Filters necessary these days?

[gone]

If you see the light at a later date and realize that B&W film is really made for printing in a darkroom on an enlarger (yeah, I scanned stuff before going to a full analog workflow because the quality is much better from an enlarger on fiber paper), you're gonna be screwed because all you will have is negs that could and perhaps should have been made w/ a filter on the lens, but weren't.

I use a hood all the time along w/ a yellow or red filter to darken skies and bring the clouds out into good definition, so no need for a filter for protection. A hood is all you need anyway for that. As for quality filters, I have never seen any difference between inexpensive coated filters and expensive ones. In fact, most of the Tiffens I have used were uncoated filters. Never made a speck of difference in IQ compared to the expensive ones. I go by what I see, not what test results may or may not show. Photography is a visual thing. Never believe anything just because it's printed somewhere or comes from an "authority". Look at it yourself and make your own decisions.

This is not directed at the op at all, but I find all these scanning and photoshop/lightroom discussions to be off topic and annoying. They belong over at DPUG because they're about a digital workflow, no matter that it originated w/ film. Just one person's opinion :]

 

[Kirks518]

I find what I can't replace BW filters on the lens with Photoshop, LR and else.
All you could do in hybrid mode is to expose negative correctly and alter it as you want digitally. But it has nothing to do with filters on the lens.
Any digital alteration is taking away from the image, not adding or modifying as with filters on the lens.



Have you dropped the one? I did. M4-2 landed on beton sidewalk from my hand. To be exact, the lens landed. To be 100% correct, it was the filter which hit the beton first. Top plate was the second. The filter was slightly deformed with glass not broken. The lens filter thread was not damaged. The M4-2 top plate has ding from it... The RF part was for service.

Yup. I've dropped them, intentionally, too. If the filter didn't break when you dropped it, the lens wouldn't have broken either. As for the filter ring, on most lenses (Mamiya TLR lenses not included in this general statement as they are very thin), the lens's filter ring is stronger then filter's ring. Not saying the lens's filter ring wouldn't have dented, but it's worlds easier to dent a filter then a lens.

Maybe this weekend I'll do another drop test and record it. I have some valueless lenses that would be great candidates.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Any digital alteration is taking away from the image, not adding or modifying as with filters on the lens. . . .

Yes, indeed. The initial image capture should be as good as possible. Editing should be reserved for problems that cannot be avoided when the shutter is snapped.

 

[Arklatexian]

This really isn't for DPUG, because he's asking whether or not to use filters for film shooting.

Also, using a lens solely for the purpose of 'protection' and 'cleaning' is not ever what a filter was designed and developed for, and using a filter for that purpose is strictly succumbing to marketing hype by the filter manufacturers. A front element of any lens, even the cheapest lens made, is worlds thicker and stronger then a 'protection' filter. And when you talk about post war lenses, even the coating is stronger then most filters. There isn't a filter made, at any price, that doesn't affect the image quality, and while some filters may only affect it in a very minimal way, it's still affected.

As for cleaning, do you not have to clean the filter? And seeing how filters aren't coated like a lens is coated, you have a greater chance of damaging the filter with normal cleaning then you ever would with normal cleaning of a front element.

Sorry, but those two reasons alone are not the reason to use filters.

***WARNING WARNING WARNING*** - Brief digital reference;
Digital cameras (sensors) have a UV 'block' built-in, making the need for a UV/Haze filter completely unnecessary. All of a sudden, filter manufacturers saw a decline in UV filter sales when DSLR's came about. Almost every lens sold for folm photography was sold with a UV/Haze filter, and that market vanished with the advent of digital. So the filter marketers came up with the use of 'lens protection' at the sacrifice of image quality. You will never find a UV/Haze/protection filter on any of my personal digital equipment.

***Back to Analog***

Film does not have anything built into it to not record UV, and different films will behave differently, depending on their sensitivity to UV. This is why the UV/Haze filter came about. The filter cuts the atmospheric haze down a bit, and makes for better images. Just look at any of the comparison photos when you do a search for 'UV filter' on google. UV filters are pretty much needed for analog capture.

So in answer to the OP's question, yes, folks are still using filters in the analog world. It's needed in the analog world.


One more thing about filters for protection. About 3 years ago I made a video (looked for it on youtube, but I may have deleted it) where I dropped 1/2" carbide tipped drill bits onto a couple of lenses, with and without a filters. When dropped from about 2 feet, the filter smashed into nice shards, and in 1 case a glass shard then scratched the front element. Without a filter, the front elements sustained no noticeable damage until about 4 feet, and that was only chips. It took to about 6+ feet until I was able to crack a front element. Read into that what you would like.

Down in Flor-idah, isn't the haze made up of water droplets and not UV? Because of this, and where I live, I haven't used a UV filter since the doctor told me to stay near sea-level and out of the mountains out west where the skies are rich in ultraviolet. Also, as for B&W film, most glass, colored or nor will filter UV.....Regards!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Also, as for B&W film, most glass, colored or nor will filter UV.....Regards!

I could very well be wrong, but I believe glass filters only part of the UV spectrum that film is sensitive to; the UV filter is for the rest.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I could very well be wrong, but I believe glass filters only part of the UV spectrum that film is sensitive to; the UV filter is for the rest.

You are right.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I live in a mountainous state and can testify to the effectiveness of UV filters for long shots on warm sunny days at altitude.

 

[AgX]

On-camera filters change the relative balance of the information on the negative. For colour, that results in one colour having more of a presence than another. So that effect may be reproduced with what is essentially the addition of colour filtration later in the process.

In analogue postpocessing you would have to cope with low residual density after filtration. Thus with colour balancing it would better to use a light balancing filter at the camera than to filter off density at the enlarger.

 

[MattKing]

In analogue postpocessing you would have to cope with low residual density after filtration. Thus with colour balancing it would better to use a light balancing filter at the camera than to filter off density at the enlarger.

Agree.

 

[AgX]

I remember reading about a year or two ago about a protection filter that was indestructible. May want to see if it ever came to fruition, and go that route.

Nothing is indesctructable, but look here for new approaches:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Two23]

I still use a polarizer a fair amount. When shooting b&w I use yellow, orange, or red quite often.


Kent in SD

 

[R.Gould]

I shoot black and white exclusively, both 35mm and MF, and nearly always use either a yellow or orange filter, I think that for black and white landscape/seascape photography filters are essential, I print 100% darkroom, and filters make sky's a lot easier to print, on the odd times I have worked without filters I have found the resultant negatives harder to print, harder to get great results, not saying you can't, but it is harder

 

[John Koehrer]

Yup. I've dropped them, intentionally, too. If the filter didn't break when you dropped it, the lens wouldn't have broken either. As for the filter ring, on most lenses (Mamiya TLR lenses not included in this general statement as they are very thin), the lens's filter ring is stronger then filter's ring. Not saying the lens's filter ring wouldn't have dented, but it's worlds easier to dent a filter then a lens.

Maybe this weekend I'll do another drop test and record it. I have some valueless lenses that would be great candidates.

There's a bit more mechanically in the lens to break or dislodge AND it's a royal pain to straighten a bent filter
ring if you ever want to use a filter in the future.
Have you tested the filter with the weight of a lens on it. For your test to have meaning, the angle and weight of the units
as they impact has a bit to do with the result.

 

[BySumbergsStache]

At least for color prints, couldn't any warming filters and such be applied in the enlarger during the printing process?

Hm I think I will pick up some filters then. Still undecided between cokin and hoya. How is using cokin p system in Street or travel photography, where you move around a lot and will be bumping into things and keeping your camera by your side?

 

[MattKing]

At least for color prints, couldn't any warming filters and such be applied in the enlarger during the printing process?

As mentioned above, the challenge with this is that those dim, blue shadows are way down in the toe of the curve, where the film's response is more likely to be non-linear. So if you try to correct at the printing stage, you may have problems with crossover.

 

[Bill Burk]

I obtained a Cokin filter holder to work with Galen Rowell/Singh Ray neutral graduated filters for color slide work. But otherwise, when it comes to black and white, I use regular glass filters in the size suited to my camera. For example 49mm and 55mm for Olympus OM.

Not long ago, I had the sky 2 stops lighter than a waterfall... For that shot I used an Orange filter to bring down the tone of the sky, in an attempt to cross-over and make the waterfall whiter and give the sky some detail to separate clouds. In the print, I still had to burn the sky and dodge the waterfall... but not as much as if I had taken the shot unfiltered.

 

[splash_fr]

Stupid question probably, but does a (e.g.) yellow filter do anything wrt. UV light? It says it blocks blue on the B+H hp,but how far?

rgds,
Gerd.

 

[Agulliver]

I have always used a skylight on any important lens...just in case of accidents.

I have circular polarising filters to fit my most commonly used lenses as they can be really useful when photographing bodies of water or through glass...or anything reflective. The effects of polarising filters cannot be emulated with software, and I always prefer to get it right in the camera rather than faff around after. Whatever your workflow, I would assume skylights and polarisers are useful.

ND filters are of great use in very bright conditions or if you have loaded fast film.

Colour filters are essential in some circumstances, eg using infrared film. Also a yellow filter can add to atmosphere when shooting B&W film though to be honest I don't use one.

As for dropped lenses, I dropped my Praktica BX20S onto a hard, stone floor in Spain about 12 years ago. The Sigma 28-200 lens was protected by the Skylight, which was smashed. The camera was damaged but repaired for £65..the lens itself was not damaged. So yes, I believe in keeping a skylight on lenses that I value, or which would be difficult/expensive to replace. Often a lens is more expensive than the camera body it is attached to...

 

[AgX]

Stupid question probably, but does a (e.g.) yellow filter do anything wrt. UV light? It says it blocks blue on the B+H hp,but how far?

Glass yellow filters (thoroughly coloured or reflective) have no UV transmission.
Dyed yellow filters (gelatin and plastic) may have such.

 

[cuthbert]

Stupid question probably, but does a (e.g.) yellow filter do anything wrt. UV light? It says it blocks blue on the B+H hp,but how far?

rgds,
Gerd.

Yellow filters DO block UV, that's the reason why military binos of the Warsaw pact has a strong yellow hue, if you can read German here there's an interesting article:

http://www.akoehler.de/faq/gelbstich/index.htm

 

[narsuitus]

It has been said that editing software such as PhotoShop can duplicate the effects of most filters. However, I have been having a difficult time trying to use editing software to duplicate the effects of an expensive center filter used on large format wide angle lenses to counter the light fall-off at the edges of the image?

 

[splash_fr]

Thanks for the informations!
I think I'll put the filter in an UV/VIS spectrometer anyways. Sounds like an interesting project...

 

[jeffreyg]

For my B&W (medium especially and 4x5 frequently) I will expose one frame/sheet with no colored filter and one with the filter I feel most appropriate. That way I have a choice when printing and/or scanning.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The only filters I use for black and white films are: yellows Wratten #8, #15. Green #11, #57. Red #25, #29. For IR films: 72, 87C.
I should add that I rarely use filters, except with IR films where one is always employed.