Shooting for BW-actual filters

[fastdap@mac.com]

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,

I agree with Jack. I have done extensive testing with filtration and the M8 as it realates to generating black and white images. I find no filter or nd filters with no chromatic influence provided "my look" most effectively. The JPEGs are beautiful only requiring slight contrast increase. May I suggest shooting both DNG and black and white JPEGs so you have total flexibility.

Best, Mark

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

I use channel mixer in CS3 but I have just started to experiment with Cokin P filters, as I have a huge set left over from my Contax SLR days and they don't fetch a lot on eBay. As far as not using the IR cut filter, I understood that that also had the effect of degrading the focus, as the focus point of the IR light was somewhat different to the visible light. If you did not remove the IR, allowing it to become part of the image, you got a softer focus. Now for people shots that might be desirable. I know that my CZ 35 ZM Biogon when stopped down, can be a very unkind lens to take people with, being just too sharp, hard and contrasty. That is the reason I bought a CV 35 Nokton, which is much kinder with its lower contrast.

 

Wilson

[ChrisC]

Robert - Please forgive this impertinence [especially as I don't really know how the image will translate back to the forum, until it's too late]; is this too crap for you?

 

A very quick play:

 

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

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]

what did you do, it looks good.

[robertwright]

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,

 

 

thanks for commenting-

I was unaware of green used that way.

I agree with your analysis to a point-there is still the exposure difference (the filter factor) which gives more exposure to the complements of the filter color (or the other way around-I get confused) which in theory should affect the pixel information just as it does the film information.

true?

[Jack_Flesher]

I agree with your analysis to a point-there is still the exposure difference (the filter factor) which gives more exposure to the complements of the filter color (or the other way around-I get confused) which in theory should affect the pixel information just as it does the film information.

true?

 

Yes, and in fact it DOES affect didigtal too, even after the fact! If you use Channel Mixer in CS to do your conversion, you will note that total exposure falls off rapidly as you cut down on ANY color channel --- catching the similarity now? You need to compensate in channel mixer by adding a corresponding amount of exposure to another channel, so the total doesn't change (100%), thus keeping the exposure constant. Any of the automated conversion tools, like the new B&W adjustment layer, simply keep that luminence adjustment the same automatically for you...

 

Cheers,

[robertwright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

but that was my initial point, the fact that you have to "add" exposure to a channel in the channel mixer is what might introduce noise.

 

actually adding light (exposure) should be better

 

caveat: digital is not film-on film you can expose more to compensate for a filter factor and this is not the same as exposing more on digital-at a certain point its 255 and gone.

 

The shots with the orange filter, the test that I did quickly, I did not get a chance to nail the exposure-I think it needed an increase, but I don't know how much, or even what is possible.

 

I guess another test is in order, maybe this weekend. and I need to get a green filter.

[wlaidlaw]

but that was my initial point, the fact that you have to "add" exposure to a channel in the channel mixer is what might introduce noise.

 

actually adding light (exposure) should be better

 

caveat: digital is not film-on film you can expose more to compensate for a filter factor and this is not the same as exposing more on digital-at a certain point its 255 and gone.

 

The shots with the orange filter, the test that I did quickly, I did not get a chance to nail the exposure-I think it needed an increase, but I don't know how much, or even what is possible.

 

I guess another test is in order, maybe this weekend. and I need to get a green filter.

 

Robert,

 

A cheap way to experiment might be to get a green gelatin from a pro shop or a green square filter insert and just tape or Blu-Tak it on. You would only need the small square size (A) for RF lenses and a green A filter costs about £5 in the UK.

 

Wilson

[ChrisC]

what did you do, it looks good.

 

Robert - I'll have to be brief, but I will look in to the thread in a few hours time.

 

Your colour image was Assigned the colour space Ekta Space JH-99, the least saturated Variant of my working space; Ekta Space PS 5 J. Holmes. Various working spaces and their colour variants are available from:

 

Joseph Holmes Natural Light Photography Home Page

 

Essentially, the colours were played in Selective Colour, nothing fancy, but working principally the components of red and magenta for the face and mostly blue for the suit, and some judicious layer masking to get the blend. The shirt and tie were too bright in JH-99 so I increased density there with another masked layer set to Multiply. A very slight contrast was added to the image. It took me far longer trying to post the image than it did to 'play' it. You will note that the file was not converted to B&W, I wanted to keep the advantage of access to the composite colours by keeping it in a colour space; to get back to the forum I Converted the image out of it's Assigned colour space of JH-99 back into sRGB.

 

With the 'back and forth' the file has taken a bit of an inevitable hammering. Whether my process reveals anything you wouldn't like in a master file - you'd have to conclude for your own satisfaction. One more thing - I don't recall you mentioning the IR filter. With the work you have in mind, it's my understanding that the IR filter will be added protection against skin blotchiness in your images; sorry if I missed that info in the thread.

 

Hope this helps, I'll look in later.

 

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

[robertwright]

I understand, you used selective color to mask off elements of the image and deal with them that way.

 

I have Ir filters on all my lenses.

 

What you are doing seems to me to be a third variant, not channel mixing but color selecting-

 

Usually with black and white I do do some layer masks to burn and dodge, although not focused on colors as selective color would allow.

 

And I understand why you keep the color image as the base. Thanks for your help.

 

I think I have concluded that post-filtering is fine for well exposed originals, and pre-filtering just makes exposure difficult to adjudicate in digital. So therefore not very effective.

 

Certainly if I wanted a kind of red filter sky effect I might be tempted to add a red filter, -but this kind of thing with portraiture is not that difficult to do in post. Your selective color idea does give me another tool however to deal with an issue that might crop up, how to get that punch back into a file without adding contrast.

[Guest roey]

Back to your original point, Robert, about introducing noise with the B&W controls in LR: A couple of months ago Martin Evening posted a video tutorial on B&W conversion in LR. If I remember correctly he mentioned that the Grayscale Mixer in LR in some cases increases noise and suggested to use the HSL panel instead to do a B&W conversion. Check it out:

 

LightroomNews » Blog Archive » Tips for better black and white conversions

 

(My apologies if this link has been posted here before)

[robertwright]

thank you so much!

I was unaware of those options in Lr, I use Lr every day!

 

HSL looks much more powerful.