Using Rosco sheets in place of Wratten gel filters?

[Steve Goldstein]

Does anyone use Rosco filters in place of Kodak Wratten filters? The larger size, like 5x5 and 6x6 inch, Wrattens are hard to find in good condition and the few NOS ones that are available on eBay are quite pricey at over USD50. A 20x24 inch sheet of Rosco material is well under $20. I don't know how the Rosco material compares optically with a good-condition Wratten, has anyone tried substituting Rosco for Wratten?

[Pieter]

I don't think the Roscoes are of optical quality. Their intended use is for lighting.

[Greg]

Personal experience many years ago...
right behind the lens - didn't work - forgot why
right in front of the lens - better
About six inches in front of the lens - worked best but beware of reflections. I fabricated a box in front of the lens with a "lenshood" in front of the filter using black Foamcore. It was a bit bulky but did work. I also was only enlarging 4x5 Chromes to 11x14s. I bought a small pile of filters from a State surplus store. They were unmarked so I had no idea at the time if they were Rosco brand. I'd say it would be well worth $20 to try one out.

[nolindan]

I use Rosco filters when I want something 'odd' - say Cyan. Optically they are very good, certainly overkill for lighting. I use them in a (don't quite know what to call it - fold down?) 3x3" gel filter holder.

Rosco sells 3x6" swatchbooks - a couple of hundred filters for $50 along with the spectral curve for each filter https://www.amazon.com/Rosco-Roscolux-Designer-Selector-Swatchbook/dp/B074V94RNR/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3I59ONE95H7FA&keywords=rosco+swatchbook&qid=1698712373&sprefix=rosco+swatchbook%2Caps%2C115&sr=8-4

[BrianShaw]

I’ve done it. It works. They scratch and fingerprint easily, but no more so than a Kodak gel. And they get crimp marks easily too. I mounted the Rosco material in cardboard filter holders. Since they are for lighting there probably is quality difference in a photo filter situation. The color quality is high so if a budget alternative is desired Rosco gels may be the best solution.

[Steve Goldstein]

Thanks guys, this is encouraging. I’ve added a sheet of R10 to my B+H shopping cart, that looks to be very close to a Wratten 8 and will test it against a glass filter.

[jnantz]

Does anyone use Rosco filters in place of Kodak Wratten filters? The larger size, like 5x5 and 6x6 inch, Wrattens are hard to find in good condition and the few NOS ones that are available on eBay are quite pricey at over USD50. A 20x24 inch sheet of Rosco material is well under $20. I don't know how the Rosco material compares optically with a good-condition Wratten, has anyone tried substituting Rosco for Wratten?

Hi Steve

I got a bunch of Rosco gels from a lighting house IDK 10 years ago. I use them for making Tri Chromes the filters I needed were impossible to find the sizes I needed. they work great!

John

[Eric Woodbury]

I use the big lighting gels, too. Cut them to whatever size is needed. Put them in a cardboard holder. Some I've had a very long time. They work well and a stack of them weigh nothing.

-ew-

[Neal Chaves]

I use Rosco yellow and magenta gels cut to 11.75"X11.75" to adjust contrast of VC papers in my 8X10 Beseler cold light enlarger with W45 tube. 15 Yellow is my normal. I place the filter on top of the diffusion sheet below the tube. Have used this successfully since 2010.

[Drew Wiley]

Those are heat-resistant lighting gels which are not really suitable as lens filters. You'll have some loss of sharpness. Just depends how fussy you need to be, and how much the image is enlarged. The same could be said for cheap pseudo-gels cut from polyester sheeting rather than true gelatin or dyed acrylic resin. I keep an inexpensive set of Lee poly "gels" on hand for testing purposes only. Of course, coated glass filters are the best. For non-image-forming applications, lighting gels can sometimes be an economical alternative. But it wouldn't make much difference if the commercial 4X5 shot involved gets actually reduced in size for sake of advertising use, which has happened to me, and many others too.

Another distinction with true Wrattens made from actual gelatin is the very specific spectrogram information and fade properties to each of them available in the Wratten handbook. Just because a particular lighting gel looks similar in color doesn't mean the dyes are truly equivalent in performance. But true gels have gotten quite expensive, and there's no guarantee that old ones haven't faded to some extent already. Some are no longer even made.

[Mark Sampson]

I've wondered about this too. Seems like it would be worth a try- a few sheets of film and paper will give the answer.
It may be that getting the tones where you want them is more important than how sharp the fine details are recorded, at least on occasion. And you might not be sacrificing anything.

[PRJ]

I used some lighting gels once, don't remember if they were Roscos, in front of a pinhole camera. It was obvious they caused banding so the gels aren't uniform. Whether or not that would affect your application would depend on what you are doing. Probably won't, but they do affect sharpness a bit. Will that matter? It will depend on you.

[Willie]

Old and sub par lenses it won't make a lot of difference.
Buy premium quality lenses and use sub par filters - Why?

[BrianShaw]

I used some lighting gels once, don't remember if they were Roscos, in front of a pinhole camera. It was obvious they caused banding so the gels aren't uniform. Whether or not that would affect your application would depend on what you are doing. Probably won't, but they do affect sharpness a bit. Will that matter? It will depend on you.

That can be alleviated by using an effective lens hood/shade.

[Vaidotas]

And Kodak wratten gels are still around, patience and luck pays off.

[jnantz]

I used some lighting gels once, don't remember if they were Roscos, in front of a pinhole camera. It was obvious they caused banding so the gels aren't uniform. Whether or not that would affect your application would depend on what you are doing. Probably won't, but they do affect sharpness a bit. Will that matter? It will depend on you.

I found that it didn't matter at all for me, had no issues with sharpness or banding or anything else. To be honest, I would have used kodak ( or other well known brand ) glass filters with the correct filter number for my application but
the only ones I found were a small diameter and those ( the wrong ones ) would have cost a small fortune. ... I figure I spent probably 10bucks in total for a lifetime supply of tri chrome fun ...

[nolindan]

I'm as much of a sharpness geek as anyone. I make 20x24's from 35mm negatives and examine the corners of the prints with a 10x jeweler's loupe. APO lenses for 4x5 and the enlarger. Even as I argue that nobody ever said "That would have been a great photograph if only he had used a Leica lens" (change brand as appropriate).

I have never noticed sharpness degradation from using Rosco gels. From the comments, it seems folks who have actually used them are quite satisfied. I understand the horror of buying a $4,000 lens and plopping a few cents worth of colored plastic in front of it - but think of the bohemian cachet of it all.

So try them - you might be surprised how well they work. Certainly doesn't cost anything.

[Drew Wiley]

Another big negative over coated glass - plastic filters of any type are electrostatic and attract dust. That can be a big headache in the field. True gels had a somewhat different Achilles heel - fragile, easily crease-marked or fingerprinted, dust could get embedded. I only use them in the lab for special applications. But like I already hinted, I keep a set of cheap polyester filters on hand myself - great for "what if" testing purposes.