Filters ... why, what type and when to use them?

Keith

Keith

The best camera is one that still works!
Local time
9:36 PM
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
19,242
One thing (of many) that I have absolutely no idea about is filters.

When to use them, what is available and what they all do. I thought this may make a good sticky as a resource in this forum if a mod can oblige. :)

One of the reasons I ask is my F8 Widelux came with a full filter set and I don't really have a clue what each one does. :eek:
 
Here's a link I find to be very informative.

http://www.fineart-photography.com/bwfilter.html

Personally I almost always have a medium yellow attached and periodically use an orange when the scene calls for a bit of drama. Polarisers and grads are an area I've never really investigated so no opinion here.

Another filter I use a lot is a 3x ND as the light here can be very bright at times.
 
Last edited:
I am a fan of yellow-green filters for general use an people shots. Darkens lips and adds some character to people. Occasionally I will use a dark orange-red filter for landscape type pictures. However, this is easy to overdo.
Have fun with your new kit!
 
Hello, I don't mean to hijack the thread but may I jump in with my question here as I think it is relevant concerning red filters. I have had a disaster with my Leica rangefinder in Scotland. I have taken mainly shots of Castles etc and everything is too dark after using the red filter

I used hp5 + film at 400 asa

When I metered with my reconditioned weston meter (which I believe works fine) I was getting a reading of between 400 and 500 generally. I, therefore, adjusted 3 stops (I think??) to 200 (500 to 400 1 stop, 400 to 300 2 stops and 300 to 200 3 stops)

Should I have read the stops differently and perhaps as 500 to 250 (or 200) as one, 250 (or 200) to 100 as two and 100 to 60 as three? If so I have answered my own question!

John
 
Since we're on RFF.. I'm going to throw out what I normally would use filters for on the Leica (or any other Rangefinder for that matter) film cameras:
  1. Polarizer - getting rid of reflections/glare - I don't have a polarizer right now (I don't find myself shooting that much into store windows) but it can come in handy to enhance the sky, to block out reflections and to reduce some glare - the downside is you usually take a bit of a hit to the shutter speed due to the polarizer requiring up to one and a third stops
  2. Neutral Density (ND) - just cuts down light transmission - awesome if you want to continue to use high speed film in broad daylight or you want to make people "disappear" in photos/street scenes. Also good for motion in daylight with low speed (or normal speed) film. I have a couple (77mm and 58mm) that are 10 stop and 6 stop respectively - the 10 stop one is like welding glass so you have to set your shot up before, meter appropriately, and bracket :) I've gotten some good results with these.
  3. UV Filters - strictly glass protectors - I have one, and only one, that sits in the hood of for my 35mm pre-ASPH lux - I don't usually travel with a cover for this lens so better to have a filter on the hood so the lens is protected from, well, just about anything. I believe UV filters are, for the most part, pointless otherwise (just my personal opinion, YMMV)

I'm sure there are others (star filters and all that) but I haven't used them - those above I have used and the only ones I've ever found useful. The one I would suggest for most folks is the ND filters as they can be indispensable if you find yourself going from low light to bright light.

Cheers,
Dave
 
Roman A Clef said:
Should I have read the stops differently and perhaps as 500 to 250 (or 200) as one, 250 (or 200) to 100 as two and 100 to 60 as three?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it probably would not have completely fixed your issue - you seem to have underexposed by two stops by factor, but the factors itself already don't go all the way to a good exposure for landscapes. Filters change the spectral response, hence the exposure factor will depend on the spectral content of the scenery. The stop definitions are for whatever the filter maker considers the ideal average subject in average conditions and average illumination. For gentle filters like light yellow or yellow-green they will be pretty close under just about any condition, but for dramatically blocking filters like red they can be off by several stops, if you photograph architecture with hard shadows under a clear blue sky rather than skin tones in a softly lit studio...

FWIW, with a bit of experience you'll be able to guess at the spectral bias of the subject by holding the filter in front of the meter - by itself this would give you no better exposure than the factory standard factors, but it is handy as a extra help.
 
ReeRay said:
Here's a link I find to be very informative.

http://www.fineart-photography.com/bwfilter.html

Personally I almost always have a medium yellow attached and periodically use an orange when the scene calls for a bit of drama. Polarisers and grads are an area I've never really investigated so no opinion here.

Another filter I use a lot is a 3x ND as the light here can be very bright at times.
Click to expand...

I also like how it is explained on provided link.
Also like to use medium yellow for daylight.
And also have yellow-green to use under good light for people. It is 2x ND filter by same time.
 
sevo said:
Yes, but it probably would not have completely fixed your issue - you seem to have underexposed by two stops by factor, but the factors itself already don't go all the way to a good exposure for landscapes. Filters change the spectral response, hence the exposure factor will depend on the spectral content of the scenery. The stop definitions are for whatever the filter maker considers the ideal average subject in average conditions and average illumination. For gentle filters like light yellow or yellow-green they will be pretty close under just about any condition, but for dramatically blocking filters like red they can be off by several stops, if you photograph architecture with hard shadows under a clear blue sky rather than skin tones in a softly lit studio...

FWIW, with a bit of experience you'll be able to guess at the spectral bias of the subject by holding the filter in front of the meter - by itself this would give you no better exposure than the factory standard factors, but it is handy as a extra help.
Click to expand...
Good points, and I might suggest another... The film and meter are unlikely to share the same spectral response. Under "ordinary" circumstances we learn that the meter reading is generally pretty reasonable, but the farther away from "normal" the light color is the more meter accuracy becomes unreasonable. I'm recalling pretty consistent underexposure when using a meter in reddish light, because the film is less sensitive to red than the meter. This sort of discrepancy is an issue with stronger color filters...
 
I just began reading a book i had sitting on the shelf for a year or so. Its from the 1970's "Advanced Photography Manual". Im finding it very helpful and informative in regards to when and wear to use filters for tonal seporation in B&W. I had never given much thought about the way colour is transformed to shades of grey on the film and never thought about how two different colors can appear as the same tone. Sorry i can't provide any more isight but i am finding reading up on it is useful.
 
I use a lot of filters. Yellow and green for sure - green for guys and yellow for the ladies. Well, if I want traditional looking pictures. I prefer red. For just about everything. It cuts out three stops so I use Delta 3200 and expose as if the film was 400. I love the contrast, and the way it radically lightens skin. Kind of a zombification if you get the light just right. Other times, I want to bring out the grunge look, so I put an 80A on black and white film. White skies, lots of glare, and it really brings out the blems and wrinkles.

And yeah, I also use polarizers, stars, multi-image and the odd UV smeared with nose grease.
 
How ...

... filters don't change the light. All filters do is block some of it.

So for example, a red filter looks red because it's allowing the red light through and is blocking the rest of the spectrum to a greater or lesser extent ... so anything in the finished print that wasn't red will look darker in relation to how it looked in reality

What type ...

... B+W multicoated are pretty good if a bugger to get and keep clean

When to use ...

... as little as possible (or use colour print film and do it in photoshop later)
 
Sparrow said:
... filters don't change the light. All filters do is block some of it.

So for example, a red filter looks red because it's allowing the red light through and is blocking the rest of the spectrum to a greater or lesser extent ... so anything in the finished print that wasn't red will look darker in relation to how it looked in reality
Click to expand...


That's the first explanation of how filters work that's ever made sense to me ... congratulations! :p
 
Sparrow said:
... filters don't change the light. All filters do is block some of it.

So for example, a red filter looks red because it's allowing the red light through and is blocking the rest of the spectrum to a greater or lesser extent ... so anything in the finished print that wasn't red will look darker in relation to how it looked in reality
Click to expand...

That's right. By increasing the exposure, some parts of the picture look brighter even if they weren't red, but contained a red component. Brown trees, white clouds and beige skin all look light against a dark sky with deep red filter like a #29, or even #25 (especially if underexposed and over-developed to increase the contrast. It's my favorite way to shoot in the desert.)

As you point out, It's important to understand some color theory, especially the color wheel of light and complementary colors. Perhaps one reason I like red filters so much is that I am deuteranopic - I don't see green - so have an easy time previsualizing the effect of a red filter.
 
I use a polariser (1) when most of the scene is in direct sunlight or (2) when the sky occupies a lot of the frame or (3) whenever a water is in the frame (ocean, etc).
I have used it at car shows to reduce glare off the cars but it sometimes gives a very flat look to the paint - some glare is good !

I use a UV protector if it's windy.

I use a soft/fx #1 when snapshooting friends at parties, etc.

I own about every gimmick filter there is, from years back when I was learning - - I learned to stop using them :D
 
I found it useful to read things like the two links above, then experiment. Filter factors worked pretty well for me, but Doug has a good point to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom