Shooting for BW-actual filters

[robertwright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a gig shooting portraits that I know will be reproduced in black and white from RAW files. I have tried various forms of bw conversion and often, with tanned subjects, the amount of amplification you have to supply to the red channel results in more noise added to the file.

 

So I thought of going back to what I would have done in film-shoot with an orange or red filter to lighten skin tones-

 

(so I know I need to make a test to actually find out...)

 

Has anyone on the list done this-? What were the results? Better than simply doing a channel mixer conversion?

 

Lightroom has a nice targeted adjustment tool for this-you can mouse over the desired skin tone and selectively lighten or darken that area, you see the corresponding red and orange hue values increase-but this does add noise, even at 160iso.

[boilerdoc]

Bob, I haven't used actual filters with the M8 but the LR conversion is so nice I don't see the need. I'm surprised that noise is added with LR. Probably looks like film grain.

Steve

[bradreiman]

aperture has a set of tools called "monochrome mixer" that gives the option of red, orange, yellow, blue, green and custom(user set) filter look. Not bad actually...B

[Jack_Flesher]

I prefer the look of the conversions just shooting without the IR cut filters and converting in CS with the B&W adjustment tool. I posted a series done this way over in the People section, but here is one image.

 

ISO 640 to boot, and no noise reduction

 

 

PS: The only complaint in the people section was that they looked too clean and lacked the grain, imerfections and texture of film... I said, "Thanks!"

 

Cheers,

[JeffreyTotaro]

Have you tried JFI Profiles in C1?

JFI Color Labs

They give you 4 strengths of red, green, yellow, and orange filters. Cheap too.

[robertwright]

I have tried a lot of different ways. But not the jfi labs conversions.

 

Interesting in terms of noise, -when you are using the targeting adjustment tool in Lightroom, if you are adjusting a skin tone for example in greyscale, if the orange slider moves that is where the noise is being introduced. If you just move the red slider as if applying a red filter, no noise is added. It also gets a bit softer, since the red channel is the softest of the three, the green is the sharpest (presumably bc there are two pixels?) and the blue is the noisiest since blue has the least luminance and needs the most gain applied?.

 

Overall Lr does a good job, I could save some basic presets light red, orange, yellow filters etc.

 

Still I will try actually shooting with filters at some point soon to see if it is better. I would think it would be, it would leave more room in the file to move the exposure around since the other two channels will now be getting more exposure.

 

I have tried alien skin exposure and convert to bw pro, plus ever variety of channel mixer, etc, aperture, Lr, etc. Most of them are very good.

 

Where it gets tricky is when you have a very tan woman with light hair-sort of a nightmare in bw, looks better in color.

 

I wanted to keep this thread about actual filters on the lens since I know there are other threads about conversion.

[Jack_Flesher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess I wan't very clear in my post above when I said "I prefer" --- I tried both red (25) and medium yellow (11) filters for conversion to B&W on the M8 and in the end I preferred the look of the conversions when no color filter and no IR cut filter was used. But then that's me and YMMV.

 

Best,

[Baxter]

I've found no problems, only wonderful control in Lightroom, far more versatile than using dedicated B+W filters with film. The two shots below (Leica IR cut filter on lens if this is relevant) show Leica B+W jpeg on LHS and on RHS the LR raw conversion where I was able to lighten skin tones without inducing noise and darken foliage behind.

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!

[robertwright]

this is interesting, I believe the conversions may be ok within limits. But you would think that actually filtering would be better as the pixels would be getting better exposure for the intended purpose. I will see if I can try today briefly and post a result.

[ChrisC]

Robert - I seem to recall you use Joe Holmes profiles, I hope I recall correctly because otherwise I am about to confuse you, and waste my time:

 

I too have been thinking about B&W from the M8, and have been playing with JH colour profiles as an integral part of the process. From my Working Space [Ekta Space P.S.5] I assign my least saturated variant of Ekta Space; Ekta Space JH -99, which is Photoshop route Image/Mode/Assign Profile. At this stage the image is in a desaturated colour space but which gives access to Image/Adjustments/Selective Colour where you can play the the colour components of the file whilst viewing a B&W image on screen. Conversion out of the colour space can be done by preferred method afterwards.

 

I was playing around with this yesterday so I don't know if there are any Gremlins in the process, but it suits my way of working - I'm a big fan of Selective Colour, and of course of Joe Holmes fabulous colour variant profiles.

 

Hope this makes sense.

 

 

................ Chris

 

EDIT - After reading the other posts I should have re-read your original post, I see I have avoided your original question regarding filtering the lens. If you know for certain that a colour version will never be required why not try a milder filtration than what you would have done for B&W film, and finish tuning the colour components of the B&W image in Photoshop PP? If you are shooting in tungsten light maybe blue filtering might be a good idea.

[robertwright]

Thanks Chris, I did a quick and dirty test today with an orange filter on a tan subject. I will try to post (after I get the job done!)

[robertwright]

ok no samples yet have to run out but preliminary BIG difference is not the skin tone, but the tone of everything else-

 

for example, these "guy's in ties" if you do a standard RAW conversion to greyscale, when you get the skin tone up where you want it the suits are unnaturally light.

 

with an orange filter, skin tone light-suits dark!

 

you can also see a difference in the channel mixer settings (auto-adjust)-they are completely different for the same result skin tone wise.

 

very interesting. I will try and post a complete workup. (not a test!)

[wparsonsgisnet]

I bought and tried the JFI filters, but only for one shoot so far.

 

I found that I liked different effects for each of about 15 shots, when they were converted into b/w. When I went to print them, I found that I preferred a b/w rendering that PS gave me to every one of the JFI versions.

 

I will try again with a different subject, because too many people like these filters, but the first time they didn't add anything.

[ChrisC]

.... these "guy's in ties" if you do a standard RAW conversion to greyscale, when you get the skin tone up where you want it the suits are unnaturally light.....with an orange filter, skin tone light-suits dark!....

 

Robert - I don't mean to bang on about working colour in a desaturated colour space, but as it is not a file conversion process I think you would be able to work the skin tones to where you want them, and if need be 'pull back' the suits in the layer mask of the selective colour [say] adjustment layer. It could be an advantage to you staying in a colour space for as long as possible.

 

Maybe I'm not helping. Hope you get a satisfactory solution before the gig.

 

................ Chris

[robertwright]

everyone is helping. I did the test today and need to not look at a computer for a while, so I will try to post later tonight or tomorrow. the "real" filter option is very interesting. It might be too much trouble, I agree, I can do all the burning and dodging in layer masks very easily. what was interesting was when I was considering all this and doing some conversions of existing (lit for color) files and seeing weird things. I will try to layout the differences.

After all, everyone always says "get it in camera":)

[robertwright]

Four files: l-r top to bottom:

w/o filter color capture

w/o filter Lr conversion standard-auto adjust

 

with filter-orange before conversion

with filter-Lr conversion standard and auto adjust

 

I'm really sorry I moved the camera between-I like the first one best too.

 

more in next post

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!

[robertwright]

these are 100% screen captures of the greyscale mix in Lr

 

they are very different. They should both be auto-adjusted and they are.

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!

[robertwright]

last two are 100% crops as I see them in Lr-screen captures.

 

the without filter looks better I admit.

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!

[robertwright]

Straight off what I do notice is that for a given value of skin tone, obviously colors are rendered differently, so his jacket is light, unnaturally light for its real color, blue. But then the orange is making it darker relative to the skintone which it is lightening.

 

I think it is not worth the trouble to be filtering in front of the lens. Maybe for a more extreme result perhaps, like a full red filter. But not for most work.

 

But then again I don't know, I think there could be a value in a yellow filter for sky rendition, the kind of filter we used to leave on for bw most of the time, well, at least my dad did....

 

With all the changes in lighting and position it is hard to be definite. But it is the reverse of what I was seeing on another capture with a very tan woman, the conversion was enhancing the noise in the darker parts of the picture.

 

I think for me all these skintones are too light, but for commercial work, they like them bright and airy. If it was me I'd have a BLUE filter on..lol..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jack_Flesher]

First off, the best filter for SKIN on B&W film was a green, primarily because it held back blemishes and red blotchy skin. You specifically DIDN'T use an Yellow, Orange or Red filter for skin because it lightened it sgnificantly. So, IMO your orange filter did precisely what it would have done with film.

 

For landscapes, the Yellow was used to subtract blue and make sky look darker and enhance cloud detail. Your Orange filter did that with the man's jacket.

 

The answer is whether you subtract the color before or after it hits the sensor makes no difference, it still gets subtracted BEFORE the conversion to B&W and that's where it needs to happen to affect the tonality... The difference between digital and film is we can in fact subtract colors after they hit the sensor even more easily than we can subtract them beforehand, and even get to decide which color(s) to subtract after the fact. With film we cannot do this --- we're stuck with whatever colors excited the emulsion to begin with, and hence we need to modify the light (filter it) before it hits the film as our only option for control of that type of B&W conversion.

 

Cheers,