Steve M.
Veteran
I understand that putting anything between my subject and the lens (like a filter) can degrade an image, but I wonder how much?
i
I have a Canon FT QL with a FL 135 3.5 lens that takes nice portraits, but I can't use this setup for portraits outside in the sun because of the camera's low top shutter speed of 1/1000, which is probably closer to an actual 1/400.
Rather than buying another camera, I was wondering if the addition of a simple ND filter would allow me to use this setup in bright light and still keep the lens aperture wide open w/o noticeably affecting IQ? Is there anyone here that has tried ND filters that could give me a little info on this? I looked on the web but all I saw was conjecture, not any actual experiences with this. Thanks.
i
I have a Canon FT QL with a FL 135 3.5 lens that takes nice portraits, but I can't use this setup for portraits outside in the sun because of the camera's low top shutter speed of 1/1000, which is probably closer to an actual 1/400.
Rather than buying another camera, I was wondering if the addition of a simple ND filter would allow me to use this setup in bright light and still keep the lens aperture wide open w/o noticeably affecting IQ? Is there anyone here that has tried ND filters that could give me a little info on this? I looked on the web but all I saw was conjecture, not any actual experiences with this. Thanks.
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I'd be more worried about nailing focus, especially if you are going to be shooting that setup wide open.
raid
Dad Photographer
If the ND filter is dirty, it will lower clarity.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Get a good multicoated ND filter and use a hood. You'll probably not ever notice a difference.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Steve M.
Veteran
It's 3.5 wide open. Normally I don't have trouble w/ even faster 135 lenses getting focus. f3.5 covers a little error here and there.
Oh, I see your point now capitalk. The image in the viewfinder is going to be pretty darned dark w/ even a 2 or 3 stop ND filter. This is not gonna work. Let me try a red filter on it now and see how it looks. Pretty sure the red is a 3 stop adjustment.
Oh, I see your point now capitalk. The image in the viewfinder is going to be pretty darned dark w/ even a 2 or 3 stop ND filter. This is not gonna work. Let me try a red filter on it now and see how it looks. Pretty sure the red is a 3 stop adjustment.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I dunno about that. I can focus a 135mm lens stopped down pretty easily and accurately even at f/8 on my Leicaflex SL or Nikon F. (It's much easier on an EVF camera, of course, because the finder brightens if I have it set up that way.)
Steve M.
Veteran
But could you focus it w/ a filter reducing the light by 3 stops Godfrey? Maybe on a Leicaflex, but my FT QL does not have the same brightness of a Leicaflex viewfinder.
Tried it w/ a red filter and to be honest, I don't think I can get accurate focus on the eyes consistently. That may not matter w/ at f3.5..... it might be "good enough".
Three stops is not quite all I need in sunlight w/ Tri-X, but I can either over expose and under develop, or use a slower ISO film. The only way to find out is to try it. Fortunately, I sometimes like the red filter with portraits.
Tried it w/ a red filter and to be honest, I don't think I can get accurate focus on the eyes consistently. That may not matter w/ at f3.5..... it might be "good enough".
Three stops is not quite all I need in sunlight w/ Tri-X, but I can either over expose and under develop, or use a slower ISO film. The only way to find out is to try it. Fortunately, I sometimes like the red filter with portraits.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Get a good quality multi-coated ND filter, not more than .9 (3 stops) and practice. And try using Adox Silvermax 100. You should then be good in bright light.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
retinax
Well-known
I would not worry about the IQ, but about focusing. f/3.5 does not cover errors if you don't have a wider aperture to use for focusing. This is one thing RFs excel at, using filters and still having a vice view in the finder (although 135 is stretching it). I'd use slower film, or stop down. 135mm will still have little DOF at f/8, just look for something non-distracting in the background, and get the benefit of having eyes as well as nose in focus.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I was thinking about f/8 would be about right because you're talking a 135mm f/3.5 lens with 2-3 stops ND filter in front of it, and assuming focusing with the lens wide open. As long as the lens is reasonably contrasty wide open, focusing between f/8 and f/11 shouldn't be that difficult.
A red filter, however, makes it much harder to focus. This is because our eyes are much less sensitive to red light (one of the reasons why some vehicle manufacturers use red lit instruments so that the drivers' eyes are not night-blinded by the instrument readouts).
I've sold my Elmarit-R 135mm lens, but did a little testing with a Summicron-R 90 and Elmar-R 180mm on the Leicaflex SL body, both by stopping down and by fitting a stack of 2 stop + 1 stop ND filters (I have a 6 stop as well but that gets pretty extreme...). My focusing results are somewhat dependent on the subject matter and the kind of light hitting the subject, but with either lens and the filter stack (effective f/5.6 with the 90mm and effective f/11 with the 180mm) is pretty easy. It becomes tougher to focus when simulating the filter stack with stopping down the aperture due to the change in DoF, but I can still hit correct focus with the 90mm at up to f/8 fairly consistently and every time with the 180mm at f/11. A 135mm lens would be somewhere in the middle, but usable too.
Only experimentation is going to tell you what works for your needs, but be careful about making judgements based on using a red filter.
faris
Well-known
Have you tried focusing without the filter, then putting the filter on ( in manual ) and adjust your ss or aperture.
I use mc filters from bw or heliopause.
I use mc filters from bw or heliopause.
brbo
Well-known
You actually got unusable pictures on negative ISO100 film at f3.5?!
Are you located much closer to the Sun than the rest of us?
Are you located much closer to the Sun than the rest of us?
Huss
Veteran
Going by Sunny F16, that would be 1/1000 sec @ 5.6.
Add to the fact that he mentioned that his camera overexposes anyway @ 1/1000 by over 1 stop, he is overexposing the film by 2.5 stops.
Personally if my camera shot 1/400 at an indicated 1/1000, I would get it fixed or replace it.
Good quality ND filters do not affect the image. Fuji/Hasselblad use them on some of their lenses for the Xpan to even vignetting, and the images still look incredibly sharp to me.
Huss
Veteran
Also, the OP can choose from a whole bunch of films in the 20-50 ISO range.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...07|25+fct_iso-asa_3107|50&cp=1731+9954+39569&
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...07|25+fct_iso-asa_3107|50&cp=1731+9954+39569&
retinax
Well-known
Also, any specific reason why you want to do portraits in full sun? That's a very "special" look, IMHO one needs a good reason for doing that. Not only does it give harsh shadows, it also means the model has the sun shining in her/his eyes, which isn't conducive to a relaxed expression.
Mcary
Well-known
One thing you could try is shooting earlier or later in the day and placing the subject so they're facing away from the sun/you're shooting into the sun then just expose for them an let the background be blown out. If you have reflector you can use that to bounce some light back on your subject. Also depending on what kind of portraits you shooting 1/4 vs full length for 1/4 to 1/2 since you're working closer you maybe able to stop down to F 5.5 and still blur the background.
bayernfan
Well-known
i use 3 stop (0.9) B+W MC ND filters ALL the time. never had an issue.
Steve M.
Veteran
The full sun thing is only because I live in the desert, and....well, it IS the desert. Usually I can find some shade, but in case I can't it's good to know I can shoot in it. I almost never shoot a portrait inside, and there are some wonderful opportunities here in the early morning or evening for some great light.
You have a Leica R 90 2.0 Summicron Godfrey? That is a fantastic lens. It's magic at f2 or f2.8. I almost never stopped mine down beyond f4 for head shots.
Currently I am having a shootout with a couple of lenses on my Nikon SLR, but I looked at the shots from the FL 135 3.5 and they look OK. It's no Summicron, but it ain't bad either.
I sorta forgot that I can just shoot slower ISO film, but Tri-X is so flexible, it can be shot at all sorts of speeds and look good if you develop it right.
That idea about focusing first and then holding the filter up is golden faris. Thanks! Great suggestions from everyone.
These were all shot wide open between 1.8 and 2.8. Nothing special (except the last one), but I like them. The last one was from the R 90 Summicron. If the two 135 lenses in my shootout don't come close to the Summi I am buying another. Probably never should have sold the 90 Summicron.
You have a Leica R 90 2.0 Summicron Godfrey? That is a fantastic lens. It's magic at f2 or f2.8. I almost never stopped mine down beyond f4 for head shots.
Currently I am having a shootout with a couple of lenses on my Nikon SLR, but I looked at the shots from the FL 135 3.5 and they look OK. It's no Summicron, but it ain't bad either.
I sorta forgot that I can just shoot slower ISO film, but Tri-X is so flexible, it can be shot at all sorts of speeds and look good if you develop it right.
That idea about focusing first and then holding the filter up is golden faris. Thanks! Great suggestions from everyone.
These were all shot wide open between 1.8 and 2.8. Nothing special (except the last one), but I like them. The last one was from the R 90 Summicron. If the two 135 lenses in my shootout don't come close to the Summi I am buying another. Probably never should have sold the 90 Summicron.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
They only ND filter I noticed IQ degradation was cheap, plastic, slide into the holder ND filters from eBay and only If I stuck two or three of them together. 
.
.jgrainger
Established
I've 2 and 3 stop ND filters.. focusing isn't great (but acceptable for stationary subjects, slr) on a F4 zoom or medium tele, and the pictures can take on a sight colour cast using all 5 stops at the same time, but 2 or 3 stops is generally fine.. you can get an idea by testing with a digital camera which has the white balance set to a non-auto value - though film can vary depending on it's sensitivity to different parts of the colour spectrum.
If you're shooting colour print film then you'd possibly be alright to gain a stop or two just by over exposing, the negative density can change but depending how much, and the lab in question, it can still work out fine.
Using a clean, decent quality filter and lens hood usually produces good results which don't stand out as being filter shots in a bad way (some effects, eg; time exposure on water, are obvious to fellow photographers but not to everyone else).
Jonathan
If you're shooting colour print film then you'd possibly be alright to gain a stop or two just by over exposing, the negative density can change but depending how much, and the lab in question, it can still work out fine.
Using a clean, decent quality filter and lens hood usually produces good results which don't stand out as being filter shots in a bad way (some effects, eg; time exposure on water, are obvious to fellow photographers but not to everyone else).
Jonathan