Do you use color filters with B&W film?

[mjs1973]

After hanging out in the film forum, it seems that most of the film shooters, are scanning and printing digitally. I also read a post where Aaron mentioned using a red filter on one of his photos. This made me wonder. If you are scanning and printing your film digitally, is there a need for colored filters when using B&W film? My B&W film use is pretty limited and I have never used filters with it. Any B&W film I shoot in the future, and want to make a print of, will be scanned, and tweeked in PS. I'm thinking PS will give me much better control with my images than the filters will. Not that I see anything wrong with using them tho. To each his own. I'm just curious as to what others think.

[Xia_Ke]

The best case for a colored filter would be with blue skies. If you don't use a color filter to bring out the contrast of it, there's no way you'll be able to fully recreate in Photoshop. Well, maybe if your are some PS savant but...

With the films I've played with so far, TMax and Delta I don't mind shooting with out one but, with Plus-X, Tri-X, and Neopan (other films I've used) I will now use them for the majority of shots.

As for your poll, I have printed any of my film shots yet. I'm waiting until I get a darkroom set-up so I pick #4

[photophorous]

After hanging out in the film forum, it seems that most of the film shooters, are scanning and printing digitally. I also read a post where Aaron mentioned using a red filter on one of his photos. This made me wonder. If you are scanning and printing your film digitally, is there a need for colored filters when using B&W film? My B&W film use is pretty limited and I have never used filters with it. Any B&W film I shoot in the future, and want to make a print of, will be scanned, and tweeked in PS. I'm thinking PS will give me much better control with my images than the filters will. Not that I see anything wrong with using them tho. To each his own. I'm just curious as to what others think.

I use a red or yellow filter occasionally...usually if it's partly cloudy and I want the clouds to stand out against a darker sky.

The use of color filters with B&W film is not something that can be duplicated digitally. If you were shooting color film, you could tweak the channel mixer to duplicate the use of color filters with B&W film. But, the only way to do it with B&W film is to put a filter in front of the lens.

A red filter is often used to increase contrast, but the reason it does this is because it increases the amount of red in the visible spectrum and decreases the opposite color, blue. Shadows often have more blue light because the ambient light is coming from a blue sky, rather than directly from the yellow sun. This is how you can get those dark black skies in a B&W film shot...block the blue Orange and yellow do the same thing to a lesser degree. Blue can be used to increase shadow detail in contrasty lighting, but it will make the sky white. A green filter is often used for skin tones or for foliage shots.

Paul

[Jason Hopkins]

red and orange filters are my friend!

[mjs1973]

Thanks for the info Paul and Aaron. To be honest, I have never given B&W film much thought before so my knowledge of how the filters work is pretty limited. I now they are used to add contrast to different things, based on the color of the filter, but that's about it.

The points you make about getting that contrast on the film in the first place is a good one. Perhaps if sometime down the road I started taking B&W film more seriously, I could see myself investing in the filters, but at this point it's just something to play with.

Thanks for the input guys.

[Xia_Ke]

Not a huge investment if you think about it in terms of what you are spending on film and chemicals to begin with. Assuming you end up getting your own 124G, yellow, green, and orange Bayonet 1 filters only run about $10 - $15 each. Red will run about $20 - $25. Those prices are for Rollei filters, Walz or other brands will be even less. You can also get Bay 1 to 52mm adapters for about $15.

[Skyman]

your scans can only be as good as the detail on your print or negative and filters used correctly will enable you to capture more detail on your neg, so I would strongly recommend them, with the caveat that this depends on what you are shooting and why. my personal favourites are an R2 filter and a yellow green or P00 filter (which is like a black and white warming filter!) I refer you to the old black and white conundrum of a rose. Red and green come out roughly the same shade of grey in black and white, so without using a filter that will give you a very bland shot and a very bland scan.

[reverberation]

Filters will make you the most money on your enlarger.

[reverberation]

What I mean in my previous post, is that in my opinion, investing in a color enlarger for B&W enlargements is the best return on your money. You can easily spend a hundred bucks on lens filters for your camera. Put that extra money into a good color enlarger, later you can get a red filter.

[SmartWombat]

Put that extra money into a good color enlarger, later you can get a red filter

Just how is the red filter going to improve a B&W negative ?

The principle is that you filter the light before it gets to the film, so that you can darken skies, enhance foliage, bring out clouds, using the colour filters to change the B&W contrast that's recorded.

Once you have a B&W film your colour filters will do nothing to improve the image, because it's Black and White.
If you're shooting in colour and enlarging onto B&W paper that's another matter entirely.

[reverberation]

Don Wallace, Sep 19, 2007; 02:19 p.m.
"I am assuming that you have used a condensor enlarger before, with graded filters. Thus you know that increasing the filter grade increases the contrast. Also, overall, you have to print slightly longer at the higher end (grade 3-6).

A colour head works much differently. Forget about the cyan filter for now and use only yellow and magenta. If you set yellow and magenta both to zero, and you are printing on VC paper, you will probably get a print of around grade 2 to 2.5. As others have suggested, start here (no filtration) and stop down the lens until you get a decent printing time, say 8-10 seconds. Make test strips to save on paper.

Now, to change the contrast:

- adding magenta filtration increases contrast (yellow at 0)

- adding yellow filtration decreases contrast (magenta at 0)

In both cases - adding yellow or adding magenta - the printing time will increase. This is not intuitive because those of us who started on graded filters think that time increases only with increased contrast.

To determine the changed printing times, you really need to do some tests or you will waste a LOT of paper. But start by getting a good print with no filtration. After that, play with contrast by increasing the magenta or the yellow very modest amounts (say 10 or 15 units at a time), just to get a feel for how it works. After that, if you are not too frustrated, let us know. I can give you detailed instructions on how to calibrate for changes in time. It takes about a half a day to a day in the darkroom, but it is really worth it in terms of savings on paper.

With a colour head, you will discover two other differences. First, a diffusion head is a little more forgiving of minor scratches and dust. Second, it is lower contrast and you will have to develop your negatives a little longer".

I copied DON WALLACE'S post because he explains my point of view better than I can. I also like his photos.

[SmartWombat]

So you're relying on your paper's response, because you can't change the developed negative.
And by using graded filters you are not applying the colour to the whole negative ?


That's what I failed to understand in your last post, I assumed you were dialling in the colour compensation across the whole negative, not selectively.

The B+W paper you're using must be a multi-grade, you didn't say that either.
But now I think I understand how you do it.

If you're using old fashioned B&W paper of a single grade, I guess it's not going to make so much difference. But the paper will be less sensitive to the red/orange of the darkroom safelight so you maybe will get some effect.

[reverberation]

I was thinking about my reply, and I realize that my perspective has been skewed by my experience. Out of high school I started working for a local paper where I was able to acquire vast quantities of KodaLith graphic arts film that I could mess around with on a Kenro vertical graphic arts camera that I bought and kept in my parents garage. I think my experience with lithography and kodalith has given me a somewhat warped perspective comparatively speaking. I have used kodalith mostly for screens and masks.

I also must admit that I did have a cokin filter system for my first camera and would use yellow and red filters across parts of, as well as the entire frame. I think this fact makes my initial response somewhat disingenuous. I think I would be doing a disservice to new film photographers if I did not clarify this. I remember them as being expensive, I know I had around twenty of them, so maybe I am remembering the accumulated cost.

I think you are right, getting a good negative is more important. My point is that while a perfect negative is the best situation, having a negative that needs help is not prohibitive. A key component in the equation is the enlarger. I think most photographers shoot a few perfect negatives, a few bad negatives, and mostly negatives that have issues of one type or another. The right enlarger can address these issues.

I have a Minolta Mod III enlarger with Rokkor 80mm (F5.6) and 50mm (F2.8) lenses. It is a color enlarger. Increasing contrast locally is not a problem for me, as I have ruined large quantities of graphic arts film, I got pretty good at it. I did lose all of that film but I remember what works. Fiber paper is my favorite, I think the whole curling problem gets blown out of proportion.

I realize that I really did not address the original posters question, this was because I felt Aaron and others pretty much covered all the bases. I am usually posting while taking a break from working on something on the computer and I think this contributes to my scatterbrained replies.

[Greg McCary]

What filters can be recreated in post processing? You can add contrast and bring out shadows in post processing.

[reverberation]

I will shoot the frame I want slightly smaller onto graphic arts film. Depending on the type of photo I will process for fuzzy edges. I will take this negative and use it to expose filters, or use a piece of film I have already as a filter. I will always use this image on top of optical quality glass (usually from 1/8" to 1/3" inch thick) when I expose the paper. This helps to diffuse the edges of the mask. Masks will always ruin a photo by showing their edges. The film I use for diffusing and making screens is usually the same graphic arts film. Its a spiritual thing, a negative is a positive etc. I think George Carlin would forgive this description.

A quick word on optical quality glass. If you think it costs more than your pictures are worth don't buy it. If this is the case, please keep it to yourself.