The Right Yellow Filter for Natural Looking B&W?...

FilmOnly · Nov 9, 2009

With my Pentax gear, I had been using a Y1 yellow filter in order to get rid of the washed out white skies that often result in B&W photography. This seemed to work fairly well. I am not interested in adding any effects or alterations. Now that I am using Canon and Nikon gear, I am a bit confused in regard to a yellow filter choice. Which would proudce a natural looking photo (especially in regard to the sky): a K2, Yellow 8, No. 48, etc.? I gather there may perhaps be some replication in the various naming conventions.

keithwms · Nov 9, 2009

First of all, with pan films I don't get washed out skies... even without any filtering. Let me suggest Rollei superpan... and no filter. What films are you using? How are you metering? Where you place the clouds, in terms of exposure, can be important.

If you do want to filter a bit, just about any yellow filter will be fine, just meter through it and all will be well. You might also go ahead an pick up an orange or red filter and compare. I would suggest investing in a coated filter, and even if you do get a fancy multicoated one, do use a hood.

Lee L · Nov 9, 2009

K2 and Wratten #8 are essentially the same yellow filter. They may be slightly darker yellow than your Y1 filter. (I can't find any curves or Wratten equivalents in a quick search, but Y1 might be a Wratten #6 / K1 equivalent.) So the #8 / K2 would darken blues more effectively than the Y1 if my assumptions are correct.

Wratten #48 is a strong blue filter, not yellow.

The Wratten #8 / K2 was considered a full correction of Type B panchromatic B&W film used outdoors, and is considered to give a rendition close to normal human perception. (Panchromatic films were at one time 'typed' according to how red sensitive they were.)

Lee

FilmOnly · Nov 9, 2009

I have gotten whited out skies quite often, and it has been very disappointing. I use a good light meter (Sekonic), and know how to frame my photos. I avoid shooting into the sun, as that always makes for whited out skies, even with color film (unless, of course, one is shooting a sunset).

With regard to film, I do use pan films. I have used Kodak Plus-X 125, and have a roll of Ilford's 50 speed B&W in my Canon F-1N right now. I just got a roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 back, and had nothing but wited out skies (and some pronounced darkishness under tress, too, I might add...that is, more darkishness than with color film). Thus, I was thinking that I need a good yellow filter for my Canon and Nikon gear in order to cure those awful white skies.

benjiboy · Nov 9, 2009

I always understood the filter to give the most panchromatic rendition on panchromatic monochrome films which should by definition be sensitive to all colors but are in fact oversensitive to blue is as yellow /green one a Y/O.

Lee L · Nov 9, 2009

benjiboy said:
I always understood the filter to give the most panchromatic rendition on panchromatic monochrome films which should by definition be sensitive to all colors but are in fact oversensitive to blue is as yellow /green one a Y/O.

Depends on the spectral sensitivity of the particular B&W panchromatic film in use. They aren't all the same.

Lee

jeffreyg · Nov 9, 2009

There are a number of degrees of yellow filters and brands of such. Basically the yellow filter will darken the blue and make clouds appear more natural. The tone of the sky can be controlled by what zone you place it in and influenced by the time of day, the strength of the filter, color temperature also varies with the latitude you are at as well as other factors. You didn't mention how you are metering or what the subject is. If necessary the sky can be burned in or consider using a graduated filter. The brand of camera should not make any difference. Different films may have some affect but I would not think they would be major.

AgX · Nov 9, 2009

Films are not only different in the response to the red part of the spectrum, but also to the blue part.

FilmOnly · Nov 9, 2009

For faster b&w work, I am using a Nikon FE with 400 speed film (either Tri-X or Delta). For slower b&w work I use a Canon F-1N with 50 speed Ilford (Pan-F). As far as metering is concerned, I use a Sekonic L-308S as my primary reference. I use the camera's centerweighted metering system as my "second opinion." The time of day will vary, but, at this time of year, I will not avoid the typical "bad" hours (i.e. high sun), as the angle of the sun is lower. With regard to my location, I shoot in the middle part of the east coast of the US.

grahamp · Nov 9, 2009

Unless the sky is overcast cloud, which may be very pale, I would expect a blue sky to print gray. My unfiltered Delta 10 (5x4) and 400 (120) routinely come up fine. And we get a lot of cloudless blue sky in N. California. It makes me think there is some over development involved. Way back I remember white skies and I was using box speed with matching development. These days I an exposing 1 stop more than the suggested speed with around 15-20% development reduction by time.

eddym · Nov 9, 2009

FilmOnly said:
I just got a roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 back, and had nothing but wited out skies...

Am I correct in assuming that when you say you just got a roll "back", that you are not doing your own processing? If so, then it is quite likely that your problem is not metering nor filtering, but overdevelopment, resulting in blown highlights (skies, in this case). Your reference to shadows being darker (I guess you meant to say "under trees"), reinforces this possibility. It could be that you just need to reduce your processing time by either doing it yourself or by communicating your need to your lab technician.

I rarely use filters with B&W film outdoors, and may on occasion need to burn in skies a bit, but I never have them "whited out."

Lee L · Nov 9, 2009

eddym said:
Am I correct in assuming that when you say you just got a roll "back", that you are not doing your own processing? If so, then it is quite likely that your problem is not metering nor filtering, but overdevelopment, resulting in blown highlights (skies, in this case).

It could also be a case of poor printing, especially if done on an automated machine for printing from color negatives. I don't know how well the typical Fuji Frontier (and typical operator) handles standard B&W negatives. The OP may want to consider a chromogenic film if this is his standard routine. Kodak and Ilford both make B&W films that are run in C-41 chemistry and produce negatives more compatible with the typical 1 hour lab color setup.

Lee

flash26c · Nov 9, 2009

Never underexpose or overdevelop. Someone told me that once ----

bsdunek · Nov 9, 2009

I use a lot of Ilford FP4. I still like the look of a K2 Yellow filter for most work. My skies tend to wash out, and the yellow filter looks quite natural. Sometimes I use a Red filter and like the look, although I agree that this is more enhanced than correct.
I say, try the K2, medium yellow, and see if you like it. Each of us has our own ideas of what we like.

Mike1234 · Nov 9, 2009

There is "blue" sky showing through when you take the pics, right? If there are only clouds then no filter except a grad ND will help. Well... "maybe" a deep red Wratten #25 or #29.

BetterSense · Nov 9, 2009

To me, tmax looks like TriX with a yellow filter, when it comes to skies and clouds.

FilmOnly · Nov 9, 2009

Excellent question, Mike1234...my answer is yes and no. In some shots, blue was present, but in other shots, there were what I would call somewhat "dramatic" cloudy skies--a nice mix of gray and white. In my view, the gray should have been recorded--because it was there. I cannot understand why a sky with a mix of obviously gray clouds would end up being represented as white only. In any case, what should I use for this situation?

eddym/Lee L: I do not do my own processing. Your suggestion with regard to switching to C-41 b&w is very good. I had been thinking that true b&w film is too much for them to get right.

Mike1234 · Nov 9, 2009

FilmOnly said:
Mike1234...my answer is yes and no. In some shots, blue was present, but in other shots, there were what I would call somewhat "dramatic" cloudy skies--a nice mix of gray and white. In my view, the gray should have been recorded--because it was there. I cannot understand why a sky with a mix of obviously gray clouds would end up being represented as white only. In any case, what should I use for this situation?

Then either the scene contrast is too great or you're over developing the negs, IMHO. Try burning the sky during printing. And try said deep red filters but beware these will turn green foliage nearly black... or try said grad ND... or a combination of the two. It sounds like your exposures combined with film and developing technique are blocking the high values. Have you tried adjusting dev time/temp?

2F/2F · Nov 9, 2009

It will be a bit different with each film.

I think that light, medium, and dark yellow filters are all good things to have at your disposal. What you want will likely change from shot to shot, and each filter's effect will also change from situation to situation.

I don't use filters that often...but my most used filter for landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, etc. is a Hoya XO. It is the rough equivalent of a Wratten #11. For people, I often like to use tungsten lamps, which is similar to using a warm filter like dark yellow, orange, etc.

FWIW, I don't think that any black and white photo looks "natural". That is part of the point of using the medium, IMO. Filters are just another tool to control exactly how unnatural your pix turn out.

FilmOnly · Nov 9, 2009

I like the idea of a Hoya XO. Do you think it would solve my sky problem--especially with regard to rendering gray/white skies correctly?

darinwc · Nov 9, 2009

If your subject is in shadow the sky can end up overexposed.
(example attached, canon f1N, tmax i think)

Also if the sky is hazy it will be brighter than a nice clear blue.

If you develop or print for more contrast then it may push the sky values into white. Try just masking the landscape and burning in the sky.

Mike1234 · Nov 9, 2009

Yup... and be sure to feather.

Nicholas Lindan · Nov 9, 2009

Everyone has their own idea of what a 'natural' sky looks like in black & white. There is no 'accurate' representation. And skies vary a lot in the depth of their color.

Don't keep experimenting with pale shades of yellow, the difference between them is far less than the difference in the sky on any two days.

Get an orange filter and a red #25: you need to find the filter that's 'too much' - then you can find the filter that is in between and just right for your vision of the sky.

Also try using a polarizer - they don't work for all skies but can make quite a difference when the angles of sunlight and shooting direction are right.

FilmOnly · Nov 9, 2009

I appreciate your feedback in regard to filters. I do not believe, however, that the matter of "sky" is particularly subjective. I am absolutely certain that the scenes I shot did not have white skies. I loathe white skies, and I purposely avoid shooting them (unless I am in a peculiar situation wherein I simply cannot capture the subject apart from the associated white sky). Thus, I am sure that the skies I shot in my last b&w roll were interesting. They were either a mix of blue and white or gray and white, as I have indicated. If black and white film cannot record this information, then perhaps it is not for me.

darinwc · Nov 9, 2009

Are you scanning or printing the neg?

The Right Yellow Filter for Natural Looking B&W?...

FilmOnly

keithwms

Lee L

FilmOnly

benjiboy

Lee L

jeffreyg

AgX

FilmOnly

grahamp

eddym

Lee L

flash26c

bsdunek

Mike1234

BetterSense

FilmOnly

Mike1234

2F/2F

FilmOnly

darinwc

Attachments

Mike1234

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

FilmOnly

darinwc

The Right Yellow Filter for Natural Looking B&W?...

Attachments

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency