|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Do color filters have a place for B&W film .......
Do color filters have a place for B&W film intended for "scanning" afterward? I used colored filter a lot in the 35 mm B&W film days. Now shooting 120 film, not sure if I should invest a few dollars for the filters.  Mar 06 17 10:14 am Link Connor Photography wrote: the processed film has already captured the color contrast range and converted it to greyscale. it's much harder to mask and darken sky or adjust for blue response digitally for some effects. while post processing works for color digital images converted to black and white, you can't quite do it in B&W film without lots more work. think about it. yellow (#12), red (#25), green are pretty standard. Mar 06 17 10:37 am Link Connor Photography wrote: Why would anything change if you're scanning and not printing? Color filters on a B&W film camera alters the information entering the lens. This is different than capturing a full dynamic range on the negative and then using digital filters after the fact on that information. Since the negative is grey scale, a blue filter won't affect only the blues that the camera saw. Mar 06 17 11:26 am Link I no longer shoot film but I was a huge fan of the results that I use to get from a red polarizer. Mar 06 17 11:47 am Link Good Egg Productions wrote: spot on Mar 06 17 12:02 pm Link I still use filters..  Mar 06 17 01:32 pm Link Connor Photography wrote: Leonard Gee Photography wrote: Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for reconfirming. Now I go out to get a few basis filters. Mar 06 17 02:11 pm Link Film carries way too much blue and and violet information, then there's the problem of different colors appearing the same in black and white. Yellow renders scenes in a way that is technically more "correct" then not using a filter at all. Color film can compensate for this phenomenon by having different sensitivity between the different layers of emulsion, b&w cant. Orange adds a bit of drama in terms of the darkness of the sky, and differentiating between midtone colors etc. I imagine digital cameras do all of this automatically. Mar 07 17 01:11 am Link Mar 07 17 04:27 am Link Why would there be a difference ? You used them with 35mm film but question using them with 120 ? I don't understand your issue. The real issue is whether you should use them when after scanning (either 35mm or 120) you can do almost the same thing in post. If you don't use them then you have several choices of what to do in post but it will cost you time. If you do use them then the dye is cast and changing anything in post will be more difficult. Or are you a purist and you want it done right in camera and scanning for either storage or net usage but want to keep it just as shot. Mar 07 17 05:52 am Link Vector One Photography wrote: I think my post has been being misunderstood BIG time,. Leonard Gee got it right. I accept his reasoning and they are consistent with my understanding. Mar 07 17 09:56 am Link Well, nobody has really touched on the fact that they are typically called "contrast" filters. The intended goal is to adjust contrast to effectively communicate the scene. With B&W panchromatic film, all colours are rendered in shades of grey. As has been pointed out, some colours will give the same shades / exposure as another, thus lowering overall contrast of the scene. You can overcome that by filtering out specific hues from the spectrum with filters. Keep using your filters. Nothing has changed for you, or for panchromatic B&W film. Mar 07 17 04:31 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: I would beg to differ. While you can adjust contrast in an image based on shades of grey, it would be impossible to do so based on hue. There is no colour recorded, as it is obviously a B&W image. Mar 07 17 04:34 pm Link I think it's really a question of how much time you want to spend in Photoshop or Lightroom... Frankly, I hate sitting in front of my computer editing photos after the fact. Sure, you can do adjustments for the colors then convert the photo to black and white.. but a cheap gel filter on my lense takes care of it right in the beginning. Personally, I use a red filter when shooting outside to bring out more contrast in the photo with green plants and the blue sky. Some people love editing photos...but to me, is a chore and filters on the front end mean less work on the back end. To me, filters are a time saver. Mar 08 17 08:48 am Link KenBrandon wrote: With that said, photoshop does have B&W filter settings / conversion in a convenient menu. To be used of course on a full-colour photo. Mar 12 17 11:22 am Link Wayne Stevenson wrote: precisely. Use a red filter to pump up the contrast for B&W film. You can use a green filter to subtract out foliage to give photos an infrared look. The color you use will subtract out the color of the filter, so you shouldn't use a red filter to take pictures of red rocks else you are going to get a dull image. Mar 15 17 08:54 am Link Filters still matter, for two major reasons: Bw film sees colour. It doesn't output colour,but it sees it, and is more sensitive to certain wavelengths. Bw film is almost always sharper than colour film of the same speed, and can be developed for wider tonal range. If you shoot digital, there is an argument to be made about quality vs. versatility, as you get the same sharpness in colour and bw mode. But with film, doing it in post requires buying more expensive film stock, and more expensive chems, for a lower fidelity image. Mar 23 17 06:07 pm Link |
