I need some advice about black and white filters

[sully75]

Hello all,

I have been studiously avoiding using filters thus far, but I'm starting to get annoyed with burning in skies so much in photoshop...I think I could get some more interesting results without so much work if I understood filters a bit better.

I'm also considering getting a 6x17 back at some point. I read somewhere here where Christopher Broadbent was talking about the importance of using graduated filters for doing panos...so that's been on my mind.

So I'm wondering what the general recomendation would be? I just got some nice lenses, neither of which have the same filter size. I'll probably have another two lenses soon. I guess that all points to something like the Lee system. I do most of my photography out of a backpack, walking around the city (at least right now), so something that's the minimum of fuss would also be nice. So I'm torn between getting some screw on filters and wanting more flexibility.

Any thoughts/resources/admonishments?

Here's an example that I think would have been better with a yellow filter.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6034/6385551677_9c95be1055_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/6385551677/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/6385551677/) by Paul McEvoy (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulmcevoy/), on Flickr

This one, I'm not sure...is there something that would take down a hazy sky?

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6057/6385552169_d2140fb787_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/6385552169/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/6385552169/) by Paul McEvoy (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulmcevoy/), on Flickr

[Tony Evans]

Yellow filter should very little for a grey sky, unless there is blue around somewhere.

[E. von Hoegh]

The basic rule is, filters lighten like colors, and darken opposite colors. Use the least dense filter possible to get the desired effect. Be careful not to overexpose, it reduces the filter's effect. Overcast skies are tough to bring down.

Your second shot looks to have a bit of lens flare in the upper right corner.

You could purchase a set of filters to fit your largest lens, using adapter rings for the others.

[Bob Salomon]

Take a look at the with and without shots here:

http://www.heliopan.de/produkte/schwarzweissfilter.shtml

[Stephane]

No filter needed: double exposure using a mask. I think it is called "in-camera dodging".

[E. von Hoegh]

No filter needed: double exposure using a mask. I think it is called "in-camera dodging".

Where do you get the mask?

[Steve Hamley]

Using graduated filters is problematic when you have an irregular skyline, as in both your examples. The filter line will bisect a building and it will not look right. If the skyline is relatively straight, a GND can help.

If the sky is blue, yellow, orange, and red filters will progressively darken it with B&W films, as will a polarizer for B&W and color.

With a white sky or bright clouds, you might also try a compensating or semi-compensating developer like PMK pyro or pyrocat-HD. -MC, etc. These developers will help hold detail in the highlights.

Cheers, Steve

[sully75]

Steve,

Thanks, I got that about the ND filter. I knew it was not appropriate for these shots. Then again, I'm not sure what shots I'm thinking it's going to be appropriate for. I live in the city...

I've avoided the pyrocat developers because right now my "darkroom" is my kitchen that I share with 2 roommates and 2 cats. Am I right that there's no non-toxic pyro developer?

So is the general consensus that it makes more sense to use glass filters and some step up rings rather than a Lee Filter system?

[Darin Boville]

Hey Paul,

No color filter will hep you much here, in terms of darkening the skies, since they are colorless, or nearly so. Not sure a developer-based solution (no pun intended!) is what you are after since that will affect all high tones, not just the sky. Maybe photoshop really is the quickest/best solution? Assuming you have the data in your scan/file, of course.

You could always do some sort of merging of two exposures...

--Darin

[Mark Stahlke]

I prefer screw-in filters unless I'm using graduated neutral density filters. If you go with something like a Lee system be aware that it's possible to get reflections off the lens side of the filter if the sun is behind the camera. That's never a problem with screw-in filters because there's no gap between the lens and the filter.

[Dan Dozer]

It looks like from your prints that these are sheet film prints from I would assume a 4 x 5 camera.

I started out using glass filters with step up rings with the 4 x 5 a lot of years ago. When I moved up to the 8 x 10 and the lenses got larger, the price for glass filters sent up astronomically. So - I looked at the Lee system and have both the neutral density set and the B&W colored filter set. I use them occasionally. They are slower to use than glass screw in filters, but they are much less expensive.

My opinion would be that if you are shooting 120 film, glass filters are the smarter way to go. If you are shooting 8 x 10 film, the Lee resin filters are better. If you are shooting 4 x 5, you could go either way. However, if you want to go glass filters, I would go with filters at least as large as your largest lens and get step adaptors to use on your smaller ones.

[Brian K]

The first rule about getting good skies in a photograph is to shoot when there are good skies. On an overcast day don't expect to get skies with much detail or interest and no filter will make that sky more interesting.

On days when the sky is clearly blue and the clouds are white , a yellow, orange, or red filter will darken the blue sky and make the white clouds stand out. However when you use orange and yellow the effect can look overdone if you're not careful.

I'd avoid ND grads because they just don't darken the sky they darken the entire top of the scene including trees, houses, etc. Also resin filters like grads have sharpness issues when used with longer focal length lenses. Stick to glass.

[chris_4622]

Hello all,

So I'm wondering what the general recomendation would be? I just got some nice lenses, neither of which have the same filter size. I'll probably have another two lenses soon. I guess that all points to something like the Lee system. I do most of my photography out of a backpack, walking around the city (at least right now), so something that's the minimum of fuss would also be nice. So I'm torn between getting some screw on filters and wanting more flexibility.


I don't like to fuss either and I carry my gear on my back so I needed a minimum of gear.

I bought drop in filters, glass, for my largest lens. Bought a holder that has threads and screwed that into an adapter that fits on the outside of the lenses and is held there with three plastic screws. I bought two different sizes which fit all my lenses. Finding these adapters might be difficult but you can check with Lens & Repro. Sorry I don't remember what they are called.

[SW Rick]

Take a look at the with and without shots here:

http://www.heliopan.de/produkte/schwarzweissfilter.shtml

Bob,

thanks for the reference. Any idea why the Green and Yellow-Green filters are discontinued? Just not selling, or...?

Thanks,

Rick

[Brian Ellis]

A couple points in addition to those that have already been mentioned.

I stopped using step-up/step-down rings a few years ago when I realized that just holding the filter in front of the lens by hand works as well as using the rings and is much easier to do plus you don't have to mess around with a bunch of rings.

I use filters sparingly and usually not to darken skies but rather to separate colors that would otherwise merge in a b&w photograph. E.g. a red apple on green leaves. Use a red filter to lighten the apples and darken the leaves or a green filter to lighten the leaves and darken the apple.

I found that a yellow filter didn't do much for skies except at higher altitudes where the sky is a deep, rich blue. At sea level an orange filter was usually needed to appreciably darken the sky. I don't know that that's true everywhere but it was true in Florida where I lived.

It perhaps is obvious but it's important to remember that a filter doesn't just affect the object or area you want it to affect, it affects everything in the scene. E.g. a red filter will produce very dark skies, an effect some people like. But it will also darken anything in the scene that's green such as foliage. So if there's green foliage in the scene you can end up with nice skies but black foliage lacking any detail or texture. For that reason I almost never used a red filter in landscapes, an orange filter worked about as well on the skies but had a less dramatic effect on foliage.

I've used the Lee system and I've used glass circular filters. The Lee system was fine but the filters seemed to scratch easily. And the polarizer was ridiculously expensive, something like $200+. Also, on my Linhof Technika some of the filter/lens combinations were too large to allow the filter/adapter to rotate without bumping into the camera bed. So with those I had to remember to put the filters on the lens before mounting the lens on the camera, which I'd invariably forget to do.

I think Brian K. means that as among the red, orange, and yellow filters he mentions using a red filter in the situation he describes can look overdone. A yellow or orange filter would produce a less overdone effect than a red filter.

If you print digitally and edit in Photoshop this is all mostly academic. The effect of most filters previously used in b&w photography can be easily duplicated in Photoshop - actually improved because you're not locked into one effect in the negative but can make subtle adjustments. The only filter I carry any more is a polarizer.

Hope this helps.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

thanks for the reference. Any idea why the Green and Yellow-Green filters are discontinued? Just not selling, or...?

Thanks,

Rick

They are not discontinued. They are special order due to the drop in film usage. Same for color conversion filters.

[tgtaylor]

I use a Cokin Z holder with Schneider 4x4 glass, HiTek, Cokin, and Lee 4x4 resin filters. For B&W these are the filters that I use most:

1. UV (cuts thru the haze)
2. GND (both soft and hard) to knock the sky down.
3. Yellow
4. Circular polarizer.

Thomas

[Brian K]

I think Brian K. means that as among the red, orange, and yellow filters he mentions using a red filter in the situation he describes can look overdone. A yellow or orange filter would produce a less overdone effect than a red filter.

.

Oops! Yes orange and RED can look overdone.

Also one must consider the spectral sensitivity of the film being used. T-Max films have greater red and yellow sensitivities as compared to more traditional films like Tri-x so a sky exposed onto T-Max is already going to look like it has a yellow filter on it compared to Tri-x. So where a scene might best be served by an orange or red filter on Tri-x that same scene might only require a yellow or even no filter to have white clouds separate from the sky when using T-Max.

As for polarizers, one has to be very careful about using them with wide lenses as they have a nasty habit of creating a very uneven gradation in skies. That can also remove the reflections off of other elements in the scene such as leaves and obviously highly reflective surfaces like water or glass. Sometimes eliminating reflections can appear unnatural.

[jp]

For 4x5, I have some old "Series" filters that go on a push-on lens adaptor for my speed graphic's 135mm lens. For other lenses, I have a knock-off cokin filter kit with some NDs and yellow/orange/red.

For MF, I have a kit of rolleiflex bay-I filters that fit my rollei and yashica TLRs.

I use tmax 400 film, and scenes with people work better with no filter. Skin just doesn't improve with a yellow/orange/red filter. It gets too flat/smooth real quick unless you are working with high contrast light, then a little yellow is OK.

As has been stated, yellow/orange/red are increasingly effective at producing differentiation in a blue sky.

For flat non-blue sky, I'd suggest a little bracketing, no filters, and develop in a compensating developer like suggested. I've got highlights figured out decently with PMK.

If you are scanning instead of printing, you can put a little inflection or wiggle in the curve (increasing the steepness for a short distance) where the sky tones are, to increase contrast just in that section of tones.

[Heroique]

A red filter will ... darken anything in the scene that’s green such as foliage ...

This is the kind of simple, technical knowledge that is lost to many photographers who head for the field.

[Heroique]

Just a quick note about calculating the best exposure with b/w filters:

Be sure to remember the “Hutchings” Factor (i.e., Gordon Hutchings, more below) – but do plenty of testing w/ the films, filters, and types of scenes you like to determine if it makes sense in any particular situation. It makes sense in many of my landscapes.

Basically, the Hutchings Factor provides your filtered scene w/ some additional exposure – in addition to what you’ve already added due to the b/w filter you’re using.

The reason is because shadowed areas (esp. in the mountains of my region) transmit a higher proportion of blue light, precisely the type of light that yellow, orange and red filters can take away. The Hutchings Factor puts it back in. (Let’s just say this has “saved” several of my images.)

An example:

If I choose, say, a #16 orange filter on a scene w/ important shadow details, I usually add one more stop in addition to what the filter by itself calls for. As you can see, this is a significant “correction” to my preliminary exposure choice. Of course, it’s important to remember what this correction will do to the sunny portion of my scene, too.

How one balances all the elements of a scene can be tricky business, which is why testing is important. Did I already mention testing?

[lenser]

I noticed that in this thread and many others regarding filters, most folks who use the system type seem to go for Lee. I've been using Cokins for many years with results that are quite pleasing, so I've not considered changing over yet. I'm wanting to find out if there is either a significant optical quality difference or if the Lee's are a better "wearing" surface before I consider a switch. Regarding the wear factor, I've only had to replace one or the Cokin filters, a large Polarizer (glass) and that was because it slipped out of my hand on an architectural assignment and met an early fate on hard pavement.

By the way, the Cokin Polarizers (linear) are not all that expensive and have worked quite well for me even when combined with a yellow or red for greater dramatic effect. I still seem to get very sharp images even with stacking.

Another great accessory for field work with filters is the old pocket sized Kodak Master Photoguide. I imagine these are long out of print, but I've seen that they can be found on the bay. These contain many bits of great info including exposure calculators in case a meter shoots craps or the light level is too low for metering, but the small section on filters for black and white pretty much covers all the bases on effect and exposure factors. Some editions even had actual round windows for yellow, red green and dark blue plastic dime sized filters to look through and gauge contrast effects.

[neil poulsen]

I'm wondering if a compensating developer would work for this situation, maybe with some sort of water bath development? I don't have much experience using this approach, but I know that one of the strengths is to bring back detail in strong highlights.

Just a thought.

[Leigh]

One situation where contrast filters can be used to good effect is landscape or architecture where you have bright clouds on a sort of gray sky.

A yellow filter will darken the sky, making the clouds stand out.

This occurs because you increase the exposure by the "filter factor", which over-exposes the clouds without changing most other elements in the scene.

====

A gray sky without clouds is a gray sky, period.

There's nothing you can do in-camera or in the darkroom (or computer) that will change it, except to change the shade of gray.

- Leigh

[Ari]

Paul, since you're already onto Photoshop...
I use PS filters, and Nik software, for 95% of my filter needs, such as graduated neutral density, or coloured graduated filters.
In my kit bag, I keep a polarizer, a ND for long exposures, and a red #25 filter also.

[urs0polar]

So, I've been lurking on this thread, and I have a question.

I understand how Photoshop can replace pretty much every filter if you are shooting color because it can make the reds darker, for instance, exclusively during the conversion to black and white. However, one of the awesome things about film is all the wildly different types of black and white film. So, if I want black and white, I don't shoot in color first like those DSLR monkeys...

So, if the film you are shooting is already black and white, then how do you do it with PS filters later? The reason I ask is that there seems to be a theme of "I don't use anything anymore except for a polarizer, and the rest I do in PS if I need it". Unless I'm missing something, if your reds and greens expose as close shades of gray, without burning and dodging by hand (much more difficult than just a red or green filter in the first place), Photoshop filters can't know which is which. If there are some that do figure it out, I would like to investigate them. Am I missing something?

[Greg Miller]

So, I've been lurking on this thread, and I have a question.

I understand how Photoshop can replace pretty much every filter if you are shooting color because it can make the reds darker, for instance, exclusively during the conversion to black and white. However, one of the awesome things about film is all the wildly different types of black and white film. So, if I want black and white, I don't shoot in color first like those DSLR monkeys...

So, if the film you are shooting is already black and white, then how do you do it with PS filters later? The reason I ask is that there seems to be a theme of "I don't use anything anymore except for a polarizer, and the rest I do in PS if I need it". Unless I'm missing something, if your reds and greens expose as close shades of gray, without burning and dodging by hand (much more difficult than just a red or green filter in the first place), Photoshop filters can't know which is which. If there are some that do figure it out, I would like to investigate them. Am I missing something?

If you are converting a color image to B&W in Photoshop, you have all color channels to work with. With Channel Mixer, you can apply different filters at different strengths to each color channel. Or using a B&W Adjustment Layer, you are supplied with sliders for R, G, B, C, M, & Y - so you can lighten or darken these colors individually at different strengths (sort of like being able to use multiple filters with unlimited filter values in the field). (and I won;t even venture further into using multiple layers with masking to apply different filter effects to different portions of the image).

So with the red apple in green grass example, you can lighten or darken the red apple to taste, while also lightening or darkening the grass to taste. So you have tremendous creative control. Some people will avoid certain color channels due to noise characteristics, but that is a personal choice.

[urs0polar]

If you are converting a color image to B&W in Photoshop, you have all color channels to work with. With Channel Mixer, you can apply different filters at different strengths to each color channel. Or using a B&W Adjustment Layer, you are supplied with sliders for R, G, B, C, M, & Y - so you can lighten or darken these colors individually at different strengths (sort of like being able to use multiple filters with unlimited filter values in the field). (and I won;t even venture further into using multiple layers with masking to apply different filter effects to different portions of the image).

So with the red apple in green grass example, you can lighten or darken the red apple to taste, while also lightening or darkening the grass to taste. So you have tremendous creative control. Some people will avoid certain color channels due to noise characteristics, but that is a personal choice.

Hi Greg,

I may be putting words in your mouth here, or maybe my post was confusingly written, but it seems that what you are saying is:

Because of the creative control that Photoshop offers you, you spend $10 a sheet (or way more than B&W sheet of the same size) and shoot everything in color just to avoid filters, even when you want a black and white image as a result?

[Greg Miller]

Hi Greg,

I may be putting words in your mouth here, or maybe my post was confusingly written, but it seems that what you are saying is:

Because of the creative control that Photoshop offers you, you spend $10 a sheet (or way more than B&W sheet of the same size) and shoot everything in color just to avoid filters, even when you want a black and white image as a result?

I was simply pointing out why someone would do it. I wasn't suggesting the process, or economics of it, is a good fit for everyone -as is the case with almost everything in photography . But if you value maximum creative control (not a minor point) and want to control tonality in a way that is not possible with B&W film and a wet dark room (how many filters do you carry, and how many do you use for a single photograph? Do you carry multiple strengths in all colors and use multiple filters at once?), then it is worth at least considering. But everyone is free to weigh the options and choose what works best for them - there is certainly no shortage of admirable B&W prints made from all sorts of different processes.

[urs0polar]

I was simply pointing out why someone would do it. I wasn't suggesting the process, or economics of it, is a good fit for everyone -as is the case with almost everything in photography . But if you value maximum creative control (not a minor point) and want to control tonality in a way that is not possible with B&W film and a wet dark room (how many filters do you carry, and how many do you use for a single photograph? Do you carry multiple strengths in all colors and use multiple filters at once?), then it is worth at least considering. But everyone is free to weigh the options and choose what works best for them - there is certainly no shortage of admirable B&W prints made from all sorts of different processes.

Hi Greg,

I see what you mean. That's interesting, and I never thought of it that way. It is definitely something to consider -- thank you for taking the time to explain. I've done a few conversions, but I'm not very good at it, and I tend to get better B&W by starting with B&W film. However, I have seen some very nicely done conversions too. It's always good to have a lot to learn.

Thanks again!