Filters and high mountains

[Steve Goldstein]

This is something I've long wondered about, specifically in regards to areas in the American west above 10,000' (3km+) in elevation. There's more UV and blue up there because there's much less atmospheric scattering, but it's still blue - the intensity changes but not the wavelength. For normal black-and-white landscape work, would a dark yellow (e.g. B+W 023) give significantly different results from a medium yellow (B+W 022)? The curves in my B+W booklet show that both block pretty much all the blue anyway. I'll also have along a Hoya X0, a polarizer, and a dark orange (B+W 041). This is a difficult thing for me to test locally as I live at sea-level on the US east coast and a high mountain around here almost doesn't count as a land feature in Colorado!

I'm completely in the dark as far as color filtration goes. I'll most likely be bringing some Provia. Is a KR3 warm enough for sunny conditions? Too warm?

All advice welcome.

[Jac@stafford.net]

You will have more deeply, naturally polarized skies, and far less haze at 10,000 feet or higher. A deep yellow filter could have more effect than you want. Fortunately you will be able to preview polarization.

Sorry, cannot help with color.

Good luck and enjoy.

[Preston]

Steve,

For color, I suggest either an 81-b, or 81-c. Provia tends toward blue, so a warming filter can be helpful, especially in shade lit by a blue sky. If your scene has a large proportion of clear blue sky, skip the warming filter since it may make the blue too warm.

Added: Here's a listing of Filters by their Wratten Number, along with their effect.

Hope this helps, Steve.

--P

[ROL]

In regards to B/W, I encourage you to play around with the yellows, various films, and developers in different lighting and compositions to see for yourself what floats your visualization boat. The results, though possibly subtle, can make a difference in the mood of your composition. Don't go any stronger than deep yellow (B+W 023) if rendering full scale monotones with panchromatic films. I have used deep yellow with slow 120 films to great advantage when attempting to reveal cloud formations in high elevation skies. I tend to go no heavier than medium yellow (B+W 022) with LF and FP4+, which at 125 would count for a medium speed film the way I shoot. I use polarizers (i.e., a Kasemann warm – useful for color as well) once and a while because it looks so great in the GG, but almost always feel the yellows would have been a better choice once in the darkroom. I am just as likely to shoot naked when the sky is not part of the composition.

Floating Erratics & Cumulus, Tenaya Lake
(B+W 023, 120 Maco UP 25, Rodinal 1:100)


Tuolumne Spring
(B+W 022, 5x7 Arista Pro 125, PMK Pyro 1:2:100)


Cloud's Rest & Mt. Starr King
(Kasemann Polarizer, 5x7 Arista Pro 125, PMK Pyro 1:2:100)

[Drew Wiley]

With regard to color neg film, I always take into the mtns a light pink skylight filter like a 2A, an 81A for general bluish overcast, and an 81C for deep blue shade under an open sky, esp "northlight" shade. Regarding black and white film, it's all depends on the specific film, and be prepared for me and ROL to have different
opinions, even though we've both taken a lot of shots in the same part of mtns. I like to keep things simple, so generally just backpack with a 25 red and either a
deep green for general pan film, or a mild yellow-green like a Hoys XO when for orthopan films like ACROS. Dayhiking I might throw in a few other choices, depending on the exact film or season, or whim. I've never used anything as weak a yellow for decades, and my negs carry a full range of detail - Sorry, ROL, but it just had to throw that punch! And I use PMK too!

[goamules]

Nice shots ROL! That dome looks strangely familiar....oh yeah, I was on it a week ago!

[Jerry Bodine]

Not sure how high you plan to go, but back in the early 70's on Mt. Rainier I noticed that near the summit (~14,000 ft) the sky was nearly black (e.g., blue-black) to the naked eye when briefly removing goggles, and the Kodachrome II I was using at the time recorded it very accurately without any filters. For b/w, when I initially used Tri-X with a combination of 25 Red + Polarizer on one occasion at lower snowy elevations I got the dark sky I was after but the dark green forest went too dark and barely held detail since both filters tend to darken green, so a bit more exposure would have helped. Something to heed.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from france!

As a European who discovered the crisps, clean, bright skies of the American West when I first visited the States, I can say that those skies and "razor-sharp" landscapes are a blessing. At least outside the hottest days of summer.

The legend says that Saint Ansel, invited by J.H. Lartigue, once crossed the Atlantic and came to the south of France in Arles to attend the Arles Photographic Festival in summer. Saint Ansel only reminds of the magnificent food in the train, and cannot find any words but bitter crticism regarding the hazy skies that we suffer in Western Europe in summer. Especially in Arles which shares with Florida the same 100% of humidity contents in the air

Hence the question of which blue-cutting filter should be used in B&W photography is, as seen with European eyes, only an aesthetic choice.
There is a tradition saying that clouds should be heaviliy emphasised and that "drama" should be obvious in the final print.
I have to admit here that I like this drama, even if is is over-emphasized.

Actually the range of classical contrast filters designed for B&W photography, from light-yellow to dark-red all share the same shape as a step-filter, cutting-off short wavelengths and letting only yellow, orange and red go through.
Only the cut-off wavelenth changes from light yellow to dark red.
So in fact the choice of such a the filter is an aesthetic choice, not a technical choice thanks to the very low scattering of light in the Wild West as mentioned before.

Regarding colour photography above 3,000 metres of elevation, I have dozens of colour slides [unfortunately, in film formats strictly prohibited here] that I have taken in the Alps that qualify for this extreme situation, and I have always simply used an UV-blocking filter, more as a protective filter than a real colour-correction filter.
Actually, modern colour films combined with modern lenses and their multi-coating, will filter-out UV rays as efficiently as any UV-filter. But from dawn to dusk, for sure, colour temperature changes and some colour-correction filters might be useful.

Regarding the use of a polarizing filter at high altitudes, the only "caveat" I would mention here is that if you combine an ultra-wide angle lens with a polarizing filter aiming at a landscape with a large amount of blue sky, the combination of the natural vignetting inside the lens (visible in the corners of the image, if you do not use a concentric compensating filter) plus natural polarizing of the sky (maximum effect when aiming at 90° from incident sun rays) can yield unpredictable results that are not very pretty, "un-natural", when eventually printed.

Hence another question is : should landscape photography appear as "natural" ?

[Drew Wiley]

I was sorting thru my UV filters last nite, looking for a particular type in a particular size for my next high country excursion. Even these differ film to film. Even different chrome films responded differently. But in reviewing this immediate thread, I did notice that ROL sometimes uses a polarizer. I never do. They do indeed need to be used very circumspectly or they render a fake look. One more optional gadget. But if you do get one, buy the Kasemann like he uses, so it won't fog up in sudden weather changes. What is "natural" really depends. It's all a game of illusionism. Some of AA's most famous prints look theatrical to me. But he did famously know how to perceive light. You have to spend some time in the Sierra to appreciate just how sensitive he was to its moods. But advice-wise, a lot of things hesaid are obsolete - the films, filters, even quality of the light itself, all have somewhat changed, as have all the available printing papers.

[Joe O'Hara]

Emmanuel, I enjoyed your wise and well-expressed comments very much. Regarding polarizing filters, my rule is: wide-angle lens, sky in the picture, polarizing filter, choose any two of those. Just saying what you said in a different way.

Cheers to you from hot and hazy New Jersey, where clear skies are seldom seen this time of year.