Enlarging Filters as Taking Filters ?? Feasible?

[DanK]

Has anyone used enlarging filters as taking filters? with good results?

I have a vitax no4, and want a little yellow filtration for b&w - bigger than any filters I have on hand - thought about cutting down a 0 through 1 kodak polycontrast filter and placing it inside the barrel...

Any thoughts? Any issues?

Thanks,
Dan

[Ari]

Maybe try it on a digicam first, if it has a B&W option.
Failing that, give it a shot on film, and post your findings.

[Bob Salomon]

Enlarger filters are not optical grade quality since they only need to go into the light path. Not between the lens and the paper.

[Bill_1856]

I don't see why not.
Marie Cosindas used Scotch tape to hold cc filters over her lens until she got the colors that she wanted, and it's probably the best color photography to come out of the 20th Century.

[Mark Woods]

Bob, although I know the enlarging filters are not at the quality of the camera filters, they are still an optical element between the lens and the paper on some systems (like mine) or behind the lens, similar to BTL filters used on camera -- generally gels. I think the issue of quality (or lack of) is a result that photographers wouldn't pay the additional money for optical quality filters for their enlargers. I'd be curious to ask those photographers who have used both dichroic heads v/s filters what their experience was. Dan, I'd use whatever floats your boat. I've used lighting filters on cinema cameras with good results. (I know which manufacturers use the technology to make optical quality lighting gels. After all, the original Wratten gels were optical clear -- at least they were sold that way back in the day.) ;-)

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, although I know the enlarging filters are not at the quality of the camera filters, they are still an optical element between the lens and the paper on some systems (like mine) or behind the lens, similar to BTL filters used on camera -- generally gels. I think the issue of quality (or lack of) is a result that photographers wouldn't pay the additional money for optical quality filters for their enlargers. I'd be curious to ask those photographers who have used both dichroic heads v/s filters what their experience was. Dan, I'd use whatever floats your boat. I've used lighting filters on cinema cameras with good results. (I know which manufacturers use the technology to make optical quality lighting gels. After all, the original Wratten gels were optical clear -- at least they were sold that way back in the day.) ;-)

Optical filters are as close to plano parralel as possible, or, with gels, exceptionaly thin. Enlarging filters are neither and the material they are made from are not optical grade quality. But to each their own. I am sure there are people thrilled with the resukts from the bottom of a coke bottle, after all, it is glass.

[DanK]

Thanks Everyone... I appreciate the replies...

I hadn't considered that enlarging filters weren't optical grade...think I'll wait and try a gel...

Though I am curious as to placement of the filter within a barrel lens - between lens groups (without altering any spacing) - Is there a reason not to do this?

Thanks again,
Dan

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Everyone... I appreciate the replies...

I hadn't considered that enlarging filters weren't optical grade...think I'll wait and try a gel...

Though I am curious as to placement of the filter within a barrel lens - between lens groups (without altering any spacing) - Is there a reason not to do this?

Thanks again,
Dan

Feel free to unless you do not want to change the optical characteristics of your lens. Filters are normally designed to be placed in front of the lens. If a lens is designed to put filters inside the lens the lens manufacturer normally either supplies them with the lens (30mm Zeiss Distagon for example) or if they want to be able to alter the point where the image rays come to focus on the image plane (Rodenstock HR Digaron-S lenses) then they offer the correct corrector plate for the lens for the application (corrector plate needed for these lenses with film but not with digital).

If you freely just place something in the optical path you will effect the lens performance and if you stick it behind the lens you will shift the plane of sharp focus by 1/3rd the thickness of the filter and probably degrade the image as well.

Put the filter in front where it normally belongs and use excellent filters, unless you are trying to effect the results by compromising the lens quality.

[Bob Salomon]

"think I'll wait and try a gel"

Most gels are optical quality. You just need a holder to keep them as flat as possible and as close to the lens as possible. But there are many gels that are not optical quality. Such as lighting gels.

[cyrus]

I think an optical grade gel held in front of a camera lens is also known as a filter. So we've come full circle!

[jayabbas]

Bob, although I know the enlarging filters are not at the quality of the camera filters, they are still an optical element between the lens and the paper on some systems (like mine) or behind the lens, similar to BTL filters used on camera -- generally gels. I think the issue of quality (or lack of) is a result that photographers wouldn't pay the additional money for optical quality filters for their enlargers. I'd be curious to ask those photographers who have used both dichroic heads v/s filters what their experience was. Dan, I'd use whatever floats your boat. I've used lighting filters on cinema cameras with good results. (I know which manufacturers use the technology to make optical quality lighting gels. After all, the original Wratten gels were optical clear -- at least they were sold that way back in the day.) ;-)

Any hints on who makes those optical quality lighting gels?

[Bob Salomon]

Any hints on who makes those optical quality lighting gels?

I have never seen an optical quality lighting gel. They don't need to be that quality. Most lighting gels I come across are Rosco. Why not ask them?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, although I know the enlarging filters are not at the quality of the camera filters, they are still an optical element between the lens and the paper on some systems (like mine) or behind the lens, similar to BTL filters used on camera -- generally gels. I think the issue of quality (or lack of) is a result that photographers wouldn't pay the additional money for optical quality filters for their enlargers. I'd be curious to ask those photographers who have used both dichroic heads v/s filters what their experience was. Dan, I'd use whatever floats your boat. I've used lighting filters on cinema cameras with good results. (I know which manufacturers use the technology to make optical quality lighting gels. After all, the original Wratten gels were optical clear -- at least they were sold that way back in the day.) ;-)

Mark,

An enlarging gel or a dichroic filter are both placed above the negative in the light path (diffused, condensor, condensor dichroic) it is all the same. They fiilter the color of the light before it strikes the fim and goes through the lens.

Some VC filters were placed in the optical path as that was the only place they could go. But they did have an effect on the image quality, especially if they were not clean or held flat.

[DanK]

"think I'll wait and try a gel"

Most gels are optical quality. You just need a holder to keep them as flat as possible and as close to the lens as possible. But there are many gels that are not optical quality. Such as lighting gels.

Bob,

Thanks for all the information.

I was looking at a Tiffen Wratten Gel, appears to be optical quality - but in the $200 range - I was looking for a cheaper alternative ie. enlarging filter - I need to be 11cm, and may just try a 105mm glass filter - although same price range...

Does anyone know the total outer diameter of a 105mm filter? or have one on hand they wouldn't mind measuring.

Thanks,
Dan

[Arne Croell]

Mark,

Some VC filters were placed in the optical path as that was the only place they could go. But they did have an effect on the image quality, especially if they were not clean or held flat.

Ilford used to make a set of VC filters to be used under the enlarging lens if no other solution was possible. They were actually gels each mounted in their own plastic frame.

[Mark Woods]

There are optical quality lighting gels. I know it for a fact. Just all brands are not optical quality. Also, there are many filters that are used behind the lens. The old Mitchell cameras, and current Panavision cameras have filter slots. Also, there are adapters for various lens diameters to put filters and nets BTL. I still maintain that the enlarging filters are in the optical path of the neg to paper, be it behind the lens, as my old Bessler 45M, or in front, in my new Bessler 810. It's always struck me as odd that the VC filters weren't as good as my camera filters. BTW, I had a commercial where I scouted for clear bowls to use the bottom as a distortion filter,l and I've used the "Blink" filters from Clairmont that are heat distorted plexi. It's all good.

[Drew Wiley]

Wratten gels aren't particularly cheap, and they're relatively fragile. Why not just buy optical grade coated glass filters in the first place? Enlarging sheet filters intended above the optical path, or the kind of "gels" used for studio lighting applications would be horrible. As Bob said, they aren't made for image-forming applications and will seriously affect sharpness.

[Mark Woods]

If I were to look at using a lighting gel of optimum quality, I'd check out the Great American Market's gels. BTW, they have 3x3 swatch books. I know they're lighting gels and I'm making no claim nor disparage any other gel manufacturer.

[DanK]

Wratten gels aren't particularly cheap, and they're relatively fragile. Why not just buy optical grade coated glass filters in the first place? Enlarging sheet filters intended above the optical path, or the kind of "gels" used for studio lighting applications would be horrible. As Bob said, they aren't made for image-forming applications and will seriously affect sharpness.

Exactly Drew....but glass filters aren't cheap either, especially in the 110mm range...

Dan

[Drew Wiley]

Wratten (Kodak) gels are made from actual thin dyed gelatin. Lighting "gels" are
generally made from heat-resistant polyester, and acetate lighting filters also exist.
Both types of lighting filters are poor for image formation. Sometimes polyester filters
are sold for over-the-lens use as a cheap substitute for true gels, but again, the results are disappointing. Optical-grade cast and polished acrylic filter are available,
but more prone to surface reflections than coated glass, and more easily scratched.
But you might find some big sizes of acrylic on the used market far more affordable than new glass filters in comparable size, especially under the Sinar brand.

[DanK]

Drew,

The lighting gels came from elsewhere....I don't have any on hand, nor would I purchase one for use in this case.....

I do have large enlarging filters on hand....

My original question was whether I could use a Kodak Polycontrast enlarging filter cut to size inside a #4 Vitax soft focus lens....I thought about a #0 or #1 as they looked similar to the glass med yellows I have....

Simply looking for a boost in contrast, with the clouds rolling through the area...and not having to shell out $200 + for a filter....

Thanks, Dan

[cyrus]

Drew,

The lighting gels came from elsewhere....I don't have any on hand, nor would I purchase one for use in this case.....

I do have large enlarging filters on hand....

My original question was whether I could use a Kodak Polycontrast enlarging filter cut to size inside a #4 Vitax soft focus lens....I thought about a #0 or #1 as they looked similar to the glass med yellows I have....

Simply looking for a boost in contrast, with the clouds rolling through the area...and not having to shell out $200 + for a filter....

Thanks, Dan

B+W sells orange/yellow filters in 105mm for $121 new, I'm sure you can find bargains on ebay.

A simple square orange or yellow resin filter should not cost that much either though you'd need to find a filter holder or jury rig a way to hold it.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87370-REG/LEE_Filters_12STD_4x4_Deep_Yellow_12.html

Either would be far better optical quality than a gel or a VC filter.