Necessary filters for large format photography?

<p>I just purchased a 4x5 camera outfit and I've already spent quite a bit on the camera, film, film holders, lens, etc. Next I'm considering filters. I can't use any of the ones that I own because I got screw-on filters for my 35mm and they won't fit my lens. I'd like to know exactly what filters are really necessary for shooting mostly landscapes and cityscapes in both b&w and color. B&W I'm not too worried about because the gel filters are pretty inexpensive, but I'm wondering if I will really need a ND filter, polarizing, etc. I would like to shoot B&W and color, negative and slide film. Just trying to keep initial costs to a minimum. Thanks for any help!</p>

<p>I used only a fairly minimal filter selection.The filters I used in large format were polarisers and occasionally, ND grads. I used separate screw-in polarisers for each lens. These are not too expensive if you have the smaller kind of LF lens. For the ND grads I found it was simplest to forget about the holders and just hand-hold the ND grad. This may not be the official way to do it but worked for me. I did not use any protective UV filters - just be careful not to drop the lenses.</p>

<p>Here is an example of the hand-held ND grad technique.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/2451412">http://www.photo.net/photo/2451412</a></p>

<p>I generally don't use any filters for color work although I sometimes carry a polarizer that fits most of my lenses (one, but to that in a minute). For black and white, I primarily carried a 25 red (#29 is too much IMO), a yellow(#8 I think as I haven't used in awhile), sometimes an Orange one, a sharp cut green and a dark blue. The latter two were used more in red rock situations to gain contrast if I wanted it. As time went on, I rarely found myself using filters much even with black & white work, but certainly more often than ever with color. Since I scan all of my film these days, I actually don't shoot much black & white anymore, just convert color.</p>

<p>I have 6 LF lenses (all with different thread sizes) and since my MF cameras use them as well, I bought 77MM filters and use step up rings for the small diameter lenses. This cut down on the weight and space needs dramatically and as a side benefit, the cost. For interior architecture, I did use the gel filters a lot and also had a cross processing technique that employed them as well. I don't like using them outdoors as well because they are more difficult to handle in inclement conditions, but they work fine if you don't mind the hassle.</p>

<p>I have been shooting since 1964, large format since 1982. I have used a filter only once, and later concluded that the picture would have been better without it. Camera store personnel are often instructed to push sales of filters and accessories because the markup is much higher than for cameras and lenses. They are rarely necessary for any format, are a nuisance, a needless expense, and reduce the quality of the final results. Nonetheless, many photographers are convinced that they must have a bunch of them in case they are needed. What I would do in your place would be not to buy any, and if you have to get a shot which can't be gotten without one, then get that one. I am sure many of you will disagree, but no personal attacks please.</p>

<p>I'm certainly surprised by Mr Cahn's opinion regarding filters. But for most of us various filters are a fact of life. In fact I have probably only shot a dozen MF & LF images in my life, without any filter.</p>

<p>IMHO, you can never go wrong having a medium yellow and a red filter for B&W, and a Pola for color or B&W.</p>

<p> </p>

An 81B is a good, all-purpose color correction filter for shooting daylight color film outdoors. If you are going to do a lot of

high altitude work, consider adding an 81C or D.

 

A 2-stop graduated neutral density filter will help reconcile a variety of exposure problems. If you can afford 1, 2, and 3

stop filters, you'll have more flexibility. I prefer hard edge filters but a lot of people prefer the more gradually sloping soft

edge filters.

 

For B&W you need the classics, yellow, yellow-green, red, and maybe green.

 

I would omit the polarizer for now. You can always add it later. In the meantime just shoot in better light.

 

My filters (color slide film only) include:

 

Lee 81A, B, C, D

 

Lee CC10R red

 

Singh/Ray ND grad 1, 2, and 3-stop hard edge

 

Singh-Ray 2-stop Reverse Grad

 

Lee filter holders reduced to two slots

 

Lee adapter rings for all lens sizes (49 to 82 mm). Most but not all are wide angle rings.

 

Lee polarizer which mounts to the front if the holder with a special ring adapter

<p>I am actually sort of with Bruce here and think it is sometimes better to wait until you know exactly what you need. That said, I don't think owning a polarizer for both b/w and color and some basic b/w contrast filters is overkill. Buying a bunch of other filters can probably wait until you see if you really need them. You certainly don't need to even buy those basic ones, I bought a new polarizer, a circular one, back in 2005 and have never put it on a camera but some do feel better having them in the bag.</p>

<p>In contrast to the use Steve suggests for himself, for instance, I shot about 14000 negatives over a two year period using either LF or MF cameras on a job for a client--essentially all landscape work and all color. I only used one filter, twice on the same day, to test it out--a graduated ND filter. After that, it was stashed away in the car and wasn't even taken the second year. Before that, I hadn't used any filter since 2000 when I shot some infrared b/w film--well, except when I did copy work of my son's paintings using a polarizer back in the early part of this decade. </p>

<p>So filter use is more of a personal choice than any requirement except for certain types of film or techniques you might decide you want to use/do. But it can all wait until that time when needed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Camera store personnel are often instructed to push sales of filters and accessories because the markup is much higher than for cameras and lenses. They are rarely necessary for any format, are a nuisance, a needless expense, and reduce the quality of the final results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose that depends on the "final results" that one is looking for. I started out with the express purpose of emulating the work of a photographer who used filters regularly, particularly ND grads. I used and continue to use those filters, because there's no way to achieve that look on slide film without the right filters, the right light, and the right exposure techniques. If you want a different look, take a different approach.</p>

<p>I don't know how much money camera shops make on filters, and I don't care. PERIOD. If I wanted to save money, I would have abandoned photography years ago or just not gotten into it in the first place. I'd take pictures with my phone instead of investing in high-quality gear. As it is, I'm IN the game and there's a look that I am trying to achieve. The filters listed above help me capture that look.</p>

<p>Your aspirations may vary, and your techniques may vary in accordance with those aspirations. I didn't contribute to this discussion to convince someone to run out and buy expensive filters that they don't need. I saw a question about filters for large format and I simply listed the filters that I use when shooting slide film in LF cameras. If this information is not of value to a particular photographer, he or she doesn't need to apply it.</p>

 

<p>Here's an example of an image that would have overrun the limits of the film had I not used a graduated ND filter on the sky and distant buildings. With the filter, everything except for a few foreground shadows falls into the most color-rich zone of the film's exposure range.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>You, the poster has gained a lot of experience with photography, can I assume that from going to the 4 by 5 format?</p>

<p>If so, what filters have you found to be "must have" with your previous gear?</p>

<p>After my 55 years of photoistic experience, i can wholeheartedly say : I need none.</p>

<p>Modern color films and the printing techniques allow for very true and vivid colors. Period. Nowadays I use both Kodak 400 Porta VC and Fuji 400H Pro for superb unfiltered results ...</p>

<p>Ok, sometimes i think an ND would have helped, or a polarizer, but in the end, i like the world as it is and as it appears unfiltered. Must have = none!, that is it for me. For you? Ask yourself, please.</p>