Getting black skies

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I’ve been trying for a while to get black skies in my landscape photos. I’ve got yellow orange and red filters but I’ve never got black, only grey or dark grey.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/145197982@N02/84Bv57
That photo was a test I did to try to darken the sky. I had my back to the sun so I had a fairly even exposure and it was using an orange filter, the red didn’t darken it much more if it all.
 
adrianday said:
A red filter and a polariser will help but you'll need blue sky (not washed out grey) to get the maximum effect.
Click to expand...
I was sure it was blue enough. It was pretty high in the sky as there was low cloud, no polariser though.
 
Hmm just done a Google and it seems there are a variety of ways of getting black skies.....all seem a little hit and miss.

A really Dark red filter A25 or Wratten 29 plus polariser.

Ilford Sfx200 plus Red 25 (think that is their near infa red film)

Underexposing slightly plus any of the above.

Possible very dark orange filter plus polariser.

I guess if you get you images scanned and you use some sort of editing tool then using curves and sliders on a selected area might work.

Or if you print wet style then burn in the sky.

Like I said at the top most seem hit and miss.

Good luck with your endeavour :)
 
Last edited:
Use a red filter and polariser as mentioned above, and make sure you're not metering to turn the blue sky into mid grey. Next increase the contrast in the print or scan: For wet prints, on variable contrast paper, use hard filter and/or burn in the sky with it. Watch out for halos around the cloud edges if you do this! For scans: drag a slider :)
 
In addition to the above, and the fact they are both discontinued not withstanding *sheds a tear*, one could try using a film with reduced red sensitivity, such as Acros 100 or Adox CHS films.

(I don't know what the spectral response of Delta 100 is like, but I'm assuming it's got an ok red response)
 
Woodsy said:
In addition to the above, and the fact they are both discontinued not withstanding *sheds a tear*, one could try using a film with reduced red sensitivity, such as Acros 100 or Adox CHS films.

(I don't know what the spectral response of Delta 100 is like, but I'm assuming it's got an ok red response)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you use a film with reduced blue sensitivity to make the blue sky appear darker?

...or is there some interaction with the red filter?
 
As others have said, it's a two step process. Use filters then the darkroom/lightroom.
Have a look at the work Ansel Adams did in the Darkroom for Moonrise over Hernandez to see how important post processing (in any form) is,

Looking at this again has reminded me how easier it is working with a colour digital RAW in Lightroom changing the colour balance than working with film, filters and a negative scan !
 
FujiLove said:
Wouldn't you use a film with reduced blue sensitivity to make the blue sky appear darker?

...or is there some interaction with the red filter?
Click to expand...

It’s in addition to the red filter.

Films that are approaching orthochromatic, like acros (I believe), have reduced red sensitivity. Using a red filter shifts the transmission into the least sensitive part of the film response. The red filter provides the strongest contrast between the blue and the red parts of the scene, and hence the brightest parts of the scene transmitted by the filter are still sufficiently bright for the film to record, and the darkest parts fall into shadow. Remember also that colour filters for photography are pretty shoddy in the grand scheme of optical filters. Their spectral response will almost certainly not be step-like and will slope down well into the yellow, and possibly green region - hence trees, clouds, etc etc still appear well in the photo. They also have utterly terrible extinction ratios as well: the ratio of the light affected by the filter, to that which gets through the filter unaffected as a function of wavelength. A bad filter will be about 100-1000:1, and a good filter will be about 100,000:1.
 
Last edited:
It's somewhat dependant on the sky itself and your angle to the sun as the sky has a natural polarisation. (See Rayleigh sky model for more in depth info) There are stronger filters out there but they have hefty factors that require large amounts of exposure compensation. I've got a B+W deep red (091) which robs around 3.5 stops.

These were achieved with just a standard orange filter. Not black, but that is fairly unlikely without graduated ND filtering.
Newport-Delta100-35 by Kyle, on Flickr

StFagans-Retro80s-09 by Kyle, on Flickr

Pontcysyllte Aqueduct by Kyle, on Flickr
 
Woodsy said:
It’s in addition to the red filter.

Films that are approaching orthochromatic, like acros (I believe), have reduced red sensitivity. Using a red filter shifts the transmission into the least sensitive part of the film response. The red filter provides the strongest contrast between the blue and the red parts of the scene, and hence the brightest parts of the scene transmitted by the filter are still sufficiently bright for the film to record, and the darkest parts fall into shadow. Remember also that colour filters for photography are pretty shoddy in the grand scheme of optical filters. Their spectral response will almost certainly not be step-like and will slope down well into the yellow, and possibly green region - hence trees, clouds, etc etc still appear well in the photo. They also have utterly terrible extinction ratios as well: the ratio of the light affected by the filter, to that which gets through the filter unaffected as a function of wavelength. A bad filter will be about 100-1000:1, and a good filter will be about 100,000:1.
Click to expand...

Excellent info - thanks :)
 
I didn’t use a polariser actually, I lost mine recently need to replace it
 
Acros definitely airs more on the black side for blues than Delta, so much so that if you treat them the same you run the risk of blowing whites.
That's what I found anyway, it kinda turned me off red filters when I had a long run with acros.

These 2 were shot withing a few minutes of each other at pretty close to the same place.

100F
5oz52p.jpg


acros+red
viiuiu.jpg



Lost a lot of detail in the shadows.

This one ain't too bad because obviously much more sunlight in the frame overall

acros+red

68ar0k.jpg


still only getting black where the sky is deepest blue, you get any cloud in there and it really bounces white.


This next one really changed my mind about reds with acros, the whites were borderline blown, the shadows blocked up detail, its all a bit uber contrasty and difficult to meter.

acros+red
256r5s0.jpg


Anyway, luv acros so much I had a go with a red grad to see if I could keep dark sky's but expose correctly keeping detail in the blacks and not blowing the whites.
It worked in a fashion but with an RF you don't see ttl and I borked them a bit by not getting the filter level..:/

I've given up with acros since its been discontinued..:/
 
I really wanted to try it until I saw the price! Is there an ilford film that acts the same? I’ve only used delta 100 and fp4 in 120
 
I’ve read that a 29 red filter does a good job at getting the “ansel Adams dark sky” which is what I’m looking for but their about £100!
 
Dunno

I do know that Foma was crap, thin as hell right across the frame
Don't Rollei still make an Ortho film
 
Ilford Pan F might do it but it is a 50iso film
 
Ben johns said:
I’ve been trying for a while to get black skies in my landscape photos...
Click to expand...

Maybe I shouldn't ask this, but why?

(I don't mean the question as a dig at all, I'm genuinely interested in why we, or some people anyway, think black skies are worth working for, other than at night of course...)
 
Try climbing your nearest 4,000m plus mountain and then use a polarizer on a blue sky. It can be quite annoying if you don't want a black sky. I remember warning people not to use a polarizer on the Altiplano in Bolivia unless they wanted black skies.
 
Bollygum said:
Try climbing your nearest 4,000m plus mountain and then use a polarizer on a blue sky. It can be quite annoying if you don't want a black sky. I remember warning people not to use a polarizer on the Altiplano in Bolivia unless they wanted black skies.
Click to expand...
Interesting, so does that imply that air clarity has some effect on the natural polarisation?
 
ChrisR said:
Maybe I shouldn't ask this, but why?

(I don't mean the question as a dig at all, I'm genuinely interested in why we, or some people anyway, think black skies are worth working for, other than at night of course...)
Click to expand...
other than just liking the way it looks i suppose it makes clouds stand out, adds a lot of a drama to a photo. Its also not something id want to do all the time but I want to be able to do with when I want it. Im also a big fan of Clyde Butcher and he seems to do it alot so its probably a taste thing
 
Rollei Retro 80S is very good with red filters. It can be used as a low speed infrared film. (Iso 6 IIRC)
 
ancient_mariner said:
Probably not natural polarisation, but fewer particles to reflect sunlight and cause a brightening.
Click to expand...
That's probably it but I wondering if the light re-scattered by dust and moisture could pick up a different polarisation angle? Probably not I guess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top