Red or Dark Red

[nc5p]

I guess this is the right forum. I asked this question on another site and got no answers, nobody there knew. I want to buy a red filter for b&w landscape shots. Currently I only use a yellow filter but want more dramatic effects. They make red #25 and dark red #29 filters. Which one should I get? I know the dark red eats up more light (3 stops) but that really isn't a big issue for my application. Will the dark red give me more dramatic results or is it a wash?

Thanks,

Doug

 

[vet173]

I would go with the #25. That is the one normally used as a red. The #29 is for color seperation negs.

 

[Les McLean]

While you are purchasing filters get an orange and a polarising filter. The orange is a good compromise between yellow and red and the polariser will further add to the drama, particularly in skies, when used in conjunction with the red filter.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Neither. Listen to Les and get an orange. It can range from a 16 to a 21. Depending on which yellow you have maybe even just a dark yellow like the 15.

 

[Dave Miller]

The 25 will work well with normal film to darken blue sky. Les' suggestion is good as a polorizer works just as well with monochrome as colour. If you want to go over the top, use both together, but be prepared for long exposures.

 

[avandesande]

What kind of yellow filter are you using? I get plenty of separation in NM with a Y2.

 

[Charles Webb]

What Les M says is correct!
I do however use the # 25 frequently for creating more contrast and as a poor mans ND filter. It does'nt offer actual ND but allows me to shoot with my "old Lenses" at a wider apperatures. ND filters are not really that expensive, but perhaps I am a cheap skate.
Charlie....................

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use yellow and orange much more than red. 25 is the most commonly used red filter for B&W, but it can sometimes look overly dramatic. 29 is about as dark as you can get for use with IR film while still being able to focus through the filter.

 

[Donald Miller]

Tastes vary...but I have not used a 25 red in over fifteen years. Listen to Les and get an orange.

I don't like the effects of a polarizer nearly as well as colored filters because the sky is not always evenly polarized and that leads to uneven sky values.

 

[Donald Miller]

Tastes vary...but I have not used a 25 red in over fifteen years. I am not a fan of overly dramatic skies because the appear unrealistic. Listen to Les and get an orange.

I don't like the effects of a polarizer nearly as well as colored filters because the sky is not always evenly polarized equally and that leads to uneven sky values.

 

[vet173]

I go along with everyone else. I should have said I use the orange too. It messes less with the shadows.

 

[Early Riser]

I carry both the #25 and #29 red as well as yellow and orange. Sometimes you just want the sky to go really dark. In the sample I'm posting I didn't have the #29 red so I used a #25 red and a polarizer, something I would rarely ever do but I wanted to really darken the sky.

 

[Dave Miller]

I carry both the #25 and #29 red as well as yellow and orange. Sometimes you just want the sky to go really dark. In the sample I'm posting I didn't have the #29 red so I used a #25 red and a polarizer, something I would rarely ever do but I wanted to really darken the sky.

Impressive picture; saved having to burn the the sky in.

 

[nc5p]

Thanks for all the replies. I did some searching and found this site with filter response curves: http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/spectsel.htm

Click on color filter absorption, I can't get a direct link to that page. I've also looked up my favorite films' response curves and you guys are right on the money. I will get an orange filter, the 29 and 25 don't leave much for the film to work with. I'm currently using a yellow #8 (cutoff @ 480nm) for most of my outdoor work.

Doug

 

[Early Riser]

Thanks Dave. Burning the sky would have also darkened the branches which would mean extensive dodging on the branches during the over all exposures. I find that having to do too many manipulations makes the prints inconsistent and tends to show. The closer you can get the film to what you want the image to be, the better.

 

[Bob F.]

Thanks for all the replies. I did some searching and found this site with filter response curves: http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/spectsel.htm

Click on color filter absorption, I can't get a direct link to that page. I've also looked up my favorite films' response curves and you guys are right on the money. I will get an orange filter, the 29 and 25 don't leave much for the film to work with. I'm currently using a yellow #8 (cutoff @ 480nm) for most of my outdoor work.

Doug

Direct = http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/cf000010.htm. Very Interesting...

Oh, another Orange lover here... But must try the red #25 + polarizer trick to get really dark skies soon...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Some people use a green filter which will not only darken the sky but open up the shadows and lighten foliage.

 

[Dave Miller]

The closer you can get the film to what you want the image to be, the better.

Hey that's my sermon!

 

[Baxter Bradford]

I too favour the orange filter. Having bought the Lee gel set 3 years ago, the Orange is now quite scratched through use and so have just ordered a resin one. The other gel filters will do me for now.

This image uses a light red/polariser combination in very soft light. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I too subscribe to Dave and Early Riser's maxim of getting as close as possible in camera and so frequently use ND grads in addition to coloured/polariser filter(s). Honestly, it's not that I am just lazy when shooting an image in both colour and B+W and can't be bothered to remove the ND grads.