Digital BW, The Print

At 8:18 am -0500 1/24/04, Austin Franklin wrote:

>  > The reason I make this assertion is that it used to be so common as
>>  to be almost standard to use a green filter when doing B&W
>>  portraiture. (I'm sorry, but I do not remember the filter number; it
>>  was one of the standard Kodak filters.)
>
>I believe that the reason the green channel is given the highest weight when
>converting from color to B&W is it simply carries the most information
>(middle of the spectrum), and it is the cleanest channel (the least bloom
>and smear of a CCD sensor). I don't believe the reasons for using it are
>not related at all to using a green filter for B&W portraiture (which I,
>personally, never heard of...but I never did any B&W portraiture ;-).


Austin --

You _may_ be right about why it was chosen for converting scans. But 
as for using a green filter for B&W portraiture you might look at:

<http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/black_&_white/>

and scroll down to the B+W 061 green [13] filter.

Apparently Schneider still makes this filter and I am certain several 
others do as well, though I believe Kodak has sold their filter line 
to someone else.

Schneider's description of using the 061/Kodak 13 for portraiture 
is...umm...diplomatic. It was used for pimple and blotchiness 
reduction. (The reason that they state "with high-speed film" is the 
filter factor: 3.0.)

By the way: The part of the description about using it for enhancing 
subtle differences in green tones when shooting black and white is 
dead on. High-summer forest and meadow scenes shot on Pan-X (a sorely 
missed old friend) or better through a K13 and properly printed will 
take your breath away -- the eye and the brain don't begin to notice 
as many tonal variations in grass and canopy as you can get this way.


Best wishes,

-=-Dennis