| Photography Forum: Medium Format Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Current Usefulness of Filters for B&W Photography
Asked by Joffre Swait
(K=626) on 7/28/2002
|
This isn't strictly a MF question, but here goes anyway ... My current workflow is to shoot film (color and B&W), scan and output digitally to Epson printers. When I shoot B&W, I commonly use yellow and/or red filters, sometimes even combined with a polarizer ... hey, I like contrast, ok?
So, here's the question: are these (and other) contrast-control filters as useful nowadays when contrast can be so finely manipulated is Photoshop and such programs? Or may one as well be shooting color and using Channel Mixer in PS to accomplish something like it?
I've been asking this question to myself for a while, but inertia being what it is, keep shooting B/W negative film with filters ... :>)
What's your take on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snedley Mc'alister
(K=256) - Comment Date 7/28/2002
|
Good question Joffre!
I have wondered about this myself but I still feel that B&W printed on it's own paper *looks* like classic B&W whereas hitting the greyscale in a program never leaves me convinced or awed the way a brilliantly crafted B&W print that has had trials and tests in the darkroom in order to achieve the superlative result. Maybe it's psychological but I don't think so. My 0.2 cents
Syd
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 7/28/2002
|
Personally I think that the filters are still required. Yeah you can fix things up a bit after the fact using PS, but why waste the time, and it really doesnt look the same.
A nice dark sky with white puffy clouds taken with a red filter is quite breathtaking. If you didnt use the filter, that detail would probably not be on the film so when you try to adjust it in PS, you just get noise and a weak rendition of what you missed.
|
|
|
|
Joffre Swait
(K=626) - Comment Date 7/28/2002
|
Phillip, I don't know that I agree with you ... and mind you, like I said, I shoot with the filters! See, for example, my image on file here: http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=18581 . That image was taken on TMax 100 with a red filter.
Theoretically speaking, wouldn't the red channel in color film is capturing something akin to the effect of red filter on a panchromatic film? Not exactly the same thing, I'd imagine, but something like it. One could then create a grayscale by emphasizing (or using exclusively) the red channel in PS, which should render a high contrast image such as the one shown above. That's theoretically speaking, of course, because I have a gut feeling that there will be a lack of "punch" that is present in the "real" B/W capture.
And Syd, I've been using quadtones to produce B/W images on Epson printers. While they're not the same thing as silver prints, they're a very good, valid rendition of grayscale images.
|
|
|
|
Snedley Mc'alister
(K=256) - Comment Date 7/28/2002
|
Joffre,
I have done it myself with photo programs, take an image and play with it, but for some reason it never looks or feels the same as when I captured something on the day, perfect!
I think in the business you are in it makes sense that these things should be used and would be used, afterall the public would very rarely see a difference or care when alls said and done. It's the people that shoot the image, the aesthetics, purpose and end result that qualify the efficacy and validity of a method. It's one of those things where if I can avoid it for my personal photography, I will, but if it's work, then whatever works or gets the job done quicker, there you go. I'm sure you are justified in applying these methods and get good results.
Syd
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 7/29/2002
|
Joffre, The following relates to shooting with BW film, not color film or digital. Which was my supposition when I posted the other comment.
The red filter with BW film works because what you are shooting is in color and not shades of grey. If it you shoot something neutral grey with a filter you will notice no difference other then exposure time.
Exposing sky which is blue, the more yellow or red filtration you add to the light,the more the blue light is subtracted causing less exposure of the negative, so darker image in the print. Hence nice dark sky.
Once the image is on BW film you have no longer have any colors to filter, everything is shades of grey.
By decreasing or increasing the red channel in Photoshop, you will change the darkness/lightness of an area but the biggest change will be in the tint of the image since the RGB is no longer equal on each channel and thus neutral.
In a BW image you have equal parts of RGB so that a neutral tone is rendered. They are at various levels of intensity but equally so, as to adjust between black and white. So in a BW image if you adjust one color channel, you will no longer have a neutral image, it may get a bit darker or brighter but it will also change color.
There are probably filters that work on various contrast ranges in PS but I have not seen them. If you want a dark sky you have to outline it, so it is just sky, making sure that no other items such as clouds and trees etc are selected, then go in and adjust it with the levels. This is a lot of work with marginal results when you can just shoot it with a red filter or a polarizer in the first place and get something that is more subtle and natural.
Photoshop can do many neat things, but it does have its limitations, and black and white really shows them.
|
|
|
|
Joffre Swait
(K=626) - Comment Date 7/29/2002
|
Phillip,
I believe your understanding of what happens in Photoshop when one is manipulating the individual channels in Channel Mixer isn't correct. It is not just a matter of making the image redder, it's giving emphasis (or removing it) in such a way that you're taking the balanced color capture in the original film and creating a customized "film", if you will, for that particular image.
The blue channel, for example, captures detail in the shadows that gets blocked up when that channel is joined up with the red and green channels. However, when making a monochrome image through Channel Mixer, it is possible to pull out greater detail in the shadows by emphasizing the blue channel in the color film during the mixing ... that is, it's as if you had employed a blue "filter" on a panchromatic film. Similarly, what the red channel of a color film records of the sky, when viewed in monochrome, is dark where there was blue in the scene, and the whites are very stark, which is to say, we've got a contrasty monochrome image in that channel. Emphasizing the red channel will create something like the effect of a red filter on B&W negative film, but perhaps with somewhat different effects because a slide film and a B&W negative film are going to have different reactions/capabilities with respect to light.
Anyway, this is all certainly food for thought!
|
|
|
|
David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 7/29/2002
|
Sure you could capture the image in color and filter in Photoshop and with some practice get the same effect by adjusting the color channels and desaturating afterward. For a red filter effect you would keep all of the red channel and decrease green and blue before desaturating, bearing in mind that different films with different spectral sensitivities react to the filters differently.
That said, I find it simpler to shoot B&W films that I like and to filter in the camera, and I don't see myself going to digital output for B&W anytime soon. Nothing wrong with digital output for B&W, but it's just not the look I'm after, and it's not a real substitute for other processes, any more than silver is a substitute for platinum or gum bichromate is a substitute for cyanotype.
|
|
|
|
Charles Morris
(K=5969) - Comment Date 2/7/2003
|
even if you achieve the same results, what have you gained? with a cheap roll of black and white film in the camera and a few filters that are a one-time investment you get what you wanted at the time of exposure.
to use the channel mixer on a scanned and separated color image and having it output monochome layers takes time and it is dependent on the use of a computer that will be a recurring expense and software that will be a recurring expense. if you specialize in making images that are digital from the start, this is a reasonable process. but the convenience and reduced time of just using different film and filter seems to be worth it just in the time it saves you not having to channel and tweak every shot on a roll.
2cents@large
|
|
|
|
william robb
(K=216) - Comment Date 5/13/2003
|
It seems to me that the less buggering around you have to do after the fact, whether in the darkroom or on the computer is a good thing.
If using a filter puts you closer to where you want to be at the end, then that is better than trying to fix something that you didn't do right in the first place.
|
|
|
|
B M
(K=441) - Comment Date 6/30/2003
|
Use filters for B&W for effects.Try to produce the perfect negative.Digital manipulation is the last chance to correct the mistakes!
Rgds
Burim Myftiu
|
|
|
|
|
