Which filter should I get for B&W film?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Numbers too can be confusing. For example, B&W has a 22 product number which equates to light orange like 15, whereas with Wratten and Heliopan, 22 signifies a very deep orange. Hoya has an X0 filter which resembles 11 Yellow-green; but they're X1 is distinctly medium green. Reds come in 23, 24A, 25 (the most common), and deeper 29 (which can differ brand to brand in intensity). Then there are that old K-series numbering system sometimes still lingering around like a Coelocanth.

Here's a chart that compares and explains.

Data

 

[Vaughn]

...Maybe I am missing something, but I find filters are not magic bullets to make better photos.

And that is correct. Knowing simply that a filter lightens its own color within the scene relative to other colors (and darkens the filter's opposite color) lets one make subtle tonal changes in the scene. Another tool in the tool chest. I gave an example previously of using a yellow filter in the fall under the redwoods. No sky (blue or otherwise) for a yellow filter to affect, but it can pop all the yellow leaves in the expanse of darker green. Green filters can be useful when working in areas of red rock.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tools aren't simply tools. You can have too many or too few. Chisels and saws don't work well if you never sharpen them. It all depends on if you know how to use them properly. Same goes for filters.

 

[MattKing]

One of the biggest advantages of learning to use filters with black and white film intentionally is that the learning process really refines the photographer's appreciation of the role of the various colours in the construction of a black and white film image.
It also tends to sharpen the attention paid to the nature of the light.
Arguably, the filters themselves are less important than the skills and observational abilities used to employ them.

 

[IpseLux]

Others have responded to color filters, per your question.
But if I may, and most likely you know this, don’t forget the polarizer. That one is key. A sed of Neutral Density filters comes in handy too.
Good luck with your images.

 

[Bill Burk]

I’m looking to buy color filters (green, yellow, orange, and red) to use for analog black-and-white photography.

When searching for a green filter, I’ve found several options with different “strengths” of green, and I’m not sure which one I should choose.

Does anyone have advice or experience with this?
Which one would be considered the most classic or versatile to start with?
And what kind of differences should I expect in the final image when shooting black and white with these variations?

These are the markings/values I’ve come across:
LB1, LB2, LB3, LB4, LB6, LB7, LB9, LB11, LB16, LB17.
View attachment 418913

That’s a wild selection!

 

[Bill Burk]

@DREW WILEY
@Paul Howell
@BrianShaw
@BrianShaw



You’re right I’m letting my anxiety to start shooting get ahead of me before even trying. I bought what I think will be enough to learn with for quite a while.

I picked up a Yellow (Medium) #8, an Orange #15 (though I hesitated between that and the #21), Red #25 and #28, and a Green #11 (VG9).

Now I just need to study a lot to understand the best situations to use them, how to use them, and what I should be thinking about beforehand.

Here’s how I look at it: TMAX films “seem” to have a yellow filter built in so you don’t need any filter. For traditional film, a yellow and lens hood are natural and should always be used. For additional emphasis orange, for drama red. Green for fun with foliage and male portraits. Blue to “sort of” simulate orthochromatic film (but see what was done with “The Lighthouse” there’s a filter for that).

 

[Petrochemist]

And that is correct. Knowing simply that a filter lightens its own color within the scene relative to other colors (and darkens the filter's opposite color) lets one make subtle tonal changes in the scene.

It seems surprising to me how few photographers understand this. Though I'd use effectively lightens as it only lightens if the filters effect is corrected for in exposure (by TTL metering or the filter factor). Filters can only block light, they generally block little of the stuff that matches their colour, & lots of that which is opposite on the colour wheel.

 

[ic-racer]

B&W film doesn’t need a filter.

 

[Petrochemist]

B&W film doesn’t need a filter.

Maybe not NEED, but in many cases the image is improved by selecting an appropriate filter. Darkening blue skies is such a common use that many B&W photographers would leave a yellow filter on their cameras all the time.

 

[runswithsizzers]

a filter lightens its own color within the scene relative to other colors (and darkens the filter's opposite color)

Filters can only block light, they generally block little of the stuff that matches their colour, & lots of that which is opposite on the colour wheel.

But "opposite" on which color wheel?

Way back as a young man, I learned in art class that the three primary colors are blue, red, and yellow, and the secondary colors are purple, orange, and green. On that color wheel, blue is opposite to orange.

Later I discovered there is another color wheel which shows the primary colors as blue, red, and green, and yellow is now a secondary color along with magenta and cyan. On this color wheel, blue is opposite to yellow.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

B&W film doesn’t need a filter.

What does this mean? Of course one does not "need" any filters with b&w film. But millions of photographers have used various color filters to modify the tonality of their resulting negatives. Why did you write this?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Try telling that to my infrared film!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Substituting Y as a primary instead of green has always been incorrect, and seems to have come from teaching children how to mix Y & B finger paint to create G. Pigments are imperfect, and that pie chart on the left is therefore dumbed-down to the point of silliness. I once taught professional color matchers for commercial applications, and a lot goes into it. But the pie chart on the right does correctly represent how filters work in relation to film. Our own eyes see in RGB.

And those of us who do color printing in the darkroom have to every day recognize the implications of that color wheel on the right.

Color contrast filters used on a camera lens for b&w film are basically subtracting the color across the color wheel from white light. But pan films have their own spectral sensitivity idiosyncrasies which must be factored in, and colors in nature aren't necessarily the same as they artificially printed on a chart. For example, most foliage greens also contain quite a bit of yellow and red pigment, which becomes evident in Fall when the chlorophyll fades out.
And bees and other pollinators see wavelengths we don't, just like infrared film does for one end of the spectrum at least.

 

[skahde]

B&W film doesn’t need a filter.

A B&W film filters part of the spectrum by means of its sensitization. If its inherent sensitivity is what suits the picture you have in mind, all is fine, if not you do need a filter to change that.

 

[Vaughn]

It seems surprising to me how few photographers understand this. Though I'd use effectively lightens as it only lightens if the filters effect is corrected for in exposure (by TTL metering or the filter factor). Filters can only block light, they generally block little of the stuff that matches their colour, & lots of that which is opposite on the colour wheel.

Interesting...I say it differently. The use of a filter lightens its own color relative to other colors in the scene...no matter how one exposes and/or develops the film.

The sky is usually closer to cyan rather than blue, which is why a red filter has more affect on sky than a yellow.

 

[Petrochemist]

But "opposite" on which color wheel?

Way back as a young man, I learned in art class that the three primary colors are blue, red, and yellow, and the secondary colors are purple, orange, and green. On that color wheel, blue is opposite to orange.

Later I discovered there is another color wheel which shows the primary colors as blue, red, and green, and yellow is now a secondary color along with magenta and cyan. On this color wheel, blue is opposite to yellow.

View attachment 425164

It's the colour wheel of light that's relevant as we are trying to affect light (none of us are likely to be painting our lenses or sensors)
I have to admit it's been a very long time since I was mixing pigments & had forgotten that one.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It was amazing just how bluer the sky was here around the Bay during the pandemic, due to reduced airline traffic, along with less cargo ships and trucks coming to the Port. Last week I printed a 4x5 color neg I took atop the White Mtns during that time. Off in the distance the Sierra Crest had quite a bit of intervening forest fire haze, but the sky above was deep azure blue, all the more remarkable to see in actual color print fashion since Ektar film trends rather cyan.

Just such differences alone would affect relevant filter choice. For example, during that same shooting session atop the White Mtns around 11,000 ft, I was taking b&w shots with my 6X9 RF and getting lovely sky/cloud separation using just a Hoya X0 light yellow-green filter, instead of the usual 22 deep orange or whatever, because there was so much intensity of blue up there. Good thing, because I also had to a lot of wind, and had to resort to some handheld exposures, made easier by a stop faster filter factor.

 

[Pedroga]

Here’s how I look at it: TMAX films “seem” to have a yellow filter built in so you don’t need any filter. For traditional film, a yellow and lens hood are natural and should always be used. For additional emphasis orange, for drama red. Green for fun with foliage and male portraits. Blue to “sort of” simulate orthochromatic film (but see what was done with “The Lighthouse” there’s a filter for that).

I actually watched this movie yesterday, by the way, mainly because it was shot on Kodak Double-X 5222. And honestly, I thought the cinematography looked IMPECCABLE. The grain is absolutely beautiful.


That said, to be honest, I didn’t love the contrast. It almost feels like the movie has too much contrast at times.


So, does it only have that specific look because they used a blue filter? Would the image have looked very different if it had been shot without the filter — maybe even better, at least to my personal taste?

B&W film doesn’t need a filter.

I agree with you completely. I saw some photos shot on Orwo UN54 and honestly thought the film looked absolutely perfect. I kept imagining shooting portraits of women in sunflower fields with it — I think the tones would look incredible even without using the filter.

 

[Petrochemist]

Interesting...I say it differently. The use of a filter lightens its own color relative to other colors in the scene...no matter how one exposes and/or develops the film.

The sky is usually closer to cyan rather than blue, which is why a red filter has more affect on sky than a yellow.

Yes you did say relative to other colours & were thus 100% correct, I was just trying to stress the effect for the many who don't understand filters.,

Colour wheels are a useful guide for black & white, but not always helpful.
Infra red actually darkens skies even more than red,
Then there are special narrow wavelength filters like the neodymium filter which looks slightly red but strongly cuts some yellow light sources - particularly sodium lights, most other oddball models are sold for astrophotography again blocking very narrow specific wavelengths.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Cinematographers use all kinds of filters, depending on what they're after. What makes you think they never used any filters for a particular black and white flick? They have to be expert at that kind of thing, as well as with lighting. If you want to see a flick expertly using the contrasty grittiness of Double XX for a vintage look, view Bob Dylan's "Shadow Kingdom".

As for still films, TMax films have slightly less blue sensitivity than other pan films, so sometimes don't need as strong a minus-blue filter as other films to attain the same end. But TMX100 also has some extended red sensitivity, so will accommodate even a deep red 29 filter to achieve, for example, optimal cutting through haze.
Going the opposite direction, even a mild blue filter will increase the sense of intervening atmosphere. Why does it always have to be just one thing, or just a single "best" filter choice? Explore the other possibilities.

 

[IpseLux]

B&W film doesn’t need a

 

[Vaughn]

Drew, I agree with your opinion on polarizing lenses. I do not own one (oh, I might have an odd one around somewhere), but would no more keep one on a lens 24/7 than I would a yellow filter. I do not work out in the open landscape often, but when I do, I usually prefer accept the haze to maintain a feeling of distance and the quality of light that was there.

I do very little color these days (and rarely before) but one use of a polarizing filter that I have heard is with deep forest/rainforest photography. A lot of blue light comes down into the forest, reflecting off the upper surface of the leaves around you. Filtering out this reflected blue light with the polarizer, evens out the color temperature of the light. At a cost, possibly, of some spectral highlights.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, blue reflections and shadows are themselves things of beauty if handled thoughtfully. The Impressionists bathed their paintings in that. Polarizers mess with various colors if overdone. I haven't used one in the field in
almost 50 yrs, only in relation to the copy stand. All those complex reflection hues and layers was my bread and butter starting out printmaking. A number of those big Cibachromes ended up in a major shared retrospective.
One print is so layered with reflections of water on ice upon deeper ice that one fellow cussed me out at the opening because he couldn't figure out what it was. I was fascinated by his psychological response. Anyone who has been in high country a lot would easily recognize the subject matter. The Curator certainly liked it. But that print would be non-existent if I had used a polarizer - it was almost entirely complex reflections.

 

[Petrochemist]

Well, blue reflections and shadows are themselves things of beauty if handled thoughtfully. The Impressionists bathed their paintings in that. Polarizers mess with various colors if overdone. I haven't used one in the field in
almost 50 yrs, only in relation to the copy stand. All those complex reflection hues and layers was my bread and butter starting out printmaking. A number of those big Cibachromes ended up in a major shared retrospective.
One print is so layered with reflections of water on ice upon deeper ice that one fellow cussed me out at the opening because he couldn't figure out what it was. I was fascinated by his psychological response. Anyone who has been in high country a lot would easily recognize the subject matter. The Curator certainly liked it. But that print would be non-existent if I had used a polarizer - it was almost entirely complex reflections.

Polarisers can be used just as easily to boost reflections as to kill them. I use them that way more often