HOW YOU CHOOSE YELLOW/ORANGE FILTER FOR B&W FILMS?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I derive from your point, a camera without viewfinder is more creative than with? Since it does not feedback immediately what you get?

Technically you are correct, but that level of creativity always will remain to be assessed. However, I think your derivative point is a bridge too far, for me at least.

My intended point has nothing to do with viewfinders, or the lack thereof,  but rather the uncertainty of applying filters to film exposure, as opposed to the more predictable outcome of fiddling on a computer.

[Advertisement]

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

[pippy]

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

What is there to disagree about? . Three colour channels, three filter colours of variable intensity. . 

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with your comment, Jaap, as you are no doubt absolutely correct. My mistake for not explaining myself.

Whilst I'm not of the mind that SOOC is 'the way to go' and that retouching / tweaking an image is somehow an 'un-pure' approach to photography - quite the reverse - I find that considering which filter would be most beneficial for capturing a scene before the shutter is tripped helps me focus my thoughts on the task at hand.

I suppose it's just a more Old School methodology. I know what filters will do and would rather use them at the moment of capture rather than try to replicate the effect in post-prod.

If using sliders is the preferred route to achieve the desired results for other folks then, of course, all the very best of good luck to them. As with everything in photography there's no absolute 'Wrong' nor 'Right' way; whichever way works best for the photographer to achieve their end-goal should be employed.

🙂

Philip.

[jaapv]

Well, using physical colour filters on a colour digital camera with the intention to convert to B&W is absolutely the wrong way. It will create noise as one is underexposing one colour channel. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I will give the naysayers' view. When I began photography, I used a lot of filters and experimented. These days I rarely use black and white filters at all. If I do, it is nearly always an extreme filter, like infrared or red/orange. What I found was that for more typical use, the changes made by a filter were not important, especially since I could replicate the contrast variations in the darkroom or digital post processing. The downside of the filters is not to be underestimated. If you have a lot of different cameras or lenses it can be very expensive, particularly with larger cameras and lenses, it is an inconvenience to carry and swap them, loss of speed can be minimal to quite noticeable...making your Summicron into an Elmar or your summilux into an elmarit. There is also the increase of flare, which can be negligible to image-ruining, depending on the scene and the quality of the filter. Be especially careful using them at night with any strong light sources like streetlights.

Used wisely filters can transform and elevate your photographs, but I would not necessarily use them by default. The more subtle filters were developed to solve problems of early film (such as reduced red sensitivity). If you are using modern film they are largely about creating effects. I would say yellow is generally about slightly lightening faces in portraits, while orange will tend to make people's faces artificially bright. I think orange is more useful for landscape, especially if you have clear skies and want a dark sky for high contrast. I tend to use the in spring here to accentuate the snow vs the sky.

The photo with the dog here is done without filters, just with burning/dodging etc (on the Mamiya 7II). The second is taken with the M10M with an orange filter.

 

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!

[pippy]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, using physical colour filters on a colour digital camera with the intention to convert to B&W is absolutely the wrong way...

Your opinion on this matter is not one which I share. Quite the opposite.

Philip.

[jaapv]

It is not a matter of opinion. I tested it, years ago, as I thought the same way as you do now. The use of digital filters in conversion is clearly better, cleaner and far more flexible as you can finetune the intensity and combine different colour filters and avoid having unnecessary noise. If you want to take it even further you can use different filters on selections. The special B&W panel in Lightroom, ACR and other programs is made for the purpose. 
Of course, on the Monochroms and B&W film there is the opposite, obviously. 

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

It is not a matter of opinion. I tested it, years ago, as I thought the same way as you do now. The use of digital filters in conversion is clearly better, cleaner and far more flexible as you can finetune the intensity and combine different colour filters and avoid having unnecessary noise. If you want to take it even further you can use different filters on selections. The special B&W panel in Lightroom, ACR and other programs is made for the purpose. 
Of course, on the Monochroms and B&W film there is the opposite, obviously. 

What I disagreed with is not whether using sliders can afford greater control of a final image. It might or it might not; I really couldn't care less either way. Where you are completely mistaken, in my opinion, is when you write'

"...using physical colour filters on a colour digital camera with the intention to convert to B&W is absolutely the wrong way..."

No; it isn't. It might be the wrong way for you; but it is most certainly not the wrong way for me. I know what works for me; you do not and, as such, you cannot tell me that my way is "wrong". For me and the way my post-prod digital workflow is concerned using filters at the shooting stage works in exactly the way I wish.

Here are two pictures snapped at - essentially - the same time. Orange filters were used on each of two lenses; a 28 and a 35. One - my preferred composition from the pair - was worked-on back in 2020 whereas the other wasn't worked on until just now. Which cameras (or, possibly, just which camera) was / were used to capture the images? Monochrom for both? Colour for both? One for each? If the latter which camera captured which image?

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!

Having been in post-prod some five years apart there are, as might be expected, certain tonal differences between the pair but nothing so major that I would lose sleep over those diffences; either image would be quite acceptable for my purposes.

If you prefer to use sliders (etc.) then that's fine by me. I wouldn't think of telling you that your way is the "wrong" way. Would you kindly afford me the same courtesy?

Philip.

Edited February 13 by pippy

[jaapv]

I'm certainly not telling you how to do your photography - that is obviously up to you. If you read it that way, I apologize for being too succinct. 
I am addressing the photographic result of using colour filters in front of the lens. What one is doing is cutting off the light in one colour. For instance when one is  using a yellow filter in front of the lens, one is severely underexposing the blue channel. That results in one of two things or both, depending on exposure and strength of the filter:  either the blue channel pixels will hit the noise floor or the red and green channel pixels will overexpose and blow out. Remember that the pixels already have optical filters in front of them; one is doubling up.
Which means that one will either create extra noise or lose detail. Both are undesirable.
If one uses a digital colour filter in postprocessing that will not happen. 

[250swb]

Given this thread is based on colour filters for creating B&W film images I don’t see what is wrong with some noise or loss of detail if converting from a digital image. Film isn’t as detailed as digital, it also has grain (films very own ‘noise’), and both are what you shoot film for, or at least it’s a way to move away from the clinical look of unadulterated digital imaging.

Edited February 13 by 250swb

[jaapv]

Yes, the conversation veered.  

[pippy]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

...the photographic result of using colour filters in front of the lens....What one is doing is cutting off the light in one colour...

...Remember that the pixels already have optical filters in front of them; one is doubling up...

...Which means that one will either create extra noise or lose detail. Both are undesirable...

I do thank you, Jaap, for the thought of posting an apology but assure you that no offence was taken on my part; far from it and, IMO, it continues to be an interesting exchange of views.

When I use colour contrast filters it is precisely because I do want to cut certain wavelengths of the spectrum from the image capture. Following the advent of panchromatic film in the early part of the 20th century for what other reason do colour contrast filters exist but to act in this way? Surely that is their whole raison d'être?

As such this will lead, as you say, to a reduction of some detail in certain areas of the image but surely that is the point? To emphasise the importance' of some wavelengths at the expense of others? Far from being "undesirable" this is what is actively sought-for.

Going back to the Bayer Array matter? Having used CC filters on the 'Colour' camera for over a decade I do sometimes lower the strength of filtration on that camera in comparison to the filter used on the Monochrom. This tends to result, for example, in the use of an Orange filter (colour body) rather than a Red (Monochrom body) or, as amy be the case, Yellow in place of an Orange.

Here is (yet another so apologies if this is getting tedious!) pairing of snaps. Two different cameras, two different f/length lenses (one cropped to more closely resemble the other), one with Orange filter, one with Red;

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!

Seeing these posted side-by-side in a back to back 'torture test' might make identification a simple matter(?). If, however, each was shown mounted and framed as a 'Stand-alone' print? Who amongst us could tell which photograph was captured using which equipment?

For what it is worth I have had no experience, ever, in noting an increase in 'Noise'. As the cameras are almost always used at Base ISO perhaps that might be a factor? I don't know.

Philip.

Edited February 14 by pippy

[jaapv]

Yes I understand that you want to reduce one colour channel. My point is that if you do so before the light hits the sensor you shift the balance between noise and useful signal , dynamic range, from the pixel making the noise dominant. If you reduce the colour channel after it has activated the pixel on the sensor  you will do so for both signal and noise so the result in the image tones etc. will be identical but less noisy. . 
As for your example, even on my phone I can see a clear difference in dynamic range and contrast distribution. 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Yes I understand that you want to reduce one colour channel. My point is that if you do so before the light hits the sensor you shift the balance between noise and useful signal , dynamic range, from the pixel making the noise dominant. If you reduce the colour channel after it has activated the pixel on the sensor  you will do so for both signal and noise so the result in the image tones etc. will be identical but less noisy. . 
As for your example, even on my phone I can see a clear difference in dynamic range and contrast distribution. 

Yes; I do get the point about increased noise in theory; the thing is it has never been an issue for the way I shoot in practice so, for me, can be ignored completely and I can treat using CC filters with a digital camera in precisely the same way as I do with a film camera.

We might prefer to use different means to achieve our own ends but if the final print is exactly what was desired does the route taken matter? Not to me.

And yes; of course there are differences between the second pair of images as would be expected from having used an Orange filter for one and a Red filter for the other!......😸......The point is that neither of the original files - in Image Quality terms - is empirically 'worse' than the other therefore adopting either method to capture the images would be perfectly acceptable.

Just FWIW; the first time I encountered digital Noise was (having just checked) back in January 2015 when I was attempting to take a snap in a nearly pitch-black room at maximum ISO with my old M8.2 (*) and underexposed the frame. Having read up on the matter at the time I have Learned My Lesson and in the intervening years can count issues with Noise on the fingers of one hand.

I do have Denoise sofware but apart from experimenting with it to see how it works have never used it in practice. As stated earlier; I almost never shoot at ISO above 1600 and never when using CC filters. 'Noise' is, for the way I shoot, a complete irrelevance.

Philip.

* EDIT : For the fun of going even further off-topic I've dug out the 'offending' image. My 'Wee Thing' wearing a black jersey in a black room...😸...

Taken a smidgen over ten years ago during a visit to the V&A Museum to see the retrospective show for Horst P. Horst. Taken with the M8 & 40mm f1.4 Voigt. Nokton @ ISO 1250. Light was one single ownlight in the ceiling. This frame was 'tweaked' for noise problems back when it was shot but the results were not as good as had been hoped;

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!

Edited February 14 by pippy

[jaapv]

We certainly differ. 90% of my shots get run through Topaz Photo AI at the beginning of my workflow to get exactly the basic look I like and NR is one of the most often used tools, adjusted to my liking of course. I find it produces more natural looking sharpness than regular sharpening tools. 

[pippy]

Yes; we do differ to a very great extent.

All my images have their basic adjustments at the DNG to TIFF / JPEG conversion stage in Photoshop as that route allows me to 'shape' the image to a large extent before importing it into Ps for final retouching / tweaking.

No matter our preferred options; all that does matter is that our respective methods allow us to achieve the final images as we desire them to be.

Philip.