I prefer the 'no filter' version John. I tried a green filter years ago but discarded it soon after. Yellow seems to affect grasses etc in an angled light. Thanks as always. Best wishes from the Rhondda.
I'd agree with your findings, John and it surprised me as well that the green didn't have more of an effect. The N+1 development seems to be the way to go in terms of contrast. However your green filter appears to be lighter than the one I have as if it was closer to the yellow/green filter that I also possess. However my comment about the filter's colour may be wrong as I only saw your filter for a second or so. I look forward to your video on colourising this shot
I definitely agree that the image was superior without the green filter. I’ve tried them myself many times but never seem to get the look I think it should give. Odd. I did enjoy the image, reminded me of Aaron Siskind’s works. Thanks
Marvelous presentation - You have explained the determining of exposure in a way that I've never seen before (inserting the visual data in your video) in anybody else's video. Easy to comprehend and understand. Keep up your great work. Ps: I agree with you on the choice of print.
Great timing. This past weekend I also tried a green filter on green moss to improve contrast. Like you, I found it didn’t have the effect I was hoping for. It’s like it goes too far and makes it appear blown. I was shooting FP4. Maybe a different film would be more suited to a green filter? Anyhow, glad to know it isn’t just me that thought this would work for this application.
I wondered if there some other wavelength being reflected by the miss line infra-red that is countering the filter effect. I guess that's possible for a particular plant. Can't think why the green wasn't more effective.
Thanks John! Well, from what I can see on my screen after your photos get pixelized, turned into computer packets, and sent across the world to be reassembled onto my screen, the one without filter looks better here too, to my eye. ;) My admittedly limited experience with using green filters on B&W film has not shown promising results, my images just come out blah and flat. Using film with different color sensitivities is fun though. Ortho or blue-sensitive film gives an interesting look. Likewise, extra red sensitivity is nice too, especially with orange or red filters even without going full IR.
Thanks for your comment, David. Seems we've both had the same experience. I want to do some more work to try ascertain why. It should have worked in theory so I'm curious. One day I'll film something about those interesting films. Have you some suggestions as to which would be fun?
@@PictorialPlanet The first thing that comes to mind is X-ray film. I'm in the USA, so don't know about availability on your side of the pond. I think Film Photography Project and Freestyle ship internationally. They're great, and have a variety of uncommon films. Washi sells some as well, in a few sizes, and they make some really interesting paper-based options. Some medical supply houses still carry X-ray film, if you don't mind 8x10 or larger. It's generally very inexpensive, making it easy to justify silly experiments. It's also safe to develop by inspection under red safe light. That's an important feature because exposure and developing data can be hard to find. As for red-sensitive, I'm sure you've already used your fair share of Ilford SFX, with and without filters. That's good stuff! Rollei IR 400 gives amazing images, I love the look. However its base is very thin, almost like tissue paper. This makes it physically difficult to handle, and sheet film can come loose in the developing tank during agitation. (A dip-and-dunk tank may solve this, haven't tried that yet.) To me, the images are worth the extra stress and effort. The 120 roll version behaves better even though it's still on a thin base. I see in a description of Washi "Z" film, that its extended red sensitivity can offer increased green separation. Maybe this is an avenue to explore instead of the green filter? Now I have to go try that theory too, I've got that and SFX in my fridge. I'd be happy to type more but this is already long for a UA-cam comment. :) Thanks John!
@davidottman9501 Thanks for the info, David. I've used SFX a lot in the past. It's a very good film. I used a print from SFX as the cover of my fourth edition book! Otho is a film I haven't used. I need to try some of that.
I hate lichen! Looks amazing to the eye and always gives me middle grey , I've taken and binned loads of woodland shots recently seduced by that lovely green moss . So now I look for places with no lichen. My favourite woodland filter right now is red . Especially when it's foggy .
Judging from the video, which is of course problematic, it appears to me as though the no- filter exposure produced darker moss than bark, despite the spot metering giving the same reading. Is this how the actual prints, not the scans, looked? The green filter seemed to lighten the moss, and so reduce the contrast between moss and bark, which is what would be expected. Could it be that the spot metering could not distinguish between the tone of the bark (a relatively smooth surface) and the moss (a very textured surface) while the film could distinguish between these tones? Just a thought.
It might be counter-intuitive, but in my experience, moss usually stands out more from the bark when using a yellow, rather than a green filter. Although trees around here tend to have their bark more grayish than brownish, so your mileage may very. BTW, I feel that Cokin filters don't correspond directly to any wratten numbers, but I've never seen transmission graphs for them, so it can be just my impression...
Thanks, TTL. I haven't used the green much so I think I need to do more work with it and learn its idiosyncrasies. I have seen any transmission graphs either.
My experience with the use of a green flter closely follows yours. I think it lifts the greens up about 1/3 to 1/2 stop, but the increase in contrast is from absorbing the blue and the red light is more prominent. It may have to do with the quality of the light in the UK or the colour temperature of the light. Funnily, it works great in digital simulation of a green filter. I seldom use it, TBH.
Ah! I think you've got it. Makes total sense that the blue reduction increases the contrast with the darker red. Looking at the print this makes sense. Thanks!
Never seizing to amaze me with yet again a wonderful, clear and honest lesson. Such a good teacher! This weekend I was walking in the park with my old Rolleiflex twin lens, taking lens armed with a green filter to bring out the fresh greens of the young leaves. Maybe not? I'll see what negatives will give. Thinking of the enormous amount of profound information that's been given to us by you through this channel is like an Aladdin's cave for us black & white analogue people. Keep them coming. I like both prints, which are excellent, but my favorite is the one taken without the filter.
Another nice video ❤, I like the one without Filter.
Thanks!
Just the other day i was using a green filter with Ilford Ortho on some redwood trees that had green ferns illuminated by sunlight... very cool effect
It would be interesting to see how an orange filter and what a red filter would have effected the image.
I prefer the 'no filter' version John. I tried a green filter years ago but discarded it soon after. Yellow seems to affect grasses etc in an angled light. Thanks as always. Best wishes from the Rhondda.
Thanks for sharing, Ray!
I'd agree with your findings, John and it surprised me as well that the green didn't have more of an effect. The N+1 development seems to be the way to go in terms of contrast. However your green filter appears to be lighter than the one I have as if it was closer to the yellow/green filter that I also possess. However my comment about the filter's colour may be wrong as I only saw your filter for a second or so. I look forward to your video on colourising this shot
That's interesting. Maybe it is lighter. I'll dig around for another one I have and compare. Thanks for your comment.
I love the explanation of your methodology, John
Thank you, John!
I definitely agree that the image was superior without the green filter. I’ve tried them myself many times but never seem to get the look I think it should give. Odd.
I did enjoy the image, reminded me of Aaron Siskind’s works.
Thanks
Thanks for your comment. I just looked Aaron up and yes, it does. How interesting! Cheers!
@@PictorialPlanet well Aaron is a legend, so consider it a compliment 😂
Marvelous presentation - You have explained the determining of exposure in a way that I've never seen before (inserting the visual data in your video) in anybody else's video. Easy to comprehend and understand. Keep up your great work. Ps: I agree with you on the choice of print.
Thanks, James! I greatly appreciate your feedback.
Great timing. This past weekend I also tried a green filter on green moss to improve contrast. Like you, I found it didn’t have the effect I was hoping for. It’s like it goes too far and makes it appear blown. I was shooting FP4. Maybe a different film would be more suited to a green filter? Anyhow, glad to know it isn’t just me that thought this would work for this application.
I wondered if there some other wavelength being reflected by the miss line infra-red that is countering the filter effect. I guess that's possible for a particular plant. Can't think why the green wasn't more effective.
Thanks
Thanks John!
Well, from what I can see on my screen after your photos get pixelized, turned into computer packets, and sent across the world to be reassembled onto my screen, the one without filter looks better here too, to my eye. ;)
My admittedly limited experience with using green filters on B&W film has not shown promising results, my images just come out blah and flat. Using film with different color sensitivities is fun though. Ortho or blue-sensitive film gives an interesting look. Likewise, extra red sensitivity is nice too, especially with orange or red filters even without going full IR.
Thanks for your comment, David. Seems we've both had the same experience. I want to do some more work to try ascertain why. It should have worked in theory so I'm curious.
One day I'll film something about those interesting films. Have you some suggestions as to which would be fun?
@@PictorialPlanet
The first thing that comes to mind is X-ray film. I'm in the USA, so don't know about availability on your side of the pond. I think Film Photography Project and Freestyle ship internationally. They're great, and have a variety of uncommon films. Washi sells some as well, in a few sizes, and they make some really interesting paper-based options. Some medical supply houses still carry X-ray film, if you don't mind 8x10 or larger. It's generally very inexpensive, making it easy to justify silly experiments. It's also safe to develop by inspection under red safe light. That's an important feature because exposure and developing data can be hard to find.
As for red-sensitive, I'm sure you've already used your fair share of Ilford SFX, with and without filters. That's good stuff! Rollei IR 400 gives amazing images, I love the look. However its base is very thin, almost like tissue paper. This makes it physically difficult to handle, and sheet film can come loose in the developing tank during agitation. (A dip-and-dunk tank may solve this, haven't tried that yet.) To me, the images are worth the extra stress and effort. The 120 roll version behaves better even though it's still on a thin base.
I see in a description of Washi "Z" film, that its extended red sensitivity can offer increased green separation. Maybe this is an avenue to explore instead of the green filter? Now I have to go try that theory too, I've got that and SFX in my fridge.
I'd be happy to type more but this is already long for a UA-cam comment. :)
Thanks John!
@davidottman9501 Thanks for the info, David. I've used SFX a lot in the past. It's a very good film. I used a print from SFX as the cover of my fourth edition book! Otho is a film I haven't used. I need to try some of that.
I hate lichen! Looks amazing to the eye and always gives me
middle grey , I've taken and binned loads of woodland shots recently seduced by that lovely green moss . So now I look for places with no lichen. My favourite woodland filter right now is red . Especially when it's foggy .
Red and fog. I have to try that. We don't get much fog here but sooner or later I'll catch some. As for the lichen...
I prefer the Image without the filter too.
Judging from the video, which is of course problematic, it appears to me as though the no- filter exposure produced darker moss than bark, despite the spot metering giving the same reading. Is this how the actual prints, not the scans, looked? The green filter seemed to lighten the moss, and so reduce the contrast between moss and bark, which is what would be expected. Could it be that the spot metering could not distinguish between the tone of the bark (a relatively smooth surface) and the moss (a very textured surface) while the film could distinguish between these tones? Just a thought.
It might be counter-intuitive, but in my experience, moss usually stands out more from the bark when using a yellow, rather than a green filter. Although trees around here tend to have their bark more grayish than brownish, so your mileage may very.
BTW, I feel that Cokin filters don't correspond directly to any wratten numbers, but I've never seen transmission graphs for them, so it can be just my impression...
Thanks, TTL. I haven't used the green much so I think I need to do more work with it and learn its idiosyncrasies. I have seen any transmission graphs either.
My experience with the use of a green flter closely follows yours. I think it lifts the greens up about 1/3 to 1/2 stop, but the increase in contrast is from absorbing the blue and the red light is more prominent. It may have to do with the quality of the light in the UK or the colour temperature of the light. Funnily, it works great in digital simulation of a green filter. I seldom use it, TBH.
Ah! I think you've got it. Makes total sense that the blue reduction increases the contrast with the darker red. Looking at the print this makes sense. Thanks!
I thought a filter factor of 2x was 1 stop...?
I must have missed-spoke. The filter needs 2 stops adjustment.
what happens if you look through the filter to somehow previsualize ?
Chris, you must have read my video list or my mind! That's coming up next week, although not the green filter :)
@@PictorialPlanet we are sync
Never seizing to amaze me with yet again a wonderful, clear and honest lesson. Such a good teacher!
This weekend I was walking in the park with my old Rolleiflex twin lens, taking lens armed with a green filter to bring out the fresh greens of the young leaves. Maybe not? I'll see what negatives will give.
Thinking of the enormous amount of profound information that's been given to us by you through this channel is like an Aladdin's cave for us black & white analogue people. Keep them coming.
I like both prints, which are excellent, but my favorite is the one taken without the filter.
Thanks, Dick! I hope your filter work is better than mine. I love the sound of your idea with the young leaves.