Do you use filters regularly for B&W?

[chippy]

Would any of you think that it is better to take care of things in the D&P stage?

whenever possible its always better to get the image the way you want or as close as you can imagine in the camera first-if there is little difference in greyscale between, for example, cloud and sky to begin with on the neg, then there isnt much post D&P can do-you need something to work with on the neg first

 

[oftheherd]

...

greens i find are a waste of time (probably the photography hoax of the last century) and only do what yellow does but increase exposure time more (OK if thats what you need-kinda like puting an ND filter on-i use ND often by the way-because i use modern fast films and vintage slow shutters)

blue filters same thing--but they do look pretty in the collection tho

...

Said tongue in cheek I presume, sir. Greens can be useful for portraits, especially in caucasian skin, as they can render human skin a little smoother, giving a better looking complexion. Reds can be used to lighten human skin in b/w. It has been used to slightly lighten very dark African American skin when necessary to do so, especially to contrast in against other backgrounds.

Greens and blue, in b/w, will lighten their own color. The classic example from Kodak was a green in b/w to separate rose blossoms from their leaves. Or, you could use the red to lighten the blossoms and darken the leaves.

You probably won't use them often for things like that, but they do have their use.

 

[chippy]

Said tongue in cheek I presume, sir. Greens can be useful for portraits, especially in caucasian skin, as they can render human skin a little smoother, giving a better looking complexion. Reds can be used to lighten human skin in b/w. It has been used to slightly lighten very dark African American skin when necessary to do so, especially to contrast in against other backgrounds.

Greens and blue, in b/w, will lighten their own color. The classic example from Kodak was a green in b/w to separate rose blossoms from their leaves. Or, you could use the red to lighten the blossoms and darken the leaves.

You probably won't use them often for things like that, but they do have their use.

Hi oftheherd, probably slightly tounge in cheek but thats kinda how i do feel about them though

I agree about the use of red filters- i do use them, and the kodak example i find interesting (if not typical advertising hype), i agree with the red part but i find the green filter does nothing much a yellow wont do. at least i remember testing the green and yellow coinsidently with a red rose against the foliage as well and it didnt seem to make a difference

its interesting because i was recently reading some old photo magazines that had articles about the green filters, and a number of advertisments for their use. old style ortho film (can still get it now of course) made the red in peoples faces appear blotchy and were often retouched after to overcome it, then the early Pan films were said to have dip in sensetivity in the green and over sensitive to reds (and blues)causing faces to look pale hence the need for the green filters to overcome it, so they say. a later article in a different magazine measured them all and found that green didnt do anything that yellow didnt do already all things being equal, nor did it actually fix the problem with pale faces with the early Pan film, what did cure it was the introduction of balanced pan film and it my feeling that the green filters got the credit and the idea that green filters were usefull has just stuck all these years later. its an old debate but i havnt really noticed any beifit to using a green or blue filter--well the blue filter from what i remember did make the pictures...hmm cant think of the word but not better

I am happy to learn different ,but i just dont see any real need for them at all now with modern balanced films that aren't over sensitive to reds and blues but out of curiosity i will give it a test again on portraiture. the argument about how the filter will lighten its own colour on the surface is a compelling one (because it seems logical) but in practice it doesnt seem to work for green and blue filters within the usefullness of taking pics i find

 

[maddoc]

I have UV filters on all of my lenses, the possibly negative effect on contrast (and flare) rather than cleaning the front element getting fogged by all kinds of aerosols. (I have to wipe the filter at least all two weeks ...)

For my 5 lenses all with different filter-sizes / types, I have narrowed down filters to one medium red / yellow for my Super-Angulon-M (scenery in BW), one series vii in medium yellow for my 35 Summilux, and one medium green and one yellow-green for my 90mm Summicron-M (skin-tones in BW).

 

[Haigh]

Filters for B&W

Filters for B&W

I carry a light yellow filter just to give the sky a little more contrast.

Gary Haigh

Australia

 

[oftheherd]

Hi oftheherd, probably slightly tounge in cheek but thats kinda how i do feel about them though

I agree about the use of red filters- i do use them, and the kodak example i find interesting (if not typical advertising hype), i agree with the red part but i find the green filter does nothing much a yellow wont do. at least i remember testing the green and yellow coinsidently with a red rose against the foliage as well and it didnt seem to make a difference

its interesting because i was recently reading some old photo magazines that had articles about the green filters, and a number of advertisments for their use. old style ortho film (can still get it now of course) made the red in peoples faces appear blotchy and were often retouched after to overcome it, then the early Pan films were said to have dip in sensetivity in the green and over sensitive to reds (and blues)causing faces to look pale hence the need for the green filters to overcome it, so they say. a later article in a different magazine measured them all and found that green didnt do anything that yellow didnt do already all things being equal, nor did it actually fix the problem with pale faces with the early Pan film, what did cure it was the introduction of balanced pan film and it my feeling that the green filters got the credit and the idea that green filters were usefull has just stuck all these years later. its an old debate but i havnt really noticed any beifit to using a green or blue filter--well the blue filter from what i remember did make the pictures...hmm cant think of the word but not better

I am happy to learn different ,but i just dont see any real need for them at all now with modern balanced films that aren't over sensitive to reds and blues but out of curiosity i will give it a test again on portraiture. the argument about how the filter will lighten its own colour on the surface is a compelling one (because it seems logical) but in practice it doesnt seem to work for green and blue filters within the usefullness of taking pics i find

Boy do I envy you your collection of magazines and books. I hung on to mine as long as I could, but space and a house fire robbed me of a fairly nice collection of both.

Thinking back on the green filters, I don't recall if I read that or if it came from a one week class on photography I got from the US Army. I know that is where I first learned about the red filters. I think I may have done some minor experimentation with green, but with oriental skin and that may have been the difference. Now that I have given it some thought, I wasn't so impressed with my results. More melanin than caucasian skin and that might have been the difference.

Since it sounds like you have done more extensive and recent experimentation, I bow to your knowledge. But if you do try some more, I hope you will let us know your results.

 

[John Rountree]

No one has mentioned the use of a neutral density filter. I use a 2X ND filter often to allow for a narrower depth-of-field without changing the relative tones on the negative. Actually I would like to get a 6X filter to add to the kit. I wholly agree that putting a $10 pice of glass in front of a $300 pice of glass is nonsense. It's like good whisky. The whisky makers have access to all the water they want, so why would you add more? Lens makers have all the glass they need, so....

 

[Windscale]

Thank you for all your contributions. I feel I have learnt more in a day than in a normal year. I shall experiment and get some experience myself. The original idea for posting this thread was that I was just given a stack of B&W colour filters of various colours and I did not know what to do as almost all my photography was colour. Well, it is never too late to take on something from scratch. Thanks again.

 

[chippy]

Since it sounds like you have done more extensive and recent experimentation, I bow to your knowledge. But if you do try some more, I hope you will let us know your results.

complimentory as always oftheherd but we all have our pockets of knowledge and experiance. mine i am sure is quite small. i would have liked to have been involved in half the things you have.

reading the old stuff is a hoot though, very interesting and often reveals that in times gone by they really knew thier stuff and we often seem to try or pretend to reinvent the same things nowadays.

 

[chippy]

No one has mentioned the use of a neutral density filter. I use a 2X ND filter often to allow for a narrower depth-of-field without changing the relative tones on the negative. Actually I would like to get a 6X filter to add to the kit. ....

indeed i wholy agree that they are one of the most useful (actually i did mention it in my earlier post). i use them often, particularly since i often use vintage shutters. the ND's are ideal to use todays faster film speeds in the old cameras and be able to open up the aperature without running out of shutter speed.