Green Filters for B&W

[Arklatexian]

It's a great filter for springtime foliage. Lightens leaves of fresh growth in somewhat the fashion of infrared film, but of course much less dramatic.

It is and has been my understanding that foliage is the reason for that filter to exist. I really wonder why anyone would want to use it handheld. I do remember that some used it to photograph older Caucasian males for some reason. Anyone know why? Red noses, faces?.......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

For portraits I routinely carry a light yellow-green XO filter for use with panchromatic film. It renders a more natural look, since typical pan
film is slightly depressed with respect to green sensitivity. The deeper X1 is wonderful for certain landscape applications. It's especially useful in the desert where you might want to darken the sky to bring out contrast in the clouds, but don't want red sandstone coming out pasty and unnaturally bright. I can also be useful for portraits of older men, where you want to accentuate wrinkles and age spots - that kind of rugged character effect which once prompted portrait pros to routinely use ortho film for the same specific application.

Can't we still buy ortho (sheet film) for that purpose? Does anyone make an MF Ortho film for the same purpose?
While waiting for an answer, I will keep my green filters.......and maybe use them....They will work on my 35mm, MF and 4x5 cameras.......Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

Green lipstick helps.

My goodness! Shades of old-time B&W television in which that was standard operating procedure to make sure that people had lips when the TV cameras focused on them......It worked!......Regards!

 

[NB23]

The only lips I like in the photos below are the ones on the blonde wearing a hat. Just my personal taste.

Edit: I must've done something naughty since the center photo has disappeared.

This is a classic example where one tricks people with faked images to suit an agenda.

The photo in the middle really doesn't look like what a yellow-green filter does to a portrait unless the model has DEEP RED lipstick and that the image was heavily post processed in PS.

And you must take into account each film's chromatic sensitivity. A green filter (or red, or orange, or Yellow) will react differently on TMAX versus DELTA versus Foma and so on.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This is a classic example where one tricks people with faked images to suit an agenda.

The photo in the middle really doesn't look like what a yellow-green filter does to a portrait unless the model has DEEP RED lipstick and that the image was heavily post processed in PS.

I picked those images out of a Google search on the phrase "B&W actress portraits". I have no idea what films or filters were used and I have no anti-green-filter agenda or motive for tricking people. My point was to illustrate photos I've seen where the lips were dark enough that I didn't like them.

Also, in my post #10, I never said a green filter makes lips look black. I made a general statement that I don't like black lips in photos.

 

[ColColt]

Remember how dark Lucy's lips looked?

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I use hand held cameras, which is virtually all the photographs I take, the slowest shutter speed I use is 1/[lens focal length].

 

[Roger Cole]

I can do better than 1/FL in some cameras. TLR for instance. I am likely to enlarge the 120 negative a good deal less than 35mm, minimizing any blur from camera shake, there's no mirror slap, and I can steady it against my chest, tension the strap, take a deep breath, half exhale and hold.. I've gotten some acceptable shots at quite slow (less than 1/25) speeds that way. Not every one, but enough to make it worth a try. Usually if you pay attention you can feel your heartbeat and it you have a reasonably slow pulse (mine at rest is usually in the 60s, 60 of course would be one second intervals) you can even try to release the shutter just at the end of a beat, which means trying to do it ON the beat - the tiny delay will mean the exposure is made and ended before another heart beat causes a minor twitch.

It helps to have done some target shooting back in the day.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I use hand held cameras, which is virtually all the photographs I take, the slowest shutter speed I use is 1/[lens focal length].

I can do better than 1/FL in some cameras. TLR for instance. I am likely to enlarge the 120 negative a good deal less than 35mm, minimizing any blur from camera shake, there's no mirror slap, and I can steady it against my chest, tension the strap, take a deep breath, half exhale and hold.. I've gotten some acceptable shots at quite slow (less than 1/25) speeds that way. Not every one, but enough to make it worth a try. Usually if you pay attention you can feel your heartbeat and it you have a reasonably slow pulse (mine at rest is usually in the 60s, 60 of course would be one second intervals) you can even try to release the shutter just at the end of a beat, which means trying to do it ON the beat - the tiny delay will mean the exposure is made and ended before another heart beat causes a minor twitch.

It helps to have done some target shooting back in the day.

I can do and have done better than that but it is not usually necessary. It is a rule of thumb not a god given decree, advice, ...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It helps to have done some target shooting back in the day.

For 1000-yard matches I have a Barrett M82A1, bought in 1990 when they were only $5000, with a 24x Leupold scope. I can see my heartbeat in that.

 

[cuthbert]

Green filters are great for people and outdoors. I've done some experiments without, with a Y2 and a X1 filter.

Ghost:

Less ghost:

Human:

That was Neopan 400.

This is BW400CN and I used a YG filter on a deeply yellowed Canon FD 35mm f2 (radioactive).

Boring urban landscape, X1 filter, Tmax 100.

 

[ColColt]

The "Human" shot, is that with the green filter?

 

[flavio81]

I think the green (X1) filter is just about useless. (...) I wouldn't want to shoot with that lens under 250 to be assured of a sharp photo.

Colcolt,

Most classic lenses (and most non-apochromatic lenses) are optimized for the green part of the spectrum. Thus a green filter makes them work with the "ideal" wavelength, which can boost resolution and sharpness in some cases.

Explaining more this concept: Typical lenses will focus the blue and red colors in a different plane than what you have originally focused in (longitudinal and chromatic aberrations). These aberrations diminish resolution and sharpness, both in color an in B&W. Lenses were classically computed to be optimized for the green spectrum, where the eye is most sensitive. Thus, using a green filter makes the lens work under ideal conditions and -depending on the lens- may boost performance. Yellow filter can also do the same as well, considering that it usually boosts contrast.

 

[ColColt]

I use a Y2 filter like most use an ultraviolet filter for color. The X1 filter has seen little use due to acting like an ND filter reducing the light by 2 stops. That's primarily why I don't use it often

 

[cuthbert]

The "Human" shot, is that with the green filter?

Yes, YG to be precise.

I am very pale, usually, and I don't wear lipstick so I don't have the problem of the black lips!

 

[ColColt]

I understand the sun seldom shines in the UK, perhaps that's the reason for being pale. The X1 filter has a filter factor of 4 best I remember and will reduce by 2 f-stops. The X0 I believe if just one stop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The green filter is best for lightening up the leaves and stems of plants.

 

[ColColt]

That's a very narrow usage. I wouldn't spend $30-40 on a filter to just do that.

 

[MattKing]

That's a very narrow usage. I wouldn't spend $30-40 on a filter to just do that.

Depends a bit on where you live:

 

[ColColt]

I suppose-or what sort of pictures you're into. I do know I like the effect on portraits of men. I don't recall ever using it to take portraits of women so, I don't know how that would have turned out.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The green filter is best for lightening up the leaves and stems of plants.

That's a very narrow usage. I wouldn't spend $30-40 on a filter to just do that.

I generally do not, but when the green filter is included in a purchase I make the purchase and set the green filter aside.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, I wouldn't spend $30 or $40 on a green filter. I'd want something better. I use these quite a bit.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I generally do not, but when the green filter is included in a purchase I make the purchase and set the green filter aside.

No, I wouldn't spend $30 or $40 on a green filter. I'd want something better. I use these quite a bit.

Here is an example of a recent but not yet received purchase.

 

[frank]

That's a very narrow usage. I wouldn't spend $30-40 on a filter to just do that.

Think: landscapes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good point, if I was back East where driving along Skyline Drive National Park all there is to see is trees on each side with an occasional break for a look out. However I am in the western US were trees are common in the mountains such as the Sierras or the Wasatch but no so common in the open land. Still that is a good reason to keep it around. Now about the blue filter and the sepia filter ...