|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by holmburgers
You seem to be quite a stickler for verbal pedantry 2F/2F.
Do you assume that because someone doesn't recite the textbook phrase to describe a photographic phenomenon that they are just hopeless idiots who have no understanding of photography?
If you're imagining a blue sky and it's relationship to a grassy lawn; there is contrast between them. That is, there is a degree of difference; small or large. Adding a dark red filter will darken the tonal rendering of the blue sky, and thus the contrast between the sky and grass will change. Surely you can see how this affects contrast.
Ok... looking forward to your rebuttal.
I am not a stickler for verbal pedantry; I am a stickler for clear content that displays conceptual understanding of a topic, as it is in everyone's benefit. This is not about formality of language or absolute correctness in every statement. It is about clearing up errors in the understanding of the way the things behind the question being asked work. I'm "A Person" who wants to increase a use of language that displays and clearly communicates understanding of an issue, and does not display and propagate all-too-common misunderstandings about a topic. And when I attempt to contribute to someone's understanding of an issue in a brief and helpful way, and that person then states that they, in fact, have full understanding even when their language has repeatedly stated otherwise, I feel that a slightly more detailed assertion of my point is called for before moving on.
The simple point I made was that these are not blanket contrast filters. It is easy (and common) to think of them this way, but not correct; doing so will not help one to achieve ones desired results.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-03-2011 at 01:45 PM.
2F/2F
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
-
And where there are yellow objects that are slightly darker than blue objects, a yellow filter could actually reduce contrast.
Occasionally I get students who complain that their red filter did not darken the sky on an typical Humboldt overcast gray day.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
-
Hi Alex,
Have you ever thought of using a hood in lieu of a filter? It does rather well to bring maximum contrast to your exposures, although it doesn't alter the color contrast like you do with your yellow filter, obviously.
It may sound crude and unexciting, but when I have a camera that I don't have specific filters for, I just use a filter larger than the lens thread in front of the lens and take the picture. It's hardly elegant, but it works.
- Thomas
 Originally Posted by Alex1994
Hi
I am a B&W shooter, almost exclusively FP4+ which I soup in D-76 stock as per manufacturer's instructions. My main SLR is an OM which gets me by very nicely. I usually use a medium yellow (K2) filter for all my photos to get the contrast good. However, I also have a Minox 35 GSE which I want to use for B&W. Minox never made any colour filters for this camera, none are available bar the UV filter they made. My question is this: seeing as I won't be able to get a coloured B&W contrast filter on the Minox, what is there to be done about contrast? I usually scan my negs before printing (heresy I know) and a set of photos taken without the yellow filter looked distinctively worse than the ones with filter (lower contrast, more haze etc). Is the effect being exaggerated by scanning (never printed pics that had no filter) and if not can it be corrected for when printing using higher contrast grades? (for the record I'm using a colour enlarger) There must surely be a way of making them look good without filter, since plenty of people use Minoxes for B&W.
Thanks in advance
Alex
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
- Aristotle
-
 Originally Posted by 2F/2F
I am not a stickler for verbal pedantry; I am a stickler for clear content that displays conceptual understanding of a topic, as it is in everyone's benefit. This is not about formality of language or absolute correctness in every statement. It is about clearing up errors in the understanding of the way the things behind the question being asked work. I'm "A Person" who wants to increase a use of language that displays and clearly communicates understanding of an issue, and does not display and propagate all-too-common misunderstandings about a topic. And when I attempt to contribute so someone's understanding of an issue in a brief and helpful way, and that person then states that they, in fact, have full understanding even when their language has repeatedly stated otherwise, I feel that a slightly more detailed assertion of my point is called for before giving up.
Fair enough. And to be honest, I spoke too soon when writing that reply. We had our discussion yesterday and so I saw that and started typing immediately without really rereading the OP. And once I posted it, I didn't want to delete it for reasons of online-fairness.
I thought that initially you were saying that the darkening of a blue sky, for instance, wasn't effecting contrast but tonal relationships, and that seemed like splitting hairs. But I see now that the OP did communicate a misunderstanding with regards to overall contrast and printing grades, etc.
I really must start "thinking before typing".... I had a similar problem in grade-school with speaking....
From the film shooters will rise a well developed practice of the alternative processes that, in time, will be adopted in the age of the digital image to free it from the extreme boringness of pressing print.
-
"Engage brain before putting mouth into gear"?
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Use as Step up Ring to what ever filter diameter you have. I have used a step up for my Nikon P5100 wide kit lens about 52mm to use 77mm filters, while my mamiya RB takes 77mm filters as stock. At full wide there is no Vignette caused by the step up ring or the 77mm filter when mounted. The front lens looks a bit ridiculous but it works!
"Often you will discover in life, that temerity yields little that quiet observation and decisive action can!"
-
-
Thanks hugely for the link perkeleellinen, I went off and bought it. Some delving saw that these push-on filters can be used on Minox 35s
And I am also grateful to so-called pedants like 2F/2F who quite rightly drummed into me the difference between contrast and the way specific colours are rendered as tonal values.
-
 Originally Posted by Alex1994
And I am also grateful to so-called pedants like 2F/2F who quite rightly drummed into me the difference between contrast and the way specific colours are rendered as tonal values.
... and I just feel like a big boob now... (not the good kind)
From the film shooters will rise a well developed practice of the alternative processes that, in time, will be adopted in the age of the digital image to free it from the extreme boringness of pressing print.
|
|