Underwhelmed by Red Filter effect

sterioma · May 23, 2020

A red filter is often described as the one giving the most "dramatic" effects in terms of separation of clouds from the sky. At times you see photos online where the sky looks almost black.

I have just acquired a Heliopan red filter (I believe it is the requivalent of a "25"), which I mounted in front of my 50mm Distagon lens and I can say that I was not blow away from what I have found. The sky these days in England is as blue as it can get, with frequent clearing after wind and storms. Still, while there is some separation between the clouds and the sky, it is nowhere near to be "dramatic".

I have used a polarizer in the past with my 35mm camera (mostly for slides), but I did not particarly like the gradient when using a wide angle lens. Is an infrared film my only option? Or should I just move to the mountains

Here's an example: film is HP5+ exposed at 160 with 3 extra stops for the red filter. Scan from negative, with no changes to contrast.

BrianShaw · May 23, 2020

Yes, red filter effect can be over-rated in many cases. In some of the dramatic examples it can look quite harsh and fake. Although I have one in every size needed for my gear, it’s my least used filter.

Kino · May 23, 2020

Try a yellow (K2) filter for more dramatic sky effect.

sterioma · May 23, 2020

Kino said:
Try a yellow (K2) filter for more dramatic sky effect.

My understanding is that a yellow filter should have a milder effect, not a stronger one.

BrianShaw · May 23, 2020

sterioma said:
My understanding is that a yellow filter should have a milder effect, not a stronger one.

Correct... K2 gives a “natural” contrast.

Sirius Glass · May 23, 2020

sterioma said:
A red filter is often described as the one giving the most "dramatic" effects in terms of separation of clouds from the sky. At times you see photos online where the sky looks almost black.

I have just acquired a Heliopan red filter (I believe it is the requivalent of a "25"), which I mounted in front of my 50mm Distagon lens and I can say that I was not blow away from what I have found. The sky these days in England is as blue as it can get, with frequent clearing after wind and storms. Still, while there is some separation between the clouds and the sky, it is nowhere near to be "dramatic".

I have used a polarizer in the past with my 35mm camera (mostly for slides), but I did not particarly like the gradient when using a wide angle lens. Is an infrared film my only option? Or should I just move to the mountains

Here's an example: film is HP5+ exposed at 160 with 3 extra stops for the red filter. Scan from negative, with no changes to contrast.
View attachment 246805

That looks more like a R23 than a R25. Red filters have a stronger effect at higher altitudes like 10,000 feet.

BradS · May 23, 2020

sterioma said:
A red filter is often described as the one giving the most "dramatic" effects in terms of separation of clouds from the sky.
....
Here's an example: film is HP5+ exposed at 160 with 3 extra stops for the red filter. Scan from negative, with no changes to contrast.

Are you saying that you rated HP5+ at EI160 and then gave an additional 3 stops of exposure? a total of 5-1/3 stops more exposure than box speed...yes?

rating HP5+ at EI 160 is only 1-1/3 stops more exposure than box speed.

either way, I think the exposure is, perhaps, non-optimal for the red filter.

ic-racer · May 23, 2020

Exact same thing happened to this guy with a deep yellow filter, so he had do do some darkroom manipulation....

sterioma · May 23, 2020

BradS said:
Are you saying that you rated HP5+ at EI160 and then gave an additional 3 stops of exposure? a total of 5-1/3 stops more exposure than box speed...yes?

I normally expose HP5 at 160 (based this EI from a speed test). Here I gave 3 extra stops to account for the filter, and developed as "normal". The negative looks correctly exposed, considering the red will take away some shadow detail.

ColdEye · May 23, 2020

I quite like a red filter. I do use them usually with slower film. These are straight scans from a scanner, so they might look different when printed.

NikonF2-28mm (1 Of 4)

ColdEye
May 11, 2020
5

First trial with rollei retro 80s, and I discover my f2 has a light leak. Got that remedied now...

Mini Ayers.

ColdEye
May 22, 2015
2

Looks like a mini Ayers rock to me. Out in Fish Wash Creek.

Sirius Glass · May 23, 2020

sterioma said:
I normally expose HP5 at 160 (based this EI from a speed test). Here I gave 3 extra stops to account for the filter, and developed as "normal". The negative looks correctly exposed, considering the red will take away some shadow detail.

If your EI is 160 for HP5+, then you have some serious calibration problems with your camera and-or light meter OR serious technique problems. Do you take light meter readings including the sky? Never take a light reading including the sky.

ic-racer · May 23, 2020

If your EI is 160 for HP5+, then you have some serious calibration problems

My EI for HP5 72 expsoure roll is about 12, maybe a little less. (the rolls are from 1984, the rebate is nearly black)

sterioma · May 23, 2020

Sirius Glass said:
If your EI is 160 for HP5+, then you have some serious calibration problems with your camera and-or light meter OR serious technique problems.

If shooting HP5 at 160 was ok for Ansel Adams I am sure it can be ok for me too

I used a spot meter here, metered the shadows and ~~opened up~~ closed 2 stops. As I said, there is plenty of detail in the negative so exposure is fine.

sterioma · May 23, 2020

ColdEye said:
I quite like a red filter. I do use them usually with slower film. These are straight scans from a scanner, so they might look different when printed.

Those are great shots, more like to what I was hoping to achieve.

Pieter12 · May 23, 2020

I rate HP5+ at 160 all the time and process accordingly. I also pretty much use a red- orange filter over the lens most of the time there is sky in the shot.

sterioma · May 23, 2020

I am starting to think that the sky is just not blue enough at these latitudes (unless maybe you start to climb up a bit).

Pieter12 · May 23, 2020

It could be haze. But try printing the negative and burning the sky with a 5 filter.

Andrew O'Neill · May 23, 2020

The tone of the sky in your image looks appropriate. Some images benefit from a more dramatic (black) sky. I have been using HP5 in formats up to 8x10 for about 20 years, and I have found that the filter factor for #25 filter for this film is a bit on the high side. I only increase exposure by one and two thirds of a stop (EI 250). I'm wondering if your red filter is really the equivalent to the #25... I've gotten cheapy filters from China that claimed to be #25 that under performed. I binned them.

Dennis S · May 23, 2020

Andrew O'Neill said:
I've gotten cheapy filters from China that claimed to be #25 that under performed. I binned them

I have noticed this with Yellow filters that I use constantly. Now I only use glass filters from reputable filter sellers and the outcome is noticeable for me anyways.

radiant · May 23, 2020

sterioma said:
Here's an example: film is HP5+ exposed at 160 with 3 extra stops for the red filter. Scan from negative, with no changes to contrast.

As the front part shadows are so bright, I would assume you have overexposed the sky.

My theory is that the sky that looks "dramatic" without filter is the only sky you can enhance with filter. Try boosting up hazed sky. The sky needs to be really blue to get that effect? And usually strong blue sky looks itself quite dramatic on B&W without filters.

cowanw · May 23, 2020

Your red filter is a minus blue and green filter. If your picture is all blue sky and green foliage and you open up 3 stops, you can expect a nice normally exposed picture of blue and green things. Red things would be overly exposed, but there are not any of these in your picture.

Doremus Scudder · May 23, 2020

A red filter removes blue and green from the sky. If the sky is really, really saturated blue, a red filter will turn it quite black (clear in the negative). However, a hazy robin-egg blue sky contains a great deal of yellow and red light in the form of white. In this case, a red filter will not have such a great effect. It's that simple. You'd be surprised how much red there is in the sky even though it looks light blue. Viewing through the filter will give you an idea. Experiment a bit with this: take your red filter with you and look through it at lots of objects to see which ones turn quite dark and which ones end up being lighter than expected. It's quite and education.

Best,

Doremus

Vaughn · May 23, 2020

I am amazed you can give the sky that much exposure (judging from the good exposure in the shadows), develop 'normally', and not have blasted out the sunlit branches in the center of the image.

scyg · May 23, 2020

Many of the ultra-dramatic black-sky shots use a polarizer stacked over a red filter.

sterioma · May 23, 2020

Andrew O'Neill said:
I'm wondering if your red filter is really the equivalent to the #25... I've gotten cheapy filters from China that claimed to be #25 that under performed. I binned them.

I am not sure it is, but somewhere I remember that R25 is also called 8x, which is what this filter has on the ring.
This is a Heliopan filter, which I assume should be decent enough.

Underwhelmed by Red Filter effect

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency