Your techniques with contrast filters for B&W photography?

[Steven Lee]

Half of this post is a question, while the other half is thinking out loud.

Since high school I have been preconditioned to heavily rely on B&W contrast filters. I think every book on photography I read back then had the classic example of showing how much better cumulus clouds look with an orange filter mounted. Quite a few older photographers told me to always have the yellow filter on. It's just works better for most situations, they said. Even as a kid I remember thinking: why don't they make a film with a built-in yellow filter if it just looks better? And even now I still own a yellow-orange-red combo for every filter diameter.

I abandoned photography in college and did not get back to it until the digital era.

Having returned to film a few years ago, I no longer understand the widespread popularity of B&W contrast filters. If anything, they make it more challenging to deal with long-toed films by suppressing the shadows. I seriously doubt that the yellow is worth losing a full stop for the faint effect it brings. Very few of my images, actually extremely few, have the kind of clouds in them that could benefit from an orange filter. And even then I'd argue that a polarizer would have been a better choice in some of those rare situations. For regular documentary style photography I never found any use for them. On cloudy days they compete for the available light, and on sunny days they make the harsh mid-day light even harsher.

And now I'm thinking... Why are these filters so popular? Or perhaps they used to be but not anymore? Maybe the old (70s and 80s) emulsions needed them more than the modern films? Could this be the popularity of scanning and VC papers that make B&W contrast filters less useful? Or perhaps I never learned to use them properly?

In what situations do you use yellow, orange and red filters, other than the tired cumulus clouds shot? Would love to see some examples too. Thanks.

 

[Besk]

Yellow is supposed to make foliage look more natural on film - lightens it up. And make clouds look on film the way the human eye perceives them.

 

[grain elevator]

Beside darkening skies, which as you note is not for every picture, I see a big benefit of yellow filters in expanding the tones of foliage (making brighter, more yellowish greens even brighter).

 

[MattKing]

If you are using T-Max films, the spectral sensitivity differs enough from Tri-X - and in its day, Plus-X - that many people found that they could dispense with using a yellow filter as a "nearly always on" accessory.
I've never been a heavy user. I prefer to use them purposefully - I only use a yellow when I explicitly want to darken blue.
And I've never been comfortable with describing them as "contrast" filters - I prefer "colour contrast" filters for black and white. Part of that probably relates to the potential confusion with discussions of black and white contrast filters in the darkroom.

 

[brian steinberger]

The only time I use them is for effect, and that is mostly an orange and polarizer stacked together to darken a clear blue sky. Works great and it’s an effect that I love and consider it part of my style if you will.

Otherwise I will use a green filter in the spring when the leaves and grass are just coming out. It helps create a nice soft look.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Slightly off topic, scanning and digital editing has given us the ability to turn color photos into BW and use the sliders to digitally darken specific colors like the blue sky. No need for contrast filters.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you are using T-Max films, the spectral sensitivity differs enough from Tri-X - and in its day, Plus-X - that many people found that they could dispense with using a yellow filter as a "nearly always on" accessory.
I've never been a heavy user. I prefer to use them purposefully - I only use a yellow when I explicitly want to darken blue.
And I've never been comfortable with describing them as "contrast" filters - I prefer "colour contrast" filters for black and white. Part of that probably relates to the potential confusion with discussions of black and white contrast filters in the darkroom.

I’m one who brought back a photo (“Dad and the Twins” in the gallery) that convinced me that TMY2 doesn’t need a yellow filter because the clouds can be easily seen in the sky (and I didn’t use a filter).

The way I see it, this gives it a one stop speed advantage over a 400 speed film where you would need a yellow filter.

 

[madNbad]

When I was developing Tri-X with Rodinal, I was losing a stop to the developer and switched to just UV filters. Moving to a D-76 clone (Film Photography Project FPP-76) I went back to using a light yellow filter mostly because I like the look of Tri-X pulled one stop. Is there any benefit? Maybe but I have a bunch of filters for B&W I never use and the 022/#8 light yellow is mostly to protect the front element.



M4-2, 35 Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Vlassic SC V2, 022 filter, Tri-X @ ISO 200, FPP-76 1+1

 

[Alan9940]

Like others have already commented, I, too, only use filters when I'm going for a specific effect on the photo. Being an outdoor/landscape photographer, I never really understood the "keep a yellow filter always on because it just looks better" axiom. In general, for my landscapes I want open, detailed shadows and, since shadows contain lotsa blue light what do you think a yellow filter would do? Most of my photography is in the hard light of the desert so I don't need any filter increasing contrast on me. I, also, don't really care for black skies. But, my use of filters (or not) is certainly not what anyone else should do.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

for me it is not about contrast, you could just develope longer or differently,
it is for the balance of the colors when transformed to b/w.

I found it helpful to take a couple of filters and make some test images of the same subject:

Filter_comparison_Oak by Jens Hallfeldt

My conclusion: My favourite is one of the yellow light filters, the darker yellows are fine.
The greenish filters let the tonal reproduction get a bit out of balance. The worst image is the one without filter.
Film: Ilford PanF Plus 120
Best
Jens

 

[DREW WILEY]

Too many stereotypes here. First of all, a contrast filter will darken the color across the color wheel, and lighten in the print its matching color. The idea that only one of them is best because it darkens blue sky and brings out clouds better is awfully simplistic, as if that is the only task b&w photographers do. What if that blue sky is above a desert scene with reddish or yellowish rocks? Then a red, orange, or yellow filter would make those rocks look unrealistically pale and paste-like. But a medium green filter would darken both skies and rocks. I used dark blue filter for a particular scene a few days ago, and had a very good reason for doing so. I had five different contrast filters along with me that day, taking my 8x10 camera on a little walk. The blue one gets used the least - but when I need it, I need it.

And if you apply the correct "filter factor" to your exposure, no, you WON'T lose any shadow detail at all, unless you've incorrectly metered your shadows to begin with. It can take some testing to determine what those filter factors should be with any particular film, although the film mfg tech sheet would be a good place to start.

But many colors in nature can be deceptive. For example, most "green" foliage also reflects quite a bit of red light, and even infrared. With that blue filter shots I just mentioned, two different tree species in the background which looked an almost identical green hue to my own eye looked quite different through that blue filter, then were "seen" even a little more differently by the film itself. That deep blue no.47 filter lends a look similar to old blue-sensitive emulsions.

Something which is fun to do when someone encounters me shooting a scene through a red filter is to hand them my pair of red laser glasses and tell them to view that scene from the same angle as my camera. It can be quite an epiphany.

 

[snusmumriken]

Because of the oft-repeated advice, I kept a yellow filter permanently in place for several years. I did get some nice shots when the sky was important, and not just when there was blue sky between the clouds. Apologies that I can't show you this one without a filter, you'll just have to believe me.

But when the sky was not really related to the subject, it could be distracting. And because I live in England, a lot of my photos had overcast skies, and were none the worse for it.

Furthermore, on a very sunny day, it could be difficult to meter for the (deepened) shadows in a hurry, and a few chance-of-a-lifetime shots were spoiled by impenetrable shadows. (Of course, a properly experienced photographer would have allowed for this, but there isn't time left in my life to gather so much more experience.)

So now I leave the yellow filter off, but carry one in case of need. It is gradually carving a groove in its plastic box. I never use orange or red filters because drama isn't what rocks my boat.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Too many stereotypes here. First of all, a contrast filter will darken the color across the color wheel, and lighten in the print its matching color. The idea that only one of them is best because it darkens blue sky and brings out clouds better is awfully simplistic, as if that is the only task b&w photographers do. What if that blue sky is above a desert scene with reddish or yellowish rocks? Then a red, orange, or yellow filter would make those rocks look unrealistically pale and paste-like. But a medium green filter would darken both skies and rocks. I used dark blue filter for a particular scene a few days ago, and had a very good reason for doing so. I had five different contrast filters along with me that day, taking my 8x10 camera on a little walk. The blue one gets used the least - but when I need it, I need it.

And if you apply the correct "filter factor" to your exposure, no, you WON'T lose any shadow detail at all, unless you've incorrectly metered your shadows to begin with. It can take some testing to determine what those filter factors should be with any particular film, although the film mfg tech sheet would be a good place to start.

But many colors in nature can be deceptive. For example, most "green" foliage also reflects quite a bit of red light, and even infrared. With that blue filter shots I just mentioned, two different tree species in the background which looked an almost identical green hue to my own eye looked quite different through that blue filter, then were "seen" even a little more differently by the film itself. That deep blue no.47 filter lends a look similar to old blue-sensitive emulsions.

Something which is fun to do when someone encounters me shooting a scene through a red filter is to hand them my pair of red laser glasses and tell them to view that scene from the same angle as my camera. It can be quite an epiphany.

But if the shadow area is colored so it's more blocked by the filter's color, wouldn't it block more light in the shadow areas relative to other areas?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes and no. Depends. For example, shadows under a deep blue sky, at high altitude particularly, will themselves contain a lot of blue light, so will react to a red filter more strongly than under hazy sky conditions. A silicon cell spot meter will detect the difference. Or one could simply get accustomed to giving a little more filter factor to a deep red filter under those conditions. It also depends on the specific film you are using, as well as the exact red filter. There can be a significant difference between the exposure offset needed for a moderate 25 red filter and a deep red 29, and these even differ somewhat from brand to brand. But a little testing and experience resolves all those questions. I'll just say that I've been shooting at high altitude for six decades, and it's so intuitive to me at this point, I don't even fiddle with calculations. My shadows are never blocked up unless I deliberately want them to be.

 

[Cubao]

Slightly off topic, scanning and digital editing has given us the ability to turn color photos into BW and use the sliders to digitally darken specific colors like the blue sky. No need for contrast filters.

That’s not slightly off topic but simply off topic

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not really accurate either. A perusal of a Wratten filter handbook, for example, will show a considerable variety of minus blue or minus red or minus green filters which differ from one another in specific spectral qualities and potential applications. I have quite a set in my lab used in relation to color films, including turning color chromes and even color negs into black and white printing negatives. The range of control is actually greater in terms of precisely trimming the color wheel than typical digital options. I won't go there because it is off topic. But it does give one an idea of all the possibilities in the field with black and white film itself, if need be. But ordinarily, just a few key contrast filters can handle the vast majority of situations encountered. On longer more strenuous treks, I'd only carry three, all in multicoated glass : a 22 deep orange, a 25 red, and a Hoya X1 medium green.

 

[guangong]

I have never compensated exposure when using a light yellow filter (certainly not a full stop). Yellow filters are made in a variety of densities, and some may require some exposure adjustment. Some pictures don’t need a filter, some can be improved by use of a filter...but this depends upon the individual photographer. Kodak, Tiffany and BW provide informative guides. As pointed out, films may differ in response to given filters. This is an argument for sticking with one film in order to understand how it responds to filters.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

But if the shadow area is colored so it's more blocked by the filter's color, wouldn't it block more light in the shadow areas relative to other areas?

Experienced photographers know how much extra exposure to give to retain shadow detail when using blue-blocking filters and the shadows are lit by blue skylight. They don't just use the published filter factor (which might result in underexposing the blue-lit areas), but rely on their testing and personal experience.

But, yes, losing shadow detail to a blue-blocking filter because adequate exposure compensations was not given is a danger for the inexperienced, who don't recognize the need for more exposure compensation.

Doremus

 

[Sirius Glass]

Too many stereotypes here. First of all, a contrast filter will darken the color across the color wheel, and lighten in the print its matching color. The idea that only one of them is best because it darkens blue sky and brings out clouds better is awfully simplistic, as if that is the only task b&w photographers do. What if that blue sky is above a desert scene with reddish or yellowish rocks? Then a red, orange, or yellow filter would make those rocks look unrealistically pale and paste-like. But a medium green filter would darken both skies and rocks. I used dark blue filter for a particular scene a few days ago, and had a very good reason for doing so. I had five different contrast filters along with me that day, taking my 8x10 camera on a little walk. The blue one gets used the least - but when I need it, I need it.

And if you apply the correct "filter factor" to your exposure, no, you WON'T lose any shadow detail at all, unless you've incorrectly metered your shadows to begin with. It can take some testing to determine what those filter factors should be with any particular film, although the film mfg tech sheet would be a good place to start.

But many colors in nature can be deceptive. For example, most "green" foliage also reflects quite a bit of red light, and even infrared. With that blue filter shots I just mentioned, two different tree species in the background which looked an almost identical green hue to my own eye looked quite different through that blue filter, then were "seen" even a little more differently by the film itself. That deep blue no.47 filter lends a look similar to old blue-sensitive emulsions.

Something which is fun to do when someone encounters me shooting a scene through a red filter is to hand them my pair of red laser glasses and tell them to view that scene from the same angle as my camera. It can be quite an epiphany.

When I took photographs of red rocks, the orange filter and various strengths of red filters lightened the red rock to produce not so good photographs. Blue or green would have been much better. I have never used the blue filter, but I will try it next time.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The whole idea of using filters because they make the scene look more "real," or more like the "eye really sees" seems to defeat much of the creativity and visualization possibilities available to working with black-and-white film. Rendering the scene in monochrome is a large abstraction in the first place. Being able to manipulate the tonalities in a scene relative to one another with filters allows the photographer more choices for expression.

We all know that you can reverse the light-dark relationship or a red flower on green foliage by photographing it with a red and then a green filter; the flower light and the foliage dark with the red, and vice-versa with the green. We can also probably match the tonalities exactly with the right filter. This is an obvious example.

There are many, more subtle ways to employ filters to manipulate the relationships of tonalities in a photograph. A tweak here with a light blue or cyan filter to make blue-lit shadows more luminous. A green filter to slightly enhance spring foliage against a blue sky or separate the banding in red rocks, etc., etc.

I don't use filters even 50% of the time, but do when I need/want them for a specific reason. I carry at least six with me at all times: a polarizer, yellow (#8 or #12), orange (#15), green (#11), red (#25) and cyan (#44) or blue (80B). These last two can approximate the look of orthochromatic film quite well.

Knowing the possibilities and how to properly expose (e.g., so you don't lose shadows) is key to employing filters effectively. Just using them because someone said they make the scene more realistic or the clouds better or whatever is missing the point and the potentials for image management.

And, sometimes, the best filter is no filter at all.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Paul Howell]

When a working PJ in the days that B&W was the standard film, I used a light green for light skin tones, occasionally a yellow for a little darker sky. When shooting MF and MF landscapes, as I live in Arizona with very bright skys I do use yellow to orange, green when shooting cactus. I can only think of once or twice that I used a red.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Light yellow-green like a Hoya X0 or Wratten 11 will correct the slightly depressed green sensitivity of typical panchromatic films, and also if needed reduce the unnatural paleness of some Caucasian complexions in black and white photography. But if you happen to use Fuji ACROS while it's still around, don't do that, because it is already more sensitive to green, being orthopan rather than pan; so if you add even a light green filter, it will act additively like a strong green filter instead. Likewise, ACROS just by itself will render green foliage more natural looking than unfiltered panchromatic films, but not as light as with full Ortho films.

I'm more likely to use the light green X0 filter when hand-shooting my Fuji 6X9 RF with TMax film in it, since the filter factor and shutter speed penalty is only a single stop, yet I get a better effect in many outdoor situations than a plain yellow filter.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The whole idea of using filters because they make the scene look more "real," or more like the "eye really sees" seems to defeat much of the creativity and visualization possibilities available to working with black-and-white film. Rendering the scene in monochrome is a large abstraction in the first place. Being able to manipulate the tonalities in a scene relative to one another with filters allows the photographer more choices for expression.

We all know that you can reverse the light-dark relationship or a red flower on green foliage by photographing it with a red and then a green filter; the flower light and the foliage dark with the red, and vice-versa with the green. We can also probably match the tonalities exactly with the right filter. This is an obvious example.

There are many, more subtle ways to employ filters to manipulate the relationships of tonalities in a photograph. A tweak here with a light blue or cyan filter to make blue-lit shadows more luminous. A green filter to slightly enhance spring foliage against a blue sky or separate the banding in red rocks, etc., etc.

I don't use filters even 50% of the time, but do when I need/want them for a specific reason. I carry at least six with me at all times: a polarizer, yellow (#8 or #12), orange (#15), green (#11), red (#25) and cyan (#44) or blue (80B). These last two can approximate the look of orthochromatic film quite well.

Knowing the possibilities and how to properly expose (e.g., so you don't lose shadows) is key to employing filters effectively. Just using them because someone said they make the scene more realistic or the clouds better or whatever is missing the point and the potentials for image management.

And, sometimes, the best filter is no filter at all.

Best,

Doremus

How do you do that?

 

[ic-racer]

98% of my B&W work is exposed in the camera without colored filters. I do have some filters, however, for special occasions.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

How do you do that?

See post #18. Same answer: knowledge and experience. Learn your color theory. Bracket your filtering to start and compare. Err on the side of overexposure when in doubt. After 10,000 hours, you'll know.

Doremus