Underwhelmed by Red Filter effect

[sterioma]

I've had some success getting good effects with the R25 filter in the UK. View attachment 247155

These are nice photos, and more likely to what I was hoping for!

I'll consider your advise for the future; in the example I posted I had the sun around my left side, so about 90 degrees while I was shooting facing north.

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks for the neg scan. My final opinion is that the foreground, being in shadow, is being lit primarily by the blue light of the sky. The red filter brought both the sky and the foreground down in value -- and if you want dark sky in the image without burning in the sky, the foreground will also come way down in value. The filter worked as it was suppose to.

Next time have the foreground be lit with something else besides blue light. Check out images with black skies -- foreground is often lit by sunlight.

 

[grain elevator]

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.

The overall tonal range, sure. I checked and pushed the contrast, black and white points around in GIMP, just like a scanner could or the overexposure would, this doesn't lead to anything more red-filtered looking. Tonal relationships, as the filter should, how? No color information arrives at the scanner, this was shot on b&w film.
Another thing that occurs to me now, was the filter new or used? Could an older red filter have faded?

 

[pentaxuser]

These are nice photos, and more likely to what I was hoping for!

sterioma, they are really good in terms of a near black sky. Based on what I have already said it is clear to me that these churches were photographed in the desert Southwest or high in the Sierra Nevada.

Elon Musk probably bought each one and had them transported stone by stone . It's the only way for me to reconcile my earlier statement with the evidence staring me in the face.

Keep smiling

pentaxuser

 

[jvo]

i often use a red filter. i live in florida, think flat, sea-level and high humidity. i shoot t-max, exposed at 300, developed in hc110. the result is dramatic! i've never been disappointed. i don't have a scanner so can't upload anything. respectfully, i think you have a calibration issue, and a lack of clouds!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

A red filter works best with clear blue skies and no he's in the atmosphere. Standard weather conditions in the UK may not ever support getting optimum performance out of a red filter.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i often use a red filter. i live in florida, think flat, sea-level and high humidity. i shoot t-max, exposed at 300, developed in hc110. the result is dramatic! i've never been disappointed. i don't have a scanner so can't upload anything. respectfully, i think you have a calibration issue, and a lack of clouds!

+1

 

[perkeleellinen]

Current UK conditions are giving quite strong blue skies with the sun straight behind you at 8:30am and 5pm.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Current UK conditions are giving quite strong blue skies with the sun straight behind you at 8:30am and 5pm.

that should work unless there is a lot of air pollution.

 

[sterioma]

respectfully, i think you have a calibration issue, and a lack of clouds!

"respectfully" I don't think the scanner has anything to do with it, because the density is not there in the negative either

My current theory is that my lackluster result has been a combination of:

* shooting against the northern sky in the afternoon, which was not probably at it darkest (eastern sky was probably more "blue" at that time of the day)
* in order to give adequate exposure to the shadows, I have had to increase the exposure in such a way that the values of the sky have gone up too, despite the filter.

I have made a few tests with IR film a few days ago, bracketing due to the somehow unpredicatble results with IR filter, and I could clearly see how different the sky looks with just 1 stop increases (from "dramatic" black to almost mid tone). This time I was shooting against the darkerst part of the sky (looking East in later afternoon). Even then, though, using a red filter (instead of the IR) the sky was certainly not "black".

 

[scyg]

As I mentioned before, you might want to try stacking a polarizer together with your red filter to further deepen the sky tone. I don't think you'll ever get to black, no matter what, since the light from the sky is never pure blue - there are other colors scattered in with it. The black you see in people's photos are generally post-processed either in the darkroom or digitally. You can see the effect if you compare early and later prints of Hernandez, NM by Ansel Adams - the famous sky and clouds were definitely not recorded on film as black and white, but shades of gray.

 

[Paul Manuell]

"respectfully" I don't think the scanner has anything to do with it, because the density is not there in the negative either

My current theory is that my lackluster result has been a combination of:

* shooting against the northern sky in the afternoon, which was not probably at it darkest (eastern sky was probably more "blue" at that time of the day)
* in order to give adequate exposure to the shadows, I have had to increase the exposure in such a way that the values of the sky have gone up too, despite the filter.

I have made a few tests with IR film a few days ago, [color/] bracketing due to the somehow unpredicatble results with IR filter, and I could clearly see how different the sky looks with just 1 stop increases (from "dramatic" black to almost mid tone). This time I was shooting against the darkerst part of the sky (looking East in later afternoon). Even then, though, using a red filter (instead of the IR) the sky was certainly not "black".

Would love to see the results from this and details of your working methods

 

[sterioma]

Would love to see the results from this and details of your working methods

Hi Paul,

I haven't got around to scan individual frames from that test, let alone making a real contact sheet or test prints as I still haven't got access to the darkroom.

I have a lo-fi contact sheet made with my phone putting the negative sleeve on a light table, though. Photo is reversed from the negative but otherwise not adjusted.

I can give you some details (frame 1 is in the lower left corner, frame 12 is upper right). Film is Rollei IR 400, shot at box speed when not using IR filter (Chinese one). Developed with HC-110 dil B for 8' at 20 degrees.

Metered against a gray card with my Minolta Spot Meter, around 5PM in UK. Sky was as blue as it gets in England.

Camera is Hasseblad 501C/M with Distagon 50 CFE, with lens hood. Focus at infinity (forgot to correct for IR, but it's probably not relevant, I was shooting stopped down to f11 or f16), on a tripod.

Big tree, sun behind me:
#1: no filter
#2: IR filter @25
#3: IR filter @12
#4: IR filter @6
#5: red filter (+3 stop from box speed)

Trees in the distance, sun at 90 degrees, looking north.
#6 :no filter
#7: IR filter @25
#8: IR filter @12
#9: IR filter @6

Fence and trees, with lots of shade. Sun at 90 degrees, looking north (very close to the shot that started this thread)
#10 IR filter @25
#11 IR filter @12
#12 IR filter @6

Hope this helps.

 

[Vaughn]

Great set of negs.

 

[pentaxuser]

Great set of negs.

I agree and all the negs have worked although there is no doubt that "black skies" in the U.K. at least really belong to IR film with possibly some rare weather and light conditions that will occasionally get you close with a red.

What was particularly useful from my point of view was that I was able to judge what speed with IR made the best shots for me and to that end I found the EI12 speed to be about right which is comforting because it means that with a moderately wide angle such as a 28mm on a 35mm camera I can achieve the look I like with the speeds needed to hand-hold and still with such a wide angle as a 28mm have all the DoF I need as well

Many thanks Sterioma

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The "speed" that works the best with IR and near IR films and R72 filters will vary with conditions, and our meters are unable to respond to those changes of conditions.
If you say that metering with an EI of, e.g. 12, works best, you need to also add additional qualifications about the conditions you were using it with - latitude, time of year, time of day, local weather conditions.

 

[sterioma]

I found the EI12 speed to be about right

I concur that EI 12 seems to be the sweet spot based on my meter and lens. I am sure that something intermediate can be achieved in the darkroom playing with exposure and contrast.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Looks like good potential with those negatives!

 

[pentaxuser]

Matt I found Sterioma's speed of 12 to be about right for me based on the looks of his 12-speed shots in those light conditions in which he exposed the film but you are right I need to bear in mind his conditions which as a fellow Brit whom I suspect is living at very similar latitude and altitude as I do, so this time of year his conditions will be pretty similar to mine.

It is not a film I'd really use unless it was summer and sunny. Not a film for when the hungry timber wolves come close to the house. We have them here but our breed is possibly more dangerous. We call them double glazing salesmen .

Oh, the shark, babe, has such teeth, dear
And it shows them pearly white
Just a special offer has old MacHeath, babe
And he keeps it, till the end is in sight

pentaxuser

 

[sterioma]

as a fellow Brit whom I suspect is living at very similar latitude and altitude as I do, so this time of year his conditions will be pretty similar to mine.

I am actually just a "UK resident" as I hail from Italy

Living in West Sussex since 2014

 

[Paul Manuell]

Hi Paul,

I haven't got around to scan individual frames from that test, let alone making a real contact sheet or test prints as I still haven't got access to the darkroom.

I have a lo-fi contact sheet made with my phone putting the negative sleeve on a light table, though. Photo is reversed from the negative but otherwise not adjusted.

I can give you some details (frame 1 is in the lower left corner, frame 12 is upper right). Film is Rollei IR 400, shot at box speed when not using IR filter (Chinese one). Developed with HC-110 dil B for 8' at 20 degrees.

Metered against a gray card with my Minolta Spot Meter, around 5PM in UK. Sky was as blue as it gets in England.

Camera is Hasseblad 501C/M with Distagon 50 CFE, with lens hood. Focus at infinity (forgot to correct for IR, but it's probably not relevant, I was shooting stopped down to f11 or f16), on a tripod.

Big tree, sun behind me:
#1: no filter
#2: IR filter @25
#3: IR filter @12
#4: IR filter @6
#5: red filter (+3 stop from box speed)

Trees in the distance, sun at 90 degrees, looking north.
#6 :no filter
#7: IR filter @25
#8: IR filter @12
#9: IR filter @6

Fence and trees, with lots of shade. Sun at 90 degrees, looking north (very close to the shot that started this thread)
#10 IR filter @25
#11 IR filter @12
#12 IR filter @6

Hope this helps.

View attachment 247706

Very interesting and very helpful, thank you. Just goes to show there's no definite best overexposure setting with an IR72 filter, strength and direction of the sun have an effect.

 

[Paul Manuell]

I agree and all the negs have worked although there is no doubt that "black skies" in the U.K. at least really belong to IR film with possibly some rare weather and light conditions that will occasionally get you close with a red.

What was particularly useful from my point of view was that I was able to judge what speed with IR made the best shots for me and to that end I found the EI12 speed to be about right which is comforting because it means that with a moderately wide angle such as a 28mm on a 35mm camera I can achieve the look I like with the speeds needed to hand-hold and still with such a wide angle as a 28mm have all the DoF I need as well

Many thanks Sterioma

pentaxuser

Interesting that you say ISO12 gave you your best or favourite results; that equates to 5 stops overexposure with your Rollei400. When I shot a couple rolls of Ilford SFX200 a couple years ago I shot at 4 stops over (so ISO12 equivalent on 200 film) for the majority of the shots, but I bracketed the ones I wanted as keepers. Of those, I still found the 4 stops over to be preferable.
Time of day and direction of sun made a difference to how the sky looked, though; in some they were the lovely black we crave, while in others a not so desirable grey.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am actually just a "UK resident" as I hail from Italy

Living in West Sussex since 2014

Ah, so a southerner from West Sussex whereas I am a cross between an East Anglian and an East Midlander living on the border but close enough to you to make no odds. Our friends in the U.S. probably drive further for an ice cream or hamburger than the distance we live apart

pentaxuser

 

[grain elevator]

Hi Paul,

I haven't got around to scan individual frames from that test, let alone making a real contact sheet or test prints as I still haven't got access to the darkroom.

I have a lo-fi contact sheet made with my phone putting the negative sleeve on a light table, though. Photo is reversed from the negative but otherwise not adjusted.

I can give you some details (frame 1 is in the lower left corner, frame 12 is upper right). Film is Rollei IR 400, shot at box speed when not using IR filter (Chinese one). Developed with HC-110 dil B for 8' at 20 degrees.

Metered against a gray card with my Minolta Spot Meter, around 5PM in UK. Sky was as blue as it gets in England.

Camera is Hasseblad 501C/M with Distagon 50 CFE, with lens hood. Focus at infinity (forgot to correct for IR, but it's probably not relevant, I was shooting stopped down to f11 or f16), on a tripod.

Big tree, sun behind me:
#1: no filter
#2: IR filter @25
#3: IR filter @12
#4: IR filter @6
#5: red filter (+3 stop from box speed)

Trees in the distance, sun at 90 degrees, looking north.
#6 :no filter
#7: IR filter @25
#8: IR filter @12
#9: IR filter @6

Fence and trees, with lots of shade. Sun at 90 degrees, looking north (very close to the shot that started this thread)
#10 IR filter @25
#11 IR filter @12
#12 IR filter @6

Hope this helps.

View attachment 247706

Sweet, thanks! Is the IR filter a R72? Interesting that there is quite a bit of wood effect already with the red filter. I prefer your results @25 in the first two scenes unless the highlights are exaggerated in this contact sheet, that's hand-holdable in the sun, nice!

 

[sterioma]

Sweet, thanks! Is the IR filter a R72?

It's a 720 IR filter of no famous brand that I've bought off of Amazon for about 20 pounds last year.

I haven't seen any other IR in real life so I cannot make comparisons; it's impossible to compose with the filter on with a relfex camera.