# Old coloured filters on DSLRs?



## invisible (Jan 30, 2013)

I never used colour filters back in the day when I shot film, and barely use any filters at all now that I shoot 100% digital. However, and as part of a lens package that I'm about to pull the trigger on, I will be receiving these filters from the film era:

Nikon B12 (blue) 
Nikon R60 (red) 
Nikon O56 (orange) 
Nikon Y48 (yellow) 

So here's my ignorant question: do these filters have any value in digital photography?


----------



## snowbear (Jan 30, 2013)

I have a couple (orange, green, red & yellow) that I bought when I was taking the film classes, and have not used them on the D40.  I would guess they would work as designed if you are shooting greyscale (as opposed to shooting color & converting in post).

I might have to try it and see what happens.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jan 30, 2013)

It really depends on your style of photography whether they will work out for you or not. I'm not against them, but I also don't use them. They create a cool artsy effect in your images if used at the right moment. Using a yellow filter during a sunset tends to brighten and put extra emphasis on your oranges and yellowish tones. So, they have a huge benefit when used correctly.

They're just not my thing.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 30, 2013)

These filters are useful with black and white film, and with Monochrome digital cameras. The white-balance of your camera takes the place of color-correction filters. Black and white conversion software allows you to emulate color filters when converting color images to monochrome. Putting a Yellow filter (for example) on a color digital camera means that you lower response from the Blue pixels, and this is going to impact the interpolation process.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 30, 2013)

OK.  I did a quick four-shot comparison: color without & with filter, and grey scale without and with filter.  Nikon D40 set for fine JPG, normal or B&W processing, and a Hoya orange filter.  The white balance was adjusted in LR3 so both pair of photos (color and B&W) were the same. 

Overview of all 4 shots.  About as I expected - the orange filter sets an overly warm tone to the color image.  In the B&W, the filter lightens the red and yellow tones and darkens the blue and green areas.
View attachment 34521

Detail.
View attachment 34522


----------



## terri (Jan 30, 2013)

Hi, I've moved your thread to the Digital Q&A, since it's not a film-related discussion.   

Good luck with your filters!


----------



## KenC (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm not sure a color filter could do anything you couldn't do with the Selective Color adjustment in PS.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 30, 2013)

Nikon R60 (red) on the M Monochrom.




L1000053 by putahexanonyou, on Flickr


----------



## invisible (Jan 30, 2013)

Thank you all for your help, very useful, in particular the sample images.

Brian, I thought that the red filter would darken the sky?


----------



## BrianV (Jan 30, 2013)

The Red filter does darken the sky, brings out clouds. Been reading the "old books"...

Your eye is most sensitive to Yellow, least sensitive to Blue. Panchromatic film has a "dip" in green response. Digital sensors have a much mor flat response compared with classic film. So- an Orange filter seems to give the same look as a yellow filter on film. The Red filter, about what I remember with film. I'll load up the M3 with some black and white, and have to shoot a comparison. Now the weather needs to cooperate.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 30, 2013)

R60, Red- another example:




L1000021 by putahexanonyou, on Flickr

These are with a 1950 Jupiter-3 5cm F1.5, stopped down to F4.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 30, 2013)

If you're shooting a camera with a Bayer array (i.e. anything EXCEPT the monochrom) all a color filter on the front is likely to do is throw information away. You should be able to do anything the filter does in post, and with more control.

An exception might be where you'd be losing the data anyways. A very bright sky, for instance, might be tamed and brought into range with the rest of the exposure with a red filter, rather than being blown out. If it would NOT have been blown out, however, you're simply reducing the bit depth of those pixels and potentially losing some subtle gradations.

Well, that's all theoretical, but I think it's sound..


----------



## invisible (Jan 30, 2013)

Thanks again all. 

One last question: what is the optical quality of old Nikon filters (like the ones I mentioned above or the L37c, which is a UV filter)?


----------



## snowbear (Jan 30, 2013)

KenC - I agree completely, you can apply the same effect of colored filters in post; even better since the intensity (or density) is variable.
BrianV - that makes sense. Though the orange filter did lighten the warm & darken the cool, I really expected the effect to be more significant.  I thought it may have been the camera's conversion algorithm.
amolitor - And there are other (and I guess, better) ways to address a very bright sky.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 30, 2013)

invisible said:


> Thanks again all.
> 
> One last question: what is the optical quality of old Nikon filters (like the ones I mentioned above or the L37c, which is a UV filter)?




The "c" means the filter is multicoated. I have used the Nikon filters with my 20 year old DCS200ir Monochrome digital, they are as good as you will find. I've been using them with the new Leica Monochrome camera now.


----------



## invisible (Jan 30, 2013)

Brian, thank you once again!


----------



## Garbz (Jan 31, 2013)

The only time you can't replicate a filter is if the response of the colour you're filtering falls outside the bounds of two of the sensor colours. I.e. if you're trying to filter out a deep red or even infrared compared to simply a normal red, and none of those reds have a spectral response that excites any of the green or blue pixels on the sensor, then you're only left with filtering before the colour gets to the sensor. 

This really only applies to infrared. Cameras are typically pisspoor at UV recording so the other end of the spectrum doesn't matter.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 7, 2013)

While it may be true of these filters (that are, as previously noted, B&W filters for affecting contrast and B&W colour shifting (i.e. darkening blue skies)) that they can be recreated in "post", one must be wary of this advice in general. Filtering is a powerful photographic tool and the idea that everything should be pushed to post/editing goes against all my instincts and all my photographic knowledge. A quick example is, of course, a polarizing filter that changes values within the photographic image by manipulating the amount of light reflected from certain angles of objects that make it to the film plane/sensor. This effect is a function of the light traveling through optics, and cannot be recreated in post through editing.

The same can be said for filters like the enhancer, ND grads, infrared and a handful of others - they are filters that alter the quantity or quality of light reaching the camera, and if they cannot be recreated can only be very roughly approximated, at best, in post/editing.

One further step down the rung is the idea that filters themselves can replace naturally occurring meteorological events - i.e. a "fog" filter, whether on camera or in post/editing, compared to natural (or man-made on location) fog. Filters, whether on camera or in post, may seem to simulate fog, but what occurs with regular fog is physically very different optically: the closer to the camera the subject appears, the less accumulated atmospheric haze is seen; the farther away, the more "foggy" the subject appears. So the idea of creating fog in camera or in post is at best a bad workaround. The same can be said with post effect filters like "diffusion" and "grain" - while useful tools in post, IMHO it is always more gratifying and effective to capitalize on the abilities (or idiosyncrasies) of your camera and the available light (and, of course, the filters on hand). These, to me, are your primary creative tools. Post/editing are secondary tools - to compensate for errors or to push an image to limits not attainable optically on location.

So for me an ideal workflow (in order of occurrence but also of importance) is:

-choose a subject
-visualize what you want to do with it (thanks to monsieur Adams   )
-choose your filters, iso/filmstock,and exposure
-click the damn shutter!
-and finally adjust in post to complete that part of your vision unattainable optically or with the available light in post editing


...And that's my rant. Sorry, felt like waxing pedantic. I really am a fun guy, i swear!   (but a noobie here, so forgive the enthusiasm!)

Cheers,

jbarrettash


----------

