Your favourite filter(s) in B&W landscape and why?

[piotr_stanislawski]

<p>Hello,<br /><br />This is the second issue I want to know better ( first is here: "Your favourite B&W film+developer for landscape and why" <a href="http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00ThY0">http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00ThY0</a> ) and would like to see your preferences in choosing the filters for landsape and nature photography.<br>

If you can, share with sample please.</p>

[bruce_karnopp1]

<p>I use DIAFINE for all films because I can mix films and it increases the stated film speed by a stop or more. This allows use of filters with high filter factors. I use #25 and #29 filters if the sky has characteristics which would benefit from their use.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I absolutely never use filters for anything. Why? Stubbornness perhaps. I want to get the subtlety of the light unaltered. There are times, if you shoot professionally, that you probably should use them to differentiate tones. But judging from the filters ordered in my store, they are most often used to darken and dramatize skies. I do not agree with this. If it is not there, why put it in the picture and turn your work into a cliche? Also they will degrade the image a bit and make a photographer's life unnecessarily difficult. One of the reason that filters are used by so many is the camera store cost & price structure. Filters are a very high markup item (except at my store), therefore many stores will push them on you. Some of them even stoop to trying to make you feel guilty, stupid and unprotected for not putting an UV on the lens. In 42 years of serious photography I have bought one filter (yellow), used it once then not again. None of my lenses have suffered any damage as a result of being "unprotected." Yes if I worked on the beach I would rethink this and put something over the lens because of the sand and seawater.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Always felt that the yellow filter would make the film record the image more realistically.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I like to use a Cokin P030 (orange) on everything. I find the red a bit too much on the contrast. Here are some flower shots all done with this filter. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157615077475980/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157615077475980/</a></p>

<p>The natural flowers were shot with a softlighter-II and wd2d+. Combined with this filter, the tones are milky smooth and just the right amount of contrast. The effects of the really defused light are lessoned. The fake flowers were done with rodinal and hard light and stand developed. I wanted an edge here. I was going for two different looks, and I got it. I generally like to develop for smoother tones and use the filters to increase or lesson the contrast. I normally use a stain, but otherwise stand if at all possible.</p>

<p>There are some sloppy stuff, doing other camera tests, that better show my point and answers your question. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157616671437840/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157616671437840/</a> These are 2pm ish shots, done in the spring. I used the wd2d+ to give me as much dynamic range as possible and the P030 to give the contrast I needed for the trees. I got what I wanted.</p>

<p>I have been playing with 2 polarizers of late, linear and circular. Used together, you get a variable ND filter with allot of adjustment range. Waiting for a sunset/sunrise to really test that one. Sorry, I have no examples yet. It's getting harder to get up that time of morning....</p>

<p>There is a bit of a theme here. Filters should augment the process and is only part of it. I combine pre (camera) with post (develop) for a total effect. The examples here are analog, but the same would apply with digital. You can some of what you are after just by pre ore just by post. But really you need to do it in both to get the 'good' result. Just look at how the clouds and sky came out along with the shadow detail in the trees. Aside from basic contrast/brightness, nothing was done to those images.</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>I don't think I could name a favorite filter. I prefer not using any, but will use whatever it takes for a shot. I always carried the usual suspects yellow, red, orange and a polarizer, but also I had a blue and green filter with me as well. My other trick was to carry orthochromatic film, Tri-x, which I don't think they even make these days. I would say that in a week in the field that a filter wasn't used more than just a few times. The polarizer was never used for skies, but more for cutting reflection off rock faces and the like.</p>

<p>Today I do most of my post work digitally and so I actually just shoot color negative films (personally and professionally) and convert as needed. This allows me to "filter" selectively with very good results.</p>

 

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>Filters should augment the process and is only part of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, that's about it. When you work with any media, regardless of whether it is paint, or film, or clay, or a digital device, you need to be able to use the characteristics of that tool to produce the result that you wanted to produce such that your vision, your idea, is what people see when they view the results. When I photograph landscapes (which is admittedly not all that often) I never use any set anything by default. Instead I let the photograph that I want to create at that time dictate what gets used so that when I look at the results I see the <em>idea</em> , not the <em>tool</em> .</p>

<p>That said, I rarely use any filters when working with black and white film, but when I do use them I tend to stay away from those that impart dramatic effects. My own vision tends toward the abstract much of the time and for that I want to the form to dominate the print, not the effect of my tools. Filters certainly can allow more control over the results in many situations, but they can also be a crutch, even going so far as to replace vision with the tool. So long as you chose the filter that you chose because it augmented your vision and the use of it did not become the primary point of that image you likely chose the right filter for the job at hand.</p>

<p>Remember that every black and white filter works differently with different colored subjects. Black and white filters do not impart more 'contrast' across the board with all subjects. Some colors are lightened and others are darkened, depending on the color of the filter. Knowing which are affected which way is part of the craft side of photography - selecting which one to use at any given time is part of the art side of things. Know your tools and you'll be able to get the idea in your head onto the paper more efficiently and more effectively...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>I like the bizarre yellow-green ones that came with old Soviet cameras. I'm sure there is a wratten equivalent. It seems to render skies more dramatic but without the speed loss of the red filter. I mainly use the #29 red when shooting infrared film. I find that unfiltered Fuji Acros 100 has a tonal range very similar to the Yellow/Green color.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I prefer orange for landscapes and some architectural studies. Yellow often does too little, red too much.</p>

<p>Depends on conditions, tho'. Unless there's a blue sky or other colors that might benefit from the alteration of gray tones caused by various filters, a filter may not have any useful effect.</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>I use a filter for everything and make the choice to take one off, not to put one on.<br>

My fave, Red 29 because we have so much humidity here in the northeast that sometimes even it will not help a blue sky.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Blue 47. It's almost impossible to see through, but it works well in so many situations, that I think if they had been made easier to see through somehow, I bet a lot of people would like them. My guess is that rangefinder users would like it, because they wouldn't have to see through it. Blue 47 is especially effective for any kind of transparent or reflective surface: glass, water, varnishes, any kind of glossy metal, any kind of sheen on anything.</p>

<p>I use linear polarizers a lot; it's contrast control built right on there. Green 58 for vegetation for the same reason; I like the PL and Green 58 because they simplify the appearance of foliage, instead of requiring you to render the highlight, shadow and midtone of every leaf. Green 58 and LPL rock. </p>

<p>I am the opposite of Lex; I dislike the orange filters. I also like red, but use it infrequently, as it can easily black out foliage. Very good for skies, though. Red filters do a great job for skies in photos with clouds as the subject. </p>

<p>Yellow 8 and 15 are just general purpose; I'll use them, but I'm not thrilled with them overall. They're okay.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Mostly a O56 with a polarizer, but sometimes a R60 and polarizer if the clouds are really great. If the clouds are not great, and I want a more serene, desolate, bright look, I might add an 85A or X1 (Blue and Green). For longer durations I often use a ND 4 or 8 for water scenes.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I've got quite a choice in most of my filter sizes, but pretty much what gets used is the medium yellow filter. It does make cloudy skies more realistic. I never much liked using filters on an SLR, having to view through it was most distracting. They are much nicer to use on RF and folding cameras.</p>

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>I use a clear filter when I am near the sea to protect the lens. Of course this applies even if the film is color. I have on occasion used a deep red filter, an orange filter, and a green filter. The green filter makes foliage stand out. But mostly I agree with Bruce Cahn and have almost stopped using filters altogether. The only films I use are Tri-X 400 and T-Max (the new emulsion) 400. I use D-76 and T-Max developers. When I run out of the many rolls of Tri-X I have in my refrigerator, I will then shoot only T-Max and use T-max developer.</p>

[Vlad Soare]

<p>John, how does your blue filter affect the image? Does it give you nice and bright shadows and totally white skies, like ancient (blue sensitive only) emulsions did? Could you please post a sample?<br /> Thank you.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Occasionally, I use a Wratten #8 yellow to lighten foliage a little.</p>

[gt1]

<p>Two people mentioned green for making foliage stand out. It doesn't make the foliage too light? Can someone post a sample?</p>

<p>I think I have most colors mentioned except for blue. My photography teacher says he likes one of the light blue filters to enhance skin tones but I guess that's not in scope here.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Here's an animated GIF that approximates the effects of common filters on a typical range of colors. Note the effects, both subtle and extreme, on the fake butterfly.</p>

<p>BTW, if you open that animated GIF in Irfanview or comparable program and use the "extract all frames" option you can examine each individually.</p>

[piotr_stanislawski]

<p>Lex,<br />great example.<br />It would be also nice to see similar comparisom with filters effects on landscape with clouds... <br />So many different experiences using filters in b&w... but they are very informative, thank's to all.<br />and keep sharing with next experiences and thoughts.</p>

[j.p._dahl_n]

<p><em>Two people mentioned green for making foliage stand out. It doesn't make the foliage too light?</em></p>

<p>I often use a light green or yellow-green filter in summer where there are lots of greens. It makes the foilage look more... "summery". Leafs often tend to be rendered as too dark on b/w films and a light green/yellow green filter corrects that. It also darkens the blue sky somewhat.<br>

I also use orange filters to cut through haze in the air. Hold an orange filter to your eye and you will be amazed how much sharper details in the distant will look.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Yellow 14 and a Red 25.. that is all I use.</p>

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>Two people mentioned green for making foliage stand out. It doesn't make the foliage too light?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It all depends on the color of the foliage. Yellow, Yellow-Green, and Green, in various iterations, can separate the colors of foliage more, depending the amount of variation in their color. For example, if you are looking at a lot of the same plant's leaves, these filters will mostly lighten or darken the entire subject. But, if you have a couple of different plants in the viewfinder, each of these filters will lighten some of the foliage while darkening others, giving you more separation between values in the negative because the greens are different in each of the plants - some invariably will contain more yellow or green than others.</p>

<p>Watch Lex's animation closely. Filters lighten their own color, and darken the color opposite them on the color wheel, with less dramatic effect the closer you get to the color of the filter, and stronger the more you shift away from it. A deep green leaf next to a medium green leaf might produce little separation in the negative without a filter, but using a filter can help separate the values more, giving you more contrast between the leaves.</p>

<p>Look through some of these filters at some plants when you get a chance, using one eye only, holding the filter close to your eye so that it affects your entire range of vision. Pay attention not to the colors that you see, but rather to the general 'lightness' or 'darkness' of the subject. Move the filter back and forth quickly so that your eye does not have too much time to get used to the effects of the filter and you'll see what I mean. Some leaves will appear to lighten, while others will appear to darken, and some will show little change. This works best if you have something that is variegated (striped yellow and green), but a view featuring different greens will also show you the filter effect.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[stephen sullivan]

<p>The filter worked so well with my 5D in B&W mode, I thought that I'd try it with my EOS 1.</p>

<p>Kodak's T-MAX 400 (TMY 2) with a B+W Cir-PL and developed in X-TOL.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<blockquote>

<p>Kodak's T-MAX 400 (TMY 2) with a B+W Cir-PL and developed in X-TOL.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have seen a comparison on the net and the results are similar to the red filter. As a bonus the reflections are controlled....</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>As practice, take a colour image in PS, and use the channel mixer. This will give you a better idea of what the various colours do to the image in question. This will fine tune you mind and you will know what exactly to do, on location.</p>