Underwhelmed by Red Filter effect

sterioma · May 24, 2020

Arvee said:
When I look at the scan, noting that you metered the grasses on the right, they don't look like they're on zone III; that area looks more like zone V.

In the top quote above, if you meter the shadows and want them on zone III you close down two stops. If you meter highlights, you open 2-2 1/2 stops to place the highlights.
Did you misspeak in post #13 as to the process of exposure? Did you really mean you opened two stops?

You are absolutely right, I meant the opposite of what I actually wrote.
I normally use the meter in EV mode and match it with the corresponding EV settings on the hasselblad lens. In this case, according to my notes, the shadows read about 11EV, so I set the lens on 13EV (and then applied thefilter factor, somewhat arbitrarily based on the 8x stamped on the ring and some other sources, of +3 stops).

I have posted a photo of the negative above, which should give a better representation of the shadow areas on the bottom right. My densitometer reads about 0.30 around there, which should be about right for zone III.

sterioma · May 24, 2020

Alan Edward Klein said:
Isn;t the 8x the filter factor. You divide it into the ISO to determine the actual ISO settings for your meter. So if you're shooting let's say Tmax 400 (ISO 400), you divide by 8 and get 50. S0 you set your meter at 50. It's also 3 stops (1/2x1/2x1/2) 2-4-8. 400 - 200-100- 50.

Yes, I understand the relationship with the stops. I have found where I had read the correlation between 8x and Red25 filter. It was in "The Negative".

sterioma · May 24, 2020

grain elevator said:
Overexposed or not doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the tonal relationships. The overall brightness is adjusted in or after scanning, and it does look fine. To me both the point about not so blue sky and the point made by cowanw about greens being darkened by the red filter as well make sense, I think it's probably both. As most of the picture is greenery and blue sky, there simply isn't much that was not darkened by the red filter, just the path surface and the fence, the brightness of which the viewer doesn't know, so even they don't form a reference point to make the sky seem dark.

I passed by the same area today walking the dog (it's literally 5 minutes away from home) and took this snapshot with my phone. Light is different as it was coming from the right this morning, and from the left (afternoon light) when I was there with my Hasselblad. But it should give you an idea (if you ignore my dog looking for hares in the bushes ).

Arvee · May 24, 2020

sterioma said:
I normally print in the darkroom of my camera club, but I cannot access that yet due to the lockdown. Here's a scan of the negative on light table, shot with my phone.

View attachment 246876

I also shoot a red filter on my hasselblad and my negs exhibit much lower density (compared to your sample) in the sky which is almost black when wet printed. However, I shoot at Sunny 16 plus the 3 stops allowed for the filter. My skies on the negs are almost transparent with box speed and normal development in D76 1+1 with both HP5 and 400TX. I have a feeling that exposing your film at 160 with adjusted development is compressing the contrast/tones much too much and negating the effects of the red filter. Try a roll at Sunny 16/box speed/normal development and I expect you will experience a vast improvement.

I only downrate EI that much (160) when I have to deal with extremely contrasty situations; sometimes I end up with really muddy negs. In my view, your uploaded color photo certainly doesn't warrant downrating to 160 EI.

Prest_400 · May 24, 2020

I don't have a red filter but I do have yellow and orange and curiously I've had prints from negatives taken with a yellow filter with other photographers asking if that was a red.

I also have had some low contrast using orange by the coast, probably the effect depending on how clean the sky is, as others have written.
All of those were in HP5, but I shoot box speed and sometimes an extra 1/3 stop. Ie. EI160 with the Yellow #15

Sirius Glass · May 24, 2020

sterioma said:
That's interesting. No, my meters or shutters have not been calibrated. But as long as they are consistent I should be fine, right?

I had though so, but I found out that I was wrong. Alan looked at my just developed film that I photographed at Yosemite and while they were usable he said they were too thin and the detail was not there. If the detail is not there, longer development will not improve bring improvement. He lent me one of his calibrated spot meters for the rest of the class and every roll of film was quite a bit better. And I only had sixty years of experience.

Sirius Glass · May 24, 2020

Andrew O'Neill said:
It's a Heliopan, so it should be fine.

+1
I use Heliopan, B+W and Hasselblad primarily. I only use the others if and only if these three do not make that filter. For example: R23, R29, and 720.

Sirius Glass · May 24, 2020

sterioma said:
I normally print in the darkroom of my camera club, but I cannot access that yet due to the lockdown. Here's a scan of the negative on light table, shot with my phone.

View attachment 246876

Exactly what I was saying. There is not much detail in the leaves in the shadow areas. You need to get your light meters calibrated.

Doremus Scudder · May 24, 2020

FWIW, I really like the tonalities in the OP's image as they are. "Over-dramatic" black skies are not always necessary. I like the lighter sky here.

Sirius Glass · May 24, 2020

Doremus Scudder said:
FWIW, I really like the tonalities in the OP's image as they are. "Over-dramatic" black skies are not always necessary. I like the lighter sky here.

I agree and I limit my use of red filters for that reason [except for IR photographs], however the OP asked why the ski was not darker. I think that atmospheric conditions including water vapor and particulates were major factors plus the location of the sun.

iakustov · May 25, 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.

Did you check / measure the shadows / highlights through the filter? I think it is a good practice regardless of what factor is written on the filter. Could be not easy with an opaque one such #25, though..

sterioma · May 25, 2020

I did make some reading with the spot meter through the filter before beginning my session, not before this particular shot thiugh. Readings were anywhere from -2 stops to -3 1/2, depending on what I was pointing it to (mostly grass, sky, branches, etc...). I believe this is to be expected and due to different wavelengths that are more or less blocked by the filter.

Pieter12 · May 25, 2020

I was taught to test a given filter and film combination to determine the actual exposure factor. The thinking is that different emulsions react differently across the spectrum, and the filter factor given by the manufacturer may not correspond to the film you are using. I was also taught not to take readings though the filter for the same reason--the meter may not have the same spectral sensitivity as the film being used. In my case, the B+W filters I use with HP5+ do line up with the given filter factors, but that may not bee the case with other film and filter brands.

Vaughn · May 25, 2020

Sometimes bracketing is not a waste of film...especially if one takes notes. Then one can use the negative which makes a print that best expresses the light one wants to express. Take that great print, look at one's notes, see what went right...and repeat one's successes. But then, some folks just love numbers and fooling around with them...cool.

pentaxuser · May 25, 2020

Vaughn said:
. But then, some folks just love numbers and fooling around with them...cool.

Is this a bit like the cost of shooting film and a side order of french fries?

pentaxuser

Vaughn · May 25, 2020

pentaxuser said:
Is this a bit like the cost of shooting film and a side order of french fries? pentaxuser

Great point! For just a little more resources (time and money) I can have greasy potatoes, too! I'd much rather distract you with an image and then sneak a couple of your fries...

Edited to add: probably confusion on my part and screwy metaphor usage on my part....the burger is the print, the fries are all the extra stuff that follows the print. That stuff can be technical or artistic...all the same to me...too much leads to blockages in the arteries.

pentaxuser · May 25, 2020

Vaughn, to me the burger is the score and the fries( as a collective noun so singular)is the print. Subject to so many WWII films, unfortunately, El Capitan becomes the Spanish U Boat commander here in the U.K.

pentaxuser

Vaughn · May 25, 2020

What ever you are taking, I want two!

tezzasmall · May 27, 2020

Paul Manuell said:
I felt the same underwhelment (real word?) when I used an old 35mm camera last year, fitted with the only lens I have for it - a 16mm fisheye - and red filter. Some of the shots came out with a half decent dramatic sky, but most didn't. 2 examples here of one that worked and one that didn't.
All these zone numbers being mentioned go way over my head, and the camera I used was very basic with no metering modes, so they were just straight shots. I'm in the UK btw.View attachment 246849 View attachment 246851

I like the grain and tone in these pictures Paul.

You say you used a 35mm camera, but what film and film developer did you use, if you can remember?

Thanks,

Terry S
Also in the UK and looking out of the window (again) at very blue skies!

Pieter12 · May 27, 2020

Back to the OP, have you printed the negative yet? I would guess that some of the disappointment of the red filter's effect you are seeing is the scanning software adjusting the tonal range of the image.

Vaughn · May 27, 2020

Pieter12 said:
Back to the OP, have you printed the negative yet? I would guess that some of the disappointment of the red filter's effect you are seeing is the scanning software adjusting the tonal range of the image.

I agree -- the tonality of the example print does not reflect the values normally aquired in that situation without some major adjustments somewhere.

sterioma · May 28, 2020

Pieter12 said:
Back to the OP, have you printed the negative yet? I would guess that some of the disappointment of the red filter's effect you are seeing is the scanning software adjusting the tonal range of the image.

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I don't have access to a darkroom now due to lockdown restrictions.

If you you look at the negative, though, you can see that the density of the sky area is about a mid tone, nowhere near the density (or lack thereof) I was hoping for.

perkeleellinen · May 28, 2020

I've had some success getting good effects with the R25 filter in the UK. I think the best approach is to have the sun behind you at the sort of height you get in mid afternoon. That tends to make the blue stronger. Fluffy white clouds help too. I think the best impact is with rocks or buildings in the foreground as the red filter tends to darken leaves too much. I've always shot a box speed and metered ttl with filter in place. I don't know anything about scanning but in the darkroom, printing on a hard grade has worked for me:

138S · May 28, 2020

sterioma said:
A red filter is often described as the one giving the most "dramatic" effects

Hello,

Don't use Photoshop, use Ansel !!!

Haze will decrease the effect of the red filter.

See the sky spectrum compared to sunlight reflected by clouds, showing the spectral range that it should be blocked for max cloud-sky contrast...

> For a good effect the red filter, beyond having to be intense (saturated), it has to be deep, blocking from around 640 is good, see spectral graph of your filter.

> If the filter is some magenta, also allowing to pass from 460nm to UV, then it also contributes to clouds-sky contrast.

> Your film requires good deep red sensitivity, an orthopancromatic will record worse the deep red you are allowing to pass, extended red sensitivity film increases the effect, see how dark are skies in IR photography !!!

Regards, and happy dark skies !!!

Paul Manuell · May 28, 2020

tezzasmall said:
I like the grain and tone in these pictures Paul.

You say you used a 35mm camera, but what film and film developer did you use, if you can remember?

Thanks,

Terry S
Also in the UK and looking out of the window (again) at very blue skies!

I'm really sorry, I honestly can't remember which film, and it wasn't developed by me, so again unsure which developer was used.

Underwhelmed by Red Filter effect

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency