Advice on Sky

[IanBarber]

Since moving to film last year, I have always been disappointed in how the sky is rendered.

I photographed this with Kodak TRI-X 400 using a Pentax 645N and a 75mm lens.

It was developed in Kodak HC110 diluted at 1:63 for 9 minutes at 20°C

Does the rendition of the sky look like you would expect from film ?

 

[Luis-F-S]

It does if you didn't use any filters.

 

[IanBarber]

It does if you didn't use any filters.

I have been reading up on filters and although I am starting to understand the theory of them, I am a little confused as to which one to actually buy.

Unlike what I saw in the USA when I was last there, over here in the UK, we do not very often get the deep blue skies with big white puffy clouds. We seem to get much more overcast skies with light gray coloured clouds so in order to get better tonal separation, what filter would you suggest.

 

[Svenedin]

I am also in the UK. My experience with filters is that they don't make any difference to clouds if the sky is overcast and conditions are dull. If it is cloudy but bright then a yellow filter helps to define the clouds better. Despite our weather, we do quite often have broken cloud with patches of blue! I have uploaded lots of pictures taken in the UK to the gallery (and some recent cloudy Austrian photos). I always have a yellow filter on my camera lens as a default (when shooting B&W obviously). Orange and red darken the skies even more. You need to add exposure to allow for the light reduction through the filter if your camera does not have TTL metering. Even so, with a deep red the TTL metering can get confused.

Here is what a yellow filter can do in Portsmouth in April. The sun was trying to shine through those storm clouds so conditions were fairly bright.

Portsmouth #9

• Svenedin
• Apr 28, 2016
• 6

Although I have posted pictures of the Spinnaker Tower before, this one is a bit different. This...

 

[dpurdy]

I like an orange filter though it will cost you 2 stops. A red filter is more dramatic and costs you 3 stops. In black and white a filter seems to block it's opposite color so orange will seem make blues darker as well as greens. Another approach is to use a polarizing filter which costs you 2 stops but allows you to adjust it's affect as you turn it. You can also combine a polarizing filter with other filters. Used with a red filter it can be very dramatic, less so with the orange. Traditionally people have considered that using a yellow filter will reduce the film tendency to render blue lighter and result in a normal looking sky.

 

[tedr1]

With BW it is possible to "play the variations" by making printing adjustments using the "theme" of the negative as the starting point. If you are using MG paper and want more dramatic clouds then burn using a hard filter as someone has already suggested.

When we are outside making pictures the sky is a big place and we naturally feel small beneath it, this is part of the experience of photographing outdoors. When the sky is reproduced in a print it is no longer big in the same way, so the feeling is different. Printing for dramatic effect can be a way to get some of the original feeling back, that, and printing bigger

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Light yellow seems to be a nice choice - it provides separation between clouds and a light blue sky and isn't much of a penalty in requiring more exposure.

Also consider a polarizer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yellow and orange filters are useful. Red filters are easy to over use and render the sky itself black. If the sky is completely overcast, not filter will make a difference.

 

[Bill Burk]

IanBarber,
I think your sky is perfect.

 

[Arklatexian]

I have been reading up on filters and although I am starting to understand the theory of them, I am a little confused as to which one to actually buy.

Unlike what I saw in the USA when I was last there, over here in the UK, we do not very often get the deep blue skies with big white puffy clouds. We seem to get much more overcast skies with light gray coloured clouds so in order to get better tonal separation, what filter would you suggest.

I don't know where you visited in the USA but I assure you not every place has deep blue skies with big white puffy clouds. Here in the deep Gulf South there is usually lots of water vapor in the air causing, in many instances, washed-out white skies unless you learn to use and use a polarizing filter. We are talking B&W here. I like your clouds just fine as they are in your picture. They look "REAL".......Regards!

 

[NedL]

IanBarber,
I think your sky is perfect.

as do I

 

[Ian Grant]

You need to adjust the contrast when printing, the online image is rather flat. Increase the overall contrast and then that sky will improve if you burn it in slightly with a bit more contrast using multigrade paper.

Ian

 

[IanBarber]

Thanks everyone for the replies, from what people have said, it appears that the rendition looks ok so thats put my mind at rest.

 

[Alan Johnson]

View attachment 160419 If a dark sky with white clouds is what you want you just have to wait for a day with suitable clouds and use a red filter.
This was taken a couple of weeks ago in Kent:

 

[JPD]

Medium Yellow is the "standard" filter for darkening a blue sky, and then there's the Deep Yellow for more effect, and then Yellow-Orange, and then Red-Orange and Red for a more dramatic effect. The redder the filter the more both blues and greens will darken and (white) skin will look more pale.

Your photo example looks good. A little more contrast would give it more "punch", though. Maybe I would have used a Yellow-Orange filter for the clouds to stand out more. Red would be too much for my taste.

 

[David Allen]

Since moving to film last year, I have always been disappointed in how the sky is rendered.

I photographed this with Kodak TRI-X 400 using a Pentax 645N and a 75mm lens.

It was developed in Kodak HC110 diluted at 1:63 for 9 minutes at 20°C

Does the rendition of the sky look like you would expect from film ?

View attachment 160391

You have a grey subject taken on a overcast day that lacks visual contrast. No filter is going to help you in this situation.

Ideally, you would have increased the development time (assuming you did not have other images on the roll taken in bright contrasty days) to compensate. However, in these days of multigrade paper, all you need to do is increase the contrast and give additional exposure to the sky and it's reflection in the water.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Jim Jones]

If the foreground can be sacrificed to emphasize the clouds, a high contrast film such as the greatly missed Kodak Tech Pan exposed through a red filter at about ISO 400 and developed in Dektol yielded this.

 

[David Allen]

If the foreground can be sacrificed to emphasize the clouds, a high contrast film such as the greatly missed Kodak Tech Pan exposed through a red filter at about ISO 400 and developed in Dektol yielded this.

Advice relating to after the point of taking the image doesn't help the OP. That is why I have demonstrated what could easily be done with such an image.

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with filters is that most people overdo them Not every cloud need pop out at the viewer. The following may be of help. Understatement is usually preferable to overstatement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibui