The (un?)importance of filters

Roger2000 · Jul 22, 2017

Hello all,

I'm about to head out with some black and white film, but can't find any of my filters. My question to you is: how can I avoid the pictures looking washed out and dull without the filter?

I'm happy to avoid including the sky in any shots, as that will come out white and look a little dull.

Are filters even that important when there's no sky to darken?

The film is ilford hp5 and fp4, and the camera is a Yashicamat, with a hood on. I'll be taking pictures of people and buildings.

Any tips gladly received! Thank you.

Arvee · Jul 22, 2017

[QUOTE

Are filters even that important when there's no sky to darken?.[/QUOTE]

No, if there's no sky present and you're talking about orange/yellow/red filters.

R.Gould · Jul 22, 2017

Unless you are looking at landscape/seascapes where the sky plays a impotant part of the photo then you really do not need filters other than possibly a skylight to protect the lens, Even for landscapes you can get away without a filter if you are happy to do more burning of the sky to get the result, or if you are using Fomapan film,which goes a little bit into the red and the skys without filter are very close to a orange filter

Frank53 · Jul 22, 2017

Usually you do not need any filters. If there is any detail in the sky, you can always burn in the sky when needed.
Regards,
Frank

cowanw · Jul 22, 2017

I don`t know of any other way to alter the contrast relationships between colours. But if you don`t want to do that then Black and White contrast filters are contraindicated.

pentaxuser · Jul 22, 2017

R.Gould said:
or if you are using Fomapan film,which goes a little bit into the red and the skys without filter are very close to a orange filter

Richard does this apply to all the Foma films? if so they sound like the right kind of film for the likes of a MjuII camera where filters cannot be directly fitted. Yes, you can place a filter over the lens with one hand and take the pic with the other but if Foma gets the sky close to the effect of an orange then that would be fine for most of my sky shots that include sky

pentaxuser

railwayman3 · Jul 22, 2017

It's easy to get too worried about which filters to use for general B&W photography.

I've just processed a 35mm HP5+ film for which I lazily left a darkish yellow-green filter on the camera ; the first part was of various leafy landscapes with buildings, and I'm not too happy with the rendering (green trees and grass rather light in tone) and the remaining half of shots of various coloured classic cars. The latter are OK, but the tones don't really equate with my recollection of the depth of colour of the different paintworks. TBH, I'd have been best with just a plain UV filter for protection.

R.Gould · Jul 22, 2017

pentaxuser said:
Richard does this apply to all the Foma films? if so they sound like the right kind of film for the likes of a MjuII camera where filters cannot be directly fitted. Yes, you can place a filter over the lens with one hand and take the pic with the other but if Foma gets the sky close to the effect of an orange then that would be fine for most of my sky shots that include sky

pentaxuser

I don't know about fomapan 100, I use the 200 and 400, applies to those, I often use them without any filters and get orange filter skys with them, and when I do use an orange filter the skys are almost magical
Richard

Paul Howell · Jul 22, 2017

As noted yellow to red for darkened sky, just depends on how you want to darken the sky. Green for people shots of those with light complexation, polarizer for glare and will darken sky as well. UV haze for distance shots. For buildings, filter if you want to change the tones for any reason, a newer building with blue glass walls, like a skyscraper, a yellow filter with darken the windows, a green or blue filter will lighten, polarizer to control glare in the windows. But for the most part, you can shoot without a filter then fix or adjust in the darkroom.

pentaxuser · Jul 22, 2017

R.Gould said:
, I use the 200 and 400, applies to those,
Richard

Thanks Richard. It sounds promising. My follow-up question is: How close to 200 and 400 are the real speeds? As you will probably know the MjuII is auto everything and there is no direct means of altering film speed. There are ways round this with DX strips from Firstcall, used-cassettes of say 200 and 100, altering the coding by scratching out the coding etc but your experience with the real speeds will be helpful.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Doremus Scudder · Jul 22, 2017

75% of my work is without any filters at all. Sure, it's nice to have them when you need them, but the "default filter" for most B&W film is pretty good these days (panchromatic).

BTW, how do you lose all your filters...?

Doremus

Gerald C Koch · Jul 22, 2017

I'd be hard pressed to remember the last time I used one and it was probably a yellow one.

Roger2000 · Jul 22, 2017

Thanks for all your replies. Not sure quite how I managed to lose them. Something to do with incompetence, I think. Good to know we don't HAVE to use the filters, even though they are useful in some circs.

Colin Corneau · Jul 22, 2017

Filters just make life easier and improve your pictures, in line with what you envision beforehand.

I'm getting into long exposure images with my all-manual Hasselblads, so filters are important to me. I often include an orange/red filter to add yet more time, and increase distinction between clouds and blue sky.

JensH · Jul 22, 2017

Hi,

I avoid taking BW photos without filter, because I don't like the look.
Mostly I use light yellow or medium yellow.
I made a series with all my filters for my old Rolleiflex K1 here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136145166@N02/28130038054

Yellow filters compensate spectral imperfections of the film, if you like stronger effects, fine...

Best
Jens

Bill Burk · Jul 22, 2017

Fred Aspen said:
No, if there's no sky present and you're talking about orange/yellow/red filters.

Hi Fred Aspen,

Good to hear your opinion. I agree. Deliberate landscape work with sky composition elements might need filters.

You can do a lot of photography without filters.

That lens hood is going to help keep flare under control which will "improve" contrast even without filters.

Ces1um · Jul 22, 2017

A polarizer filter is handy to use. It can darken your sky even without clouds...

MattKing · Jul 22, 2017

A better question would be about the limited but still distinct importance of filters.
I often choose to not use a filter. And I reasonably often choose to use a filter.

Cholentpot · Jul 22, 2017

I've tried using then with many films. The only filters that gave any effect for me were heavy red and polarizers. Other than that maybe a cross filter if I feel like it. The film for me has enough latitude to mess with in post so I just leave the filters at home these days.

Sirius Glass · Jul 22, 2017

The lighting conditions, clouds, and composition help determine whether or not I use filters. There is not a set of rules that I use.

Jarin Blaschke · Jul 23, 2017

I need a filter for at least 50% of my pictures. When the sky features in the picture, contrast filters are indispensable to separate clouds. If you simply burn the sky in printing, you get flat gray clouds. Even with cloudless skies, you then have to burn a more phony gradient that a contrast filter would create naturally. Even when there is no sky in the picture, it's extremely useful to separate colors into separate, distinct tones. Red will separate green leaves from straw-colored grass, or warm toned trunks for example. Orange does this to a more subtle degree. Blue accentuates fog and haze. Green is great for rustic portraits; weak green for darkening lips and freckles. Even still lifes benefit greatly from color filters, like this butternut squash shot through a blue 47 filter:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/18192666@N00/23684370984/in/datetaken-public/

All those textures and tones were utterly invisible to the eye.

R.Gould · Jul 23, 2017

pentaxuser said:
Thanks Richard. It sounds promising. My follow-up question is: How close to 200 and 400 are the real speeds? As you will probably know the MjuII is auto everything and there is no direct means of altering film speed. There are ways round this with DX strips from Firstcall, used-cassettes of say 200 and 100, altering the coding by scratching out the coding etc but your experience with the real speeds will be helpful.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Some will tell you that they are only half box speed, I use them both at box speed, I use more 400 than 200, and develop 400 taken at box speed for 14 minutes in Rodinal 1/50 and this gives me the negatives I like to print, I say they both reach box speed, and I have pushed 400 to 800 with 17 minutes in my favoruie rodinal 1/50,
Richard

Rick A · Jul 23, 2017

I usede to carry an Olympus XA all the time, when I thought I needed a filter to make the sky pop, I simply put my polarized sun glasses in front of the lens. Problem solved.

pentaxuser · Jul 23, 2017

R.Gould said:
Some will tell you that they are only half box speed, I use them both at box speed, I have pushed 400 to 800 with 17 minutes in my favoruie rodinal 1/50,
Richard

Thanks Richard. I checked on the specs for both 200 and 400 and the spectral sensitivities are identical or as near identical as makes no difference so either should do the job without filters as you have said. Interestingly the spectral sensitivity of Foma 100 is sufficiently different to render it much less useful as a "no filter" film. Equally as you use both at box speed in Rodinal successfully I hope to get close to box speed with Xtol 1+1. It's at least worth a try without bothering to alter the cassette DX coding in order to lower it.

pentaxuser

R.Gould · Jul 23, 2017

pentaxuser said:
Thanks Richard. I checked on the specs for both 200 and 400 and the spectral sensitivities are identical or as near identical as makes no difference so either should do the job without filters as you have said. Interestingly the spectral sensitivity of Foma 100 is sufficiently different to render it much less useful as a "no filter" film. Equally as you use both at box speed in Rodinal successfully I hope to get close to box speed with Xtol 1+1. It's at least worth a try without bothering to alter the cassette DX coding in order to lower it.

pentaxuser

Pete.
one thing to note is that Fomapan film is not dx coded, so you need to be able to set the asa speed, ( the film, at least the 120, is still marked as asa not iso), but if you can get past that it is a great film, If you are anywhere near London or go to London then the best place to get it is Process Supplies, Martin Reed inports all the foma film,paper chemistry and is the uk distrutor for them and he works from Process
Richard

The (un?)importance of filters

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency