Pushing film vs colour filters

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I just got a bulk roll of hp5 so I’ll be using that for a while. I usually push it to get more contrast and lighten people’s faces but as it’s getting brighter and brighter I was wondering what Colour filters would do the same job. Red is going to be too much but I’m stuck between yellow and orange.
 
Each to their own, I think. My suggestion is to go for a wander and shoot 5 frames with each colour in similar (varied) conditions). I most often use yellow or orange but tend to just leave whatever's on the camera there (naughty). I'm reading AA's Negative just now and he goes into all sorts of detail on how and why he uses all sorts of filters, including green and blue (which I've never used). It's made more complicated by him referring to them as #8, #15, minus blue, etc. But I think you've really got to test it out yourself, see what you like (and with that film stock, at least with a bulk roll of HP5 the investment's worth it!)
 
ChrisR said:
Each to their own, I think. My suggestion is to go for a wander and shoot 5 frames with each colour in similar (varied) conditions). I most often use yellow or orange but tend to just leave whatever's on the camera there (naughty). I'm reading AA's Negative just now and he goes into all sorts of detail on how and why he uses all sorts of filters, including green and blue (which I've never used). It's made more complicated by him referring to them as #8, #15, minus blue, etc. But I think you've really got to test it out yourself, see what you like (and with that film stock, at least with a bulk roll of HP5 the investment's worth it!)
Click to expand...
Yea I have that book, i had to keep googling the wratten numbers. I think a yellow might be better. I print my 35mm in a darkroom so taking away contrast would be pretty hard, orange might be too much on an already sunny day
 
I would have thought pushing b+w film will give less contrast
 
donut said:
I would have thought pushing b+w film will give less contrast
Click to expand...
Increasing development (i.e. pushing) will increase contrast. Slightly under-exposing the film should not affect contrast, so long as the exposure is (mostly) on the linear part of the log exposure/image density graph.
 
john.margetts said:
Increasing development (i.e. pushing) will increase contrast. Slightly under-exposing the film should not affect contrast, so long as the exposure is (mostly) on the linear part of the log exposure/image density graph.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Adams mentions many situations in which he would give minus development (sometimes N-2 or N-3, whatever those are, precisely?), to reduce excessive contrast.

He also talks about using pre-exposure to raise shadow values (heh, heh, not only reading it but actually remembering something for a few days!), which would presumably also reduce excessive contrast. Whether this is practical in a 35mm portrait session context, I don't know.
 
john.margetts said:
Increasing development (i.e. pushing) will increase contrast. Slightly under-exposing the film should not affect contrast, so long as the exposure is (mostly) on the linear part of the log exposure/image density graph.
Click to expand...
ah yes sorry john ,for some strange reason I thought Ben was under exposing without over developing the film,,just read it again and he says nothing of the sort ,,,,
 
ChrisR said:
Ah yes, Adams mentions many situations in which he would give minus development (sometimes N-2 or N-3, whatever those are, precisely?), to reduce excessive contrast.

He also talks about using pre-exposure to raise shadow values (heh, heh, not only reading it but actually remembering something for a few days!), which would presumably also reduce excessive contrast. Whether this is practical in a 35mm portrait session context, I don't know.
Click to expand...
I think it's fair to say that Ansel never envisaged the Zone System in 35mm, far less a portrait session in 35mm. I'll leave you to discover the joys of N time and its pluses and minuses, but he used it with a spotmeter and sheet film where every exposure was an individual one.

While AA is undoubtedly the main source for many, there are articles by the late (& great) Barry Thornton which are far more accessible as a lead-in to the comprehensive AA book. If you do eventually follow the links to a short article on the Zone System in 35mm, please remember that this came from a time when cameras were expensive and you'd be better carrying spare bodies now! :eek:http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/p/barry-thornton-articles.html
 
Last edited:
How does SRB compare to tiffen for filters? There a yellow filter for tiffen on amazon but the reviews aren’t amazing, I thought they were a good brand
 
Peter B said:
I think it's fair to say that Ansel never envisaged the Zone System in 35mm, far less a portrait session in 35mm. I'll leave you to discover the joys of N time and its pluses and minuses, but he used it with a spotmeter and sheet film where every exposure was an individual one.

While AA is undoubtedly the main source for many, there are articles by the late (& great) Barry Thornton which are far more accessible as a lead-in to the comprehensive AA book. If you do eventually follow the links to a short article on the Zone System in 35mm, please remember that this came from a time when cameras were expensive and you'd be better carrying spare bodies now! :eek:http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/p/barry-thornton-articles.html
Click to expand...

He certainly did use 135 a bit, and seems to have really used a Hasselblad a lot, particularly for portraiture. I'll grant you that the refinements of the Zone System with different development times are really intended for sheet film.

I'll try and look at that link later, at the moment I'm trying to finish the book! Thanks for the pointer though.
 
Ben johns said:
How does SRB compare to tiffen for filters? There a yellow filter for tiffen on amazon but the reviews aren’t amazing, I thought they were a good brand
Click to expand...

I have some SRB filters, and they seem fine for my needs. I haven't used the square filters yet, though.

If possible, I usually aim for Hoya filters for circular ones, but this is probably mainly because I always have regarded them as good, no better reason. Can be expensive though.
 
ChrisR said:
I have some SRB filters, and they seem fine for my needs. I haven't used the square filters yet, though.

If possible, I usually aim for Hoya filters for circular ones, but this is probably mainly because I always have regarded them as good, no better reason. Can be expensive though.
Click to expand...
Yea I have a Hoya red 25. I just received the tiffen and the glass rattled inside the thread mount so that’s going back straight away, annoying
 
Is there a ring inside the mount that simply needs tightening? Years ago, when budgets were tighter, you could buy the glass and the mount separately and change the glass as required, thereby saving money.

I'm not sure what you meant in youropening post about lightening faces (implied underexposure to me) and pushing to increase contrast which should be achievable by other methods.
 
StephenM said:
Is there a ring inside the mount that simply needs tightening? Years ago, when budgets were tighter, you could buy the glass and the mount separately and change the glass as required, thereby saving money.

I'm not sure what you meant in youropening post about lightening faces (implied underexposure to me) and pushing to increase contrast which should be achievable by other methods.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure actually, I’ll get it out and have a look.
I might not have been clear. What I meant was usually I push hp5, I’ve found people’s faces to be a bit grey at 400. As it’s getting brighter out I think it’ll be too hard to push to what I usually use so I wanted a colour filter to brighten their faces a bit. I use a 250iso colour film a few weeks ago and I was at the max shutter speed of 1/1000 and around f8-f16
 
I'm still puzzled, to be honest. It seems that you're pushing HP5 (which normally to me means underexposing and overdeveloping) but exposing it at 400 ISO and finding people's faces too dark?
 
StephenM said:
I'm still puzzled, to be honest. It seems that you're pushing HP5 (which normally to me means underexposing and overdeveloping) but exposing it at 400 ISO and finding people's faces too dark?
Click to expand...
Yes. At 400 I’ve found people’s faces a bit grey. Pushing it increases contrast but I don’t push it as it’ll be sunny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top