Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Vs: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

Vs: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

2004-04-18 by Ukko Heikkinen

Hello Steve

Let's start here:

http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_30_31.htm

Ukko Heikkinen
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 9:10 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"


Hi all

Without sparking a debate about whether one must capture with B&W film (to be pure) can 
I ask a few questions regarding the use of colour filters in B&W photography and their 
(loose?) equivalents in raising or lowering the opacity of a red, blue or green layer when 
using split channels for B&W conversion of a colour capture?  

[Prior to moving to the digital domain I did not do much B&W photography because I was 
always very disappointed with the proof sheets I got back from the lab.  Although I agree 
that a lot of this was likely due to the poor development of film by the lab (and I have 
taken on the comments from this group earlier re developing my own film etc) I am still 
enjoying the B&W printing of images originally captured with colour fim (mostly Velvia or 
Provia).]

I was surprised the other day when I saw a poster of an image by Ansel Adam of (I believe) 
Mt McKinley (?).  The skies really were a deep deep black.  Also I just read yesterday the 
small section in his Book 1 The Camera re the use of filters, particularly the reference to 
using a No. 25 (A) Red filter for strong contrast in landscape photography.  And so I 
turned back to one of my favourite images taken in the Grand Teton National Park and 
how I had previously ranked and weighted the Red, Green and Blue (and Luminosity) layers 
when converting to B&W.  Specifically, I found that to approach the massive punch I saw in 
the Adams print I had to use the Red layer as my base at 100%, with only slight if any use 
of the Green and no use of the Blue layer.  (Adjusting the Luminosity layer from LAB 
seemed similar to adjusting Green.)  

So I am now trying to understand filters a bit better.  As I understand it a Red filter will 
allow red light to pass easily but will block (and hence darken on B&W film) its 
complementary colour.  Is the "complementary colour" both blue and green?  Hence, is 
stripping out the blue and green channels the loose equivalent of using a strong red filter?   
What about a deep yellow filter No. 12?  Mix green and blue and one gets yellow right?  
What is the complementary colour of yellow?   Sorry, I am sure this stuff is very basic - my 
knowledge of colour theory extends only to the very limited stuff I can remember from 
primary school.  If any colour in the visible spectrum can be made up from a mix of Red, 
Green and Blue (isn't this the basis of RGB colour space?) then any colour filter can be 
simulated by altering the weighting of red, green and blue from the original capture?  
(ignoring for now effects from non-visible parts of the spectrum eg infra-red)  In 
traditional B&W photography the workspace is a film/filter selection process (assuming 
correct exposure etc).  I am trying to understand what happens to the RGB light mix 
hitting the film plane when a filter is used and I guess how this alteration might be 
simulated in a workspace like Adobe RGB where rather than limiting particular parts of the 
spectrum hitting the film plane we limit them afterwards in a virtual world.

(I understand that all films have different sensitivities to the various parts of the spectrum 
and that by shooting in colour (or for that matter any) film I immediately limit my future 
options to the "space" able to be captured by that film.  But it seems to me that one 
advantage of colour capture is that the range of adjustments that can be made post 
capture is significantly greater than those that can be made with B&W film.  With B&W film 
all the decisions regarding filtering the RGB spectrum must be made prior to pressing the 
shutter.  If you block the blue at capture it is gone forever and you could never produce an 
image with an overweight blue composite from that capture.)

Any help or references to useful (digestable) reading material would be greatly 
appreciated.

Regards

Steve










Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: Vs: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

2004-04-18 by Steve Kale

Ukko

Thanks for this.  I guess what I am searching for is an understanding of
what these filters do to the RGB space hitting the film plane eg more red,
less blue, little less green etc.  That is, an expression of the filter in
terms of RGB rather than ³enhances contrast² etc.  Does this make sense?

Steve 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Ukko Heikkinen" <ukko.heikkinen@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:55:21 +0300
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Vs: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

Hello Steve

Let's start here:

http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_30_31.htm

Ukko Heikkinen











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

2004-04-18 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Ukko Heikkinen [mailto:ukko.heikkinen@...]
>
> I was surprised the other day when I saw a poster of an image by
> Ansel Adam of (I believe)
> Mt McKinley (?).  The skies really were a deep deep black.  Also
> I just read yesterday the
> small section in his Book 1 The Camera re the use of filters,
> particularly the reference to
> using a No. 25 (A) Red filter for strong contrast in landscape
> photography.  And so I
> turned back to one of my favourite images taken in the Grand
> Teton National Park and
> how I had previously ranked and weighted the Red, Green and Blue
> (and Luminosity) layers
> when converting to B&W.  Specifically, I found that to approach
> the massive punch I saw in
> the Adams print I had to use the Red layer as my base at 100%,
> with only slight if any use
> of the Green and no use of the Blue layer.

Try pushing red past 100%, setting green to zero, and making blue negative
by the same amount (e.g., 130% and -30%). That's something you can't even
approximate with filters.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Re: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

2004-04-18 by Steve Kale

Thanks for the tip but I guess you are doing something with channel mixer
rather than split channels and then altering the opacity (0-100% values
only) of each layer.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:56:04 -0700
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

> From: Ukko Heikkinen [mailto:ukko.heikkinen@...]
>
> I was surprised the other day when I saw a poster of an image by
> Ansel Adam of (I believe)
> Mt McKinley (?).  The skies really were a deep deep black.  Also
> I just read yesterday the
> small section in his Book 1 The Camera re the use of filters,
> particularly the reference to
> using a No. 25 (A) Red filter for strong contrast in landscape
> photography.  And so I
> turned back to one of my favourite images taken in the Grand
> Teton National Park and
> how I had previously ranked and weighted the Red, Green and Blue
> (and Luminosity) layers
> when converting to B&W.  Specifically, I found that to approach
> the massive punch I saw in
> the Adams print I had to use the Red layer as my base at 100%,
> with only slight if any use
> of the Green and no use of the Blue layer.

Try pushing red past 100%, setting green to zero, and making blue negative
by the same amount (e.g., 130% and -30%). That's something you can't even
approximate with filters.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Filters and their split channels "equivalents"

2004-04-19 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> Thanks for the tip but I guess you are doing something with channel mixer
> rather than split channels and then altering the opacity (0-100% values
> only) of each layer.

Yes, the Channel Mixer is the easiest way to do it. But you can also use a
curve to invert a channel.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.