Grad ND, Contrast and Color FIlter Setup with Center Filter

[Alan Klein]

I'm shooting 4x5. The largest lens I have is a 90mm lens with center filter. The lens takes a 82mm filter if used without the center filter. The center filter outer ring is 105mm. I also have a 75mm lens with 67mm filter size but no CF purchased yet. If I buy a CF, it will have an outer ring of 86mm. I also have a 150mm lens with 58mm filter size. I shoot mainly landscapes in BW and color chromes.

I want to be able to use polarizers, graduated neutral density, warming, and BW contrast filters. I want one set of filters sized for all lenses. For those in a similar situation, what's your setup like?

[Corran]

I want to be able to use polarizers, graduated neutral density, warming, and BW contrast filters. I want one set of filters sized for all lenses.

Sounds like you already know that you need a set of 105mm filters then.

[Alan Klein]

Sounds like you already know that you need a set of 105mm filters then.

Yes. But the issue is how to integrate graduated ND filters with other filters. Graduated filter are best with the square sliding type. But that limits how to mount the holder. In which order? There may be issues of vignetting. Etc. That's why I'm asking how others have handled this.

[Corran]

105mm ring to your square filter holder of choice. Vignetting won't be an issue in most situations if you have lenses of modest IC for landscape. Most of these issues are really overblown.
Personally 105mm is way too big. I standardize on 77mm. The oddballs get their own filters or none at all. Focus on what matters the most, the image, and then buy specifically what you find you need after practicing with what you have.

[C. D. Keth]

Grads do make the whole thing a little trickier because you really need rectangular filters to make grads work and so you can place the gradient. Screw on grads are useless.

You just have to settle on a rectangular filter system and get rings for the lenses you'll need it on. Most systems have a wide angle holder to avoid vignetting wide lenses. That usually just means you only get one or maybe two filter stages instead of three. A 75mm shouldn't be too tough to fit without vignetting.

[alan_b]

I chose to skip the CF for my 90/4.5 and stick with 4x6" grads. Using CFs for wider lenses, 65 & 75.

Round polarizer mounted directly to lens/CF. Lee adapter in front of polarizer which is kind of awkward, and I'm looking for a better way.

As an aside, I use a 150mm filter holder w/ integrated polarizer for commercial 35mm architecture work and I hate it, but one lens requires it...

[Alan Klein]

Well right now I have a 77mm filter set from my medium format camera including square grads. So I can use it on the 75mm and 150mm lens with simple adapters. I probably should have gotten a 90mm lens with smaller filter size under 77mm and kept it simple. But that's kinda late. So I guess I'll just take some pictures and see what becomes necessary as I go along.

[Alan Klein]

105mm ring to your square filter holder of choice. Vignetting won't be an issue in most situations if you have lenses of modest IC for landscape. Most of these issues are really overblown.
Personally 105mm is way too big. I standardize on 77mm. The oddballs get their own filters or none at all. Focus on what matters the most, the image, and then buy specifically what you find you need after practicing with what you have.

Why is 105mm "way too big"? What did you mean?

[Lachlan 717]

When I had the same setup with a 90mm f5.6 (and the 72mm), I would simply Blutac the Grad in place.

[Drew Wiley]

The inner thread diameter of the CF is 82mm, the outer much larger, almost a funnel effect, so that the lens/CF combination can be used with maximum movement when stopped down to the rated f/22 or so recommended with CF filters. I don't see how a Cokin ND grad is going to help even things out if the bigger elephant in the room is circular falloff itself, which the CF corrects. A Cokin ND grad would also introduce a bit more spacing and flare issue. Ideally, it would be used even further oversized outside the 90 lens/CF sandwich, which would still allow a circular contrast filter to be used in between if desired. If one opted for the smaller 90/8 Nikkor with a 67 CF instead of the 90/4.5 with an 82mm CF, then the cumulative density of all that intervening filtration can make considerably dimmer focus and composition a distinct chore, so in this respect the brighter 90/4.5 SW is a distinct luxury. Yes, the CF can be used optionally. But if movements are modest, and it's well stopped down, then the 77mm system might work. You would just have to look through the cut corners of the ground glass to see if there's any mechanical vignetting or not.

[Eric Leppanen]

If you regularly use ND grad filters then I think 4x6" ND grads are the way to go with LF. Re your problem child 90mm lens with CF: there is a press-on filter holder that can accommodate this, but it is expensive and is not a good solution for combining an ND grad with a circular polarizer:

https://www.robertwhite.co.uk/lee-filters-100mm-system-115mm-push-on-filter-holder.html

With this setup I would position a square linear polarizer in front of the ND grad, which would not always provide optimal polarization since it could only be positioned in 90 degree increments, but often that would be adequate. I used this setup mostly with my 8x10 camera and did not experience any significant vignetting issues. I doubt you would see much vignetting with your 90mm lens with CF on 4x5 with just an ND grad, but suspect you might see some when you add the square polarizer on top.

Frankly it would be more practical to either accept the light falloff without the CF or purchase a smaller lens.

[Corran]

Why is 105mm "way too big"? What did you mean?

I don't want to carry around 105mm filters. They are way too big, heavy, and/or expensive. Most of the time I don't even use GND filters, I just wave the darkslide in front of the lens for half or 3/4 of the exposure to get 1 or 2 stops of "GND."

I'm still perplexed why you can't just do exactly what you do with MF on 4x5. It's literally no different, except you might have to check your coverage if you go overboard with filtration and movements on wide or ultrawide lenses.

[Alan Klein]

The inner thread diameter of the CF is 82mm, the outer much larger, almost a funnel effect, so that the lens/CF combination can be used with maximum movement when stopped down to the rated f/22 or so recommended with CF filters. I don't see how a Cokin ND grad is going to help even things out if the bigger elephant in the room is circular falloff itself, which the CF corrects. A Cokin ND grad would also introduce a bit more spacing and flare issue. Ideally, it would be used even further oversized outside the 90 lens/CF sandwich, which would still allow a circular contrast filter to be used in between if desired. If one opted for the smaller 90/8 Nikkor with a 67 CF instead of the 90/4.5 with an 82mm CF, then the cumulative density of all that intervening filtration can make considerably dimmer focus and composition a distinct chore, so in this respect the brighter 90/4.5 SW is a distinct luxury. Yes, the CF can be used optionally. But if movements are modest, and it's well stopped down, then the 77mm system might work. You would just have to look through the cut corners of the ground glass to see if there's any mechanical vignetting or not.
Your point seems to indicate the elephant in the room if you don't use the CF. Wouldn't the Cokin grad ND filter work similarly as on any other lens once you put the CF on the 90mm?
Regarding using the 77mm filter set, how would you do that with adapters?

[Drew Wiley]

Well yes, without the CF you have 1-1/2 stops of falloff center to edge. With it, you're back to even illumination. It would be best to attach 82mm circular contrast filters directly to the lens, then the CF into that. Your Cokin ND grad system has an optional 82mm adapter. You'd need one on each side if you're going to place that in-line too, but they're inexpensive.

[Corran]

Drew, you're making things much too complicated for him.

Alan, you really don't need a CF for your 90mm lens in most applications. All you are doing here is needlessly twisting yourself into knots over an almost non-existent problem. I have shot literally thousands of sheets of 4x5 with various 90mm lenses and have used a CF with maybe 2 or 3.

You can learn 100x more about what you need by just shooting a bit with your current gear and evaluating what you get on the film. And if you are worried about critical images, you need to test, test, and test again anyway before shooting those images.

[Drew Wiley]

Corran, I just noticed on a different forum he's fond of Velvia. Understanding center filter use in that case is rather important; it's an unforgiving film in terms of latitude, and losing a stop and a half in the corners will stand out like a sore thumb. For ordinary black and white film work, the CF could be considered optional.

[Corran]

Perhaps you can help me find the dire amounts of fall-off on this sheet of Velvia shot with a 90mm and generous front rise I shot long ago, before I knew what a CF even was:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RyR6iDX0QyQ/UP28H5xcfmI/AAAAAAAACSU/rp37Yhyof0Y/s900/Untitled-57s.jpg

[Alan Klein]

Well, right now my holders are loaded only with Tmax 100. Steven suggested I shoot two sheets with my 90mm (Nikkor f/4.5) with and without the CF on the same shot to see the difference and what I liked. I have heard though that color is more sensitive as Drew mentioned. But I'll try the same procedure of two shots once I start shooting my Velvia. Corran-nice picture.

I have a 75mm (Fujinon f5.6 SWD) on order but no CF. I suspect that's going to be more of an issue. All I have to say is medium format was a lot easier. All four lenses I had took the same sized 77mm filter and I didnt have to deal with LF issues like CF's. :)

[Drew Wiley]

If you can't see the falloff in that image, Corran, maybe you need a white cane instead of a tripod. I don't know how much you've tinkered with it in PS to post it, but I'd hate to try to salvage print that image. It's an attractive scene, but the wrong film choice if you don't like using center filters. Let's hope the new E100 survives the present financial upheaval; it would do a lot more justice to the hues in the scene,
but still would need a center filter to handle the full contrast range ideally.

[Corran]

I can't physically roll my eyes hard enough.

[Drew Wiley]

Alan, like I suggested, simply experiment with the CF for color film applications at least, without adding an accessory ND grad system, and then keep it in your field kit if necessary. And then experiment with shooting black and white images without the CF, giving them a bit extra exposure so that there is still content in the corners you can print. Yes, there will be quite a bit more falloff with a 75mm lens, so you will need to get accustomed to a darkened corner look in open skies etc, and how to accommodate that creatively. These are all individual tools which can be used selectively as needed.

[Alan Klein]

What's interesting is the vignetting in Clyde Butcher's photos. I don't know if they were added when printing or because he didn't use a CF? Whatever, it doesn;t hurt his sales.
https://clydebutcher.com/pc/photographs/florida-collection/

[6x6TLL]

As I recall from a recent exhibition at The Getty, Sally Mann also had vignetting in quite a lot of her shots. She explained that she had gear that had been given or gifted to her, or bought cheaply just to have something to work with, and she invited "happy accidents" both in front of and behind the lens.

The vignetting aspect didn't seem to interfere with her success, and in many cases helps to draw the eye into the photograph. In others I do agree that it can be distracting and not what you want.

[Corran]

Clyde uses ultrawide lenses a lot. I mean really wide...90mm is practically a telephoto for him, unless you are talking about on 8x10.

[Drew Wiley]

Clyde seems to like to make very big prints intended to be viewed as if you were standing within the scene, rather than looking at it like a framed picture on the wall. The combination of big formats and achieving great depth of field in swamp etc scenes almost mandates very wide focal lengths anyway. It's an interesting strategy. Sally Mann in one of those persons who likes to do all kinds of artsy deliberately flawed things. She also sometimes used lenses with fungus growing between the elements. Does that mean you or I should? One person's ticket to success soon becomes just another cliche commodity. Falloff or the lack thereof is just another compositional tool, a choice. There's no sense making a religion out of it, or becoming a mimic of somebody else just because they're well-known. One needs to find their own shoe size.

[Bob Salomon]

Clyde seems to like to make very big prints intended to be viewed as if you were standing within the scene, rather than looking at it like a framed picture on the wall. The combination of big formats and achieving great depth of field in swamp etc scenes almost mandates very wide focal lengths anyway. It's an interesting strategy. Sally Mann in one of those persons who likes to do all kinds of artsy deliberately flawed things. She also sometimes used lenses with fungus growing between the elements. Does that mean you or I should? One person's ticket to success soon becomes just another cliche commodity. Falloff or the lack thereof is just another compositional tool, a choice. There's no sense making a religion out of it, or becoming a mimic of somebody else just because they're well-known. One needs to find their own shoe size.

I visited him at his studio in the Everglades a couple of times. You could look out his window and see alligators walking or sunning behind his house and when leaving he warned about moccasins possibly on the front steps!

Quite a place!

[Drew Wiley]

I sometimes had rattlers right on the front doormat. Not here, but up in the hills. Then there was an incident at an Arizona voting station a few days ago where they had to temporarily hold the voting line back in order to remove a rattler. At least they rattle; water moccasins don't.

[Corran]

A friend of mine built one of Clyde's cameras. I could tell you a lot more about how some of his images are made and why they are like they are but that's not the point of the thread. Anyway, the fall-off from a 110-120 degree ultrawide lens like the 47mm XL on 4x5 is a much different situation than a 90mm on 4x5, and as I've shown above not even much of a concern for transparency material, Drew's ridiculous statements not withstanding.

As one guy near here likes to say, just "Shoot some Film, Dangit!"

[Drew Wiley]

You've obviously never been involved in serious repro work, Corran. I had glossy magazine publishers who refused to accept anything Velvia, period. And they had real scanners, not toy ones, and entire art departments. I've shot and printed various flavors of Velvia in every format up to 8x10. I recently printed a big Fuji Supergloss from a very nice interneg made from a master interpositive made from a triple-masked 8x10 Velvia original. Would you even know how to begin doing that? Every single step requires exact control. If the first step is off, like an uneven exposure to begin with, every other step just makes it worse. Do what you like, and if you enjoy it and get results acceptable to you, I certainly can't criticize that. But at the same time, you give out some blatantly ignorant advice. If you can afford to waste film with shoot from the hip amateurish methodology, that's your choice.

[Corran]

Drew, you really need a reality check. Absolutely none of that blather matters one iota to anyone here. In case you've missed it or forgotten, the commercial market has moved on from film, so "serious repro" work on film is dead and buried. Alan is not asking about repro work, nor is he asking about magazine images, or internegatives, or anything of the sort.

The problem with your "advice" is that it's irrelevant, even if you are correct for that use-case. There are perhaps a handful of people still printing positive images in the darkroom in some way, while the vast majority are scanning+digital printing, and so again, your information is irrelevant. You really do new practitioners a disservice by implying they are doing something wrong or half-assed because they don't follow some strict process standards from a dead and gone industry. Please stop and consider where the vast, vast majority of LF users come from TODAY, and not decades ago.

[Drew Wiley]

Do you think nobody here cares about quality control? Is everyone so rich they can wing it at today's color sheet film pricing? Does personal color printing have a lower standard than commercial - hell know - it has a higher standard! Do you think you can fix things in PS that can't be fixed in a darkroom; if you do, then it just confirms that you don't have a good handle on the question itself. If it ain't on the film to begin with, you can't salvage it. Who do you think you are, allegedly speaking for "everyone" else?, or by snidely implying color darkroom printers are somehow "backward" or out-of-step? Show me one inkjet print on the planet that can come up to optimized real darkroom standards or equivalent laser-printing on RA4 materials? Now go convince somebody else that Burger King tastes every bit as good as a Porterhouse steak. Because that is exactly what you sound like, as far as I'm concerned. I never claimed my information is mandatory. It's available for those who might want to take an equivalent path, and there are evidently quite a number of them. People still buy brushes and pigment and canvas just like they did five hundred years ago. Does that mean they're backwards?

[Corran]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/019/304/old.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

I chose not to be a High School teacher. Now I know why. The cartoon is cute. But aren't you a bit hypocritical shooting a view camera, perhaps wooden, and calling me backwards for printing color in a highly equipped darkroom?

[Alan Klein]

I think I stirred up a hornet's nest. :) Well I consider us all friends and don't want anyone to devolve into character assassinations. We all have our skills and experiences that's important to share. I admire your talents and learn a lot from both of you. Varied opinions are stimulating and educational. So thanks.

[Corran]

Nah, no hornet's nest here. I suggest you look at the image I posted and consider critically the amount of fall-off it presents on Velvia (almost none). You may find you want a CF on your 90 at some point but I doubt you'll find yourself needing it with every shot, unless your goal is perfectly even photos of plain grey walls.

If you'll indulge me one more photo. Here is an early photo I shot on Velvia 50 almost 10 years ago, with a plain vanilla Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f/8, and with some front rise. Very even lighting in shade. Don't be fooled by the darker cement color on the upper area, but yes it does show a bit of fall-off overall. Nothing to get excited about or ruin the photo - it made a fantastic 30x24 print.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yYQa880cwXo/TrirdMl18hI/AAAAAAAAAKo/tdGK0MI00_s/s700/007-30x24p.jpg

Be sure to let Drew know if you are doing critical repro work, otherwise you really don't need to overly worry about a CF. Personally, I don't even use one very often with my 47mm and 58mm lenses, which are way wider and have more fall-off.

[Tin Can]

+1

Twice

[Alan Klein]

Well, I already have the CF for the 90mm but not for the 75mm on order. So I'll shoot both ways and see what's up. I'll hold off buy any new filter sets until I make up my mind. Thanks all.

[Alan Klein]

OK so I finally got out and shot the 75mm and 90mm (with and without the CF) with Tmax 100. I added 1 1/2 stops with the CF on the 90mm. I should have added 1/3 of stop as I was down in the single digits for time, around 1 sec for one and three for the other. Large format is fidgety. A lot of stuff going on.

I noticed some deer crp nearby and forget to spray myself with Deet or Permethrin. The ticks around here in New Jersey are really bad with Lyme disease. It's like a "walking dead" movie. Either the Lyme will get you or the coronavirus. It ain't safe to go out. :)