Using Rosco sheets in place of Wratten gel filters?

[Mark Sampson]

I've wondered about this too. Seems like it would be worth a try- a few sheets of film and paper will give the answer.
It may be that getting the tones where you want them is more important than how sharp the fine details are recorded, at least on occasion. And you might not be sacrificing anything.

[PRJ]

I used some lighting gels once, don't remember if they were Roscos, in front of a pinhole camera. It was obvious they caused banding so the gels aren't uniform. Whether or not that would affect your application would depend on what you are doing. Probably won't, but they do affect sharpness a bit. Will that matter? It will depend on you.

[Willie]

Old and sub par lenses it won't make a lot of difference.
Buy premium quality lenses and use sub par filters - Why?

[BrianShaw]

I used some lighting gels once, don't remember if they were Roscos, in front of a pinhole camera. It was obvious they caused banding so the gels aren't uniform. Whether or not that would affect your application would depend on what you are doing. Probably won't, but they do affect sharpness a bit. Will that matter? It will depend on you.

That can be alleviated by using an effective lens hood/shade.

[Vaidotas]

And Kodak wratten gels are still around, patience and luck pays off.

[jnantz]

I used some lighting gels once, don't remember if they were Roscos, in front of a pinhole camera. It was obvious they caused banding so the gels aren't uniform. Whether or not that would affect your application would depend on what you are doing. Probably won't, but they do affect sharpness a bit. Will that matter? It will depend on you.

I found that it didn't matter at all for me, had no issues with sharpness or banding or anything else. To be honest, I would have used kodak ( or other well known brand ) glass filters with the correct filter number for my application but
the only ones I found were a small diameter and those ( the wrong ones ) would have cost a small fortune. ... I figure I spent probably 10bucks in total for a lifetime supply of tri chrome fun ...

[nolindan]

I'm as much of a sharpness geek as anyone. I make 20x24's from 35mm negatives and examine the corners of the prints with a 10x jeweler's loupe. APO lenses for 4x5 and the enlarger. Even as I argue that nobody ever said "That would have been a great photograph if only he had used a Leica lens" (change brand as appropriate).

I have never noticed sharpness degradation from using Rosco gels. From the comments, it seems folks who have actually used them are quite satisfied. I understand the horror of buying a $4,000 lens and plopping a few cents worth of colored plastic in front of it - but think of the bohemian cachet of it all.

So try them - you might be surprised how well they work. Certainly doesn't cost anything.

[Drew Wiley]

Another big negative over coated glass - plastic filters of any type are electrostatic and attract dust. That can be a big headache in the field. True gels had a somewhat different Achilles heel - fragile, easily crease-marked or fingerprinted, dust could get embedded. I only use them in the lab for special applications. But like I already hinted, I keep a set of cheap polyester filters on hand myself - great for "what if" testing purposes.