Yellow/orange filter comparison on Tri-X 400

[ssmc]

Hi all,

Recently I shot some Tri-X 400 using 2 different orange/yellow filters, plus no filter at all to see just how much difference there really (at least on this film) between the Hoya Orange (G) and B+W 040. According to the camera's meter, the (G) cost half a stop and the 040 a full stop. They were shot with a CLA'd M6 TTL and a ZM 35C Biogon (an extremely contrasty lens!)

Exposures at each scene were taken within a few seconds of each other (look at the clouds). I also shot the same scenes with the camera set to ISO 320 but I honestly could barely pick the difference, and then only in a couple of shots. Exposure was reset after changing filters. The shots are here:

http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/filter_test

My take on this:

• for Tri-X, sky detail and contrast was improved about equally with either the (G) or the 040, and both were much better than the unfiltered version without looking unnatural
• the light loss caused by the filters seemed to handled just fine by the camera's meter *without* adding exposure compensation (despite what the M6 TTL manual implies - maybe they mean really dark red filters, or perhaps modern film is different?)
• I would personally probably stick to the (G) filter just to get a bit more light into the lens and allow higher shutter speeds
• in other types of scene (deserts?), the difference between the (G) and 040 might well be more visible than it is here

Last, I have quite a few additional shots from this roll if anyone would like me to post them, including one with a human subject (who moved around a lot in the scene, unfortunately). The indoors scene was the only one to benefit from being shot at ISO 320 but skin tones were still pretty much the same no matter which filter was used.

Hope someone finds this useful!
Regards,
Scott

 

[venchka]

Thanks! I own and am very fond of the B+W Yellow-Orange and Yellow-Green filters. They are my most used filters for 35mm and 4x5 film.

 

[ferider]

Thanks !

I use B+W yellow filters for portraits - makes skin look nicer, IMO.

So far used red for landscapes, sometimes. Have to try yellow.

Roland.

 

[ellisson]

I see a difference in the two filters, the 040 darker and providing more cloud definition in all of the examples shown, consistent with what the M6 internal meter is reading. But a half stop difference is a modest one. I don't understand why the manual would suggest adding additional compensation if the camera has TTL metering.

 

[dfoo]

What are the documented filter factors for the filters?

 

[Steve M.]

You can't rely on the camera's TTL readings when shooting filters because the filter is only working w/ one light wavelength. The camera's TTL meter is still working as if it were metering all of the wave lengths. Usually though, it's close enough w/ B&W film. The only meaningful way to see how to meter the shot w/ filters is to expose it in half stops, keep notes, and look at the negs or printed photos. Then figure out which setting is optimal for your combination and write it on a piece of tape on your filter box.

 

[palec]

I see a difference in the two filters, the 040 darker and providing more cloud definition in all of the examples shown, consistent with what the M6 internal meter is reading. But a half stop difference is a modest one. I don't understand why the manual would suggest adding additional compensation if the camera has TTL metering.

My experience with red filter and M6 Classic metering is that negative came underexposed (simply by judging the negatives) and I see the same phenomenon in Double Negative's red filter shot (massive grain in the sky). If I just use the external meter and add 3 stops, it's much closer to correct exposure. I don't remember such problem with orange filter.

 

[Steve M.]

Scott, I'd love to look at the photos, and I did get to the thumb nails, but when I click on them I'm getting a message that the link is broken.

I agree w/ Double Negative. A yellow or orange filter is usually perfect, especially w/ uncoated lenses that need a little more contrast. The red filter is only for certain times, and not something you'd want to use regularly. Those are very helpful comparisons you posted by the way. Thanks.

It's working now Scott. Probably too many people on pbase.

 

[mfogiel]

I cannot see the photos anymore, but have the following points to make:
- as noted above, TTL exposure meter does not compensate correctly for colour filters, so you have to use an external lightmeter and compensate. In my book, yellow filter (medium) has 1 stop, and orange 2 stops factor.
- the degree of "improvement" in the sky tonality will alo depend on the type of developer, the less compensating the developer, the bigger the difference, in fact I had serious problems darkening blue skies even with a red filter when using a pyro compensating developer in semi stand

 

[bwcolor]

I like contrast and usually keep a B+W 022 2x MRC F-Pro filter for all my B&W. I was recently at a continuing education program at the Berkeley Marina (Near San Francisco). They made me get up early, so I took some sunrise photos with dark red B+W 091 8x MRC F-Pro filters using the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 & Acros. These filters provided a good bit more contrast than the yellow and really helped out with clouds that were so so to the eye. Some of the shots were directly into the sun. This lens is great for flare suppression and so are these filters. Of course, the filter factor and some of the lower light shots were challenging, but my two cents here is that if going red.. go all the way to a dark filter.. otherwise yellow or orange.

 

[ssmc]

Sorry about the disappearing photos - I am also having intermittent problems with pbase this afternoon. All I can suggest is to try again later 🙁

The filter factors are 2.5 (1-1/3 stops) for the (G) and 4 (2 stops) for the 040. B&W has such tolerance for underexposure compared to color film that it's probably difficult to see the difference between making the extra correction and not.

The difference between the measured light loss (by the TTL meter) and the quoted filter factors is actually really close between these two - 0.83 stops for the (G) and 1 stop for the 040, so I guess to get "correct" exposures it would be okay to shoot ISO 400 film at 200 with either of these filters. Then you'd end up with apertures and speeds similar to unfiltered ISO 100 film or slightly faster in the case of the (G).