Filters for potentially blown highlights in B&W

[MartyNL]

I, too don’t quite understand the need for different film stocks in B&W. Could you give some examples, please?

It's really not my argument, but I often shoot different film stocks, why?
It can be look and feel, Ilford FP4 plus, Kodak Tmax 100 and Fomapan 400 are all quite different from one another. At least when printed in the darkroom.
Cost can also be a driving factor. If I can pick up some film stock cheap, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, and all that! I'm sure your aware of price increases.
Subject matter, shooting indoors or outdoors, shooting pinhole and reciprocity characteristics, having fun and experimenting, using infrared, ortho etc.

My question is, why nail your colours to the mast?
Choose the film that works for you and what you wish to express.

 

[Joanna Carter]

Choose the film that works for you and what you wish to express

Indeed. But, if that choice (those choices) require different emulsions, you've got to expect the time and effort penalty of individual sheet processing.

 

[MartyNL]

Filters do not alter contrast, they merely control exexposure.

I believe this to be untrue.

Since when did coloured filters optically stop working, it's a matter of physics. They pass or hold back differing wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum.
I really don't understand this comment?

 

[Joanna Carter]

I believe this to be untrue.

Since when did coloured filters optically stop working, it's a matter of physics. They pass or hold back differing wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum.
I really don't understand this comment?

My apologies. I should have said, within the same colour, they do not alter contrast, only between different colours.

 

[Ian Grant]

This is not the way to discuss things. Joanna has given ample evidence of her experience in these matters.
I, too don’t quite understand the need for different film stocks in B&W. Could you give some examples, please?
It would be very helpful to us all.
Ben Horne (qv) regularly uses different colour transparency films, because of their colour rendering and their dynamic range. In this case, it’s understandable, although the expense staggers me. He can be found on YouTube.
I also don’t really understand why developing single sheets is so problematic. Tray development is easily set up and offers ultimate control. Development by inspection is possible if you know what you’re doing.
Edward Weston developed all his negs individually, so clearly it’s possible. He returned from his trips with several dozen negs too.

Sometime using different film stocks for B&W is necessity.

Back around 1987 I switched from FP4 to Agafa AP100, and then APX100. However sometimes these films were unavailable, so I used Tmax 100 instead. The only difference was I used AP/APX100 at box speed, and Tmax100 at half, same dev times.

Then Agfa withdrew from the market, so Tmax 100 was my main film, but when I moved abroad Kodak B&W films were almost unobtainable, so around 2007 I switched back to Ilford film, this time choosing Delta 100.

However, while living in the Aegean region I also began shooting LF had held, so I needed a faster film so added HP5. Now this was for LF 5x4, however I also shoot MF, usually with a TLR, and the only film I could get in bulk was Fomapan 100 or 200, so I tried them, I sacrificed 2 rolls to do some basic Zone system tests to determine optimal EI, dev time, and control the contrast.

I still use Delta 100 & HP5 for my core project work, but Fomapan 200 has become my alternative, particularly for 7x5 and soon 10x8 (when I've used up other film stock).

Ian

 

[MartyNL]

Indeed. But, if that choice (those choices) require different emulsions, you've got to expect the time and effort penalty of individual sheet processing.

'Penalty' is too subjective for my liking but I can accept 'extra' time, effort and cost.

 

[David M]

Well, in fact, I use different film, too. My regular choice is FP4. However, I’ve done some work in a church lit by candlelight and for that I used T-Max 400, mainly for its reciprocity performance although the extra speed was welcome. Exposures were up to twenty minutes, by which time I reckoned that the film had probably nodded off.
As far as the original question goes, no filter can suppress excessive brightness unless it has a specific colour, in which case the opposite colour will suppress it. It will do this to the entire image, which may not be desirable. A polariser will help to reduce specular highlights and some reflections. Grad filters seem to be popular with digital photographers, but they reduce overall brightness in specific sections of the frame, not in specifically over-bright areas.
In general it seems sensible to begin with the minimum and gradually acquire what you eventually find you need, rather than a clanking (and heavy) bunch of miscellaneous devices that other people have suggested you might need.
John Blakemore once told me he’d been advised that he needed yellow filter for skies, so he got one. He didn’t get round to using it and when he did look for it, it was lost.
Not all of us are John Blakemore, of course.
If the brightness range remains a problem, then Zone System controls will obviously work, but may not give the desired result (over-compressed mid tones, for example). Making two bracketed images and combining them digitally may be a solution.
If you have Rejlander-level darkroom skills, you could do the same under the enlarger.
All of this would be a great deal more work and worry, of course.

 

[thronobulax]

This is not the way to discuss things. Joanna has given ample evidence of her experience in these matters.
I, too don’t quite understand the need for different film stocks in B&W. Could you give some examples, please?
It would be very helpful to us all.
Ben Horne (qv) regularly uses different colour transparency films, because of their colour rendering and their dynamic range. In this case, it’s understandable, although the expense staggers me. He can be found on YouTube.
I also don’t really understand why developing single sheets is so problematic. Tray development is easily set up and offers ultimate control. Development by inspection is possible if you know what you’re doing.
Edward Weston developed all his negs individually, so clearly it’s possible. He returned from his trips with several dozen negs too.

I have no interest in joining the rock throwing, but a comment, if I may...

I would note that there are sound reasons for different monochrome film stocks. There are variations among different films in the shape of their H/D curves, grain composition, reciprocity behaviour, response to pyro stain , tendency toward edge effects, and so forth. Each of these things contributes to the final "look" of the image, at least when handled properly. (It always amuses me when someone shouts about having found a Photoshop plugin that mimics film - they're attempting to replicate what various films already do naturally.)

Back in ancient history, commercial photographers tended to stay with a single emulsion per subject type - weddings, portraits, product, landscape ... - as a matter of consistency. In my misspent youth I worked for a local commercial shooter who had everything down to a repeatable pattern - to the point of tape marks on the floor that indicated camera position for different sort of portraits.

Filtration - other than gradient filters or polarizers - won't manage highlights from being blown out, but exposure and development discipline will.

(I am currently reading a declassified report from the US National Reconnaissance Office on how they processed the films shot by the various spy planes and satellites. Kodak created brand new emulsions and development techniques for this specific application. It was of great interest to me that they effectively used a form of stand to enhance edge effects

 

[thronobulax]

As an example of using the Zone system, with no filters at all. 15 stops dynamic range from the gas lamp to the skirting boards…

Heritage & Restoration

For some reason I am unable to see the image in question.

I have also been able to capture 15-ish stops of SBR on film but there is a cost of doing so - zone compression. Whether by underdevelopment or staining developer or stand development exhausting, if you wish to hold both shadows and highlights in a 15 stop SBR, you have to roll off the highlight response somehow. With the exception of stand/EMA or presumably SLIMT, this also incurs the cost in some degree of mid tone compression as well. This is why so many strict-Zone processed images have a dull muddy mid tone palette.

Then there is the problem that silver paper can only reproduce 5-6 stops of range so you have to decide what goes where on the tone map, these days with split VC printing. Alternative processes like platinum can do somewhat better but nowhere near the full 15 stops of the negative.

Here is one I did on 12x9 Fomapan 100 shooting into an enormous range of light. From the dark background shadows to direct sunlight beating down on rocks across the river, it was well into the 13-15 stop range of light. Getting this to print properly took a combination of exposure management, semistand development in D-23 + lye highly dilute home made Crawley FX-1, and split VC printing to hold the dynamic range in the final print. Scan of silver print:

 

[thronobulax]

Most scanners including dedicated film scanner such as Nikon and Minolta max out at Zone 9 and anything below Zone 2 is a combination of CCD noise and image density mushed together

I concur. I have an Epson V800 and I have yet to find a way to properly capture the full dynamic range of a negative shot in a big Subject Brightness Range. As best as I can determine, scanners of this sort do best when the source material is relatively lower contrast with a shorter SBR. This is why - except for digital contact sheets - I have focused on scanning final prints for digital distribution.

 

[Nas]

I, too don’t quite understand the need for different film stocks in B&W. Could you give some examples, please?
It would be very helpful to us all.

My perspective (and I know I'm not alone) is I don't have a "need" for different film stocks. I "choose" to use different film stocks because I enjoy variety and freedom of choice. The same reason I choose to use different developers, umpteen different cameras and different lenses, different formats from half-frame 35mm cameras all the way up 12x10 ULF with age old dry glass plates. Most of the film stocks I use are expired, purchased when prices were much more affordable and then frozen for future use. Some of the film stocks I use are no longer manufactured.

For me the variety is the fun of photography with light sensitive emulsion. Seeing what the result will be. It's all about having fun. If I wanted a clinical, predictable, repeatable result with 20+ stops of dynamic range I'd use a digital camera but for me that's as much fun as a trip to the dentist. For others they love nothing more than pixel peeping and staring at a computer screen moving sliders around. Each to their own. I don't begrudge anyone doing what they enjoy but not all of us are fixated on technically perfect final output.

For example, look at the work of Julia Margaret Cameron who was scoffed at for making portraits which were out of focus. I've seen some of her original contact prints and to me they are beautiful but they're not to everyone's taste. That's completely fine. Do her prints have 10+ stops of dynamic range? Does it matter? How about Brett Weston? Contrast range and crushing shadow detail is a personal choice.

Apologies for drifting away from the original question about filters but I wanted to give some perspective on why someone might want to work differently to someone else and neither is right or wrong.

 

[Petrochemist]

As far as the original question goes, no filter can suppress excessive brightness unless it has a specific colour, in which case the opposite colour will suppress it. It will do this to the entire image, which may not be desirable. A polariser will help to reduce specular highlights and some reflections. Grad filters seem to be popular with digital photographers, but they reduce overall brightness in specific sections of the frame, not in specifically over-bright areas.

The 'opposite colour' is not always needed, if the excessive colour is from atomic sources - such as sodium lights, or mercury lights used in street lighting - then filters that block those very specific wavelengths can be created, as is often done for astro-photography look up light pollution filters & nebulae filters. These often have minimal colour to the eye.

The only similar filter I use for normal photography is the "Didymium" filter - which works well to reduce the old low pressure sodium street lights as well as reducing yellow in autumn leaves (effectively increasing the red). As can be seen in the link below it has little colour.

HOYA RA54 Red Enhancer 72mm | HOYA Filters

HOYA RA54 Red Enhancer 72mm filter.

www.hoya-filters.com

 

[thronobulax]

My perspective (and I know I'm not alone) is I don't have a "need" for different film stocks. I "choose" to use different film stocks because I enjoy variety and freedom of choice. The same reason I choose to use different developers, umpteen different cameras and different lenses, different formats from half-frame 35mm cameras all the way up 12x10 ULF with age old dry glass plates. Most of the film stocks I use are expired, purchased when prices were much more affordable and then frozen for future use. Some of the film stocks I use are no longer manufactured.

I view different films, formats, developers, papers, techniques, and so on a different "paintbrushes" one might use when "painting" a result. When care is taken to master them, then the right "brush" to choose becomes evident when working with a particular scene.

It is certainly true that when (re)starting out, it's worthwhile to limit variables and choose one format, one film, one developer, and one paper (if that applies) to gain mastery of that combination. Thereafter changing one thing at a time will help to understand how that change affects the outcome.

For example, when I want absolute sharpness, I do semistand in D-23+lye

For most day to day things, I use semistand with Pyrocat-HDC for mid tone microcontrast it provides

When I want the best possible highlight separation I use PMK Pyro

Some films (Double-X) seem to do best when developed conventionally in D-76/ID-11 1+1

I pick the brush for the painting at hand ...

 

[Marley's Ghost]

I view different films, formats, developers, papers, techniques, and so on a different "paintbrushes" one might use when "painting" a result. When care is taken to master them, then the right "brush" to choose becomes evident when working with a particular scene.

It is certainly true that when (re)starting out, it's worthwhile to limit variables and choose one format, one film, one developer, and one paper (if that applies) to gain mastery of that combination. Thereafter changing one thing at a time will help to understand how that change affects the outcome.

For example, when I want absolute sharpness, I do semistand in D-23+lye

For most day to day things, I use semistand with Pyrocat-HDC for mid tone microcontrast it provides

When I want the best possible highlight separation I use PMK Pyro

Some films (Double-X) seem to do best when developed conventionally in D-76/ID-11 1+1

I pick the brush for the painting at hand ...

Pretty much sums up how I work too ... though after the negative I have a fully digital workflow.

 

[Alan Klein]

I concur. I have an Epson V800 and I have yet to find a way to properly capture the full dynamic range of a negative shot in a big Subject Brightness Range. As best as I can determine, scanners of this sort do best when the source material is relatively lower contrast with a shorter SBR. This is why - except for digital contact sheets - I have focused on scanning final prints for digital distribution.

I've noticed that if I use auto exposure when I scan with my Epson V600 and V850, it tends to clip. So I now manually set the levels (white and black points) a little past the range of actual data on the histogram before the scan. I leave all other sliders off.

 

[Marley's Ghost]

I've noticed that if I use auto exposure when I scan with my Epson V600 and V850, it tends to clip. So I now manually set the levels (white and black points) a little past the range of actual data on the histogram before the scan. I leave all other sliders off.

Three scans at different exposures then combined in photoshop ...

 

[Alan Klein]

Three scans at different exposures then combined in photoshop ...

So you bracket the exposure when taking the three film shots. Then what settings do you use on each of the three scans?

 

[Marley's Ghost]

So you bracket the exposure when taking the three film shots. Then what settings do you use on each of the three scans?

I'm going to be putting a YouTube video out about that very shortly, as well as using 'sectional DSLR scanning', for very large negatives - where six or nine segments are photographed using a high quality macro lens in a checkerboard/naughts and crosses fashion - with overlap then software is used to build these back into a very, very high resolution 'scan'.

 

[jhotopf]

I'm going to be putting a YouTube video out about that very shortly, as well as using 'sectional DSLR scanning', for very large negatives - where six or nine segments are photographed using a high quality macro lens in a checkerboard/naughts and crosses fashion - with overlap then software is used to build these back into a very, very high resolution 'scan'.

Looking forward to seeing that video. I do it for pano shots such as 35mm loaded into my Pentax 6x7.