best with inadequate measurements, use our experience, etc., etc. But back to our scenario...

Now how about those shadows lit by blue skylight? They are going to be rendered darker in the print too since the light source for them is a whole lot bluer than daylight. How much bluer? That depends on the sky... Shadows lit by deep blue skylight may end up being inky-black (detail-less in the negative) if we aren't aware and careful when making the photo.

Now how about those orange and red leaves on the trees over there? They will be rendered lighter in the final print (darker in the negative) than a non-filtered photo. How much lighter? Depends...

Should you change your filter factor depending on the colors in a scene? Well, likely not, since we choose a filter for its effect. If you don't want blue things to be rendered darker, then don't use an orange filter and vice-versa. Evaluating the scene and choosing the filter that is going to give you the results you desire is an art in itself, and a not-really-quantifiable one :)

Should you change your filter factor depending on the color temperature of your light source? Absolutely! Film manufacturers used to give filter factors for daylight, 2700K tungsten and 3400K tungsten. Factors were different for different films for each of these sources due to the spectral sensitivity of the film. Nowadays, this seems to have slipped into the background. The laws of physics, however, haven't. Careful workers search out the data and/or do tests. Still, some scenarios are problematic. What's the right filter factor for an orange filter used to photograph something lit by orange light from a sunset? Your guess is as good as mine. Certainly, less exposure compensation will be required since the light is the same color as the filter. But my meter may not give me an accurate reading in that colored light either, so I'll meter and err on the side of overexposure to be sure. It's just not an exact science sometimes.

See what I mean?

Let's look at a couple of other examples: Let's photograph a stop sign with a deep red filter. Result in the final print? A white sign with no legible print on it at all.
The same sign with a deep green filter? Bright white lettering on a dark, almost black, background. Yellow leaves against the blue sky with a yellow filter? = lighter leaves and darker sky. How much? See above.

Best,

Doremus

[JMO]

To the OP, another thing to keep in mind is that if you are in the field and using a spot meter to determine your exposure, you can meter the scene through the actual colored filter, so you can determine what effect the filter will have on your exposure in different parts of the composition. When I do this, I have found that the mfr's recommended filter factors are usually a bit too strong, so if you follow them you'll often be overexposing somewhat. But you're in control, and with experience and all of the good advice above, you'll become more confident.

[Doremus Scudder]

To the OP, another thing to keep in mind is that if you are in the field and using a spot meter to determine your exposure, you can meter the scene through the actual colored filter, so you can determine what effect the filter will have on your exposure in different parts of the composition. When I do this, I have found that the mfr's recommended filter factors are usually a bit too strong, so if you follow them you'll often be overexposing somewhat. But you're in control, and with experience and all of the good advice above, you'll become more confident.

I do this all the time (and recommended it to the OP in my above posts...), but you have to keep in mind that the film's spectral response is not the same as the meter's. So, especially with the stronger filters, you're going to get inaccurate readings. These can be corrected by doing a few tests and finding factors for a given meter/film/filter combination. Note that this is also film-specific; I have different factors for #25 filters with Tri-X and 400TMax for example.

To complicate things more, the contrast index for a given film developed for the same time will change depending on the filter used. Again, stronger filters have the most effect. For me, 320Tri-X gains about a Zone of contrast with a #25 filter and proper compensation. I have to develop N-1 to rein things in. 400T-Max goes the other way...

Best,

Doremus

[Peter De Smidt]

I recommend that the original poster gets a yellow/green filter and an orange filter. Use them and evaluate.

For example: https://hoyafilter.com/product/x0_yellow_green/

and

https://hoyafilter.com/product/ya3_pro_orange/

If that's not enough, you can always get a red filter.

[LabRat]

I think the question Adam has is as follows. If let's say we use a orange filter to darken the sky. The filter manufacturer says add two stops. Well, let's say the entire picture has a lot of blue in it. Would we need to expose even more because the filter is blocking light? O do we keep it at 2 stops. Or let's say the opposite. The scene actually has a lot of orange which will pass the color. Should we reduce the stop from 2 to let's say 1 or 1/2 stops since the orange filter is passing more of the orange color?

In other words, does the colors in the scene affect the amount of stops? Actually, that's a question I have in any case.

This is how filters work on optics.... Same colors pass with very little cut, but complementary colors are where the filter factors are...

The next problem is Pan film has a range of color sensitivity that varies slightly across the visual spectrum, so factors can vary between different films, so this is where testing for specific filter factors comes into play... You do it to account for different films, not the filter's density...

Depending on the colors in a scene, you can reach the point of contrast that can exceed the range of the film, so try to make intelligent, informed choices when selecting a filter if a full range result is desired...

Steve K

[Doremus Scudder]

... so try to make intelligent, informed choices when selecting a filter if a full range result is desired...

Steve K

That about sums it up :)

[Drew Wiley]

Manufacturers DON'T lie about filter factors! - certainly not in my experience. What they are necessarily doing is providing GENERIC recommendations based on their own specific films and what a particular filter designation does. Even allegedly matched filters can vary somewhat between manufacturer to manufacturer. Filter sometime fade.
Specific films differ somewhat with respect to precise spectral sensitivity, even within the same overall Panchromatic designation. This all means that one need to run an actual test to find his own ideal filter factor in each case, but it will generally be close to the published value. And once you've arrived at this, it will be a more accurate method of adjusting exposure, using these filter factors, then reading with a meter through a filter, because meters have their own spectral sensitivity which is not likely to be the same as the film itself. TTL metering in small camera can be even more deceptive. In my own work in the field, I just apply the appropriate filter factor and am done with it. Seems to work every single time for me.

[Doremus Scudder]

Manufacturers DON'T lie about filter factors! - certainly not in my experience. What they are necessarily doing is providing GENERIC recommendations based on their own specific films and what a particular filter designation does. Even allegedly matched filters can vary somewhat between manufacturer to manufacturer. Filter sometime fade.
Specific films differ somewhat with respect to precise spectral sensitivity, even within the same overall Panchromatic designation. This all means that one need to run an actual test to find his own ideal filter factor in each case, but it will generally be close to the published value. And once you've arrived at this, it will be a more accurate method of adjusting exposure, using these filter factors, then reading with a meter through a filter, because meters have their own spectral sensitivity which is not likely to be the same as the film itself. TTL metering in small camera can be even more deceptive. In my own work in the field, I just apply the appropriate filter factor and am done with it. Seems to work every single time for me.

Drew,

I know, I know... Hence the smiley face. It's something I tell my students all the time after they figure out that I've simplified something in order to give them a basic understanding. I say "I lied..." tongue firmly in cheek, "... and now on to the next level."

Many just see a filter factor and take that as gospel; they don't know that it's generic information or anything about how to go about testing and compensating.

Certainly, you must admit, that information regarding filter factors has become even more generic over the years. I miss the tungsten and film-specific factors manufacturers used to publish.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for clarifying that. Some tech sheets give both daylight as well as tungsten factors, but both of them are just starting points. A wasted roll of cheap 120 film shooting gray card bracketed exposures with any unfamiliar new filter is time and money well spent before moving on.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for clarifying that. Some tech sheets give both daylight as well as tungsten factors, but both of them are just starting points. A wasted roll of cheap 120 film shooting gray card bracketed exposures with any unfamiliar new filter is time and money well spent before moving on.

May as well add that ISO as well as guide numbers are also starting points.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, you can add that, Bob. I've never used a guide number in my life. My older brother was taught to do that in commercial Photo School. I never use flash.

[AdamD]

You guys are amazing. Thank you all for the help. Now I have half a plan. I know exactly what color filters I want to start with Yellow and orange. My only lens is a Fuji W 150mm which (I think) uses 55mm filters. I'd like to get a 90mm next and I'm pretty sure is will NOT have a 55mm thread. Then after that I'd like to go with a 300mm and again, pretty sure it wont have 55mm threads.

So, in your experience, is it better to go with circular threaded filters and use reducers OR use the square shape filter holders OR is it all 6 of one, half dozen of another? I'm leaning towards the square shaped ones, because I'm pretty certain they will work on any lens. Just seems to be a good way to go. But I'm kinda clueless. That's why I'm here.

Thanks!!

Adam

[Peter De Smidt]

Do some research and figure out the filter threads of the lenses you might get. Then get filters in the biggest size, and use step-up rings on the other lenses. I prefer the quality of multi-coated, glass, round filters. Resin/gelatin filters might be ok at first, but in my experience they soon become scratched just from taking them out of their envelopes.

[Drew Wiley]

I exclusively use multicoated round thread-on glass filters in the field, or single-coated if it's the only option in a particular tint I need yet still high quality. They last longer than other options, are easier to clean, attract less dirt, less reflections, better scratch-resistance etc. Various brands: Hoya, B&W, Heliopan, Singh-Ray, a few Tiffens.

[Kiwi7475]

You’re likely going to get many answers based on preferences... so here’s my 2c:

If you ever go into grad filters you’ll need a holder, as you can’t do that with a screw in filter. It’s safe to assume that a 100mm filter system will be sufficient for 90% of the lenses out there. So you can get color resin filters that are cheap or more expensive glass ones. You can add a polarizer, NDs, warming, grad filter, etc.... as you build your collection, and all you need are adapter rings to convert from any size lens filter ring to the holder size. Typically adapters for 52, 67, 72 and 77 mm is all you will need. NISI, Hitech, Breakthrough, Lee, etc are good brands for film holders.
You can definitely go the screw in route and buy the largest size ones, and worry that if you stack filters (color+polarizer or color+ND+polarizer) you may get vignetting— rectangular filters don’t typically have that issue. This may or may not be an issue depending on your type of photography.
Of course it’s also a question of upfront investment, with a single lens buying 2 screw in filters it’s cheap. You can decide later if/what route to follow.

[Drew Wiley]

One really only needs a few filters to get started. I often take long trips with only two contrast filters; never a polarizer. It's easy to overcomplicate this topic. Take your best educated guess, based on various experienced opinions, get only the filters you think you most need, practice with those, and take it a step at a time.

[AdamD]

Yeah...that's what I'm doing...I think a yellow and a yellow orange will be a perfect start. I am just not sure about the format (square/round).

[LabRat]

A big difference between round and flat filters is when you do a lot of night shooting or with very bright specular highlight shooting... Very bright points of light can reflect between filter and (usually) a flat element inside some lenses causing doubling of fine bright highlights on the film... This is made worse by the filter angle not exactly in alignment (with the slight tilt of the filter)... The filter mounting is critical in this application...

I found this problem critical when using longer Tele lenses at night with distant pinpoint streetlights that could double or triple...

Screw in filters of good quality minimized this...

If I just had one B/W filter, I hope it would be a medium to dark green, as most films have a slight peak in green response, the green tends to create some extra separation in highlights, can make skies richer, lightens water and growth well even into the shadows, and is in the sweet spot for correction with the older lenses I use... Can increase apparent sharpness... And places the tonal scale within the printing range well...

Steve K

[BradS]

Yeah...that's what I'm doing...I think a yellow and a yellow orange will be a perfect start. I am just not sure about the format (square/round).

Like Drew hinted...don’t overthink it. Filters aren’t really necessary and you may find that you rarely use one. So, Just get a couple high quality screw in filters for the lens you have and start making pictures. 55mm screw in filters are relatively inexpensive. I bet that if you asked in the classified section , you’d get some cheap or nearly free.

[Joe O'Hara]

The way I think about filters, which I think Doremus was getting at, is in terms of adjusting (usually accentuating) contrast to make something stand out.

For instance, if I want the clouds (if present) to be more prominent in a blue sky, I would use a medium yellow (low to moderate effect) or light red (stronger effect) filter. Since they take out some of the blue, they're going to make the clouds stand out more (the filter factor gets them back close to their original brightness, but the sky is left behind a bit since it's blue). Those are the only two I carry, in addition to a polarizer. If I were photographing sandstone out in Utah, for instance, I might want a green one too to increase the contrast of reddish stripes in the rock.

Similarly if I want gray branches to stand out against green foliage, I'd probably use the medium red (23A) filter. That would darken the foliage relative to the branches.

In other words, it's not a matter of how many stops you're lightening or darkening something. It's about increasing contrasts by taking advantage of color that is present.

Note, shadows on sunny days are bluer than directly lit objects. Filters can darken shadows, too. You can use that to your advantage in some situations.

Regarding polarizers, they're good for adjusting the amount of "specular" reflection (glare, in layman's terms) on shiny objects like water and leaves. No law says you have to rotate them to the maximum position; that can look unnatural. They will darken blue skies, but since the degree of polarization in the sky depends on the angle from the sun (maximum at 90 degrees) you have to use them with care. Polarizers are good for glare even on cloudy days since light reflected at small angles is usually polarized. They won't help the sky on cloudy days, though.

Polarizing filter, sky in the picture, wide-angle lens: Choose any two. (You'll usually be OK with a 150mm lens on 4x5 in my experience.)

ND grads, though practically a necessity with color transparency film, are not often necessary in B/W in my opinion. If you're willing to deal with a lower effective film speed, a pyro or other strongly compensating developer will tame almost any landscape + sky situation. Again, that is just my own opinion.

Separately, if you're just beginning to accumulate gear, don't forget about a lens shade. I think they are at least as important as having some filters.