Adding Filters in Post-Processing

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sky differences - film and digital. Firstly M9 with a Y2K Elmarit-M 90mm (LR4 and SEfexPro2) then a stroll forward for image no. 2 with MP, 1967 Summaron 35mm, yellow filter, Acros 100, Epson V700 @ 3200pdi.

[Keith (M)]

The above images, when posted in the 'View through older glass' thread, raised questions about the sky and yellow filters with film and digital photos, so I thought it best to let any further discussion take place here rather than clutter up the other thread.

[01af]

... let any further discussion take place here rather than clutter up the other thread.

What discussion?

 

These pictures have been taken from different points in space and at different points in time. Discussion neither possible nor required.

[Keith (M)]

What discussion?

 

These pictures have been taken from different points in space and at different points in time. Discussion neither possible nor required.

 

Different points in space? Yes, a short walk.

Different points in time? Yes, a few minutes.

 

I was merely responding to the question re the difference in the skies / filtration. It seemed only gentlemanly to do it away from the other thread.

[01af]

Different points in space? Yes, a short walk.

Different points in time? Yes, a few minutes.

So any discussion about the reasons why the skies are rendered differently is futile.

 

 

I was merely responding to the question re the difference in the skies/filtration. It seemed only gentlemanly to do it away from the other thread.

It makes sense to remove this discussion from the other thread in order not to digress from its original purpose ... the problem only is, this discussion doesn't make any sense in the first place, anywhere.

[Keith (M)]

So any discussion about the reasons why the skies are rendered differently is futile..

 

I was not aware that you were there - I was (!) and there was no change in the few brief minutes between shots.

 

It makes sense to remove this discussion from the other thread in order not to digress from its original purpose ... the problem only is, this discussion doesn't make any sense in the first place, anywhere.

 

Philip raised a genuine question that presumably he would like an answer to. I am merely trying to facilitate.

 

Bangs head on brick wall, wishing never to have started this thread... arghhh.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was not aware that you were there ...

Of course, I wasn't. And no-one else was, except you. So if you don't know the answer to Philip's question then how are we supposed to know it?

 

 

Philip raised a genuine question that presumably he would like an answer to.

The question was: Is the lack of sky in the digital image only a result of not using a filter?

 

And the answer is: The photographer changed so many parameters between the two shots which might affect the sky's rendition, so we have no way to tell.

 

The best we perhaps could do is taking some guesses ... but I doubt this is what Philip had in mind. My guess, by the way, is: No, the lack of sky in the digital image is not only a result of not using a filter. But then, I wasn't there, so I'm only speculating.

[lct]

Sounds like comparing apples to oranges is one of the favorite sports on the LUF . More seriously, i'd redo the comparo with the same camera, the same lens, the same light and the same FoV in the first place so that you can show the effect of different filters if any w/o adding unwanted variables in the comparison. I mean optical filters of course. For digital colored filters (on any M camera but the MM), you just need one pic file and SilverEfex or same. For instance red and blue filters below.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[kdriceman]

01af is, if not a bit blunt, correct. Too many variables to mean anything to me.

[tobey bilek]

You should have stood your ground and changed lenses. Sky changed in area and the light changed also from a soft light to bright sun such as when the sun comes out from behind a cloud.

 

A check of the tree trunks light and shadow will prove this.

[250swb]

The light in both photo's looks exactly the same to me, there is simply a difference in contrast.

 

The images demonstrate that the filter factor and filter colour cannot be transferred directly across from digital to film or visa versa. Even if the same yellow filter was used on the M9 and the M2 in quick succession the M9 would read the outside scene as 'neutral' (even though you got a yellow tinted image to convert to B&W), but the film image would be biased towards another area of the spectrum because B&W film is not 'neutral' in its colour response. So the same yellow filter in each case would have a slightly different effect all other things being equal. But add to this the unknown strength and colour of the default yellow filter in SFEX and a yellow filter to bring out the clouds with Acros may need an orange filter in SFEX.

 

In addition it is hard to remove the other variable of the inherent image contrast between film and digital from the scene, where higher contrast would bring the clouds in the sky out more even without a filter being used. So if the M9 renders the scene with normal contrast by default, and the Acros renders with a higher contrast, they will both look as if a filter could have been used anyway.

 

Steve

[01af]

The light in both photo's looks exactly the same to me, there is simply a difference in contrast.

No, I'm afraid it is not that simple. I think there was some change in the light ... albeit the lion's share of the visual difference obviously is due to different contrast rendition. However it's hard to tell for sure in the small-size web pictures shown above.

 

 

The images demonstrate that the filter factor and filter colour cannot be transferred directly across from digital to film or visa versa.

No, they don't. Instead they demonstrate how you can delude people by comparing two incomparable pictures. The clouds that can be seen in the wideangle picture weren't within the telephoto frame in the first place. We are seeing two different portions of the sky—a much smaller portion, closer to the horizon, in the telephoto shot.

 

So any discussions about yellow filter vs. no filter or film vs. digital referencing these pictures are entirely pointless

[250swb]

I did suggest that the two images can't be compared, with an entire paragraph begining with "The images demonstrate that the filter factor and filter colour cannot be transferred..........".

 

But to say that discussion is pointless because you say so is missing the point that the sky does indeed exhibit a different darker tone from one image to the other. That the two images are not the perfect experiment is obvious (you spotted it), but to imagine nothing can be learned is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I do believe Keith when he says the two shots were only a short stroll apart and that nothing significantly changed.

 

That you (now) acknowledge the main difference between the two photo's is contrast, yet still try to tell me I'm wrong when I say exactly the same thing just goes to show you only want to argue everybody else down.

 

Steve

[01af]

I did suggest that the two images can't be compared, with an entire paragraph begining with "The images demonstrate that the filter factor and filter colour cannot be transferred ...".

No, you didn't. Instead, you made a lot of questionable statements about what would happen or not happen with a yellow filter on a digital camera, and that Keith's pictures would support your theories.

 

But they don't. They just are two entirely different pictures which look similar but aren't—for many reasons, not just one. So these picture neither prove nor disprove anything.

 

 

But to say that discussion is pointless because you say so is missing the point that the sky does indeed exhibit a different darker tone from one image to the other.

Aw, come on! The whole picture is darker in the film shot, not just the sky.

 

 

I do believe Keith when he says the two shots were only a short stroll apart and that nothing significantly changed.

As a matter of fact, this short stroll here is a significant change.

 

Keith's first words along with the pictures were: "Sky differences—film and digital." Yes, there are obvious differences in the skies (and elsewhere). No, these differences are neither due to film vs. digital nor due to yellow filter vs. no filter. Instead, they are primarily due to the short stroll ... and, of course, the lens switch along the stroll. So these picture demonstrate nothing about yellow filters, or about the properties of digital in comparison to film.

 

We all know that a yellow filter on black-and-white film will increase contrast in the sunshine. So it's pretty safe to assume the film shot would have come out slightly less contrasty if it was taken without a filter. Would the loss of contrast be enough to render the clouds invisible? I don't know but I doubt it.

 

Still, the reason why there are no, nil, zero clouds visible in the digital shot (and why none show up even when adding a virtual yellow filter in post-processing) is because Keith didn't include them in the frame. As simple as that.

 

So this whole thread is totally pointless.

 

 

That you (now) acknowledge the main difference between the two photos is contrast, yet still try to tell me I'm wrong when I say exactly the same thing ...

The two of us are far from saying the same thing. I just agreed (mostly) with you regarding the contrast, but disagreed with everything else. In particular, I'm disagreeing with your notion the pictures would demonstrate anything.

 

 

... just goes to show you only want to argue everybody else down.

 

Yeah sure ...

[250swb]

No, you didn't. Instead, you made a lot of questionable statements about what would happen or not happen with a yellow filter on a digital camera, and that Keith's pictures would support your theories.

 

I think you should make an effort to read what people say rather than jump to assumptions. My post was to show that the photographs cannot be compared because of the way a digital camera like the M9 reads white balance and the way B&W in a film camera has its own colour bias. If you think this is questionable it would be interesting to know what you think is wrong with the 'theory'.

 

As for your rant I didn't read beyond the first sentence because your communication skills are limited and I usually find it a waste of time such is the consistency or your posts.

 

Steve

[almoore]

I think you should make an effort to read what people say rather than jump to assumptions....

 

Our bombastic friend makes a habit of misreading posts before jumping in feet first to castigate them. A few days back I made a reference to DXO being a largely meaningless resource only to have our technical supremo leap in and lecture me on, weirdly, the essential meaningless of DXO.

 

When somebody so relentlessly and aggressively seizes the wrong end of the stick it becomes pointless to engage them.

[01af]

Well ... it's a pointless thread—as I kept saying right from the beginning—so maybe I should just leave it. But I don't want to let you have the last word with all your false accusations.

 

 

I think you should make an effort to read what people say rather than jump to assumptions.

As a matter of fact, I've read it, like, four or five times, to make sure not to misread what you wrote. Maybe it's you who should make an effort to read what you wrote.

 

 

My post was to show that the photographs cannot be compared because of the way a digital camera like the M9 reads white balance and the way B&W in a film camera has its own colour bias.

Right, they cannot be compared. This far we agree. But you also said Keith's pictures would demonstrate this. And here we disagree. The pictures are not different simply because one was taken with digital and the other on film. They are different because they are entirely different photographs to begin with ... even though they look similar. This is the vital point here, and I am totally flabbergasted that you (or anyone) don't see it ... even Keith didn't see it even though he was the photographer.

 

(By the way, I also don't fully agree with your opinions about digital B/W and white balance and B/W film's colour bias, but that's not my point here and I don't want to go any deeper into this right now.)

 

Maybe your post was just awkwardly worded (the paragraph beginning with "The images demonstrate that ..."), and you didn't mean it the way it came out. But then, I cannot read what you meant but only what you wrote.

[250swb]

You forgot to sign off with that hilarious 'rolling eye' thing that goes such a long way to winning friends and influencing people.

 

Steve

[pop]

(...)

Maybe your post was just awkwardly worded (...), and you didn't mean it the way it came out. (...)

 

May I declare this to be the quote of the month?

 

0431 - please take a deep breath and then look at your own posts again under the light of the above sentence.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Keith (M)]

As the OP (who fervently wishes he had never raised the subject!), I propose that this thread be locked/deleted/whatever as it has clearly become a waste of bandwidth and is not adding anything of value to the forum.