Actually, the factors are correct. You are just changing the parameters to match your subjective judgment and your system. These filters are designed to remove blue so the fact that you shadows deepen is not a surprise. If you want to personalize you exposures, go ahead. But since you have no idea about the tastes of others, nor the conditions they are shooting under, the only place to start is with the manufacturers filter factors.
You have mis-read my post and gotten things in reverse. It is irrelevant whether the filter factors are 'correct' if the test criteria bear no relationship to shooting conditions. They appear not to bear any relation to mine and I shoot under big blue skies too.
The OP asked whether the manufacturers factors are always right and I said to test as I found they were miles out. You say to use the manufacturers factor because it is always right, period. You say:
Originally Posted by Finder
"The factors are NOT a guide. Use that information. The errors are in metering, not filter factors--meters have color errors, so never meter through a filter."
Sorry, this is misleading very poor advice if the intent it to help the OP get the best results. If you are not metering through the filter how can the error be due to metering?
I have tested the B&W filters asked about extensively and for every manner of test I managed (with the stated exception of extreme blue light dominance) my factors maintain shadow exposure which for B&W photography is probably the only useful benchmark. The point being that with my filter factors the shadows remain the same as the control, but with the manufacturer's figures they
increase in density. Yes, you would expect a yellow or orange to deepen skylit shadows but my factors are such that even with a big blue sky and normal shooting, I get the same shadow density as the control i.e. over 99% of shooting situations that would apply not only to me but others.
Try running a test and then tell me you still disagree. I bet you would have to be half way up a large mountain under a big blue sky to need the full stop to maintain equal shadow detail on a #8 compared to no filter.
I am very confident that you will change your tune. I have run the test on various cameras, films and conditions and the results were identical.
Over exposure is overexposure. Using the manufacturers factors, if anything, blue sky values were maintained and the density of every other part of the neg increased substantially. Thats no use whatsoever as it requires printing down a very dense neg. If your shadows take a hike over the control (and assuming the control metering is as desired) what would the point in that be?
I suspect the manufacturers use a very conservative factor to ensure you do not lose excessive shadow detail when in areas heavily under blue light. This makes sense and does not mean I am making things fit my sebjective argument, only that their testing to determine factors is not representative of most shooting conditions, only an extreme that they have cautiously catered to.
Have you actually done any tests and speaking from experience here? I think there is something you are missing here: actual photography and real-world usage. If you take me at my word, what is wrong with the logic outlined above and in what way would be better to use the manufacturers factors and consistently result in over exposed negs unless I drop the exposure by 2/3 stops (which is what I am doing!)???