Yellow / Orange filter for low contrast?

Yellow / Orange filter for low contrast?

 

I know lowering the contrast depends on the developing time which I will do, but I just wanna ask which filter would help with it. I'm thinking of a orange since it smoothens things. The filter is also to protedct my collapsible summicron which is known for having a weak front element. Thanks

The effect of various colored filters depends on the colors of your subject and also the spectral response of the film you're using(albeit most pan films are pretty similar).

 

In bright sunlight and a well-defined sky, anything in the yellow to red range will-to varying extents-increase contrast in the sky and can also increase contrast in foliage.

 

Virtually any colored filter will increase contrast in certain scenes and decrease it in others. Heck, it's common to see different effects across a scene depending on just what elements are there.

 

If I'm trying to go "light" I'll often put a dark orange filter on, while if I'm carrying filters I'll often carry light yellow, dark red, and green.

 

If you want a filter for protection, get a clear, UV, or skylight filter. Pick your colored filters based on the scene and how you want to represent it.

A contrast lowering might be achievable by using the crappiest filter you can get hold of. - Look at Otherwise orange might be a handy go to choice. - Its the one I used most frequently for a hint of sky rendering. I would not plan to use orange as a protective filter all the time. - You don't have that much light at hand, have you? - It costs 2 f-stops!

An orange filter will increase the contrast of a blue sky. Any coloured filter has the potential to increase contrast by lightening parts of the subject that are the same colour (as the filter) and darkening other colours.

 

The only filter that has the ability to lower contrast is a polariser; by removing surface reflections from foliage etc. The lack of specular reflections gives a very flat looking landscape in black and white.

 

Also a cheap uncoated UV filter will tend to lower contrast, but also has the potential for adding unwanted flare spots.

 

Slight overexposure and pulled development is the way to go to control contrast.

Edited June 12, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

For lowering contrast, I would not use orange, or yellow. Both affect colours that are present in nearly all scenery, and hence they'll nearly always end up giving more contrast.

 

Filters to protect front elements of lenses is a debatable point anyway. If the front element is easily damaged, what will happen to it when a filter shatters? A lens hood and cap are much better protection.

I've heard that blue filters might lower contrast (like an 80A or 80B) but I would suspect the effect would be minimal. I'd adjust developing times and if scanning, adjust contrast there.

The only filter that has the ability to lower contrast is a polariser; by removing surface reflections from foliage etc. The lack of specular reflections gives a very flat looking landscape in black and white.

 

I've played with polarizers a decent amount in B&W. Even though they will lower localized contrast "hot spots" by eliminating reflections, they can also increase it by doing things like better separating foliage or water from its background. Think, just for example, of a plant against a concrete wall. The plant will tend to appear overall darker and will be better separated(tonally) from the background.

 

Of course, as you said it also takes a lot of character from the foliage and a compelling composition of a plant against a concrete wall can require a decent amount of effort :) .

An orange filter will increase the contrast of a blue sky.

I think that is up for debate. - While it generates contrast between clouds and burned out similar white sky, it darkens that sky so you get more middle tones = less contrast to handle while printing your neg.

Polarizers: Wonderful in the realm of SLRs and digital mirrorless... But hey! Justin wants to shoot an RF. - I haven't gotten hold of the ancient Leica polarizers that flip up to give you a chance to judge their result in the VF and down to do their job on the lens. I fear they aren't really cheap and might by now suffer from degradation. - Polarizers have to include a plastic element. - Getting them refurbished with a new optical element might become really expensive. Unscrewing a modern polarizer eyeballing how to turn it and retightening it is slow.

 

I doubt that glass shattering impact is the risk against which protective filters shall protect. Their main purpose is to provide a surface that will survive our to some extent clumsy cleaning attempts or is cheaper to replace once it didn't. Lens caps are mandatory with RF FP shutters made from cloth.

I warmly recommend getting a Chinese vented lens hood, preferably in a set with a hood cap. - It isn't as sophisticated as Konica's for their 35mm, which allows turning the hood after tightening it, to make sure slits and VF align, but considering the price point I absolutely didn't mind gluing 3 bits of shimming tape onto mine to fix it in the right place on my UV IR block filter.

FWiW here is a traditional chart of filter effect for B&W.

Contrast, per se, was not precisely the point.

Contrast?

Oranges with a BW MRC yellow-orange 040M filter factor 4 (2 stops). Tmax 400, -1 stop metering on the leaves, f8 1/1000 50mm ZF2 1.4. No post processing.

"Unscrewing a modern polarizer eyeballing how to turn it and retightening it is slow."

 

- Is speed any sort of issue with landscape photography? Besides, old linear pols are cheap, especially in small sizes. You could have two and hold one to the eye and adjust one on the lens to the same orientation. No inventiveness some people!

For average sunlit scenes where there is light and shade the contrast reducing filter needed is the opposite of orange, namely blue. Why? Because the shadows are lit only by blue sky and consequently the things in the shadows only reflect blue light. Sunlit areas reflect yellow and blue light because they are lit by (obviously!) the sun which delivers yellow and blue light. A blue filter will let through just about all the light coming from the shadows - blue - but hold back much of the "non-blue" light coming from the sunlit ares. The result is that the apparent brightness of shadows and sunlit highlights is brought closer together. Closer together means the same as lower contrast.

 

Taking pictures through a blue filter introduces a tonal distortion where the relative brightness of familiar things looks strange. For example blue sky goes white while skin tones and faces go remarkably dark. I suspect most people would find this look unpleasant.

"Unscrewing a modern polarizer eyeballing how to turn it and retightening it is slow."

 

- Is speed any sort of issue with landscape photography? Besides, old linear pols are cheap, especially in small sizes. You could have two and hold one to the eye and adjust one on the lens to the same orientation. No inventiveness some people!

 

Along those same lines, you can always put a dot of white-out on the rim so that you can transplant the correct orientation from your eye to the camera.

I used to have a series VI polarizer, which had a little arm with a view polarizer to look through.

 

That was the rangefinder days, when it was pretty much necessary.

 

Ones meant for SLRs don't have that, though they also don't easily fit on series VI lenses.

I guess the OP "continues" discussion here: Should I buy keep the filter or buy a useful one for my collapsible summicron? .