analog filter or digital?

[froyd]

I'm wondering if it's worth investing in a set of BW filters (yellow, orange primarily) or if using the filter options offered by today's photographic software (Silvereffects) is just as good, if not better because of the greater flexibility in controlling the strength of the effect and the fact that my "slow" taking lens would not lose further speed by covering it with a glass filter.

Does using filters directly on the lens provide better IQ than applying them digitally in post.

The biggest disadvantage of the digital method, in my eyes, is that I would have to shoot in color to take full advantage of the filters. And I'm really set on using a specific BW emulsion, I would be limited in what could be done to it digitally as far as color filters are concerned.

 

[degruyl]

I've got a crazy question: are you shooting black and white or color? If you are shooting black and white on film, pretty much the only way to adjust contrast for different colors in the picture are via filters. Running a software filter over the scanned negative cannot make the same changes. (the same is true of in-camera digital B&W).

If you are shooting black and white digitally, you can just shoot color and do the conversion in software. While you are doing that conversion to black and white, you can adjust the colors / apply filters. You pretty much end up with an infinite variety of filters by doing this conversion on your computer, and adjusting the color blend by hand.

I shoot film (mostly), so the answer for me is obvious. That does not mean that it is the same for you.

You do lose speed when you use a filter (even the yellow filter is 1 stop, red is 3 stops), but it does not change the depth of field, just the light transmitted to the film.

 

[cope07]

what he said^^

 

[froyd]

Hi David,

I guess my post was not eloquent enough. I understand all the point you are making, which is why I was asking for advice on a recommended method: using color emulsion and digital filters, or using silver BW film and glass filters.

My main question was "does using filters directly on the lens provide better IQ than applying them digitally in post?"

The reason the question is posted on this forum is that I am more knowledgeable about the impact of a good quality analog filter than I am about digital editing and whatever detrimental effects could be caused by manipulating the image date with digital color filters.

I think it would be helpful if I specified that I shoot both MF and 35mm film, not digital. I have my film developed and scanned at a local lab. Importantly, scans are jpeg so the files I would be working with won't be terribly robust (then again I would not look to do much more than some light tweaking).

If it was deemed that the digital approach is better, I would switch to using color film for my BW. I like that my lenses (especially the Xenar) won't lose extra stops and that I'll have more control over the strength of the filter.

However, I'll miss using my favorite silver films and their unique characteristics (I lean more heavily in the Ilford camp than the Kodak except for TMZ)

 

[degruyl]

From my point of view, it is much easier to get black and white film to look like black and white film than it is to get a scan of color film (or a digital image) to look like black and white film. If your intention is to make your images look like black and white film, you might as well save a ton of time and just start there. (it takes me roughly 1/10th the time to post process a black and white scan than a color scan, and I don't change color to black and white).

If you are sending the film out for processing, you might get more consistent results if you are using C-41 processing (color print film), but only if your lab does that in-house and sends the black and white out somewhere else. If they have a production line for B&W, that is a non-issue. If you are doing the processing yourself, that is also a non-issue.

What is the scan resolution you are getting from the lab? Are you using those files to print from? I assume it is your intention to convert the scan to B&W and then have it printed. Are you getting large enough scans for the enlargement that you are looking for? Does black ink look enough like real photographic paper for you?

For me, I shoot film. I shoot E-6 for color (it is very easy to scan) and B&W for black and white. Color prints are sent out for digital printing. For B&W, I have a darkroom and two enlargers, and I can enlarge negatives up to 4x5 (and contact print 8x10). I don't print every image. I tend to proof via scans, and print only the images I like.

 

[Jamie123]

However, I'll miss using my favorite silver films and their unique characteristics.

Well, there you have it. Stick to BW film and use filters. Or shoot digital convert to BW using digital filters but shooting color film and converting to BW is, IMO, the worst of both worlds. You'll lose the unique characteristics of your favourite emulsions while still having to go through the trouble of scanning.