PDA

View Full Version : Fall color enhancing



gnuyork
16-Nov-2010, 07:53
I have never used filters on my 4x5, and very little in 35mm. I used to use a red 25 for B&W, and I had a cheap circular polarizer that I probably never used properly.

Anyhow, I just got my first pair (actually 2) of prescription sunglasses, and the fall colors around here this season just jump right out at me.

Is there a filter that accomplishes this? My sunglasses are not polarized, but they are the Ray Ban G 15 tint, which is like a greenish gray.

Would I get similar effects with a polarizer, and if so should I get a regular polarizer or a circular. Do circulars even exist for LF??

Thanks

Jack Dahlgren
16-Nov-2010, 09:17
Polarizers reduce the reflections off the leaves and can make the colors appear more saturated. They sometimes make an image look a bit flat, but you can control that by changing the angle.

The polarizer does not know if you are using large format or not so yes, you can get circular polarizers in a range of sizes. You don't require a circular polarizer though. The reason for circular polarizers on SLR's is because of the internal metering. With LF it is not so much an issue so you can use any kind you want.

Steve Hamley
16-Nov-2010, 11:42
There's a Tiffen enhancing filter that uses rare earths to enhance the warm colors, albeit at the expense of a dirty cyan cast to the cooler colors to my eye. I have one and never use it, although it could be useful in rare situations.

http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html?tablename=filters&itemnum=77EF1

Singh-Ray also offers a HiLux filter that does some enhancing. I don't have one but would like to try one. I'd trust Bob to make a useful product.

http://www.singh-ray.com/hilux.html

Cheers, Steve

David Beal
16-Nov-2010, 11:45
You might try an 81A with or without your polarizer

gnuyork
16-Nov-2010, 12:26
They sometimes make an image look a bit flat, but you can control that by changing the angle.

Isn't tis the point of circular polarizers or do I have the concept wrong? I know polarizers reduce reflections primarily, but I am sure they do some enhancing of colors as well. Or am I wrong?

I think I read somewhere that enhancing filters exist, but I didn't know exactly what they enhanced. I don't suppose a ND filter does this, being neutral...

Basically I want the fall colors to pop out like they do when I wear sunglasses. The sky looks better, the fall colors pop more... you get the idea. I don't necessarily want to reduce reflections like a polarizer would do, but if they gets me there I'd use one.

Vaughn
16-Nov-2010, 13:00
The trouble with judging by your sunglasses is that your brain easily compensates for the color shift (if your glasses makes things a bit warm, after a while you hardly notice it -- it becomes "normal").

Place the same filtration on your lens and you could easily end up with a transparency that seems a little off when viewed. Your brain no longer is compensating for the color shift as the print is being viewed under "normal" light. I do not wear sunglasses when looking for the light -- sort of like eating chocolate while trying to taste different wines.

Circular polarizers are needed for auto-focus cameras, but work fine for any camera/lens. I have seen them used well in thick forest scenes -- they can reduce the excess blue light reflecting off of leaves, etc, that is coming from the sky. So a polarizer in this case can give cleaner looking warm tones by getting rid of the reflected blue light.

Vaughn

Brian C. Miller
16-Nov-2010, 13:14
I also have an enhancing filter. When I really want the colors to pop, then I use the filter. The filter isn't cheap, but I haven't seen anything else like it.

Jack Dahlgren
16-Nov-2010, 13:14
Isn't tis the point of circular polarizers or do I have the concept wrong? I know polarizers reduce reflections primarily, but I am sure they do some enhancing of colors as well. Or am I wrong?

I think I read somewhere that enhancing filters exist, but I didn't know exactly what they enhanced. I don't suppose a ND filter does this, being neutral...

Basically I want the fall colors to pop out like they do when I wear sunglasses. The sky looks better, the fall colors pop more... you get the idea. I don't necessarily want to reduce reflections like a polarizer would do, but if they gets me there I'd use one.

Polarizers reduce the reflections. The reflections are usually white so the polarizer allows you to see more of the color of the object rather than what it is reflecting. This usually means things are more saturated - and thus "enhanced".

You could filter certain wavelengths (that is what your sunglasses do) but they will probably add a color cast to your images. There are also gradient filters which can filter part of the image and not the rest - allowing you to keep a blue sky for example - but I don't like that look and have no recommendations for them.

Try a polarizer. It will help.

gnuyork
16-Nov-2010, 15:16
Thanks all. I'll try a polarizer, perhaps a warming polarizer. Though I am running out of time for the fall colors. There's aways next year...

Greg Miller
16-Nov-2010, 15:21
Just get a good polarizer filter. Singh-Ray makes a warning polarizer, which can work well for autumn colors. And they make a warming polarizer with a color intensifier. But for my taste a straight polarizer is the way to go.

Linear polarizers are cheaper than circular polarizers. Circular adds no benefit for LF. So buy a linear if you will never use the polarizer on anything but on LF.

Lachlan 717
16-Nov-2010, 15:59
Just watch for banding in blue skies when you use a Polariser with wide angle lenses.

Very, very ugly and hard to correct in PS.

Apart from that, consider 2-2.5 stops impact on exposure.

That being said, I use one a lot.

There is also a warming Polariser made under Moose Peterson's name by Hoya. Nice enough filter.

Sevo
16-Nov-2010, 17:02
There's a Tiffen enhancing filter that uses rare earths to enhance the warm colors, albeit at the expense of a dirty cyan cast to the cooler colors to my eye. I have one and never use it, although it could be useful in rare situations.


B&W also sells these "Redhancers" - which are rather neat from a optical science point of view as they cause a partial spectral shift in the yellow/red range. They mess with all colours though, and in a non-uniform manner, to make matters worse. If any, they are suitable for CN and digital - on high colour slides like Velvia they cause nasty casts that may be impossible to correct even in a digital postproduction.

Sirius Glass
16-Nov-2010, 17:08
Anyhow, I just got my first pair (actually 2) of prescription sunglasses, and the fall colors around here this season just jump right out at me.


The sunglasses cut the glare. They may be coated which would cut the glare more. While this is not polarizing, polarizing has a similar effect.

Steve

Policar
16-Nov-2010, 20:43
The red enhancers look pretty cool. But, in practice, are they really any better than just tinting the entire frame red? The "greenhancer" definitely just looks like a green-tinted filter.

Sevo
17-Nov-2010, 00:34
The red enhancers look pretty cool. But, in practice, are they really any better than just tinting the entire frame red? The "greenhancer" definitely just looks like a green-tinted filter.

I suspect the "greenhancers" and "bluehancers" (once?) sold by Hama to be a sham - these seem to be just the same as strong green or blue CC filters. The neodymium "redhancer" is a different beast, and looks grey in white light.

gnuyork
17-Nov-2010, 05:58
The redhancer does look interesting...

Policar
17-Nov-2010, 15:47
I just bought a "budget" brand 67mm didymium filter (redhancer) to see how I like it. I'll try it (on my digital camera first) and report back. The blue and green filters do look suspiciously useless, though. Hopefully this will be better.

Steve Hamley
18-Nov-2010, 10:52
The "redhancer" will work, maybe too much in some cases, but I'd also be interested to hear what you think it does to other colors...

Cheers, Steve

gnuyork
18-Nov-2010, 17:19
Any opinions of the B+W multi coated vs the non multi coated? I was looking at the Kaeseman version, but it does not come multi coated in linear, just circular ones come multi coated... at least according to B&H.

On the Singh-Ray FAQ he mentions that the pros don't outweigh the cons of having a multi coated filter. Can anyone elaborate on this?


By the way, this is how ignorant I was about circular polarizers. I thought the circular ones were the ones that you could turn to adjust, and linear was just a normal straight filter (no adjusting)...

Brian C. Miller
18-Nov-2010, 19:09
There are two types of polarizers: linear and circular. Cameras with autofocus and autoexposure (not view cameras) require the circular polarizer so that it doesn't screw up the sensor readings. Linear polarizers are more effective at polarization, but the polarized light will usually cause autofocus and exposure problems. Both types turn to adjust.

Good discussions of filters and multicoating:
Demystifying Multicoatings (http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/forum/Demystifying_Multicoatings.html)
Hoya filters (http://www.thkphoto.com/products/hoya/hoya-02.html)

gnuyork
18-Nov-2010, 22:01
Thanks Brian. I do get that now after my bit of googling yesterday.

Thanks for the links. I am particularly interested in why the Singh-Ray guy feels that multi coatings are not ideal.

And why does B+W not offer the kaeseman style with multi coatings in a linear polarizer, but they do in a circular?

Mark Stahlke
18-Nov-2010, 22:07
This might really blow your mind: Lee makes a square circular polarizer. :eek:

Brian C. Miller
18-Nov-2010, 22:31
Kaesemann polarizer technical data, 2Mb PDF (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/filter/kaesemann_katalog_e.pdf)

Mr. Kaesemann developed an improved circular polarizer. Ed Land developed the linear polarizer.

Sevo
19-Nov-2010, 01:30
Mr. Kaesemann made just about every type of photographic and scientific polarizer and overall contributed more to their development than Mr. Land. But the only product still sold under his name twenty years after being amalgamated with B+W/Schneider is the all cemented and edge sealed circular polarizer.

gnuyork
19-Nov-2010, 08:28
Also I have 2 lenses, a 90mm with a 67mm size and a 210 with a 72mm size. If I get a step up ring will that impede the performance of the 90 (which is somewhat wideish) as far as vignetting?

Brian C. Miller
19-Nov-2010, 12:29
Step-up rings are quite thin, so it wouldn't be a problem at all.

Jeff Keller
19-Nov-2010, 13:20
With the filter on the front of the lens, the in-coming light would be reflected out away from the lens. Light reflected from film/lens elements heading back out of the lens would be reflected back in. I would guess that both surfaces of any lens element has the same coating, so the outermost lens surface of most lenses is mult-coated and doesn't reflect much light. Probably Singh-Ray feels manufacturing issues out weigh the benefit. I couldn't find any details either.


Thanks Brian. I do get that now after my bit of googling yesterday.

Thanks for the links. I am particularly interested in why the Singh-Ray guy feels that multi coatings are not ideal.

And why does B+W not offer the kaeseman style with multi coatings in a linear polarizer, but they do in a circular?

Peter K
19-Nov-2010, 15:14
Mr. Kaesemann made just about every type of photographic and scientific polarizer and overall contributed more to their development than Mr. Land.
I don't think so. In "Die Polarisationsfilter und das polarisierte Licht in der Photographie" (The polarizing filters and the polarized light in photography) from M. Haase Jena printed in 1943, reprinted in 1946 at Ann Arbor Michigan, Edwin Land's contributions to linear and circular polarizers where called more important. But in this times many patents in the field of polizers where granted. Also a patent from E. Kaesemann in France and Swizerland.

rguinter
19-Nov-2010, 18:19
Thanks all. I'll try a polarizer, perhaps a warming polarizer. Though I am running out of time for the fall colors. There's aways next year...

I had a Tiffen enhancing filter for many years... until last year when I fumbled when trying to install it and dropped it. Smashed it to smithers. What an expensive mistake that was. I've been meaning to replace it but other purchases always seem to take priority.

If you PM me with an email address I'll send you a couple of comparison photos... with and without the enhancer on fall colors. Cheers.

Bob G.

Policar
20-Nov-2010, 13:30
So I got a cheap, generic brand ("promaster," which is probably rebranded hoya but maybe not) red enhancer in the mail today. It's uncoated and, um, green.

As seen against tungsten light it's straight-up green. Against shade it's closer to neutral with a very slight green tint, but then I put it against some warm sunlight (4800ēK?) and it looks neutral with a slight red tint if anything. Looking at slides through it at 5000ēK it turns greens bluer and reds...the same. Weird, subtle filter.

My guess is some of the other red enhancers stack on a magenta filter to compensate, maybe? Or maybe things will look different once I use it with film. That said, after photoshopping everything else to match it does seem to improve orange significantly. It would be a nice filter for shooting pumpkins.

gnuyork
20-Nov-2010, 16:28
As seen against tungsten light it's straight-up green. Against shade it's closer to neutral with a very slight green tint, but then I put it against some warm sunlight (4800ēK?) and it looks neutral with a slight red tint if anything. Looking at slides through it at 5000ēK it turns greens bluer and reds...the same. Weird, subtle filter.

That aligns with experience my new sunglasses. They have a green tint, but they do change to a magenta tint when looking at the lenses in sunlight. It is weird... they look green sometimes, and magenta sometimes. Anyhow when I wear them the fall colors pop! And that's why I started this discussion in the first place. I wanted to do that with a filter.

Brian C. Miller
20-Nov-2010, 16:31
I have a Tiffen enhancing filter, and after I read your post I walked around a bit, seeing how its color changes. Depending on the light, it goes from green to neutral to barely pinkish. You really have to put it on a camera and make some photographs to really see the true effect. Enhancing filters are a strange lot.

Policar
20-Nov-2010, 17:12
"Strange" is definitely the word.

Looking at the absorption spectrum for didymium across the visible spectrum, it absorbs relatively little violet, not much blue, a little cyan, almost no green, and then just a tremendous amount of yellow and orange and then no red at all. It absorbs quite a lot of near-infrared and infrared, though, which some cameras (and velvia 100) read as magenta. I really want to see what it does with velvia in the late day, since it might be really weird or it might just end up correcting its magenta cast.

Under any tungsten light the filter looks magenta and under any fluorescent light it looks green. We have a 2700K tri-phosphor compact fluorescent light next to a 2900K high-CRI led light (fancy) and I can walk between the two and anything else looks exactly the same but it shifts from green to brown/magenta. It's just bizarre.

Shooting outside around blue hour it turns everything a bit close to cyan. Going to try again during the day tomorrow. Even highlighly corrected fluorescent lights (my lightbox, my expensive 8-bit lcd) go very green. I shot a color checker chart on a crt monitor (which it renders relatively neutrally) and have posted the before and after results here, averaged out in photoshop. There are a thousand reasons this is a bad, unscientific thing to do so don't bother to tell me. Just thought it was interesting. (The same thing on my lcd monitor just turns green.)

Second one (to the right) is with the filter on.

Policar
21-Nov-2010, 11:47
At mid-day it's pretty color neutral, although shaded areas take on a green/cyan cast.

Some more before/afters of random objects outside. Potentially helpful for any area with both green and red in frame.

Jack Dahlgren
21-Nov-2010, 13:00
Looking at those it makes me think that scanning and digital color balance might be better.

Brian C. Miller
22-Nov-2010, 02:19
Try Japanese maples against a clear blue sky. Awesome!

Policar
22-Nov-2010, 15:04
Looking at those it makes me think that scanning and digital color balance might be better.

Well, my bad snapshots aren't doing the filter any favors. I think it helps significantly in the first one, where it boosts both greens and reds; digitally correcting warm and cold tones separately isn't trivial. It does have an unpredictable tint, though.

For foliage and sunsets...it could be useful. It's certainly not as indispensable as a grad filter or polarizer but I'm excited to try it on film and think it might be just the thing for fall color, as it really cuts out muddy orange brown tones. Unfortunately I got it a month late.

Greg Miller
22-Nov-2010, 16:40
Well, my bad snapshots aren't doing the filter any favors. I think it helps significantly in the first one, where it boosts both greens and reds; digitally correcting warm and cold tones separately isn't trivial. It does have an unpredictable tint, though.


It is pretty simple with a "selective color" adjustment layer (or open the file with ACR and use the HSL tab). I agree with Jack. Given what I see in the examples, my choice would be to just deal with this in post processing. One less thing to buy and carry in the field, one less piece of glass in the mix, no filter exposure factor, more precision, and no unpredictable results.

Greg Miller
22-Nov-2010, 17:02
I took at quick stab of changing photo 1-a to match the color of 1-b. I used a curve to lower luminosity and a color balance adjustment layer.

Greg Miller
22-Nov-2010, 17:07
I also used a selective color adjustment layer only to lower the luminosity of the white rock, and add just a pinch of warmth to the red leaves. But the biggest changes were much lower luminosity in the exposure with the filter and much more cyan in the exposure with the filter.

Policar
23-Nov-2010, 12:52
You certainly got pretty darned close, though the reds are a bit more yellow in the digital manipulation. On the other hand, the cyan-heavy cast and near-clipping saturation point in the reds the filter results in aren't necessarily things you'd want to emulate, anyway, which is a further point in favor of digital manipulation. Then again, digital manipulation and filtration aren't mutually exclusive.

Again, this is why I wish I got it a month ago. There's this brownish orange cast that makes foliage look more subdued and it's exactly what this filter's good at removing but it's too late to see how well it really works... I don't know if it's worth the unpredictable color cast but I'd be curious to try it and probably will next year when I get the chance. I'm not recommending everyone go out and buy one of these, but it does do what it advertises, which is kind of remarkable given that what it advertises (an increase in saturation in warm and cold areas) is kind of impossible.

Rust Never Sleeps
23-Nov-2010, 17:49
I have never used filters on my 4x5, and very little in 35mm. I used to use a red 25 for B&W, and I had a cheap circular polarizer that I probably never used properly.

Anyhow, I just got my first pair (actually 2) of prescription sunglasses, and the fall colors around here this season just jump right out at me.

Is there a filter that accomplishes this? My sunglasses are not polarized, but they are the Ray Ban G 15 tint, which is like a greenish gray.

Would I get similar effects with a polarizer, and if so should I get a regular polarizer or a circular. Do circulars even exist for LF??

Thanks

This is a little hard to answer as we all see things a little different and we don't have the glasses you have to look through. Also what films are you using??

For fall shots of mountains and aspens I shoot mostly Velvia 50 and some Astia 100F. For filters I use Heliopan Multi-coated KR 1.5 and KR 3 and am getting a KR 6 which in this situation would be a helpful filter in deep shadows of when dark clouds are overhead.

A polarizer could help but I prefer the KR filters to it unless I need to remove reflections from wet foliage or to darken a sky a little with long lenses but half the time with the latter the sky gets uneven polarization due to sun angle. I use a KR filter if this is the case. With a film like Astia 100F I'd rather increase saturation and contrast in the printing stage than use a polarizer to increase saturation.

The Singh-Ray LB Color Intensifier is interesting and I am probably going to get one in the near future but with films like Velvia it would probably be too much as is the case with that film and those types of filters.

All in all if you want great fall color it is hard to beat Velvia 50 with or without some sort of filter. Good Luck.

Greg Miller
23-Nov-2010, 20:53
I use a polarizer for almost all scenes with foliage, whether there is sky in the composition or not. Virtually all leaves have a sheen that reflects skylight and scatters light. A polarizer will eliminate the sheen and allow the true color to be revealed. I don't think polarizers really create saturation - they just allow the saturation that exists naturally to be revealed.

In my Photoshop example, I did not add saturation. The apparent increase in saturation was caused by the luminosity values being reduced by about 1/3 to 1/2 stop. Lowering luminosity causes an apparent increase in saturation, but saturation does not truly really increase. Had the exposures in the 2 original photos been the same (the second photo needed more exposure to match the first photo because of the filter), there would not have been as much of an apparent increase in saturation. There still could have been some apparent (not real) increase in saturation depending on hue shift because complementary colors cause an apparent increase in saturation in each other.

Tastes vary, but I still prefer a straight polarizer for almost all foliage shots any time of year.

gnuyork
24-Nov-2010, 16:42
This is a little hard to answer as we all see things a little different and we don't have the glasses you have to look through. Also what films are you using?? - Velvia 50 and E100VS (and these are very new to me for 4x5, though I use E100VS for 35mm almost exclusively for 35mm (except lately I am trying to shoot up my stock of Kodachrome before it's too late - hence not much activity with 4x5 in general).


A polarizer could help but I prefer the KR filters to it unless I need to remove reflections from wet foliage or to darken a sky a little with long lenses but half the time with the latter the sky gets uneven polarization due to sun angle

Interesting, how does the KR filters compare to the 81Bs etc. What's the difference?



]The Singh-Ray LB Color Intensifier is interesting and I am probably going to get one in the near future but with films like Velvia it would probably be too much as is the case with that film and those types of filters.

So Singh -Ray or B+W?

All in all if you want great fall color it is hard to beat Velvia 50 with or without some sort of filter. Good Luck.

Thank you...The Singh-Ray does seem like an interesting filter. I may also try the Redhancer from B+W, though it's a little too late for fall (maybe next year), so maybe I should just concentrate on a good polarizer and a warming filter. My wife asked what I wanted for Christmas and I told her filters.

So Singh-Ray or B+W??

Jeremy
26-Nov-2010, 18:18
Glass "doped" with neodymium will greatly enhance red, green, and blue. Yellow will look more orange as the metal causes a dip in the light spectrum at around 550 nm. Many higher end sunglasses put such metals in their lenses to enhance colors as well.

Rust Never Sleeps
29-Nov-2010, 20:25
- Velvia 50 and E100VS (and these are very new to me for 4x5, though I use E100VS for 35mm almost exclusively for 35mm (except lately I am trying to shoot up my stock of Kodachrome before it's too late - hence not much activity with 4x5 in general).



Interesting, how does the KR filters compare to the 81Bs etc. What's the difference?




Thank you...The Singh-Ray does seem like an interesting filter. I may also try the Redhancer from B+W, though it's a little too late for fall (maybe next year), so maybe I should just concentrate on a good polarizer and a warming filter. My wife asked what I wanted for Christmas and I told her filters.

So Singh-Ray or B+W??


The KR and 81 series are warming filters with the 81 being a straw color and the KR being more red. I went for the KR's because some people who used both stated that they prefer the KR's and I really like what the filters have done for my shots after shooting with them for a few years. One day I will get a 81b and 81c to compare for myself.

As for using a warming filter, at the elevations I shoot at[6000ft-10,000ft for most fall color shots], I strongly feel I need a warming filter or the shots get too cool for my taste. I use them not just for fall color but all other seasons too.

As for Singh-Ray or B+W it doesn't matter much. My KR's are Heliopan and my Warm Polarizer is a Singh-Ray. I love the brass rings that the Heliopan and B+W have as the damn Singh-Ray always binds to the lens/step-up ring. I wanted a Heliopan or B+W warm polarizer but I think they stopped making them. A KR3 Warm Polarizer would be great.

As for the Redhancer and Singh-Ray LB Color Intensifier just be careful with them as they can make things look over the top sometimes with films like Velvia 50 and Kodak E100VS. Good Luck..