lf-photo.org.uk

Hello Everyone,

here I am with another question on colour transparencies. Beside a set of ND grads, what other filters would you recommend? I would expect some warm-up filters, but do you use cooling filters as well?

Thanks,

Val

If you are printing 'traditionally' (i.e. Cibachrome), or you feel that the tranny is the 'definitive' version of your image, then a set of warm-up and cool-down filters is advisable. If you're scanning and Photoshopping then they're a strictly 'nice-to-have'. However, a lot of the time you probably don't want an all-over warm-up - especially if you want to maintain the blue of the sky, so here the added control of PS is a boon.

Getting colour-control filters might also be useful If you want to keep Photoshopping to a minimum but, on balance, they can be a lot of hassle and it's very easy to get it wrong and either under- or over- compensate. Getting a neutral balance in PS is dead simple by comparison.

As for other filters, a polariser is the only other one I'd say is an absolute 'must have'.

I'd spend your cash on a decent polariser before warmups, definitely. Strictly speaking there's no need to use warmups at all (even with cibachrome as I think you can still dial in some extra warmth during enlargement) but it can be nice to get it fairly close in camera. A warmup grad can be handy to have occaisionally.

I own a cooling filter but its never left the house.

Thanks for your advise guys, much appreciated. I already have and use the Lee polariser and I think for the moment I won't invest in any warm=up or cool-down filters. I have Photoshop as well, so for the time being I'll correct colour temperature through that.

Depends what you're shooting, in general I've rarely needed to use filters, but with Fluorescent lighting I do a test get it processed then adjust, General conversion filters are useful Tungsten lighting to Daylight film filters.

It's a balance you can over correct and the reality is often the unfiltered E6 shot is a good match for the mood of the lighting , except in the extremes,

Ian

IanG wrote:It's a balance you can over correct and the reality is often the unfiltered E6 shot is a good match for the mood of the lighting , except in the extremes

Something that was not possible with this shot:



… where I had to cope with a colour temperature of 2300°K. You can see the reflections around the ceiling lights where, if I remember rightly, I had, at least, an 80A plus an 82C, exposing Velvia 100 film; with reciprocity, the exposure was around 17 minutes. Even then, I still had to take out quite a strong orange cast in Photoshop to get it to "look" like it "felt" when I was there

Joanna Carter wrote:

IanG wrote:It's a balance you can over correct and the reality is often the unfiltered E6 shot is a good match for the mood of the lighting , except in the extremes

Something that was not possible with this shot:



… where I had to cope with a colour temperature of 2300°K. You can see the reflections around the ceiling lights where, if I remember rightly, I had, at least, an 80A plus an 82C, exposing Velvia 100 film; with reciprocity, the exposure was around 17 minutes. Even then, I still had to take out quite a strong orange cast in Photoshop to get it to "look" like it "felt" when I was there

You used Photoshop but what I was talking about was getting it right on the transparency in the first place.

That shot's got some serious issues. It's grossly over filtered (or Photoshopped) look at the blue cast in the halo around the lights and it's sterile and lifeless because of this. Then why is there that halo effect in the first place maybe your lenses and filters aren't up to it in terms of their quality.

Ian

IanG wrote:You used Photoshop but what I was talking about was getting it right on the transparency in the first place.

Which is what I almost managed to do. But, as I said, the colour temperature, as measured with a colorimeter, was 2300°K. This is 900° further away from daylight than standard tungsten lighting, which would normally yield a temperature of 3200°K.

If left uncorrected, this would have given a transparency, taken on daylight film, that would have been edge-to-edge orange, which is not how it appeared to the human eye.

IanG wrote:That shot's got some serious issues.

Indeed, it's not perfect, but it is as close to the way the scene appeared at the time.

IanG wrote:It's grossly over filtered (or Photoshopped)

In fact, it was under-filtered but I couldn't get a strong enough blue filtration to compensate for the extremely low colour temperature. I only used Photoshop to pull the colour temperature up enough to leave the overall warm feel to the shot because, even with all the filtration, there was still a horrendous, unnatural, orange cast.

IanG wrote:look at the blue cast in the halo around the lights and it's sterile and lifeless because of this. Then why is there that halo effect in the first place maybe your lenses and filters aren't up to it in terms of their quality.

The lens was certainly up to the job; I used a Schneider Superangulon XL 72mm. The halos were caused by using multiple uncoated filters. I couldn't afford the mortgage to get coated ones

Unfortunately, it's one of those occasions where compromise was the only way to get a record of that particular scene

...............mmm

well I'm scarcely anything other than a b&w man - the 'lighting/halo effect' - would this be less pronounced if shot on b&w?

shot somehere sur la continent, I guess


andrew

Hi Andrew

Yes, it was shot in Morlaix, Brittany. You wouldn't have any problem with halos in B&W, simply because you wouldn't need to shove as many filters on the lens as I had to to try and adjust the colour temperature; the halos were purely due to using at least 3 uncoated filters

It's not worth spending too long discussing an image that's a reject. However it's wrong to try and fully correct with a colour meter. When we sit in a room lit by Tungsten light we are verey aware of the differencein the colour balance and as photographers we shouldn't be trying to make it look like daylight by filtering it all out.

This image has failed because the exposure was just too long, it didn't need to be - there was obviously plenty of light. But the long exposure has made the colour balance worse, and ironically a shorter exposure would have left us seeing some people, which woulod have improve the shot enormously as all we get now is faint ghosts and their coats

Ian

IanG wrote:It's not worth spending too long discussing an image that's a reject.

I would take exception to that. It is not a reject; it conveys very well the atmosphere at the time, given the limitations of the available lighting.

IanG wrote:However it's wrong to try and fully correct with a colour meter. When we sit in a room lit by Tungsten light we are verey aware of the differencein the colour balance and as photographers we shouldn't be trying to make it look like daylight by filtering it all out.

Ian, with all due respect, you are judging how I made the image without knowing my intent or technique. I meaasured the actual colour temperature qnd then added enough "blue" filtration to give me the finished appearance, not of daylight, but of daylight plus an 81B filter, to retain some warmth.

IanG wrote:This image has failed because the exposure was just too long, it didn't need to be - there was obviously plenty of light.

The image has only failed in your eyes, but not in the eyes of the artist who made it (me). Don't forget, you are not aware of the fact that all the paintwork was covered in countless years of nicotine staining and how that the light levels were so low I had to hold the colorimeter up to one of the lights, just to get a reading at all.

IanG wrote:But the long exposure has made the colour balance worse, and ironically a shorter exposure would have left us seeing some people, which woulod have improve the shot enormously as all we get now is faint ghosts and their coats

The whole idea of the picture was to have a long exposure, so that the people became as ghosts. It is part of a series I am working on called "Ghosts in the Machine". If anything, the halos around the lights contribute to such a theme.

You really need to be a little bit more careful to determine that a picture might be more art than a pure record shot before criticisng

Oh, and by the way, the owners of the café in question loved it and paid me for a print.

Joanna Carter wrote: Yes, it was shot in Morlaix, Brittany. You wouldn't have any problem with halos in B&W, simply because you wouldn't need to shove as many filters on the lens as I had to to try and adjust the colour temperature; the halos were purely due to using at least 3 uncoated filters

Joanna, I've not commented on this image before but after your above comment I'm thinking. Do you think the halos (internal reflections) add to the image overall? I think they do. Did you see them on the GG and think "Oh, bother. How do I get rid of those?", or did you you think "Yes, thats good". Or was the GG so dark by the time you added the filters you couldn't see the halos. Given the choice at the outset, halos or no halos?

The only thing that I can think of that would improve the image for me is a ghost of a worker behind the bar.

Edit : Actually the more I look at the image, two things are annoying me slightly. 1. The chair backs in the bottom left corner. 2. The white car parked outside. Still good though. And if you got paid....

Joanna Carter wrote:Hi Andrew

Yes, it was shot in Morlaix, Brittany. You wouldn't have any problem with halos in B&W, simply because you wouldn't need to shove as many filters on the lens as I had to to try and adjust the colour temperature; the halos were purely due to using at least 3 uncoated filters

Thanks Joanna

fwiw, I've just 'cropped' your image by removing everything above the top of the door frame, potentially works better without the ceiling and the lighting but that's just my view

andrew

If Joanna is willing to continue the critique of her work, may I suggest she moves it to the Critique board?

Right - back to the original question. I would like to contradict Jools and Dave.

dave_whatever wrote:Strictly speaking there's no need to use warmups at all (even with cibachrome as I think you can still dial in some extra warmth during enlargement) but it can be nice to get it fairly close in camera. A warmup grad can be handy to have occaisionally.

I own a cooling filter but its never left the house.

In my experience, films like the Velvias have a non-flat response to colours, ie they'll exaggerate certain colours to the detriment of others or they'll shift them slightly. That's no bad thing, it's part of their charm. So actually putting a filter in front of your lens modulates the light that hits the film before the film goes and bends it in its own particular manner. This is quite different to putting the filter between the tranny and the print, whether by analogue or digital means. Printing to flatten out the response of the film emulsion is to negate its very charm. You may as well use a digital sensor spitting our a raw file or a film like Astia which has more dynamic range and therefore usually a larger colour space in the tranny. Personally, I prefer to keep the character of the film in the print, so I put filters in front of the lens. Only exceptionally will I use printing (Photoshop in my case) to correct the colour cast.

Filters in my bag: daylight to tungsten and tungsten to daylight, fluorescent to daylight (well a CC25M), 81B and 81C.

Regards,
Charles