Filters for B&W portraits.

Hi,

 

What kind of filters are usually used for B&W portraits if any? I

personally don't see why someone would want to use filters for

portraits but I'm pretty much a beginer so my understanding of them

might very well be incomplete. Thanks!

Probably most B&W portraits are taken without filters,

and usually going filterless is fine, about as good as it gets.

<p>

A light orange or reddish filter can lighten freckles or reddish

skin blemishes, but be careful -- it will lighten red lips

as well, producing an unnatural look. Strategic choice

of lipstick color and shade can make this work out fine, though.

The use of filters for B&W portraiture is kinda ridiculous for me.<p>A filter will eat 1-3 stops of light and I <i>never</i> have enough light.<p>I suggest you learn the basics and if you have to alter the image do it in post production, be it the darkroom or Photoshop.

I haven't done a whole lot of B&W portriature. But...when I have...I never used a filter. Much of what I shot was indoors with natural light streaming in. I couldn't afford to lose any stops anyway.

Gabor,

Contrary to the previous responders, I found color filters to be essential for B&W portraiture. My standard filter is orange, I'm not sure how else you can (easily) add contrast to the picture. Darkroom work is no substitute (as someone suggested above), as changing paper grade produces totally different effect. For the reference, I use mostly Fuji Acros in 35mm and 6x7. Give it a try, you may like the effect. Color filter do the same thing to B&W film, whether you're shooting landscapes or studio portraits.

The truth is that you should filter at all times in B&W - you should use a yellow filter as a standard (B&W is too sensitive to blue, the yellow filter will create a correct tone balance) and use the others as needed for really pro results. With all the crappy, undercontrasty shots on this site, it should be obvious that most people ho never use B&W filters don"t know what they're talking about - or are shooting digital.

 

The basic, standard portrait filter is the yellow-green; it filters the excess blue, adds some tones in people of pale complexion will honestly show details such as freckles. After that, the darker the filter, the moe contrast you get; orange is a step above; it will filter out freckles, filter out some blemishes as well... You could see it as a "glamour" filter, not as bluntly realistic as the yellow-green. Lastly, the red filter will boost contrast but will make most faces very pale, almost featureless. Can be cool for nudes in nature - the skin is almost white as the green foliage gets almost black.

Thanks for the excellent post, Philippe. I just ordered a X0 Yellow-green filter, and this confirms I was on the right track. Next up will be orange, to compliment the red one I already have.

 

I used to control most of my contrast in the darkroom, but since getting a non-VC cold-light head enlarger, I'm moving the contrast control back to where it should be, in the camera.

I obviously don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't typically use filters for portraits. Fortunately, most people base their opinions of my competence on the photos I've made rather than how I make them.

<b>A light orange or reddish filter can lighten freckles or reddish skin blemishes, but be careful -- it will lighten red lips as well, producing an unnatural look. Strategic choice of lipstick color and shade can make this work out fine, though.</b><p>

 

My experience with this is not through the use of filters, but through using the Channel Mixer in Photoshop to make BW images from color ones, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1621650">like this one</a>. I too find that the lip color is mostly gone.<p>

 

Can anyone recommend a specific color of lipstick that will show up best when filtering out reds? Thanks a lot.

Well, if there's somebody who really doesn't know what he's talking about, that's ME. I reserve my right to this.

<br>But, I find it funny and educative to read the contradictory comments, coming from people who are able to make good people photographs (portraits or not), but evidently in different <i>circumstances</i> (read:light temperature, scene contrast) and with a completely different <i>goal</i>(read: "nude in the nature" <->shots in bars, backstages).

<p>

So, if one wants to have a useful contribution to this post, maybe it's not enough to say "no filters", or "this filter", "that filter", but has to point out <i>in which situation</i>.Without this, it just gets confusing.

<p>

And I don't have to be an expert to see this.

I use 81A for B&W in studio. It works great! I did one roll by accident changing films from colour to B&W and forgetting to unscrew the filter. It pushes the skin tones a bit.

Gabor, this is discussed occasionally in the b&w film and processing forum. Here are two threads:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003xOa">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003xOa</a><p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0047Wu">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0047Wu</a>

I've done a bit of it for my classwork, and it all depends on your subject. For people in southern california, they about always have plenty of skin tone to get good tonality unfiltered. And if you expose and develop correctly (it takes some practice and work, but it really is _nessicary_ for good black and white work of any kind) contrast will not be a problem. for white skinned individuals in Maine in january, skin tones will blow out _very_ quickly and a green filter will help give better tonality and smoother tones. That's been my experience, YMMV

 

Peter