Center filter question - usage on different formats

[Drew Wiley]

There are post-scanning apps that let you correct for fall-off density-wise; but the same principles still apply, especially in color chrome photography. You can't correct every problem that way, especially certain crossover issues. So when in doubt, use a CF at the time of the shot itself.

[rawitz]

There are post-scanning apps that let you correct for fall-off density-wise; but the same principles still apply, especially in color chrome photography. You can't correct every problem that way, especially certain crossover issues. So when in doubt, use a CF at the time of the shot itself.

Yes, every fotosoftware (not only PS) today has an automated vignetting-filter, but it only corrects center-circular fall-off in brightness, not in color.

This summer I did many colorfotografy with a lightweight 8x10`fieldcamera and Super-Angulon 120mm lens, which IC of 285mm (plus 20mm tolerance) produces full light-falloff on the film. I used no centerfilter.
The good news are: mostly I did not even have to correct with standard vignetting filter, the inherent falloff IMHO was acceptable or even improved the picture:





But there are shots like this with light-falloff plus some colorshift. As also the lens was upshifted, I had to make manually a filterlayer and use it as mask to correct decentered falloff plus colorshift (with gradation tool in PS). Its not a digital forum here, so I only show the steps here: the pic out of the scanner, the mask and the final result.







regards
Rainer

[Drew Wiley]

I've even used CF's for the wrong reason on enlarging lenses, to create a perfectly round falloff effect in the print itself, and do so more consistently than conventional corner and edge burning.

[Bernice Loui]

Light fall-off and color shift reduced, but re-shifted in color and density visible in the digitally transmitted version of these images.

Could be ok for some not ok for others...

IMO, what has happened today, digital coupled with software bending of digital images have become SO prevalent and everyday majority of folks that grew up on digital/software images today have fallen into the pit of believing anything image related can be done via software. A product of digits, web and software centric society/culture of today..

IMO, if controlling light fall off of wide angle LF lenses IS important, get and use the proper wide angle lens with it's matching CF-ND filter.. Get the image best possible on film and do as little if any fixing via software as possible. Cost of the proper CF-ND filter is nil compared to the cost of sheet film, processing, time spent (not recoverable), resources related to creating these images on film. It is false economy to exclude using the proper CF-ND filter if needed then try other means to fix what is not really fixable..

Another very real problem, what IS the point or metric of reference for color rendition on film and it's overall density.. There was a time in this color film stuff when there were absolutes in references for color rendition and density plus the innate color rendition personality of a given color film.. That has essentially vaporized today.. Neutral color rendition, hue, saturation and more is not always desirable as color is tied to emotions which can be bent by the image maker based on their image goals..


Bernice

But there are shots like this with light-falloff plus some colorshift. As also the lens was upshifted, I had to make manually a decentered BW-filterlayer and use it as mask to correct decentered falloff plus colorshift (with gradation tool in PS). Its not a digital forum here, so I only show the steps here: the pic out of the scanner, the mask and the final result.







regards
Rainer

[Drew Wiley]

There might also be very real variables associated with the nature of the ND material itself in relation to pixel capture which behave differently than film. So, just like Bernice implied, a lot of folk nowadays wouldn't even realize it if it was there, because they're concept of color itself is so plastic. But if an architect or designer hires you to reasonably faithfully replicate the color they had in mind, and not your own creative fantasies, having an understanding of what is really going on can be essential.

I'm personally more annoyed how color outdoor photographers go out and largely preempt the beauty of actual color relationships in nature, and substitute their own obnoxious sticky-sweet digital honey and jam, because they haven't ever learned to actually LOOK at anything intently or contemplatively. No color film or paper ever invented can be termed actual visual reality; but there should at least be an attempt to communicate a deep personal impression of what was actually there, and not switch it out for just another kitchy overtly-colorized stereotype.

[Bernice Loui]

Having been severely "disciplined" into the importance of color rendition and much more relative to color images, then having a reasonable memory and understanding what accurate/neutral color rendition is much about.. taking "liberties" with color does not sit well. For others, color is another creative image expressive tool and means to an end..

IMO, better to fully understand what this color image stuff is all about then apply as needed to achieve those image goals.. For some this means absolute color accuracy/neutral color rendition others. completely "interpreted" color for eye poking effect.. There is should be and can be a place for both..



Bernice

There might also be very real variables associated with the nature of the ND material itself in relation to pixel capture which behave differently than film. So, just like Bernice implied, a lot of folk nowadays wouldn't even realize it if it was there, because they're concept of color itself is so plastic. But if an architect or designer hires you to reasonably faithfully replicate the color they had in mind, and not your own creative fantasies, having an understanding of what is really going on can be essential.

I'm personally more annoyed how color outdoor photographers go out and largely preempt the beauty of actual color relationships in nature, and substitute their own obnoxious sticky-sweet digital honey and jam, because they haven't ever learned to actually LOOK at anything intently or contemplatively. No color film or paper ever invented can be termed actual visual reality; but there should at least be an attempt to communicate a deep personal impression of what was actually there, and not switch it out for just another kitchy overtly-colorized stereotype.

[rawitz]

IMO, if controlling light fall off of wide angle LF lenses IS important, get and use the proper wide angle lens with it's matching CF-ND filter.. Get the image best possible on film and do as little if any fixing via software as possible.

Bernice

I agree

[rawitz]

Having been severely "disciplined" into the importance of color rendition and much more relative to color images, then having a reasonable memory and understanding what accurate/neutral color rendition is much about.. taking "liberties" with color does not sit well. For others, color is another creative image expressive tool and means to an end..

IMO, better to fully understand what this color image stuff is all about then apply as needed to achieve those image goals.. For some this means absolute color accuracy/neutral color rendition others. completely "interpreted" color for eye poking effect.. There is should be and can be a place for both..



Bernice

But the "new color photography" era in the 60th and 70th started with new enlarging/printing technics. William Egglestone introduced the DyTransfer, and the photographers now could compose color within analog "manipulation". Digital technic did not invent it.

[Corran]

majority of folks that grew up on digital/software images today have fallen into the pit of believing anything image related can be done via software.

Get the image best possible on film and do as little if any fixing via software as possible.

Anything one could possibly want to do CAN be done in software. You can redraw the entire image pixel-by-pixel if you want. It's not a question of "possible" but whether or not the effort or time is manageable/desirable. Which is where the second statement comes into play. That's a perfectly fine and reasonable thought.

That said, for color shifts related to fall-off, a simple color curve filter + mask can be used to fix that in just a couple of clicks. For those doing digital output it is reasonable to use the tools available to "fix" as necessary / desired any given fall-off or other issue. And of course many folks use fall-off or other "defects" (depending on how that is defined) for creative use / expression.

I continue to not bother with CFs, mostly.

[Alan Klein]

For whatever it's worth, a CF loses two stops.