Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,227   Posts: 1,532,690   Online: 774
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by reellis67 View Post
    I don't use them for most of what I do, but there are times when altering the tonal range of a subject calls for one. I always have a variety on hand when I go out, but I don't find that I use them very often. I think it depends a lot on your subject matter really, rather than some general 'rule'.

    - Randy
    I fully agree with Randy (and others here). I think the important thing is that, like the other tools at your disposal, you know what effects the various filters have and can therefore choose when and why you need or want them.

    “I've been told that I should always have at least a Yellow #8 for outdoor B&W photography...” Any statement that has the words “always” or “never” is usually wrong or at the very least, suspect.

    “I have filters...I'm just not a fan of dealing with the hassle (extra exposure calculation, etc) and that it didn't seem to make my prints any better.” If you have made a commitment to your work, “dealing with the hassle” shouldn’t be a part of the experience. If your vision calls for a filter and you determine it’s too much bother, why make the image at all?

    Like Randy, I seldom use filters, but when I do it’s because I need it for a specific purpose.

    Jerome

  2. #12
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,796
    Contrast filters and Polarizers are like credit cards: very useful at times, but better not used unless necessary.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    Contrast filters and Polarizers are like credit cards: very useful at times, but better not used unless necessary.
    I like it!
    Jerome

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck1 View Post
    The factor itself is based on trying to maintain a middle gray negative density on a middle gray subject within the scene.
    Not really. It's based on the need to maintain the same negative density for any neutral tone, black, white or grey.

    I make this point not to be contentious but merely to reinforce the points that 'middle grey' has no relevance to ISO speeds for negative film (which are of course based on shadow detail), and that 'middle grey' has no meaning whatsoever as applied to negative density.

    Cheers,

    R.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by photographs42 View Post
    Any statement that has the words “always” or “never” is usually wrong or at the very least, suspect.
    Hear! Hear!

    I often like the effect of a medium yellow, and I normally use a light orange on my 200mm -- but I also shoot lots of B+W with no filtration whatsoever.

    In particular, there is rarely much reason to use filters in low light, or of course indoors. All they do is sap speed to no advantage.

    Cheers,

    R.

  6. #16
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Not really. It's based on the need to maintain the same negative density for any neutral tone, black, white or grey.

    I make this point not to be contentious but merely to reinforce the points that 'middle grey' has no relevance to ISO speeds for negative film (which are of course based on shadow detail), and that 'middle grey' has no meaning whatsoever as applied to negative density.

    Cheers,

    R.
    Roger, all smiles here, so I'll respond to your comment for further clarification, but I don't want to be part of a hi-jacked the thread, if possible. If you want, we can debate in PM's if you disagree so I won't respond further on the subject in this thread.

    I'm not sure that I implied that there is a correlation between middle gray and ISO speed for negative film, or that middle gray has a meaning that is particular to negative density. I mean, the middle of the gray scale certainly does have density. I think we can agree that negative density is relative to the degree of exposure, filter or no filter.

    I was trying to imply that: If one was to place a "neutral tone" such as an 18% gray card (middle gray) within the scene, then photograph using a filter and applying the filter factor, then it is presumed that the factor will supply the appropriate compenstation to provide a negative density to return a middle gray print value back to the gray card.

    It should be apparent then, that if the factor is not applied when the gray card is within the scene, then the gray card (or any other neutral tone) will be rendered on the negative without enough density to faithfully return the appropriate print value back to the card as middle gray.

    My original statement is meant to mean all that without actually saying all that, and I think that it does as I certainly don't want to confuse the person that I am responding to. Although, it is certainly possible for confusion to abound when the proper words are not chosen to convey the best of intentions.

    Thanks,
    Chuck

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear Chuck,

    I was in no doubt that you knew all that, and I apologize for implying otherwise. I had originally written something to the effect that "You know all this, but..." I deleted this because it sounded a bit patronizing and that was my least intention.

    It was simply that a lot of people do make those assumptions, or indeed may be assured of them, so I thought a little reminder in the thread might be a good idea. No more than that!

    Once again, my apologies.

    Cheers,

    R.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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