Recommendation on filter for slide film

[Alan Gales]

For color photography I've always used polarizers, UV, neutral density, warming and diffusion filters. Diffusion filters were mostly used for portraits but occasionally for landscape too.

What you need to do is take a small notebook and pen or pencil with you when you go shooting. Shoot a straight shot and then shoot one with a filter at the same exposure. Keep notes on what you do. Shoot various subjects. After you develop your film consult your notes when comparing the photographs.

Less can be more if you want natural looking shots. Of course sometimes you may want exaggerated effects. Check out Pete Turner's work.

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/18740/12-great-photographs-pete-turner/

One more thing. A polarizer can be a photographer's best friend. It can also ruin a photograph. Learn to use it well!

https://photographylife.com/landscapes/how-to-use-a-polarizer

 

[RichardJack]

None. Don't risk unwanted flair. Maybe a polarizer. You can add filter effects later on when you scan your slides.

 

[Sirius Glass]

None. Don't risk unwanted flair. Maybe a polarizer. You can add filter effects later on when you scan your slides.

First line of defense for glare is coated lenses, The second line of defense is a lens hood.

 

[Arklatexian]

Those look nice. I think I could use no filters.



I plan to do a lot of photos in Grand Isle, La which would be landscape but I do want to get some buildings in it what filter would I use to get buildings and landscape.




That helps me understand. I appreciate the advice.



Glad to get some local advice. Have you ever shot slide film in Grand Isle? Wondering how to handle that.



Thank you for a well written out response. It helped understand filters and slide film better.



That is one thing that I always do. Bracket, bracket, bracket.


Thanks everyone for you advice. As always, glad to be a member of APUG

Yes, I have shot slides on Grand Isle on fishing trips. The light is very little different from where I live. Even the beaches, They are nowhere as white as beaches in western Florida or snow. If you have ever taken slides at Cameron, it would be the same. Lots of water and very little land. My favorite subjects in that part of the world are the shrimp boats when they are in port. Just being there is an experience. Don't overlook Bayou Lafourche (I probably misspelled it and "spell checker" never heard of it). Lots of pictures up and down that bayou. More shrimp boats also. Hubigpielover, the best pictures in South Louisiana are not somewhere 100 miles or more from Thibideaux. They are all around you............Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

First line of defense for glare is coated lenses, The second line of defense is a lens hood.

+1, especially the lens hood.....Regards!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Polarizers are sure not the answer to reducing flare. You've got four air to glass interfaces plus the polarizing material ! Mild UV and color balancing filters can be useful to improve color reproduction. But this needs to be fine-tuned relative to the specific film and lighting conditions involved. If you want to go hog wild faking
things, there are no rules. No need for Fauxtoshop. Just smear strawberry jam over the lens and end up as dated and corny as Pete Turner if you wish.

 

[Alan Gales]

Polarizers are sure not the answer to reducing flare. You've got four air to glass interfaces plus the polarizing material ! Mild UV and color balancing filters can be useful to improve color reproduction. But this needs to be fine-tuned relative to the specific film and lighting conditions involved. If you want to go hog wild faking
things, there are no rules. No need for Fauxtoshop. Just smear strawberry jam over the lens and end up as dated and corny as Pete Turner if you wish.

Drew, you don't like Pete Turner. You don't like Peter Lik. It sounds like you have a Peter problem!

Love em or hate em. They are both good examples of exaggerated colors.

Oh and don't waste good strawberry jam on a lens. Put it on toast!

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I am not understanding what you need filters for. If you have not tested the film for proper color balance then, for all the experienced recommendations you are getting based upon tendencies of the emulsion, you may as well flip a coin. You are not in control of your exposure.

Glare, flare, color shifts due to light color can only be managed after you know how to zero-out the color tendencies of the batch of film you have.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Significant batch to batch variations from any reputable film manufacturer ended decades ago. Around 1970-ish if you bought a box of Kodak pro sheet film like Ektachrome 64, they'd have a minor filtration correction printed on the box concerning that specific batch. And you were expected to test color negs films yourself. But coating got much more precise and repeatable, starting with Kodak and Fuji. I presume Agfa was right there too. Modern black and white films have also been very consistent from batch to batch among the major manufacturers. It's a non-issue now. But no film is perfect with respect to all hues and all lighting conditions. There are certain problems that are difficult or impossible to correct post-exposure. I know, I know ... there are twenty million Photoshop junkies out there that claim they can correct ANYTHING in PS afterwards. Then when you look at their actual prints, you wonder how they managed to hit all the app keys with a white cane. ... if they print
at all. Yeah, they might be able to dither and slither on their rear a week or two and get a sloppy facsimile of some color correction that could be done instantly with the correct filter. So no mike ... we don't flip coins. We do our homework first, then do it right. Filters are still sometimes quite relevant.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

So are you saying that you don't test your film? No one has to for everything, I guess, just asking.

I haven't shot this stuff since 2003. We tested for every job, especially when we shot 8x10 because it gives you so much to see. A film "batch" might be accessible at Photo Supply for 3-6 weeks. You could see the lab vary day-to-day, but not much. We never assumed things were consistent. We wanted to guarantee color and exposure, fundamental to every shoot. We also indexed it to polaroid. Once you understood that interpretation it could catch odd effects on the shoot in real time. It left us free to concentrate on other things. When we did something nice it wasn't ever challenged by color or exposure.

If we had to use a polarizer we would test the film against numerous angles in 3 or 5-shot brackets. Process normal, snip and read for color and density. Determine a filter pack. Apply it in a duplicate test and re-evaluate. If it was in the studio it also tested the lights. On occasion you would see color crossover that comes with mismatched or aging bulbs or, curiously, in the way our subject handled light and color. Don't get me started on light tables. In that context, "what filters should I use" seemed a curious question.

Hijack warning: Just a thought...E-6 is threatened by Fuji and promised by Kodak, on the wish-list for several small and potential producers. So; in flux. Contemporary production doesn't fluctuate? What sort of controls exist in terms of storage and expiration dates on E-6. Does processing vary from lab-to-lab or run to run? Does anyone here shoot a brick a month or more?

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is no need to test film for +1,+2, +3, +4, +5, +6, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 with each polarizer setting, just use the TTL reading and you are done. Enough of this recommending endless exhaustive testing for every possible use of film. Excessive testing is a sign of a very sick mind.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Mike, I can assure you that my personal film tests were much more intensive than any commercial lab in the Bay Area. I knew the owners of most of them quite well, and frankly, have fussier standards. But that's a luxury of home cookin' instead of being on the clock. I also have some specialized custom gear. The people who really know their filters are Hollywood cameramen because they're expected to know and highly paid to know. But lot's of people like me learned to creatively work with the idiosyncrasies of unfiltered chrome films. But taking the same shortcuts with certain modern color neg films can lead to unpleasant results. You can obvious slap a slide or sheet of chrome film on a good light box and have a good idea of the course you're on. But with color negs you gotta scan it to preview, or proof it, or run test strips. But even so, RA4 paper within brand can be remarkably consistent batch to batch these days (I use Fuji). A very different game from Ciba where batches not only significantly differed, but quickly began shifting once the paper was thawed. Of course, we can't things for granted. But it's been a long time since I've personally encountered any batch variation from Kodak or Fuji pro film. An exception would be old film. Kodak's sheets of Edupe were badly outdated even shipped from Kodak's own storage, and worthless due to highlight crossover. But then I learned how to make 8x10 contact dupes on Astia 100F even better than what could be done with Kodak EDupe or Fuji CDUii. All these are now extinct, along with interneg film. But now I've learned how to make excellent internegs from Portra 160. I don't intend to do it often. Easier just to shoot a new image on Ektar 100, which is a film needing correct color balance at the time of exposure. I have no idea if Ed at Photo/Studio Supply bought his film direct or not. He didn't carry much and it might not have been ideally fresh. I did buy certain things from him, but never film. Wish he was still around. I'm on the East Bay myself, so at times did slip across the Bridge to Gasser in its heyday or Calumet for sheet film, but mostly ordered it in from bigger suppliers elsewhere, or special ordered it as fresh as possible, since they didn't even carry some of the specialty sheet films I used.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There is no need to test film for +1,+2, +3, +4, +5, +6, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 with each polarizer setting, just use the TTL reading and you are done. Enough of this recommending endless exhaustive testing for every possible use of film. Excessive testing is a sign of a very sick mind.

Yes, I totally agree. I am mystified by the need to go through endless, almost anal bracketing. At most for a competent, observant photographer, 3-4 frames in consistent light at NIL, half and full, recording exposures and then comparing the results (critical results will be observed -- both correct and grossly incorrect, with this using slide film, but it is also applicable to negative film). It is important to note though that "flattening" a scene with a polariser is the wrong, and unfortunately a very common introduction to the use of a polariser. A TTL meter will not save your day if you do that, and additional exposure metrics will be required, if the exposure can be salvaged at all (certainly not with slide film in post).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sirius, we're talking about color balance, not ASA or polarizer exp factors. But I don't consider any kind of TTL reading really trustworthy. I realize this is a MF thread, but start shooting 8x10 color film at what is now around $30 a pop with processing and the learning curve by necessity accelerates quite a bit, unless you're rich.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Hi Mike, I can assure you that my personal film tests were much more intensive than any commercial lab in the Bay Area. I knew the owners of most of them quite well, and frankly, have fussier standards. But that's a luxury of home cookin' instead of being on the clock. I also have some specialized custom gear. The people who really know their filters are Hollywood cameramen because they're expected to know and highly paid to know. But lot's of people like me learned to creatively work with the idiosyncrasies of unfiltered chrome films. But taking the same shortcuts with certain modern color neg films can lead to unpleasant results. You can obvious slap a slide or sheet of chrome film on a good light box and have a good idea of the course you're on. But with color negs you gotta scan it to preview, or proof it, or run test strips. But even so, RA4 paper within brand can be remarkably consistent batch to batch these days (I use Fuji). A very different game from Ciba where batches not only significantly differed, but quickly began shifting once the paper was thawed. Of course, we can't things for granted. But it's been a long time since I've personally encountered any batch variation from Kodak or Fuji pro film. An exception would be just plain old film. Kodak's sheets of Edupe were badly outdated even shipped from Kodak's own storage, and worthless due to highlight crossover. But then I learned how to make 8x10 contact dupes on Astia 100F even better than what could be done with Kodak EDupe or Fuji CDUii. All these are now extinct, along with interneg film. But now I've learned how to make excellent internegs from Portra 160. I don't intend to do it often. Easier just to shoot a new image on Ektar 100, which is a film needing correct color balance at the time of exposure.

I don't doubt you but did you read the date of the last usage? It was hardly obsessive or overdone, simply methodical. Perhaps even ritual. We could call it the J Walter Thompson insurance policy. If you all freak on this how about snip-testing 35mm Ekt 100 before final processing?

I have to appreciate your disposition with labs but the photographers I worked with, nearly 50 as an assistant/manager, pretty much did this.There was hardly a fool amongst them. I also worked with a shooter who hand-cut window mats for each final sheet. It was how he was taught by True Red in Dallas in the mid-late 70s. When you slapped them down onto the light table, though, they really sung.

Never shot big neg. most shooters were E-6, PX, TX in all formats. I'm interested to hear the change.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well I NEVER bracket except when testing an unfamiliar new film or filter, in which case I shoot affordable 120 film. And chrome films did reach their quality control peak just before the asteroid hit. The best ones are now extinct. Note I revised my previous thread per questioning the freshness of Ed's film at Photo Supply. Snip testing or something even more precise should have been done at every pro lab, not so much because the film itself varied, but the daily chem balance of the E6 and C41 processing machines. A related but different topic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is no need to test film for +1,+2, +3, +4, +5, +6, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 with each polarizer setting, just use the TTL reading and you are done. Enough of this recommending endless exhaustive testing for every possible use of film. Excessive testing is a sign of a very sick mind.

Yes, I totally agree. I am mystified by the need to go through endless, almost anal bracketing. At most for a competent, observant photographer, 3-4 frames in consistent light at NIL, half and full, recording exposures and then comparing the results (critical results will be observed -- both correct and grossly incorrect, with this using slide film, but it is also applicable to negative film). It is important to note though that "flattening" a scene with a polariser is the wrong, and unfortunately a very common introduction to the use of a polariser. A TTL meter will not save your day if you do that, and additional exposure metrics will be required, if the exposure can be salvaged at all (certainly not with slide film in post).

When it was announced that HIE was to be discontinued, I bought two 36 exposure rolls. I posted on APUG asking about scenes to photograph to get the best lighting situations. Several testinestas said that I should choose one scene, set up a tripod and shoot a wide range of exposures and apertures for a total of 72 exposures. That way I would know everything about that film for that one scene and I would not have any HIE left to use. This is about as smart of loading a clip of a 9mm semi automatic pistol, putting it to ones head and seeing how many times one could pull the trigger. Testinestas are not quite that smart.

I have used many specialty films in 35mm and 120 slr cameras using the light meter and any appropriate, if necessary filters including polarizers. I never had a problem with the photographs using that method. I have bracketed probably less than 30 times in the last 60 years. It is important to know ones equipment and capabilities.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Yeah, there are people here who NEVER bracket. Who do you work for?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are darn few film tests I can think of that can't been done on a single roll of 120 film with a few shots left over for general shooting. But there are tests and there are tests. Try calibrating b&w sheet film for three precisely matched in-camera color separations, all developed simultaneously. You not only need to get nitpicky about the distinction between a 25 and 29 red filter, but even the brand and specific batch of filter. Mike, I have never bracketed in my life except for special tests. And
that has certainly not compromised quality. And I mainly printed in a very unforgiving medium. The very most successful studio photographer I have ever known never bracketed either. I don't know if he was ever a billionaire, but he came close.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I have bracketed probably less than 30 times in the last 60 years. It is important to know ones equipment and capabilities.

I haven't been around for 60 years yet (actually 57 very soon...)...
I bracketed heavily when using Kodachrome from around 1979 to 1992, along with a smattering of the far less impressive Ektachrome. I'm stretching my memory a bit, but I think the camera in use at that time was Canon's T90, but could also have been joined by a Minolta Dynax 9000i — emphatically one of the worst cameras and lenses I had owned, and necessarily briefly at that.

Many of my worst and most sorrowful exposure mistakes were careless, over-zealous use of a polariser, nothing at all with other filters. Experience is a wonderful teacher.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Somebody yesterday approached me because it was the first time he had even seen an 8x10 camera. He had some 6x7 experience. It was one of those lustrous
semi-fog shimmering estuary shots. So he asked me if I was using a polarizing filter. I told him I never carry one; it would have ruined the opalescent authenticity of
the shot, and the sun was at the wrong angle anyway. Quit using em decades ago, except for the copy stand in the lab, where they are sometimes important to overcome reflections, yet always at some expense to color relationships.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I told him I never carry one; it would have ruined the opalescent authenticity of
the shot, and the sun was at the wrong angle anyway.

I have yet to see evidence a polariser afforded any desired or noticeable improvement in a scene largely foggy. Besides which, I have enough fog swirling around my brainbox when I have to scoot out to photograph something imagined to be pretty in the fog, only to come back prematurely because I couldn't find my way there through the gloom....

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, there are a lot of myths about them. I thrive on reflections in scenes, and certainly don't want to kill them. Some black and white photographers use polarizers in conjunction with red or orange filters to turn blue skies black. Not my cup of tea, and certainly not ideal in terms of image sharpness. Outdoor photographers of the cutesy calendar genre like to enhance fall foliage colors by removing reflections. But unless this is very carefully done, it looks like pasted-on color. I have no interest
in gilding the lily.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yes, there are a lot of myths about them. I thrive on reflections in scenes, and certainly don't want to kill them. Some black and white photographers use polarizers in conjunction with red or orange filters to turn blue skies black. Not my cup of tea, and certainly not ideal in terms of image sharpness. Outdoor photographers of the cutesy calendar genre like to enhance fall foliage colors by removing reflections. But unless this is very carefully done, it looks like pasted-on color. I have no interest
in gilding the lily.

Drew, you remind me of my good friend, Harold. He mostly shoots landscape and wants his photographs to look as natural as possible. While on vacation, he photographed a scene that included a log cabin from the 1800's. The cabin looked pretty much as it did back when it was built except for some power and telephone lines going to it. His wife is big on computers. She scanned Harold's negative and by using Photoshop she eliminated the offensive lines. Harold was in a conundrum. He didn't know how he felt about his wife's "corrections". Even though she improved the photograph it was no longer authentic.

I've always been a huge fan of polarizers. Yes, I agree that they can easily be abused. I don't know. I'm more interested in my interpretation than absolute realism. I've never seen a color photograph that compared to the actual scene was absolutely perfect and what about lenses? For accuracy you would always have to shoot a normal focal length. You sure wouldn't want to compress or expand a scene by using long or wide lenses. Also, what about b&w film? There is no color. It doesn't look real at all!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Absolute realism never has and never will exist. It's impossible anyway. But I, for one, love the complexity and nuances of reflections. My early exhibitions were largely based on it. There was one public venue where the curator homed in on these very kinds of images - big Cibachromes at that time, an ideal medium for rendering reflections, and it was nice to have someone that truly understood what I was up to. But at the opening some poor fellow got so disturbed by his inability to recognize what was surface and what was depth in a particular ice/water image that he cussed me out. Well, the ambiguity over the picture plane was deliberate - the whole point of the image in fact. So I was not at all offended by this individual, but found his psychological response fascinating. People like me who have been around glaciers and semi-frozen lakes instantly were drawn into the image rather than being repelled or disoriented. So distinctly different reactions. But polarizers are just another tool. I'm certainly not against them per se. I just don't have much admiration for the kinds of calendars sent out as mortuary advertisements containing kitchy scenery, where things like polarizers, grad filters, and now Fauxtoshop are blatantly abused. That kind of thing tells me the photographer is more interested in concocting a marketable stereotype than actually learning how to see.