filtration with B&W negative films: now vs 'yesterday'

[David Lyga]

Can we say that filtration is less important with today's films than it was in the past? Has there been a steady improvement with B&W negative materials' sensitivity so as to conform with the human eye's perception of color?

Or am I dead wrong here and nothing has really changed? - David Lyga

 

[cliveh]

I think you will find there is still a dip in the green region of black & white film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The last time I checked the laws of physics and the behavior of photons in particular have not changed for eons. Film light sensitivity in not correlated to contrast control so basically the answer to the questions:

Can we say that filtration is less important with today's films than it was in the past?

Has there been a steady improvement with B&W negative materials' sensitivity so as to conform with the human eye's perception of color?

Or am I dead wrong here and nothing has really changed?​

are No, Yes there were changes in light sensitivity vis-a-vis color perception but no recently, and Yes.

 

[jvo]

film has improved, though i believe filters are used more for enhancing the image than correction - certainly in my photography.

 

[ic-racer]

Can we say that filtration is less important with today's films than it was in the past? Has there been a steady improvement with B&W negative materials' sensitivity so as to conform with the human eye's perception of color?

Or am I dead wrong here and nothing has really changed? - David Lyga

In the early 1980s when T-max film came out I had good results with outdoor 35mm photography and no filters. Aren't there more 'vintage' type films on the market now? So, I'd think filtration to be more important now than in the 1980s (Unless, like me, you still use T-max film).

 

[Leigh B]

i believe filters are used more for enhancing the image than correction - certainly in my photography.

Same here.

Filters are a major creative accessory, rather then correcting film deficiencies.

- Leigh

 

[David Lyga]

No, I meant wholly for corrective aspects, not creative ones. Sorry for not being definitive here. I meant that, perhaps, films today are made with more layered, 'internal filtration' that comes ever closer to what the human eye actually perceives. - David Lyga

 

[Luis-F-S]

Or am I dead wrong here and nothing has really changed? - David Lyga

+1

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In the early 1980s when T-max film came out I had good results with outdoor 35mm photography and no filters. Aren't there more 'vintage' type films on the market now? So, I'd think filtration to be more important now than in the 1980s (Unless, like me, you still use T-max film).

Older technology pan films tended to have a greater sensitivity to blue light. Outdoors this caused lighter than expected skies. You would have to compare the spectral curves for each film to judge which had a more "vintage" feel. Another possibility would be the last time there was a change in a film's emulsion. I don't know if such data is even available.

 

[waileong]

Nothing has changed

Can we say that filtration is less important with today's films than it was in the past? Has there been a steady improvement with B&W negative materials' sensitivity so as to conform with the human eye's perception of color?

Or am I dead wrong here and nothing has really changed? - David Lyga

 

[Chris Livsey]

You may find this more detailed exposition interesting:
https://dacnard.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/the-real-shades-of-gray-bw-film-is-a-matter-of-heart-pt-1/

Of course you can always quote, tongue in cheek:-

“... and everything looks worse in black and white.”
- Paul Simon, "Kodachrome" 1973 Columbia Records
Lyrics © UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING GROUP

Side note: The concerts, The Concert in Central Park (1982) and Paul Simon's Concert in the Park,1991 reversed it , "...everything looks better in black and white."
Simon said, "I can't remember which way I originally wrote it -- 'better' or 'worse' -- but I always change it, Interview with Daniel J. Levitin, Grammy, Winter, 1997.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

A black-and-white rendition of a color scene is an abstraction per se. There may be some approximate densities that relate to particular color/brightness combinations, but the idea of "correction" through filtration doesn't really apply here. Many think that a #8 yellow filter for "conventional" panchromatic films gives the most pleasing rendering of outdoor scenes, so if this is what you're after, then T-Max 100 without a filter comes close to other pan films with the yellow filter due to the increased red sensitivity. There's still a drop in the green, however.

Still, the use of filters should be dictated by the scene, the colors inherent there and the way in which the photographer wishes to render them, not by some arbitrary and inapplicable notion of "correct" rendering of tones.

Best,

Doremus

 

[flavio81]

A black-and-white rendition of a color scene is an abstraction per se.

Any photography is an abstraction of the real scene. Photographs lie all the time. That's what this art is all about.

 

[MattKing]

Any photography is an abstraction of the real scene. Photographs lie all the time. That's what this art is all about.

An abstraction isn't a lie .
One should choose the film and filter one uses based on how one likes their final product to look. If you are Karsh, you make a different choice than William Wegman

 

[waileong]

When it comes to yellow/orange filters, it is not about artistic effect, it's to prevent washed out blue skies. But other filters, such as red, green, blue, etc could be for artistic considerations

 

[Bill Burk]

Can we say that filtration is less important with today's films than it was in the past? Has there been a steady improvement with B&W negative materials' sensitivity so as to conform with the human eye's perception of color?

Or am I dead wrong here and nothing has really changed? - David Lyga

Assume for a moment that many of today's films have response fairly close to the human eye. I have gotten away without using a yellow filter and sky wasn't blown out, for a shot taken in the full sun.

I think they probably have changed since 1942, but I am going to have to take a closer look because... Type B panchromatic curves from 1942 look similar to modern curves.

Even so, a yellow filter is a good thing to have. If you have a bit of blue sky in the background of a scene that is otherwise in shade... You know the kind of sky that fools a light meter into underexposing your shot... In that case a yellow filter could hold down the tone of the sky which is really brighter than everything else in the scene.

 

[grahamp]

When it comes to yellow/orange filters, it is not about artistic effect, it's to prevent washed out blue skies. But other filters, such as red, green, blue, etc could be for artistic considerations

A clear blue sky (no haze or overcast) ought to render as a grey without filtering. It might not be dark enough in all cases, true. I used to have this problem for years until I realized I was underexposing and somewhat over developing (mostly down to poor metering technique). With Delta emulsions in N. California, usually rated at half box speed, I have no trouble with tone in the skies.

I do use filters from time to time: red for haze penetration, green to get some separation in foliage, yellow-green for when said foliage dies back in the summer. But only when I feel the rendition is going to add something the the result. The T-grain films do seem to be a little different, but all films have changed, and the papers we are using are different. It is hard to get a base for comparison.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think sometimes "we" are getting better at exposing and developing... because like you grahamp, I have no trouble with tone in the skies...

But watch now... that I've said so... I'll be dogged with blank skies for all next year...

Especially when I start using Magenta filters...

 

[Leigh B]

Rendering detail in a clear blue sky s a challenge.

- Leigh

 

[Doremus Scudder]

When it comes to yellow/orange filters, it is not about artistic effect, it's to prevent washed out blue skies. But other filters, such as red, green, blue, etc could be for artistic considerations

Sure it is: not liking "washed-out blue skies" is an aesthetic. Personally, I like the blank white skies in a lot of older photographs taken on blue-sensitive or orthochromatic film. That's why, out of "artistic considerations" I occasionally use a blue or cyan filter with pan film. There's no "reality" to match here; just how the medium renders tones and what we can do to change that through filtration to get what we want.

Best,

Doremus

 

[waileong]

I don't agree it's an aesthetic. It is trying to get B&W film tones to match reality (at least in terms of tonality, but not colour). In the same way that one does not expect washed out blue skies when shooting with colour film, one also does not expect washed out blue skies when shooting B&W film, when it should have some tone other than white, given that the sky is blue.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I'll let everyone else continue the technical/philosophical/aesthetic interchanges and simply share a bit of wisdom provided by a friend of mine:

"Always shoot one without a filter so you'll have something to print." ​