BW film without the 'infrared' look

[bakemono]

I've noticed that most films nowadays have red biased spectral sensitivity - ie they are very red-sensitive. For me this is unpleasant, since most portraits end up looking a bit ghostly, the skin is too light and the lips especially are too bright. See attached foma400 example to see what I mean.

Does anyone know which modern films don't suffer from this 'feature'
I think tri-x is quite good in that regard, but would love to find something a bit cheaper

 

[johnf04]

Use a red filter.

 

[monopix]

Use a red filter.

If you mean a filter that is coloured red then that will just make it worse. The red content needs to be reduced so a blue or green would be needed. Probably a blue colour compensating (cc) filter would be the best answer.

http://www.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploa...ost_Production/Kodak_Filters/CC_Blue_scan.pdf

 

[Scrambler]

Use a red filter.

I think you probably mean "use a filter that does not transmit much red" which means a green coloured filter.

Otherwise use an orthochromatic or orthopanchromatic film. Memory isn't leaping to my aid but there was a recent short thread about a Maco ( I think) orthopan film.

 

[bakemono]

Yes, red filter would just make reds even brighter, the blue one one the other hand would brighten the sky which already is too bright most of the time, so I guess green would be best.

The problem is - I have so many different lenses most with different sized filter threads that filtering all of them seems like a rather expensive project.

 

[monopix]

I've noticed that most films nowadays have red biased spectral sensitivity - ie they are very red-sensitive.

Not sure that's true. Fomapan 400 looks that way if you look at the sprectral sensitivity but the manufacturers don't give any information about the light source used to produce the graph. If you check out Ilford's graphs they produce them using tungsten light which will have a bias towards reds and yellows so the graph makes it look like the film is particularly sensitive to red, but in daylight it probably isn't.

 

[bakemono]

Interesting, so what is the point of publishing these sensitivity graphs, if there is no standard for the light source used?
In my experience Ilford films also have this heightened red sensitivity in portraits. Not as bad as that Foma shot, but nonetheless...

Here's fp4+

Not sure that's true. Fomapan 400 looks that way if you look at the sprectral sensitivity but the manufacturers don't give any information about the light source usd to poroduce the graph. If you check out Ilford's graphs they produce them using tungsten light which will have a bias towards reds and yellows so the graph makes it look like the film is particularly sensitive to red, but in daylight it probably isn't.

 

[monopix]

Yes, red filter would just make reds even brighter, the blue one one the other hand would brighten the sky

One of the most common misconceptions about filters is that they 'lighten' something. Filters NEVER lighten anything, they will only reduce. It's the usually associated exposure increase that lightens the image.

A mild colour compensating filter has a negligible filter factor (third of a stop maybe) so you can use it without increasing the exposure so, no, it won't lighten your sky.

 

[bakemono]

Are you completely sure about this? It may not lighten directly, but I think it would appear lighter by contrast, ie wouldn't it let through more blue color than the others, thus darkening non-blue parts, and making the blue lighter by comparison?

I wonder why a prominent filter manufacturer says:

Before we delve into what reach color filter will do the thing to remember is that in Black & White photography the each color filter will render its own color as a lighter gray in a scene while darkening it’s opposite color, also known as is complimentary color. For instance a green filter will lighten greens while absorbing reds rendering them darker.

https://hoyafilterusa.com/how-filters-for-black-white-photography-work/

One of the most common misconceptions about filters is that they 'lighten' something. Filters NEVER lighten anything, they will only reduce. It's the usually associated exposure increase that lightens the image.

A mild colour compensating filter has a negligible filter factor (third of a stop maybe) so you can use it without increasing the exposure so, no, it won't lighten your sky.

 

[Scrambler]

Filters can only darken but if it's a 2x filter you double exposure time or increase aperture and that raises the average: raises both dark and non-darkened colours.

Internal metering can also be altered as few meters are equally sensitive to all lights.

 

[Rob-F]

I've noticed that Ilford Delta films render the blue sky darker than other films. Perhaps this is due to a reduced blue sensitivity; which may be another way of saying it has increased red sensitivity. Apart from bright lips, this is not altogether a bad thing, I believe. It has about the same effect as a yellow filter.

 

[Rob-F]

Filters can only darken . . .

I

Filters lighten colors (in the print) that are the same color as the filter. They darken the complementary color. So a red filter makes red lighter and cyan darker. A green filter makes green lighter and magenta darker. A yellow filter makes yellow lighter and blue darker. A blue filter makes blue lighter and yellow darker.

 

[monopix]

Filters lighten colors (in the print) that are the same color as the filter. They darken the complementary color. So a red filter makes red lighter and cyan darker. A green filter makes green lighter and magenta darker. A yellow filter makes yellow lighter and blue darker. A blue filter makes blue lighter and yellow darker.

No such thing as 'complementary' colours when it comes to filters. That's the other common misconception. For a start, there is no such colour in the visible spectrum as magenta, so how can a filter affect it? Filters operate on visible light. You can manipulate the result later at the printing stage but the filter itself knows nothing about complementary colours.

A yellow filter makes (snip) blue darker.

yes, but a red filter will darken blue even more. How do you explain that with complementary colour theory.

If you stick to the basic science of what a filter does and look at the spectral transmission graph it's easy to understand what a filter will do to your image.

 

[Scrambler]

No. The filter itself does not increase light. The filter only decreases. Opening the aperture or prolonging the exposure increases light. How can a filter increase light? If it could surely there would not be a filter factor?

 

[monopix]

Are you completely sure about this?

100% sure.

It's what else you do (e.g. increasing the exposure) that lightens.

Yes the filter 'may' increase the contrast by darkening the blue less than the red but it won't 'lighten' anything.

The affect of the filter and anything else you do need to be treated separately. In this case, you want to darken the skin but leave the sky as it is. So a blue filter will let less red light through so decreasing the exposure of the skin and darkening it. If you do nothing else, it may also darken the sky but you would then compensate for that by increasing the exposure. The issue is how much you increase the exposure. If you increase it just enough to bring the sky back to as it was then there will be no affect on the sky and the skin tones will be darkened. Voila...

But as I said before, if you use a cc filter then the affect on the blue will be so small that you could probably leave the exposure as is.

 

[monopix]

Before we delve into what reach color filter will do the thing to remember is that in Black & White photography the each color filter will render its own color as a lighter gray in a scene while darkening it’s opposite color, also known as is complimentary color. For instance a green filter will lighten greens while absorbing reds rendering them darker.

Just went back and read this as I didn't really read it. For that to come from a filter manufacturer is ridiculous. And that's why so many people don't understand what filters do. Probably written by a junior marketing person who also doesn't understand the difference between complimentary and complementary.

 

[HHPhoto]

Does anyone know which modern films don't suffer from this 'feature'

No problem at all, there are several films which render skin tones a bit darker and more natural:

1. Panchromatic films with little red sensivity:
- Adox Silvermax
- Adox CHS 100 II
- Agfa Copex Rapid

2. Real orthopanchromatic films with lesser red sensivity:
- Fuji Neopan Acros 100
- Adox CMS 20 II

3. Orthochromatic films (red blind):
- Ilford Ortho (only available in sheets)
- Rollei Ortho 25

I've used all these films for portraits, and especially the films from group 1 and 2 are excellent for portraits (group 3 orthochromatic films have sometimes too dark skin tones).

Cheers, Jan

 

[Rob-F]

No. The filter itself does not increase light. The filter only decreases. Opening the aperture or prolonging the exposure increases light. How can a filter increase light? If it could surely there would not be a filter factor?

I'm not sure which post this is in response to. I skimmed back through the posts and if anyone said filters can increase light, I missed it. Perhaps this idea is being inferred from statements such as filters lighten or brighten their own colors. I'm sure those of us who pointed this out took it for granted that our readers know that most filters require an exposure increase; the "brightening" is an increase in the exposure on the negative, for the color in question, relative to the diminished exposure elsewhere. And the increased exposure--greater density--of the negative produces a lighter area in the print.

I don't think any of our readers were misled, since the need for a filter factor is well understood; but since the objection has been raised, it seems appropriate to offer a more detailed response.

 

[Nokton48]

Does anyone know which modern films don't suffer from this 'feature' I think tri-x is quite good in that regard, but would love to find something a bit cheaper

You might try 35mm Eastman 5222 Double-X motion picture film, it has none of the qualities that you mention. It's not a modern film, the emulsion was formulated by Eastman in 1958! I prefer it to modern Tri-X..............

 

[Rob-F]

No such thing as 'complementary' colours when it comes to filters. That's the other common misconception. For a start, there is no such colour in the visible spectrum as magenta, so how can a filter affect it? Filters operate on visible light. You can manipulate the result later at the printing stage but the filter itself knows nothing about complementary colours.

There is such a color as magenta in the light reflected by the subject. I measure incident light, but usually photograph reflected light.

Yes, but a red filter will darken blue even more. How do you explain that with complementary colour theory.

Red is a special case. Being at the long wavelength end of the visible spectrum, it simply attenuates shorter wavelengths. Nothing to worry about.

If you stick to the basic science of what a filter does and look at the spectral transmission graph it's easy to understand what a filter will do to your image.

I have the Kodak transmission charts for all Kodak Wratten filters. But I didn't think it necessary to go into all that just now, for present purposes. Will you settle for a version that leaves out complementary colors: Filters lighten their own color, and darken most other colors. So a green filter lightens foliage and darkens the sky (some). A yellow filter darkens the sky, but lightens a yellow sign in the foreground. An orange filter darkens the sky even more. Why? I think of orange as intense yellow: Kodak stop bath is orange in the bottle and becomes yellow when diluted.