Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,872   Posts: 1,520,114   Online: 878
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Radioiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    43

    Tiffen filter wratten equivilents

    Does anyone know what a tiffen green 1 filter is eqivelent to in wratten numbers? I've searched everywhere and can't even come up with spectral transmission to match to regular filters.

  2. #2
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,124
    I happen to be doing a search on Wratten filters with the 'special dyes' tonight. The Kodak site is useless. The "Help" section gave zero hits for Wratten. The technical search informed me that the 'special dyes' were "Used to alter the color wavelength of light." (Duhh..)

    Anyway, I came across this stuff that may answer your question.

    Select Tiffen spectra:


    Select Kodak Wratten spectra:


  3. #3
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    An older Wratten filter designation used letters and numbers. Newer Wratten nomenclature uses numbers, sometimes followed by a letter. Hoya uses letter+number, but often shortens the designation to letter only. B+W uses a three digit number code, and Schott uses two letters + a three digit number.

    Tiffen Green 1 is a Wratten #11, and their green 2 is a Wratten #13. Tiffen also makes a Green 56 and Green 58, which are the same as Wratten #56 and #58. The current Tiffen numbers 1 and 2 are probably shortened forms of Wratten letter+number designations. The Wratten #11 was also an X1, and is equivalent to the G11 or 060 filters in other systems. The Wratten #13 is also an X2, and called the 061 in other systems. Both the #11 and #13 are yellow-green.

    Astrophotography books refer to the Wratten #13 as a "more efficient" version of the #11. The #11 and #13 pass the 480-580 nm spectrum, and the #11 has a filter factor of 4 and the #13 a factor of 5. I suspect that the "more efficient" comment means that the #13 has a sharper cutoff, i.e. is better at blocking unwanted wavelengths outside the passband.

    The Wratten #56 passband is listed as 490-580, and the #58 as 505-560.

    B&H tends to list multiple filter designations on their web site, so you might find that helpful.

    Lee

  4. #4
    Mike Wilde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Misissauaga Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,939
    Images
    29
    While not necessarily of perfect optical grade, theatre lighting gels can work very well for many photo situations - get an old wratten filter holder for the front of you lens to hold them, or improvise.

    I would suggest that about $50 spent on a designers swatchbook from Roscoe or Lee - makers of theatrical lighting filter gel would be money very well spent.
    They are about 2"x5", and include the spectral transmission curve.
    There are smaller swatch books that are 1" x 2.5" that have the same infomation, but clipping gels from these only gives filters big enoygh for most point and shoot lenses.
    my real name, imagine that.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L View Post
    Astrophotography books refer to the Wratten #13 as a "more efficient" version of the #11. The #11 and #13 pass the 480-580 nm spectrum, and the #11 has a filter factor of 4 and the #13 a factor of 5. I suspect that the "more efficient" comment means that the #13 has a sharper cutoff, i.e. is better at blocking unwanted wavelengths outside the passband.
    That's not it.
    The 13 absorbs more red than the 11. The behaviour of both at wavelengths shorter than about 590 nm is virtually identical.

  6. #6
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    That's not it.
    The 13 absorbs more red than the 11. The behaviour of both at wavelengths shorter than about 590 nm is virtually identical.
    In what way is that not "better at blocking unwanted wavelengths outside the passband", e.g. blocking more red and/or blue?

    Lee

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Both block unwanted wavelengths outside the passband. Their passbands are slightly different.

    The one does not have a sharper cutoff than the other.
    The behaviour of both at wavelengths shorter than about 590 nm is virtually identical. The 11 is more transparent for red and near infra red than the 13.

  8. #8
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    OK, so you're saying the efficieny refers to a deeper rather than steeper red cutoff. I don't have, and can't find a Tiffen curve for the #13, only B+W 060 and 061, and they often differ significantly on "equivalent" filters from Tiffen.

    The OP might appreciate your posting the Tiffen curves you're using.

    Lee

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    I'm not using Tiffen curves. I was - like you - writing about Kodak Wratten filters.

    I have those curves on paper (Kodak booklet). Alas no digital version.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin