What filters should I be using?

Messages
3,903
Edit My Images
No
Back in the day, I used to know about filters - real ones - but since going digital my memory banks have been wiped and replaced with knowledge only of various Lightroom sliders. I'd like to get to know them again with a view to buying one or two to improve my photos. So, can anyone point me to a thread on here, or a website that's a good resource for filters? Ideally I'd like to see shots compared with and without the various filters so I can see what they are doing, not just read about them. Seeing their effects on B&W vs colour film would also be useful.

Failing that, does anyone have shots with and without things like polarisers, UV filters etc that they wouldn't mind posting?

Thanks,

J

Edit - I also meant to say, it would be useful to know the filters used on shots posted on the threads here. It's sometimes obvious where grads and ND filters have been used, but hard to work out what else.
 
Last edited:
yellow - enhances contrast on B&W - loses maybe a stop of light
Orange - as above but more so, loses 1.5 stops (also really good for losing freckles on red-haired models when shooting in B&W)
Red - Really high contrast, but can lose 2+ stops of light.
 
Red - Really high contrast, but can lose 2+ stops of light.

Also be careful if using with some of the ortho-pan films, as the lack of red sensitivity can actually end up costing you more than the often quoted figures. This includes some of the rollei black and white offerings (100 Tonal is the one that caught me out) but even films like neopan have suggested filter factors of 8 with a red filter (3 stops)

You can also get green filters for foliage, or a combination yellow-green filter, that lightens foliage a bit, but shouldn't lighten the sky as much as a pure green
 
Thanks for the B&W tips. What about colour filters such as UV and polarisers? Are they worth using for most shots? Warming filters?

Wondering if I can get them to fit the Rolleicord. I've seen a few yellow filters online but I can't recall seeing anything else.

Also, does anyone have any particular tips for filter combinations with certain emulsions? Is that something that matters, or is the question too general to comment?
 
You'll want a tobacco grad for sunsets taken at midday, purple grad for that look of an early episode the rebooted Top Gear and an 8-point star for classic night shots. :)
 
Thanks for the B&W tips. What about colour filters such as UV and polarisers? Are they worth using for most shots? Warming filters?

Wondering if I can get them to fit the Rolleicord. I've seen a few yellow filters online but I can't recall seeing anything else.

Also, does anyone have any particular tips for filter combinations with certain emulsions? Is that something that matters, or is the question too general to comment?

Don't bother with UV, colour film has not been sensitive to UV for years (as they now have UV blocking layers as part of the film so any sensitivity is minimal) so unless it's for protection you don't need one (plus they generally degrade quality as obviously you're introducing another glass element).

A polariser is useful to remove unwanted reflections and increase saturation in foliage and the sky, but it's not something for every occasion - if you think one will be useful then mount and look at the effect in the viewfinder when twisting it. If your using it with a TLR though you might have problems viewing the effect as obviously screwing it on the taking lens will probably cause it to be rotated differently to the viewing lens.

Warming/cooling filters are these days only really needed with slide film if you're intending to project, as with colour negative you can easily alter the colour balance during the scanning stage prior to printing (the same with daylight/tungsten conversion filters).
 
You'll want a tobacco grad for sunsets taken at midday, purple grad for that look of an early episode the rebooted Top Gear and an 8-point star for classic night shots. :)

Don't forget the soft focus filter too!
 
I understood that the purpose of these forums was to help where possible not to take the p*** ... although I might be mistaken in that thinking.
 
Last edited:
You'll want a tobacco grad for sunsets taken at midday, purple grad for that look of an early episode the rebooted Top Gear and an 8-point star for classic night shots. :)
I think that I might still have a Cokin Prism somewhere, every shot that came back from the lab had a sticker on them telling me my photos were rubbish (like I needed them to tell me). What was I thinking :runaway::exit:
 
I understood that the purpose of these forums was to help where possible not to take the p*** ... although I might be mistaken in that thinking.

We have been helpful, and provided lots of good information, along with a couple of light hearted "please don't do these atrocities" hints, wrapped in a light hearted comment... I see no one in here taking the p*** out of the OP for asking about using filters. Maybe you should consider getting your sense of humour recalibrated film use.
 
You'll want a tobacco grad for sunsets taken at midday, purple grad for that look of an early episode the rebooted Top Gear and an 8-point star for classic night shots. :)

Back in the day, I think I remember having one of those 'makes a rainbow from a white light' filters. That saw a lot of use.
 
Wondering if I can get them to fit the Rolleicord. I've seen a few yellow filters online but I can't recall seeing anything else.


Some years ago, Dad sold off all his film kit which included a Rollei TLR and a set of coloured filters for B&W use. Sorry, can't remember which model the Rollei was.

As has been hinted at above, there's a time and a place for the starburst and coloured grad filters and that's the '70s!

To see what effect filters have on a scene, the Cokin site had a load of before/after shots to show them (in colour and B&W).
 
Back in the day, I think I remember having one of those 'makes a rainbow from a white light' filters. That saw a lot of use.
Ha, I thought I was the only one, it looks like you had a Cokin Prism as well. :)
 
Ha, I thought I was the only one, it looks like you had a Cokin Prism as well. :)

Just found it on the Cokin site http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/diffractor1.htm

Mine was the bottom one. When I bought it (as a 13 year old boy) I probably thought I would be using it to shoot the album covers of all the top bands in that week's Smash Hits. Strangely that didn't happen. Instead I think I literally shot two photos with it, and one of them was of a car coming up our street in the semi-dark. Hand-held. Cracking shot.

The damn thing probably cost me £3 per shot.
 
Just found it on the Cokin site http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/diffractor1.htm

Mine was the bottom one. When I bought it (as a 13 year old boy) I probably thought I would be using it to shoot the album covers of all the top bands in that week's Smash Hits. Strangely that didn't happen. Instead I think I literally shot two photos with it, and one of them was of a car coming up our street in the semi-dark. Hand-held. Cracking shot.

The damn thing probably cost me £3 per shot.
I've got to get me one of those Diffractor Galaxy filters, that's bostin that is!
 
Just found it on the Cokin site http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/diffractor1.htm

Mine was the bottom one. When I bought it (as a 13 year old boy) I probably thought I would be using it to shoot the album covers of all the top bands in that week's Smash Hits. Strangely that didn't happen. Instead I think I literally shot two photos with it, and one of them was of a car coming up our street in the semi-dark. Hand-held. Cracking shot.

The damn thing probably cost me £3 per shot.

Whoaa so all those ancient TOTP clips the BBC trot out at any available opportunity isn't just poorly shot, badly stored garbage, someone actually pit a filter on to intentionally create that look?
 
Whoaa so all those ancient TOTP clips the BBC trot out at any available opportunity isn't just poorly shot, badly stored garbage, someone actually pit a filter on to intentionally create that look?

You get that effect without filters when you shoot with lenses wide open with light sources at night/in the dark especially if it's combined with fog or smoke, with the number of points on the stars being being equal to the number of aperture blades with lenses that have an even number of blades, and double for those that have an odd number. The liberal use of smoke on TOTP to enhance the effect is very likely the reason why the TOTP has that look, if a filter was used then anything that reflected light would also show the stars. The photo-multiplier tubes used in the broadcast cameras then were also show to react to changing light so you would also get a brief "ghost effect" after a light moved etc which probably further increased the effect.
 
..and a polariser is good for cutting through haze (y)
 
Specifically for black and white. Colours are not very precise; hence I'm giving Wratten numbers. These do point up the variations in (e.g.) the definition of "yellow".
Yellow
This is the most commonly used filter, and brings out white clouds in a blue sky to the amount that we would accept as natural. When most photographers used black and white film, a yellow filter was often left permanently fixed to the lens, as UV or skylight filters are today.

Like all the filters, it is available in lighter or deeper shades, with different filter factors, around the 2 or 3 times. One particular and useful variant is the “minus blue” version, which effectively reduces the blue and gives perhaps the best approximation to a sky with white fluffy clouds (when the sky is blue and has clouds).

One thing to keep in mind when using filters is that any parts of the scene illuminated by skylight rather than direct sunlight are being lit by blue light; and the more blue light you filter out, the darker the shadows will become (as we saw in the example above), and the greater the contrast between light and shade. This can be used with advantage to increase the rendering of the texture in the snow in snow scenes.

The effect on skin tones will not be too great; light skin and hair will be lightened, but blue eyes will be darkened. Freckles will be subdued, but not removed.

There are several different yellow filters, descriptively called light or pale yellow through to deep yellow, and with Wratten numbers 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 15. No 12 is the "minus blue" we just referred to, and effectively cuts out blue light. It's a popular choice amongst black and white photographers.

Orange
This works in a similar way to yellow, but with more noticeable effect. Some say that this is the strongest filter you can use on a sky and still have a natural look to the result.

Other effects are the lightening of sandstone, and it can improve the rendering of wood grain.

As the filter goes more towards red, used in portraiture it will hide skin blemishes, but also lighten lips.

This is the first filter that can have an unexpected result with foliage. Despite the visual appearance of green, leaves do actually start to reflect strongly in the far red region of the spectrum; an effect that is clearly shown in infra-red photography, where foliage appears white. With a dark orange filter, foliage can begin to be lightened, an effect called the "Wood effect" after Robert W. Wood, who pioneered both ultra violet and infra red photography.

Wratten numbers are 16 for a yellow-orange filter, 21 (orange) and 22 (deep orange).

Red
Use this to give black, dramatic skies; and watch out for the blocked shadows that can result from the reduction of the skylight illumination. Coupled with slight underexposure, this can be used to create a moonlight effect.

A red filter also gives the greatest haze penetration. The difference between two otherwise identical photographs of a distant landscape, one with a red filter and one without, can be dramatic.

As the filter moves more to red, so the effect on foliage will be greater. It is possible to have foliage lightened to a very considerable extent using a red filter.

Wratten numbers are 23 (light red), 24, 25, 25A, 26 and 29. There is also a magenta (or "minus green") 32.

Green
Green filters get a mixed reception, with some photographers finding no use for them, and others making extensive use. The obvious effect is to lighten foliage in a scene, which can affect the mood of a landscape. Less obviously, it aids in the differentiation of greens, particularly in spring and early summer, when the difference between greens in foliage can be most pronounced. Used in portraits, it will darken skin tones and accentuate freckles and skin blemishes.

Wratten numbers 56, 58, 61, with 44 and 44A as blue-green.

Blue
This can be used with pan film to simulate ortho material, but why would you want to? Well, ortho was a popular choice for the “Hollywood portraits” of the 1940s. It darkens the skin (usually best used for male portraits) and lips, and has a look all its own. The darkening of lips was a problem with the early cinema films, and blue lipstick was used to make the actors appear more natural.

A blue filter will accentuate skin blemishes, so needs care on the choice of subject if this is not to create a very unflattering image.

And it will also act in the opposite way to a red filter, in increasing haze. This can be an advantage in some scenes, where the recession of tones enhances the feeling of depth in the photograph.

There are several different blue filters, but they are less commonly used. Wratten 38A, 47, 47A, 50 are some of them.
 
Last edited:
@StephenM That is a very concise post. Thank you.
I'll print and laminate, choose my filters with more care.
Probably means buying more..
 
An excellent and informative post Stephen, copied and printed out and I shall be trawling the usual places for filters this weekend.

Andy
 
yellow - enhances contrast on B&W - loses maybe a stop of light
Orange - as above but more so, loses 1.5 stops (also really good for losing freckles on red-haired models when shooting in B&W)
Red - Really high contrast, but can lose 2+ stops of light.

I usually work on yellow - one stop, orange - two stops, red - three stops.


Steve.
-
 
Good explanation from @StephenM on the uses and merits of various filters for B&W.

I personally find filters too fiddly to use for 90% of my photography, which is handheld and relatively dynamic as film and medium format go, with the differences between filter and no filter often too subtle to warrant the effort.

For tripod-based stuff, however, where I have plenty of time to consider each exposure and the effects of the filters on the scene, filters can be quite useful. I have yellow, yellow-green, and orange filters for B&W and a circular polariser filter that I use for colour. I've experimented with the CPL with B&W and I really can't detect much of an effect, so I only use it as a makeshift ND filter with B&W film.
 
Confession - I have tobacco and blue grad filters somewhere, put them together and I could take a fantastic sunset seascape by photographing a puddle, probably. I bought them about 15 years ago and have never used them. I also have a four-point star filter that I bought for "ironic" night shots, that's never been used either.

Ah, I feel cleansed :D

I've also just bought this set of step-up/step-down rings to give me a bit more flexibility with the filters I have. I wonder whether I can make a lens hood from them...
 
Having read through the above and a few sites last night, I think a polariser + neutral grad would achieve most of what I'm looking for: basically, improving the contrast of colour shots a little, helping to cut through haze and improve the definition in skies. All the things I used to do in Lightroom, but as my next big step is going to be setting up a makeshift darkroom, I need to start getting as much right on the negative as possible.
 
Having read through the above and a few sites last night, I think a polariser + neutral grad would achieve most of what I'm looking for: basically, improving the contrast of colour shots a little, helping to cut through haze and improve the definition in skies. All the things I used to do in Lightroom, but as my next big step is going to be setting up a makeshift darkroom, I need to start getting as much right on the negative as possible.

Personally, I would argue that the use of ND grads would almost completely negate one of the primary advantages of using colour negative film: its expanded dynamic range. Colour negative ordinarily allows you to capture scenes with large subject brightness ranges that would otherwise be impossible using slide film or digital sensors and it frees you from the constraints that ND grads can often impose on handling, ergonomics, and composition.

For instance, what ND grad would have fit the shape of these buildings in Glasgow in the photograph below? The answer: None. That's not a problem though, as the film handled both the shaded buildings and the light from the setting sun without a problem, even while metered for the shadows. Consequently, I just don't think that ND filters are worth the hassle with colour negative film.



The dynamic range of colour negative usually comes at the cost of reduced contrast relative to other media, however, so if you're looking for more contrast, perhaps you might prefer slide film? Indeed, with slide film, ND grads would become far more essential.

With regard to polarisers, I find they're not terribly helpful when used in the UK, as it's not terribly bright or hazy here and we probably don't find ourselves needing to shoot through glass or water too often. I find that polarisers are most useful when on holiday where it's easier to manage the two-stop loss of light and there are actually reflections and glare that I might want to reduce.

Obviously, the use of filters is a very personal thing, so I'm not saying don't use them, but I think they can sometimes represent a significant expenditure for very little gain, so I would advise proceeding with caution.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I would argue that the use of ND grads would almost completely negate one of the primary advantages of using colour negative film: its expanded dynamic range. Colour negative ordinarily allows you to capture scenes with large subject brightness ranges that would otherwise be impossible using slide film or digital sensors and it frees you from the constraints that ND grads can often impose on handling, ergonomics, and composition...

Thanks RJ. If I had seen your shot without the explanation, I would have assumed you had used a NG filter. I have certain expectations having shot digital for a long time which I need to change. I also need to learn how to meter for the shadows...but that's another post entirely.

J
 
Having bought a nice set of grads I've never used them. I had intended to shoot more slide but never got round to it and it really isn't necessary for negative film most of the time.
 
Thanks RJ. If I had seen your shot without the explanation, I would have assumed you had used a NG filter. I have certain expectations having shot digital for a long time which I need to change. I also need to learn how to meter for the shadows...but that's another post entirely.

J

Yep, no worries. Personally, I would recommend spending any spare money on film or going places to shoot that film.
 
The only filters I really use are a 2 stop hard and 2 stop soft ND filter for landscapes on slide film and digital.
I also use yellow and orange filters for B&W film but only when I have a tripod with me.

I don't shoot colour neg film at the moment so I can't comment on that.
 
I used grads on a recent trip in Scotland to the West Coast (pics to follow!), on slide and negative. I don't know whether it was necessary, but the results were OK. No obvious colour casts even though they were £2 charity shop Cokins... but the film was Velvia 50, home-scanned, which supplied plenty of cast on its own AFAICS!

(I also have a tobacco grad... one day I'll use it... :) )

I carry a CPL round in the bag and never remember to take it out!
 
I'm going to show this thread to the missus. "See, there's one thing I actually don't have to buy."
 
I think your emphasis is wrong.

See, there's one thing I actually don't have to buy....

... But I'm going to anyway.
 
Back
Top