Filters

[Huck]

Which filters are essential for 4x5 black & white photography? And what would be their sizes to fit, say Schneider 210mm lens?

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I think that lens is either 67 or 77mm I forget, but a good minimal set is yellow, orange, red, nd in .3, .6, .9. A more comprehensive set would include gradient filters, green or light green and blue. A compendium shade will also help a lot with flare.

 

[MattKing]

A polarizer should also be considered.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Which filters are essential for 4x5 black & white photography? And what would be their sizes to fit, say Schneider 210mm lens?

No filter is really "essential," but there are several that are common. Yellow, orange and red filters remove blue, and then progressively more and more of the green. This has the effect of darkening blue skies (their primary use) and also sky-lit shadows. Red filters lighten red a lot and darken green foliage significantly.

Green filters lighten foliage (their primary use in landscapes) and darken red. Blue filters (usually an 80B color-conversion filter or the like) gives renderings more like the older blue-sensitive or orthochromatic films. They can also enhance atmospheric haze, etc. Blue filters seem to be used less.

Polarizers can darken the polarized portion of the blue sky and eliminate reflections for both B&W and color. It is a good tool with B&W, sometimes in conjunction with other filters.

I carry yellow, orange, red, green and blue filters plus a polarizer. That makes six filters. Mine are in a "filter wallet" with six slots. I have others, but this is my "essential" kit.

That said, I make most of my photographs without a filter. The most used color filter for me is orange. I use the polarizer quite a lot too. Extreme filtration often results in lots of contrast and very dark skies, which may or may not be the look you are after; it's usually not what I'm after. I don't hesitate to use a red filter together with a polarizer when needed to get the values I want, however.

If you are buying screw-in glass filters, buy them in the size of your largest lens and then use step-down rings to adapt them to your smaller-diameter lenses.

Best,

Doremus

 

[ic-racer]

What are you trying to do? That will dictate the filters you need. I don't use filters for most work. They give an unnatural look to scenes or have no effect depending on the filter.

 

[Jim Jones]

Doremus gives great advice as usual. I carry filters stacked and protected by end caps. It is less convenient than a filter wallet, but more compact and provides perfect protection. A red and a polarizing filter are essentials. Better photographers fine-tune B&W negatives with a greater variety.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Which filters are essential for 4x5 black & white photography? And what would be their sizes to fit, say Schneider 210mm lens?

my standard set is yellow(#8)green(#11),orange(#15)and red(#25)you may also add a polarizer to thatbut don' tspend more on filters than on the lens,which is easy to do.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The filters essential to your kit are unique to your needs.

An average kit might include: #25 red, #8 yellow, #21 orange, #38A blue, #58 green, #13 yellow-green, polarizer, and .3 .6 .9 ND. You may not care about the Neutral Density filters.

If you venture into extended-red films then you may want to add IR filters of the appropriate wavelength for the films you're using. You may also want to try deeper colored filters to increase their affect.

EDIT: Don't let the numbers confuse you. The above list of colored filters can be written, medium red, medium yellow, medium orange, medium blue, medium green, yellow-green... though some of the ones I listed are fairly deep.

 

[Alan Gales]

If all your lenses are razor sharp and you want to do the occasional portrait of women of a certain age then a soft filter can be nice. Just something very mild to knock the edge off.

 

[I.G.I.]

Soft filters a somewhat of an acquired taste, and could also be used while photographing flowers or places for adding a bit of atmosphere. Here is an example of the effect of Zeiss Softar II.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

If all your lenses are razor sharp and you want to do the occasional portrait of women of a certain age then a soft filter can be nice. Just something very mild to knock the edge off.

Maybe that's why sitters often don't like their pictures. I use an Artar for portraits and focus on the eyes of course.

 

[David Allen]

Well it all depends of what and how you want to photograph.

When I did large-format natural landscapes my most used filter was a Wratten N0. 12 (Minus Blue) filter such as this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/KODAK-WRATT...8409581?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=item35df3a586d

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I used to think I needed all the basic filters: red, orange, yellow, green, etc. And I acquired them all for my Contax G2 lenses and my Rolleiflexes and my Hasselblads and for my LF set up too, and used them to add punch to b&w skies and more contrast to foliage and landscapes. But then I got sick of carrying them around and thinking which I should use and in the end often saw little difference in using or not. Now I have rarely used any for years. And I still like my photography as much as always. Personal thing I know but theory was again getting in the way of reality for me.

 

[Alan Gales]

Maybe that's why sitters often don't like their pictures. I use an Artar for portraits and focus on the eyes of course.

E., about 5 years ago I took some family pictures of my steps-son and his wife with their new baby. My wife and daughter were also in the photos. I used an RZ67 with 110mm lens. My wife wasn't too happy with that lens.

Now I have a 14" Commercial Ektar for portraits. I leave the 19" Artar for other work. A happy wife is a happy life!

 

[Hatchetman]

In a thread not too long ago, most insisted that a UV filter was essential. So is that just being assumed here? Should you stack a UV filter and contrast filter? Do the colored filters have UV built into them??

Can't imagine stacking 2 or more filters does wonders for the image quality.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ A UV and/or Skylight filter is more useful for color... and just to protect the front lens element. I don't use one for B&W.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You don't need a UV filter in conjunction with colored filters for black and white film, or really for any kind of conventional black and white
photography. UV and Skylight filters are useful for high altitude or beachside color photography, but which one is best for which exact color film is a more involved question. Choice of colored filters for black and white film is largely a personal matter: depends on your specific
film, subject matter, style of shooting and development, desired end results. Anyone who tries to rubber-stamp their own preferences on
anyone else is really a bit narrow-minded. When in doubt, experiment then print. But generally you don't need very many of them. Take your best guess, buy a few good multicoated glass ones instead of a whole bunch of cheapies, leanr what these can do, and you'll be glad you did in the long run. Carrying too many filters is just like carrying too many lenses - a distraction.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

A polarizer should also be considered.

I agree.it's actually one of the most useful filtersand gives B&Wcontrast improvements where color filters fall short

 

[cliveh]

I agree.it's actually one of the most useful filtersand gives B&Wcontrast improvements where color filters fall short

It's the only filter I have, but I only use it for colour work on the Hasselblad.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Soft filters a somewhat of an acquired taste, and could also be used while photographing flowers or places for adding a bit of atmosphere. Here is an example of the effect of Zeiss Softar II.
View attachment 97057

true,I have soft filters in all size but never use them.I figure,I can always soften the image in the darkroomwith a nylon over the enlarging lensIt's esy to make it softer but hard to make it sharper.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

true,I have soft filters in all size but never use them.I figure,I can always soften the image in the darkroomwith a nylon over the enlarging lensIt's esy to make it softer but hard to make it sharper.

In the darkroom the effect is very different. Your bleeding darkness into the highlights rather than bleeding lightness into the shadows.

I agree it's better to be careful... don't overdo things. But my solution is to shoot one image with something like an Imagon and another with a Apo Sironar or Apo Symmar so I have a choice later if I change my mind.

 

[cliveh]

In the darkroom the effect is very different. Your bleeding darkness into the highlights rather than bleeding lightness into the shadows.

This is true and the effect (in my opinion) is far preferable when used on the camera as opposed to the enlarger.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

This is true and the effect (in my opinion) is far preferable when used on the camera as opposed to the enlarger.

Right... unless one is looking for that "eery" effect.

 

[cliveh]

Right... unless one is looking for that "eery" effect.

True.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Every photographer will have his/her own favourites. A polariser and a red or orange filter often top the list. I use my polariser more than any other single filter (save for UV L41 or Skylight 1B), chiefly for modulating the palette of Velvia. I like strong contrast in B&W (e.g. with Delta 100) so its "pol to the max" or "reddit" for a bog standard effect.