I honestly checked the archives for B&W filters, and plowed through hundreds of posts looking for an answer. I was chastised by a pro for using Tiffen coloured filters and have decided to upgrade to a series of three B+W filters. my Tiffen filters are the Red 25 and Yellow 8, but I am wondering if there isn't a better selection. my main interests are aviation scenes incorporating cloudscapes, and living in Oregon, foilage rendering is a priority as well. I have not used the red/orange variant, or the darker yellow and red filters. I read 'Beyond the Zone System' by Davis, but was unable to come to any concrete decisions. I shoot Ilford FP4+ and HP5+, and a little Tri-X. I understand the theory, just wanting some real world, working observations. B&H has a good pricing currently, and I would like to add three or four filters. suggestions?

-- EOS-3 owner (aviator@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999

Answers

admin: email address was truncated. should be aviator_dan@yahoo.com

-- EOS-3 owner (aviator@vernonia.com), June 02, 1999.

My most common filter for B&W is Yellowish-greeen, number 11, followed by Red 25. For aerial photography, you might find a UV filter useful.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), June 03, 1999.

Why would a pro chastise you for using tiffen filters? Why would a pro chastise someone starting out for any reason?

I am a "pro", at least that is how I make my living, and I would first remind you that your camera, lenses, and accessories are only tools. Why do photographers get caught in the trap that says "If I spend X amount of dollars, I will be able to make greater images than I am now"? If Hemmingway had a better typewriter, would his writing have been more magnificent? The biggest insult anyone can accidentally give me is to say "That is a beautiful photograph. (pause) You must have a really good camera".

O.K. enough philosophy. You will find a ton of arguments regarding the sharpness of certain filters versus the expense of the lens it goes on. You will hear a meandering of thoughts from people who prefer this color or that. But remember everytime you go out with your camera the light is going to be a little different, the subject is different, the clarity of the sky is different.....get the point? A red 25 filter is going look a little different each time even if you shoot exactly the same subject every day. Did I understand that you have filters you have not used but you are considering purchasing additional expensive filters? Think about that for a moment. Yes, the obvious answer is to go out and use your current filters, get to know them, learn what you like or don't like about them. Then, if you must, go spend the big bucks.

Just a side note- try shooting E-6 film in a controlled test using a MacBeth color checker or your own colorful still life under controlled lighting. Try all of your lenses without making any other changes. Process the film, you may be surprised that each lens will render slightly different density and/or color. How does that affect what you are trying to accomplish with a very specific filter?

-- Rick Stiles (rstiles@ghg.net), June 04, 1999.

thanks rick. his comments were regarding my Tiffen filters being placed in front of my Canon 'L' lenses. I believe his exact words were 'putting a five dollar sheet of glass in front of my $1400 optics". it seems reasonable to leverage off the B&W experiences of the group, and purchase three good filters. I could save my money, or purchase every filter available. I believe this is a good compromise that will serve me well.

-- EOS-3 owner (aviator@vernonia.com), June 04, 1999.

I suggest that before trashing your "5 dollar filter" you do a little test. Take a photo of a still life with lots of detail, using a tripod, cable release, and a short exposure. Then without moving anything, put the filter on the lens, and take another picture. Your EOS should give you reasonably similar exposure for the two shots. Process normally, or if you are a zone user, adjust for maximum contrast and detail. Then compare. If with enlargement to 16x20 or bigger, you don't see any difference in sharpness save your money. I you do see a difference, but it is small, then buy one high priced new filter in the same color (e.g. 11 or 25) as your Tiffen. Make the same test as before but with the two filters (3 shots). Compare again. The odds are that you won't see any difference. The one exception is if your current filters are old, have been cleaned a lot, or are scratched. Then a new filter will be needed. But Tiffen may still be adequate. Your friendly(?) pro is correct in theory. However, the real world is that if you have good filters, that haven't been abused, a Tiffen will generally do as well as the high priced brands. I normally carry a yellow(K2), green (g2/x2) and red (25). I sometimes also use a color balancing filter, a salmon 85B. SInce you don't mention using one, I highly recommend getting a good polarizer. You might be surprised just how much they can do for your photos. I use a circular polarizer, and others prefer a linear one. The discussion of that is too long for this already long post. Also remember that eventually, even the best filters will need replacement, but if you did your tests, I'll bet that the Tiffens show up well. Good luck.

-- Richard Newman (rnewman@snip.net), June 04, 1999.

Why are you buying the filters? What problems do you have with your negatives that filters will solve? How do you want to change your images with filters? Unless you can answer this, I wouldn't bother buying any. Filter usage should be specific to objectives within the image rather than just something to own, especially with black and white.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), June 04, 1999.

For your purpose and in my opinion an orange filter is more beautiful than a yellow or a red, for a start. Yellow is contrast-enhancing and red is troublesome with development and besides it renders the sky too dark to be true.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), June 05, 1999.

I would personally go with the Orange for nice skies, with good contrast in the clouds. Although I liked all of the answers given to you, I will have to dissent in this case. The way a filter is made and coated will significally reduce OR increase flare. If your negatives look a bit flat, this might be caused by the filter. While 90% of the time your Tiffen filter will perform fine, it is that 10% left that always nagged me. I alway felt you dont have to buy expensive equipment, but you do need to buy the equipment that will allow you to do the best job. In this case it is nice to have filters that do not stick to your camera or other filters, that are coated and cut the same way your lens is. Yes you spend a lot more, but on the long run you only have to buy them once. If you use them for 20 years then you only paid 5/year..not such a bad deal. Good luck.....

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (JorgeGM@msn.com), June 07, 1999.

I agree that good lenses merit good filters. I also tend to favor orange over red, though I keep one of everything just in case. You might want to get a green filter too--it will lighten foliage while darkening the sky.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@earthlink.net), June 07, 1999.

I agree with both Jorge and Ed. Besides Orange I've got yellow, red, green and yellow-green would be my next purchase. The plain green is so softening that it's just as hard as red developing, but then vv. I am also convinced that the quality of a filter is of utmost importance. In my intuition, a good quality filter like the Leica Orange filter can make a mediocre lens and a bad quality filter can break an excellent lens. So, do not economize on filters and use a sunshade.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), June 07, 1999.

Talking about colored filters ... how is the best green filter to use with BW film that turns the foliage almos white??? Like IR film???

Thanks.

-- Charles Dias (deepblue97a@hotmail.com), June 07, 1999.

I almost fell into the $100 hasselblad filter trap, but before spending 100's of $'s, I shot my resolution charts with and without tiffen filters and could not detect ANY degration of the target images on Tech Pan. I randomized the "on and off" sequence on a 36 exposure roll, keeping no record, to eliminate any bias in my evaluation of the lens charts.

I'm keeping my "cheap tiffens" for my expensive nikon and p67 glass. Moral, make your own decisions based on your system and careful tests.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

filters

It's suprising at how many different opinions there are about such a basic question. I might as well throw mine in for what it's worth. My question is: were you happy with the filters before the so-called pro chastised you? If yes then don't listen to him/her anymore. If no and you don't want to spend a fortune buying every brand then perhaps you could borrow some or consider buying used ones. Every full service camera store should have a drawer full of them and swap meets are also well stocked. Good luck.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), June 09, 1999.

For B&W outdoors I carry yellow, orange and polarizer filters. I keep the yellow on (except for low light-hand held) for protection and because film manufacturers consider it a default correction for most B&W films. I like the way the orange brings out clouds and cuts through haze without darkening foliage like the red does. Orange also reduces facial blemishes in portraits, although it can make caucasian skin look too light. I use Hoya multicoated filters. They don't cost a fortune and I've seen no resolution loss in tests. For the price of three B+W filters consider six Tiffen multicoated filters, it would be more educational and flexible.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), June 09, 1999.

I use a Pentax PZ1 camera with a 70-200 mm f4-5.6 and a 28-80mm f3.5-4.7 lens. I use Tiffen circular polarizing filters for these lenses. I belong to a photography club who's membership believes that photography is more about what is behind your eyes than what is between them and the subject, so equipment is not usually the first priority in our discussions. However, after my giving a short travel slide show at our Christmas party, one of our members (a real stickler for optical quality and a Nikon afficionado to whom cost is no object) came up to me and asked if I use a Leica. When I replied "No, I use a Pentax." he was amazed. "But your pictures are so sharp!" was all he could say before walking away shaking his head. These sharp pictures were taken with a lowly Tiffen filter on the front of my lens. Incidentally, I to was berated by a pro for using 'That crap!' His expensive filter wasn't even clean. So consider the source when listening to critism or advice. In my own experience, the most common causes of lack of sharpness and/or contrast in photographs are less than clean optics, and camera movement, be it ever so slight. With meticulous attention to cleanliness and to keeping your equipment steady during exposure, your results should be technically excellent even with (so called) ordinary equipment. The differences between my inexpensive optics and proffessional ones are apparently not that obvious to the eye. I had several 11"x 16" prints made from these slides and am delighted with the results. In fact, a visiting judge asked if they had been made with a medium format camera.

-- Tony Wood (awood@bc.sympatico.ca), August 01, 1999.

Well, to get off the filter debate for a minute, and since you already use Ilford film, have you tried working with the Ilford SFX?? It covers a scope of infrared light between "normal" film and "infrared" film. Using a 25R or darker, you can get some dramatic results....i.e. black sky, white clouds, superwhite planes, etc. Depending upon the effect you're looking for, it's something to play with. And it's much less sensitive than other infrared films out there; can be loaded in shade, used in canon cameras (the new canons have the ultraviolet sensor to load/advance film that normally foggs true infrared films), etc. There is finally some literature I've seen published re: SFX film and effects, too. Have fun!

-- Renee (nefrua@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

I learned a long time ago never to listen to anyone offering me advice with a sneer. Especially photographers. While there may be a nugget of truth in what the pro had to say, test your own gear, make up your own mind.

That said, the nugget of truth is that optically inferior filters should not be used, no matter what quality lens is used. I don't know that Tiffen suffers from that reputation, and to carry the thought further, the choice of enlarging lens and paper contrast filters also fall into the category of 'get the best you can afford' since they are all part of the imaging process. Like other posters have suggested, the actual quality degradation might be undetectable at any but huge magnifications, but unless you test, how do you know? Quality depends on the actual equipment you have - I might have a Hasselblad filter that has been cleaned and polished by anxious previous owners to a perfect concavity, just because it's 'blad equipment doesn't make it a better filter than the Tiffen you just bought and always handled carefully, does it?

-- August Depner (apdepner@uswest.net), August 30, 1999.