4x4 Filters - Kodak or Other Brands - Wrattens

[dodphotography]

I have two lenses (12” Dagor , 10” wide field Ektar) that both use Series 9 Filters.

I just picked up a Kodak Series 9 filter holder that takes 4x4 filters.

Do other manufacturers 4x4’s work in these or do you have to stick with Kodak?

Thanks

 

[Bob S]

If,you,are,talking about 4x4 gel filter be aware, they fade from exposure to light, get creased and change values do to fading.
F you are talking about acrylic. Filter made with inorganic dies they don’t fade. However, both types scratch.

 

[dodphotography]

This is what I got... trying to avoid a custom SK grimes job.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yep, both gels and acrylic filters are rather fragile and tend to attract dust (plastic being electrostatic, and gelatin a bit soft compared to glass). And both need to be well shaded since there is no optical coating. But either type are better than cheap polyester pseudo-gels, which is not an ideally clear material. What I would strongly recommend is obtaining an adapter to take round coated glass filters. If you research just how expensive Wratten gels tend to be, in relation to their limited lifespan, making or acquiring an adapter and buying several high quality glass filters is not going to be financially unreasonable at all; and you'll probably be a lot happier in the long run. It's an easy project for someone with basic shop skills; but otherwise, I too would recommend the services of SK Grimes. If you can afford a Dagor lens, you can afford a basic accessory like that.

 

[eli griggs]

The same way you make a film holder for an enlarger, out of matt-board, do the same for your 4" x 4" filters, using a circle hole a bit larger than your particular lenses and find plastic flexible plastic caps from other products that will slip over the front of your lens, matching the opening of your board(s) and glue it down flat.

This way you can see if 4x4 is the way you want to go, without the expense of a metal holder.

Just be sure to keep the inside of the board holder free of dust/grit, do no slide the filter against this or any other surface and, USE a LENS SHADE!

The boards can be held tight by gluing two (2) 1/8th super magnets to a flexible piece of inner tube, leather, plastic or rubber strip, one (1) at each end, so the will come together when folded in half, then simply separate them and lay over the filter holder, so they reach for each other from each side, through the closed boards.

It may be that you'll want spares, say one (1) for each side of the holder, so make extras, and when you need to remove the filter, simply pull on the folded 'tab' and they will slide off, so you do no have to pry apart the boards of the holder, as you would if glued the magnets onto it.

IMO.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Expense? Next to nothing unless you have something custom machined. I've made slip-on metal adapters for threaded glass filters simply by taking a slightly oversized step ring, or else a cheap oversized filter with the glass removed, then shimming the inside diameter with a bit of reliable weatherstripping.

 

[eli griggs]

Glass-less filter rings are a good solution, however, personally, I hate killing hapless glass for my own selfish agenda

No, I think there are more than a few uses for filter rings and would much rather use these than hunting lids to use as the lens connection, unless it is a 'deeper' fit, plus, a tighter fit to a board, or metal, brass or aluminum holder is always better.

I might just have to make a demo holder out of brass, card stock to show here at Photrio.com

 

[AgX]

F you are talking about acrylic. Filter made with inorganic dies they don’t fade. However, both types scratch.

Acrylic (or any plastic) do not take inorganic dyes at all.

Actually there is not even such. In practice though one can consider the pigments that colour mineral glass as dyes. And these are resistant to light.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's nice. A stained glass panel in front of the lens. No need for either Photoshop or visiting a cathedral.

 

[Mal Paso]

I have two lenses (12” Dagor , 10” wide field Ektar) that both use Series 9 Filters.

I just picked up a Kodak Series 9 filter holder that takes 4x4 filters.

Do other manufacturers 4x4’s work in these or do you have to stick with Kodak?

Thanks

Calumet sold 4x4 gelatin filters and I think Lee still does. I use them behind the rear lens element, inside the bellows, so there is almost no image degradation.

Typically a gelatin filter is added after focusing and only briefly exposed to light fading really isn't an issue. I would rather have a gelatin behind the lens than a glass filter in front.

 

[Bob S]

Calumet sold 4x4 gelatin filters and I think Lee still does. I use them behind the rear lens element, inside the bellows, so there is almost no image degradation.

Is almost is another way of saying that there is degradation.

any filter placed behind the lens, unless the lens was designed for a particular filter, will degrade the image, firstly by a focus shift = to 1/3rd the thickness (minimal for a gel) and, of course, since the lens has done its job processing the image, any defect; dust, grease, fingerprint, crease, ripple, etc. will degrade that image the lens produced.

almost no is some.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gels better than MC glass? Now that's like calling a turtle faster than a coyote. Then substitute polyester on a rear element, and you've got a snail with blurred vision. Cardboard holders? Sounds like the Beverly Hillbillies.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

As I recall, Ansel Adams suggested in one of his books that gels were "best" optically. (Least instrusive in the optical path, or something. He quite liked gels.) Sexton uses glass filters, if at all. What with Schott glass and multi-coated glass filters, I think that, today, the nod goes to glass.

In a pinch, I have no problem using either. I have a couple of Lee adapters for 4x4 gels, and I can use 3x3 gels with the compendium lens shade for my Mamiya RB67. I also have all the step up adapters needed to use 77mm glass filters with all my view camera lenses, except a 610mm Repro Claron. (This lens has an 82mm filter attachment.) And of course, 77mm is the standard size for RB lenses. If I purchase a 77mm glass filter, it's the best quality that I can find. But before committing, I can use a gel to check out the color.

 

[AgX]

As I recall, Ansel Adams suggested in one of his books that gels were "best" optically.

Such statemenmt is much too generalizing.
The optical advantage of "naked" (non-laminated) gelatin-foil filters (as their plastic-foil counterparts) is the thinness which reduces effects on the position of the image plane, when mounted behind the lens.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Do you guys meter through the filter or meter without and then apply the filter factor?

 

[btaylor]

I know you all are talking 4x4 filters, but if you have a series 9 filter holder why not just use regular series 9 filters? They were a common standard size back in the day. I remember specifically that 16mm movie cameras used series 9 on most pro zoom lenses. Should be cheap on the ‘bay.
The focus shift from rear mounted gel filters is insignificant. But I would think rear mounted glass would be taken into account if focus was adjusted on the groundglass of a view camera with the filter in place.

 

[eli griggs]

. "Cardboard holders? Sounds like the Beverly Hillbillies"

You should note, that "hillbillies" from Beverly Hills or Appalachians in general, are some of the most inventive folks this Nation has ever seen, and yes, it is through their 'Need' no to allow poor (monied) circumstances, that they do no sit and wait for the day they may be able to buy new 'things', but rather because they have things to get on with... and do so!

It is also a lot of fun and there is great satisfaction to being inventive, daring and interesting because a person can improvise and hold forth over many of the obstacles to daily life or special need.

Matt board negative holders are kinder to the negative and can be made to fit any film size, up to 4x5 inches, and there is no reason to think that gel holder, like the one I describe, would no serve in light of the lack of optical glass filters, sized for many different lens diameters, or gel filters of 7.5cm - 10 cm.

Just because a product exist, does no mean that you or others must go out and buy it, rather than simply making your own substitute from materials on hand.

Of course some folks live in fear of being seen with such inventions, as people might call their solutions "ghetto", "PO!", "jury rigged" or even "hillbilly" or have their 'social status' lowered in the closed minds of others, by no having the "proper" equipment for their cameras.

If it works as a solution or tool, use it until you can find/afford better, and in the mean time, let distractors have their say, it is no your dignity being insulted, but, their own lack of respect for others being exercised.

IMO.

 

[eli griggs]

Do you guys meter through the filter or meter without and then apply the filter factor?

If you can, simply meter through the filter, then install the filter.

This should be easy enough unless you already know the effects the filter will render and that filter simply 'lives on that lens' otherwise, it is often likely that you will already have the filter in hand when you install it.

IMO

 

[Bob S]

Before you get too invested in gels just remember that there color changes with exposure to light, heat and time. It is more then certain that a collection of old, even sealed, Kodak Wratten gels are no longer what they are marked.

even gels permanently mounted in glass like the ones B+W made for Helix Camera once faded before most were even sold due to age!

 

[DREW WILEY]

You risk error metering through a filter. I'm sure there are plenty of past threads somewhere telling you why. Second, why do people still go around saying that if it was good enough for Ansel, it's good enough for me? How many of you have seen his images enlarged more than 3X ? I've seen quite a few up close, and most of em are darn fuzzy by today's standards. Third, the Beverly Hillbillies were rich but too uneducated to know that there is something better than gopher stew or a cardboard gel frame that gets soggy and floppy in damp weather.

 

[eli griggs]

You risk error metering through a filter. I'm sure there are plenty of past threads somewhere telling you why. Second, why do people still go around saying that if it was good enough for Ansel, it's good enough for me? How many of you have seen his images enlarged more than 3X ? I've seen quite a few up close, and most of em are darn fuzzy by today's standards. Third, the Beverly Hillbillies were rich but too uneducated to know that there is something better than gopher stew or a cardboard gel frame that gets soggy and floppy in damp weather.

Everyone here risks error, in every exposure made. Just as you point out, there are folks that do no approve of metering through the filter, I'm sure that you can find others that say, go for it'.

With so many images taken, with cameras with meters built in, filters on, it is, in fact, a non-starter that, when properly done, an external meter reading through a filter, before it is placed on an lens, is so great a risk as others imagine.



Upon what experience do you base your claim that other foods are better, than Gopher/Ground Hog stew?

If you are worried about damp weather, simply apply so acrylic artist painter's flat medium ( I like Golden's) in a couple tin coats, or, use a three pound cut of Shellac, to make two coats, sanding with a very fine sandpaper, between and on the last application.

Being able to cope with foreseeable issues is all part of common reasoning, which does no end because others object to doing for your own.

Also, "Grannies" hair tonic and Spring Tonic, still has to be beat by medical science, TV, or otherwise!

Cheers.

 

[btaylor]

Metering through the filter I have always heard (and confirmed) is less accurate, meters don’t look at the same light spectrum as pan or color film. It’s close though, filter factors are better to use if you got ‘em. If you’re looking for very specific Wratten filters all the Kodak stuff is ancient, but Lee sells optical gel filters that work great, I use the black and white sets as well as the ND’s. Color correction would be another story and hard to find.

 

[Mal Paso]

I have only used gelatin filters inside view cameras.

Do you know how the Pros hang gels. 1/2 X 1/4 inch piece of low tack masking tape bent in an L shape. One leg on the top of the rear lens element, one on the face of the gel near the edge so it lays perfectly flat against the lens barrel. They don't fade enough to notice because they are in light tight pouches most of the time. When they get damaged, you throw them away. See how fast you get rid of scratched glass. .003" in focus shift is nothing, the film isn't that flat.

As far as mat board, all the camera case dividers and half the studio was taped together mat board.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I grew up with real cowboys n Indians, and real Hillbillies, and wandered into the backcountry days on end; so have eaten all kinds of things. But I've also heard of mountaineers stranded in remote parts of the Himalayas who boiled their own leather boots to avoid starvation, so I guess that would be one advantage of gel filters over glass. If you prefer raspberry flavor, take a 25 red gel; if you prefer blueberry, take a 47 blue, etc. ... But masking tape on gels???? That's worse than gopher stew. What kind of "pro" is that ???? The last time I saw someone do that was almost 40 yrs ago in the Wind River Range when a guy carrying a 4X5 Tachi with 7 lenses and a whole stack of maybe 20 Wratten gels was trying to sort thru all that stuff to get a sunset shot; but it was already dark by the time he made up his mind. I was carrying a Sinar 4x5 and just a single lens, and two glass filters at the most, so was operating much more efficiently. Anyway, he was handling the gels with his sweaty fingers, and they were all scratched up and embedded with bits of sand etc, with masking tape reside. Barbaric !
Gels aren't cheap. I was going thru my own set of them about 2 hrs ago. I use Wratten gels strictly for lab applications where they're the only option, and pamper them. Wratten gives very precise specs. Some of those very specialized gel filters were fifty bucks apiece for 3X3 inch size thirty years ago, run around $75 now if you can even find the right ones. For general shooting you can get several good coated glass contrast filters for that kind of price. And Maso - you haven't figured out how to keep film flat in a holder yet? It might not bow too badly in 4x5 format, but for 8x10 or larger look up either vacuum or adhesive precision filmholders. I've been doing it that way for several decades now ... and gave up on gel filters in the field even longer ago, for equally good reason. Having walked well over ten thousand miles at high altitude over the years with view camera gear, I quickly how quick gels can get ruined by dirt, condensation, handling, and how tape won't even stick under such circumstances. There is zero masking tape in my darkroom.

 

[AgX]

Metering through the filter I have always heard (and confirmed) is less accurate, meters don’t look at the same light spectrum as pan or color film. It’s close though, filter factors are better to use if you got ‘em.

-) spectral sensitivity of meters varies, depending on type of cell and correcting filter is employed within the meter
-) spectral sensitivity of films vary, both over the range offerd today and over history

Thus both approaches should be taken with a grain of salt.