Yellow-Green Filter - Good All Arounder?

I'm interested in folks' usage of a yellow-green filter.

 

I recently saw some lovely B&W landscape pics, and the photographer

specified that he had used a yellow-green filter.

 

So I searched here on PN and didn't find too much. What I did find

was quite favorable. Things like: better matches visual response,

lightens trees and grass, gives a better (?) rendition of skin tones.

 

Wow, this sounds like a great general purpose B&W filter.

 

But then, I wonder why I didn't find more postings about yellow-green

filters, compared to, say, yellow/red/orange filters which are very

frequently discussed.

 

Hence my inquiry here to the B&W masters :-) Whence the popularity of

the yellow over the yellow-green? Any real downsides to the

yellow-green? Is yellow-green usage popular among this forum community?

 

Thanks!

 

Scott

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004GzS

It'll lighten green/yellow trees and grass. When those leaves all turn red a green filter won't lighten them.

 

The reason you hear a lot about the red is it's extreme. People tend to use it first and then wonder why. Yellow [and it's a wide range of yellows] tend to be mild so they might not do much but they can't really screw up either. Orange? I don't remember much discussion of orange. It's sort of the quiet child that gets ignored while everybody lusts after the deep red.

 

No real downside I think to the yellow/green other then it's not that extreme. I think every Soviet made lens came with a yellow/green along with a UV filter so that tells you somebody was using it.

 

You can pickup used filters in the common sizes for next to nothing today. Buy a few and see what you like. Note how they work and when.

A yellow-green filter is indeed a pretty good all around filter. What seems to be forgotten these days is what filters actually do for B&W photography. If you can find a book on filters and their effects, it is a worthwhile read. It is basic knowledge that every B&W photographer needs to know.

Yellow-green (e.g. #11) historically was the "standard" B&W filter in Europe, while yellow (e.g. #6 or #8) was the "standard" in the US (at least in Kodak's view of the world, altho the German-made Kodak Retina came with a green filter). With the old orthochromatic film, yellow had less of a speed penalty than yellow-green. Older US books also recommend yellow-green as the appropriate "correction" filter for red-sensitive panchromaic films under tungsten light. Early (pre 1955 or so) panchromatic films came in widely varying spectral responses; part of the difference in filter popularity may have been different spectral responses of early German panchromatic films vs Kodak ones.

Thanks for the background and history! I'll give one a try.

Scott a couple of things to mull over:<P>A K2 yellow or yellow/green (#11) have a filter factor of about 2. That means you are going to loose at least 1 stop of light. Can you afford that?<P>And two -- when I first started shooting I went out and bought dozens of filters (just like when I started Photoshop I got dozens of plugins). Someone pointed out to me that filters were to correct problems. They then went on to ask me what were the problems I perceived. (The answer was none to both shooting and Photoshop).<P>I've learnt that for me the best way is if I filter post exposure in the darkroom or Photoshop. That way my neg is not messed up by something that is difficult to undo. I will add though I don't shoot landscape much anymore.

The yellow green filter is, indeed, a good allrounder. The problem with some of the more radical filters for B&W, like the reds is that they also darken green. This can give you trouble in landscapes where the foreground and middle elements of the picture contain large amounts of green. Suddenly these areas have less detail than you orginially visualised. You do not get this problem with a yellow green filter. I tend to use yellow green filters a lot when doing landscapes in the UK because, unless you are photographing by he sea, there is always a lot of green in the picture.

 

Also yellow green filters do not cut through haze as much as the oranges and reds so you retain the useful ariel perspective that haze gives you.

According to my 1940 Kodak filter handbook, the yellow filter corrects the spectral response of Type B Panchromatic materials, and the yellow-green does the same for Type C Panchromatic materials. By correct, they meant gives the same response as the eye.

 

The terms Type B and Type C just aren't used anymore. The Type C films were hotter (more sensitive) in the red part of the spectrum, apparently to give more speed in artificial light. In 1940, the only Type C films were Super-XX in rolls and packs (but not 35mm or sheet), and Tri-X in sheets.

 

Looking at spectral sensitivity curves for current Kodak and Ilford B+W films, I'd say the only film with the heightened red sensitivity shown in Kodak's Type C spectrogram is Ilford FP4 Plus.

 

I think the biggest plus of either of these filters is that they are very good for separating clouds and sky, as they darken the sky.

If you are shooting landscapes where there are a lot of greens, or reds like desert varnish or areas on the red cliffs you wish you could separate, then I would get a #58 green cutting filter. Why use a yellow/green like a #8 or #11 when they won't really give you much difference than you could get in the darkroom? There is a nice difference in the #58 just like there is in the red with a # 25n or #28 dark red cutting filter. It makes the green foliage separate very well. The lighter grass separates nicely from the darker green of deciduos leaves or evergreen foliage. Also the aforementioned separation of the reds in the rocks of the desert southwest make it invaluable. The #58 green also darkens the clear blue sky as well as the red filters do. Remember that because shadows are lit primarily by blue skylight, they will still be dark just like they are when using the red filters which also absorb the blue light.

quick clarification for a newcomer to rangefinders and film photography in general.

 

A 2x Yellow-green filter will reduce the amount of light by 1-stop, so to correctly meter for this f/2 becomes f/4 on the VC-II meter that I use, is this correct?

 

Thanks guys. I've bveen out of this game for far too long as well.

If I go out to shoot black & white with only one camera and lens, the K2 is the filter that I attach. Losing one stop is not too bad and I usually use one even if shooting Rollei Pan 25.

<p>>A 2x Yellow-green filter will reduce the amount of light by 1-stop, so to correctly meter for this f/2 becomes f/4</p>

<p>No, becomes f2.8</p>

<p>Still have a variety of Nikon filters I use (mostly used) on my film cameras with B&W film. Several grades of yellow, orange, red, green, and a couple of different ND grades. Since I shot Tri X and had fast lenses, the filter factors were generally unimportant. As previously mentioned, some were problem solvers -- ND in bright conditions with fast film when you wanted a wide aperture, red if you wanted dramatic clouds, green for portraits etc. etc. I used a medium yellow generally as it seemed to pop up the contrast to a level I found attractive. If you enjoy them, they can be fun to use, and produce a range of useful results based on situation. Too many to go into here.</p>

<p> </p>