Using filters with Tri-X and Plus-X?

[David M. Leugers]

I guess I'll jump in. Filters are an important tool for any cinematograper. While I understand the viewpoint that you would want the cleanest image, professional quality filters do not degrade the image to any noticeable extent. In fact, any responsible book on the subject highly recommends that you ALWAYS have a filter (at least a SKY or CLEAR) on your lens at all times to protect it. Quality glass filters are preferred by most and I try to use them exclusively rather than a gel. If you do not use a filter for B+W, man you are missing it! I often use a green or orange, if not, then certainly a K2 yellow or equivalent...

David M. Leugers

[christoph]

Let's stick to technical issues.

technically speaking, with a red filer, the syk will look darker and clouds will show stronger.. contrast will enhanced and haze will be largely eliminated... skin tones will look very light, lips as well, uneven skin will be noticable smoother, green foliage will look very dark. sharpness will slightly suffer, depending on the quality of the filter and the specifics of the shot.

do you want such an image or not? sorry, can't help you there other to say try it and see the light (pun intended ;)

++ christoph ++

[mattias]

Let's stick to technical issues.

why if not for aesthetic or artistic reasons would you want to achieve the cleanest possible image then? and besides which is technically better, a completely blown out overexposed sky or a darker one with texture and depth?

I won't discuss artistic ones.

i wouldn't try to either if i was smoking crack.

/matt

[Giovanni]

Fritzcarraldo,
I don't think I understand what you mean by 'cleaner image'.
Maybe you want to say that using filters produces a light loss: in this case you're right. It's true (even if not with any filter: the light loss due to a skylight filter, for example, is hardly noticeable...), and every photography manual will say so.
By the way any good photographer also perfectly knows that using filters, especially in b/w photography, not only doesn't degrade the image (as long as you use quality filters, obviously), but on the contrary is often useful if not necessary. This is simply true, and it would be very easy to demonstrate it.
So, maybe yours (or ours) is only a sort of lexical misunderstanding...
Take care,
Giovanni

[fritzcarraldo]

First of all, my english isn't very good, so, i might have some problems expressing myself.

But then again i think it is very simple what i have to say.

I know what filters do in many situations, i had photography in college, i have manuals, i know all that issues, no need to explain what different filters do, anyway thank you for explaining me, you are obviously trying to help me.

It is also true that many filters enhance the image in black and white, the red filter turns the sky darker, with more depth, but it also turns the red colors very poor.

Taking this example, why not wait for the right sky, for the right time to shoot?

That's what i mean with clear image, the image you capture without any manipulation, if the sky is white, film it white, or then wait for a brighter day.

Of course we might want to take advantage of manipulating image, i also try many effects on super8, i've used filters before, i've painted the image, i've developed in sepia etc.

We can do everything, anyone can do everything, you can even use gels, why not?

But i still say, it is always better to avoid all of that, to just stick to the basic photography equipment.

I stick to the basic so i can concentrate on the image.

It's just as simple as that.

That's why i film in super8, to avoid all that technical "extras".

It is really very simple what i have to say.

It can be a really waste of time using filters instead of searching for the right time and place to film.

I always remind the words on Herzog about cinema, that you can learn more about cinema walking from Peru to bolivia than spending 3 years on a cinema school.

That's where i'm trying to reach, there is no mistake on my thoughts, i don't believe that nobody is wrong here, i haven't judged anyone.

Let me resume again.

It is a lot better to look at what is going on and trying to film it like we see it.

Modyfing reality is a lot more brave than manipulating reality

I once cutted my arm because i needed blood in the shot.

I never have filmed a death by the way.

[fritzcarraldo]

David,

I also use a clear filter to protect lenses, i wasn't counting on that, and yes, i alos know that super8 cameras normally have an inner filter to change between daylight and tungsten light.

Well, let's stick to our opinions then, i guess we all made clear what we think of it.

I'm sorry, i didn't find the manual yet.

I know i've read it.

Anyway, i reaaly don't need the manual to support my thoughts.

I still want to avoid the use of filters.

Everyone is right here by the way.

And i'm glad nobody agreed with me, at least i brought a different opinion to this subject.

Regards

[fritzcarraldo]

Let's stick to technical issues.

technically speaking, with a red filer, the syk will look darker and clouds will show stronger.. contrast will enhanced and haze will be largely eliminated... skin tones will look very light, lips as well, uneven skin will be noticable smoother, green foliage will look very dark. sharpness will slightly suffer, depending on the quality of the filter and the specifics of the shot.
quote]

It is a hard subject.

Technically speaking this might be also a bad choice.

It isn't that obvious what we're trying to discuss.

A over-exposed sky might be a good technical choice in a particular shot.

A darker sky might be a wrong choice, if you need a brighter one, it always depends.

It is also a personal choice, i know some professional photographers that avoid filters at all costs.

I know others that use them always.

Others work in digital and solve their problems in photoshop.

And to finish, i avoid them always, that's it.

[christoph]

And to finish, i avoid them always, that's it.

that's fair enough, and your recent post have cleared up a lot...

i think you could say that you don't use filters for "philosophical" reasons rather than for technical ones (which i understand very well, i even agree with you on some points on that :)

++ christoph ++

[mattias]

it always depends.

on what?

It is also a personal choice

but it's never art? a "technical personal choice" then i assume?

Others work in digital and solve their problems in photoshop.

what problems? if they shot wothout a filter they already have the best image possible, right?

i avoid them always, that's it.

sorry, but that's not it. if that's all you wanted to say why didn't you just say it?

/matt

[Giovanni]

Fritzcarraldo wrote:
"It is a lot better to look at what is going on and trying to film it like we see it"

Try to film the very same sky with 100 different lenses or emulsions (not to speak about the film development), and you'll obtain 100 different skies.
What your retina sees is not what your camera sees or will reproduce.
Filming something, no matter how real and untoched it is, is in itself manipulating it. What you obtain is a reproduction of the filmed subject, not the REALITY.
What you say about cleanness, image loss, pureness, etc. is, technically speaking, a nonsense.
Yours are legitimate philosophical points, indeed, but they have nothing to do with technical truth.

Giovanni

[fritzcarraldo]

Well Giovanni, "technical truth" is awesome.

So you follow the technical truth in cinema?

Well, like Christoff said, my view it is philosophic, but is also technical, i prefer to film without filters, because i don't want to waste my time modifying the image, or correcting the sky.

I prefer to search for the right place and the right time.

If i want to film a technical perfect sky (this is also awesome) why not wait for it to show up? I doubt you would get better results using filters on a grey rany sky, or in a day with fog.

I also paint, and i also mix the colors directly on the painting.

It's a choice, and everybody has it's own choice.

Other painter could tell me i should not mix the colors on the painting because i could achieve better colors if i mixed it first...

I really don't understand. Why can't i decide to avoid filters?

Does someone here works in filter business?

I can tell you a story about filters, i didn't want to, but i will.

Once i decided to film in the beach, a very teathrical scene with actors.

We started to film at 9 am.

We talked about the film a lot before reaching the beach so, when we got there we started imediatly, all went well until 12 am.

The sun was too strong, but we had many scenes to film, so we went on, everyone was getting tired, we didn't sleep a lot and we didn't eat as well.

We couldn't stop or we would loose the rythm and it was a special moment so, we went on.

But the light was too strong, i decided to use a filter to decrease light, a grey filter, but i still had problems because the sky had many clouds, and when the clouds covered the sun the light changed a lot, what happened was that i had to stop every minute to measure the light with and without filter, i used a external lightmeter, so i had to do it.

the actors got tired and lost the "feeling" we went on to finish the film, but it lost much from then and the image changed.

What i got from here is that the filter only got me into work, if i started to film earlier i had enough light, and i could have finished it before 12 am.

I used the filter as a way to correct my delay.

In this case i would definetely avoid the use of filter.

I should started earlier.

Of course you can tell me that if i had more experience using it i could have been more efficient.

But i really prefer to be in the right place at the right time than to be technically efficient.

If we loose much time experimenting we might never film, when i used Herzog words i was expecting to turn my point clear.

It's a choice, you can really travel by car, or you can walk.

The car is faster, easier.

But, i trust my feet better than a car.

This might be philosophy, but it is also a very technical choice.

I like cinema, i like to film, but i can choose not to carry a bunch of filters with me.

I also prefer lens without zoom.

Simple light cameras with good lenses and good motor, the silent cameras are stronger normally.

All technical choices, with a little of philosofy attached to it.

The truth is in everyone, everyone tells the truth, i don't really know the technical truth, what is better or worse.

Since the beginning i just expressed my opinion, that i prefer not to use filters.

It is really a very simple choice.

I said also that i prefer to wait for the right time to shoot, rather than trying to correct things out.

I really think that using filters is a waste of time.

I still think i won't loose anything, i have only a couple of filters with me, so if i don't buy more, i won't loose, who will loose will be the filter manufactors.

I suspect someone here works in the filter industry.

I'm kidding.

I'm tired to know that cinema is modifying the reality, but what is the reality after all?

Is what we see, or what we create?

I just prefer to use the less technical extras possible, i can still get extraordinary images.

I have some films that have great photography without any filters.

I waited for the right moment.

It really is simple.

And i still was spontaneus.

Do what you want, just don't tell me what to do, i think i've made my point in this filter subject.

Forgive my english.

Regards

[Giovanni]

Just my last reply about the filters' subject.

Well Giovanni, "technical truth" is awesome.

So you follow the technical truth in cinema?

My english is bad too, forgive me. I intended to say the exact opposite of what you suggest I'm saying: I don't think there is a given truth, in cinema. It seemed you did, by the way.

Well, like Christoff said, my view it is philosophic, but is also technical, i prefer to film without filters, because i don't want to waste my time modifying the image, or correcting the sky.

Of course you are free to spend your time as you want. Nobody has said that you shouldn't. You have said that nobody should use filters.

I prefer to search for the right place and the right time.

So if I needed a car accident in my film, I should point the camera to the street and wait for an accident to happen in front of it?

If i want to film a technical perfect sky (this is also awesome) why not wait for it to show up? I doubt you would get better results using filters on a grey rany sky, or in a day with fog.

I've talked about sky just as an example, because someone else had written about it in a previous reply. I have nothing against grey, rainy skies.
Anyway I could want to obtain popping out clouds from a grey sky: is it forbidden?

I also paint, and i also mix the colors directly on the painting.

It's a choice, and everybody has it's own choice.

Other painter could tell me i should not mix the colors on the painting because i could achieve better colors if i mixed it first...

So, what's the point? You can do whatever you want, of course, but if someone mixed the colors first he wouldn't be wasting time or something. What are you talking about?!?

I really don't understand. Why can't i decide to avoid filters?

Nobody tells you that you can't! You have told us that we shouldn't use filters. I'm just telling you that what you've said about the concrete effects of filters is simply false.

Does someone here works in filter business?

I wish I did, I'd be a richer man...

I can tell you a story about filters, i didn't want to, but i will. ..

Your story doesn't prove anything. You'd have had the same problems without a filter. Using a filter doesn't stop you to wake up earlier, if you want to. What you write makes me think that you don't have a clear idea about light metering and about the use of filters.

But i really prefer to be in the right place at the right time than to be technically efficient.

One thing doesn't exclude the other.

If we loose much time experimenting we might never film, when i used Herzog words i was expecting to turn my point clear.
It's a choice, you can really travel by car, or you can walk.
The car is faster, easier.
But, i trust my feet better than a car.
This might be philosophy, but it is also a very technical choice.

You suggest that using filters makes filming easier? Less pure? Faster? Really, what are you talking about?!?

I like cinema, i like to film, but i can choose not to carry a bunch of filters with me.

Of course you can. It doesn't change the fact that what you've said about the actual effects of filters is false.

I also prefer lens without zoom.

Prime lenses are usually better than zoom lenses, you're right. Anyway it depends on the lens: there are plenty of expensive zoom lenses better resolving than a cheap fixed lens...

Simple light cameras with good lenses and good motor, the silent cameras are stronger normally.

?!?

All technical choices, with a little of philosofy attached to it.

All philosophical choices with a little bit of confused technique attached to it.

The truth is in everyone, everyone tells the truth, i don't really know the technical truth, what is better or worse. Since the beginning i just expressed my opinion, that i prefer not to use filters.

No, you didn't. Since the beginning you gave us the TRUTH: "don't use filters, the more you use them, the worst it is"

I'm tired to know that cinema is modifying the reality, but what is the reality after all? Is what we see, or what we create?

You tell me.

I just prefer to use the less technical extras possible, i can still get extraordinary images.
I have some films that have great photography without any filters.

What is "extraordinary", what is "great"?

Do what you want, just don't tell me what to do, i think i've made my point in this filter subject.

I don't tell you what to do, you have told me what not to do.
I perfectly understand your philosophical choices. They are in fact philosophical choices, with nothing to do with photographic technique. That's all.

Sorry everybody for the long reply.

Regards,
Giovanni

[fritzcarraldo]

Giovanni, i won't answer to what you wrote in your last post, i already did on my last one. I think you didn't brought nothing new, please be more especific in what you're trying to say.

It has been a great subject anyway, and i repeat again i never said what should other people do.

I said what i want to do.

What i think.

Regards.

[mattias]

please be more especific in what you're trying to say.

*LOL* you're actually extremely funny. sorry for not realizing that before.

/matt

[John_Pytlak]

Here is information about using filters:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/stude ... 6.26&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/suppo ... x_fi.shtml