Amber Lens Filter Question

[JayWatt]

I just inherited my grandfather's Pentax K1000 camera, and am trying to learn a few things before I start burning through some film. Been doing a lot of reading and watching a lot of videos. I'll likely work most with landscapes, and really want to try some macro stuff. Few portraits, but those are on the menu too.

I like to wear amber-tinted sunglasses because of the way they tamp down blue light, and make some other colors pop. Like flowers and whatnot. They sometimes call those lenses "contrast enhancing." Is that something that works well with film cameras too? I'm afraid that a filter will just make photos come out with a deep orange hue. Amber sun glasses don't necessarily do that. They warm it a tad, but it isn't overbearing.

 

[480sparky]

With color negative film, I don't think it will help one bit. It will just cause more work for the processor to correct the color imbalance. With positive / slide film, you'll end up with a yellowish tint.

With monochrome film, it will make blues render darker.

 

[Rickbb]

When I shot black and white film a yellow filter was used to increase the contrast between the blue sky, white clouds and green foliage. Made some dramatic shots.

Color filters on color film just makes a mess, in my opinion anyway. If you do your own enlargements you can experiment with filters when exposing the print. That would probably work better for what you want to do.

But as a beginner that is probably out of reach until you gain experience and a color darkroom.

 

[webestang64]

I agree with all above. My opinion is learn the camera, stick to color print film at first and also learn how to "read" negatives and compare them to the scans or prints before you try anything crazy.
Also look for a second hand book on using filters like the one below once you have mastered the camera.

Photographer's Guide to Using Filters book by Joseph Meehan

 

[JayWatt]

Thanks for the replies. I figured as much. Even if it would work, It doesn't seem like most filters are geared for such things. I'm just trying to get a feel for how things work in a technical sense. After receiving the camera, I started looking at accessories, and was amazed to find so much out there. After finding a myriad of filters, the idea just occurred to me. I haven't shot film in over 20 years, and never used anything more sophisticated than a basic plastic consumer-grade camera. I did work in a grocery store film lab back in the day though. Not that said job required much more than loading the film and pressing a button. But I did get to see a lot of peoples' shooting errors. And I wish I could forget some of the other stuff that I saw.....

 

[BillFritsch]

I just inherited my grandfather's Pentax K1000 camera, and am trying to learn a few things before I start burning through some film. Been doing a lot of reading and watching a lot of videos. I'll likely work most with landscapes, and really want to try some macro stuff. Few portraits, but those are on the menu too.

I like to wear amber-tinted sunglasses because of the way they tamp down blue light, and make some other colors pop. Like flowers and whatnot. They sometimes call those lenses "contrast enhancing." Is that something that works well with film cameras too? I'm afraid that a filter will just make photos come out with a deep orange hue. Amber sun glasses don't necessarily do that. They warm it a tad, but it isn't overbearing.

Ansel Adams used a G filter a lot -- it is an orange filter that darkens a blue sky-- he also used a polarizer a lot -- I do think however that the zone system was a bunch of BS -- how about expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights-- he also dodged and burned although he claims he didn't. I used house an 81A filter to enhance skin tones and warm up color positive film- but not necessary with digital

 

[wfooshee]

As a complete aside, do NOT take your film to a department store for processing. These days they do not return your negatives, even if you ask for them, and besides the generally awful prints, they only give you a CD with astonishingly low-resolution scans as a reference for ordering prints in the future. You can't even scan your own negatives to work the images on the computer if you want, because you don't GET the negatives back.

Get a darkroom and learn C-41 processing, then at least scan your negatives if you can't get an enlarger initially, or find a reputable national online processing vendor. I say all that with absolutely zero darkroom experience, as I've never had the ability (or interest, frankly) to set one up. But department store film processing is beyond useless.

 

[BillFritsch]

Shoot color postive(slide) film-- you will be much happier

 

[JayWatt]

As a complete aside, do NOT take your film to a department store for processing. These days they do not return your negatives, even if you ask for them, and besides the generally awful prints, they only give you a CD with astonishingly low-resolution scans as a reference for ordering prints in the future. You can't even scan your own negatives to work the images on the computer if you want, because you don't GET the negatives back.

Get a darkroom and learn C-41 processing, then at least scan your negatives if you can't get an enlarger initially, or find a reputable national online processing vendor. I say all that with absolutely zero darkroom experience, as I've never had the ability (or interest, frankly) to set one up. But department store film processing is beyond useless.

At this point in time, this hobby is too expensive to entrust my film to a department store lab. I found a regional lab that I'm planning on sending mine to. They return the negatives and do scans. Several options on processing and scanning. I am interested in learning how to develop them myself, but am going to see how many photos I wind up wanting to take first. It may be an every once in a while thing. Maybe not.

Got some accessories for the camera. Tripod, strap, shutter button, shutter cable, 85 filter and I 3d-printed a grip. Planning on getting an F1.7 50mm prime lens and a wide angle lens at some point. Looking for a place to go to this weekend so I can shoot my first analog photos in 25 years.

 

[wfooshee]

I almost said that about shooting slides instead of print film. There are very good E-6 transparency films out there, and E-6 is still doable in a home darkroom. Processing is also much less subjective to the whims of whoever is doing the processing. When they print from negatives, they ALWAYS try to equalize the exposure, and print paper has generally miserable dynamic range compared to film and negatives. Good slide processing should be available from the vendor you found for print processing.

 

[JayWatt]

I'll have to check out slide film. I heard somewhere that it's a lot more picky than color negative. More expensive too. Looks very nice though. I pulled up some other peoples' scans.

 

[wfooshee]

The film is more expensive, but prints are more expensive processing, so print film and prints is more expensive than slide film and processing. It's not so much that it's "more picky," it's that color negative film has more latitude, meaning you can get a usable negative with a wider range of over- or under-exposure. That's pretty much intentional, with color print film being historically aimed at the family snapshot shooters, with point-and-shoot, and even Instamatic cameras, with no settings available to the shooter at all.

 

[JayWatt]

The film is more expensive, but prints are more expensive processing, so print film and prints is more expensive than slide film and processing. It's not so much that it's "more picky," it's that color negative film has more latitude, meaning you can get a usable negative with a wider range of over- or under-exposure. That's pretty much intentional, with color print film being historically aimed at the family snapshot shooters, with point-and-shoot, and even Instamatic cameras, with no settings available to the shooter at all.

I'm not planning on getting prints made either way. I've been looking at comparison shots between color negative vs the same scene with slide. Slide shots are absolutely gorgeous. Some of them have an almost Technicolor feel to them. Very vivid. I've gotten a few rolls of basic film, but I'm trying to learn a little more theory before I delve into the specialty stuff. Before a couple of weeks ago, I didn't even know that slide film existed. I thought slides were made from regular film. I also thought that higher ISO films were objectively better than low ISO. That's how much I knew about this stuff. (Not that I know a lot now) I had no idea the rabbit hole went so deep.

The "old" way of doing things appeals to me in a way. I also design, build and repair vacuum tube circuits. Started with vintage radios, but went on to work with HiFi amplifiers. I'm going to be trying to get some macro shots of a bunch of different types of vacuum tubes while lit up. Modern electronics just look so sterile. Lit tubes look almost like magic to me though. Ever since I looked in the back of the TV when I was a kid and saw a few of them in there glowing away. Wierd, I know, but there are worse things to be into. Preferring film to digital is kinda analagous to me liking tubes, imo.

 

[wfooshee]

Well, if you want to talk about expense, then you need to talk about film scanning. While you can digitize slides and negatives with an ordinary flatbed scanner that you probably already have, as many have the adapters and things you need for that, you don't want to. Flatbed scanning just isn't as sharp as an actual film scanner, mostly because the film is separated from the flatbed's glass by the thickness of the adapters you have to use. A dedicated film scanner will run 4 or 5 hundred dollars, up to a couple of thousand dollars.

I started down the rabbit hole of film scanners when my dad passed away, and his photo legacy was about 5500 slides through the years, all the family and travel pictures that my four siblings and I needed to divvy up somehow. With me being the photographer of my generation in the family (only slightly more involved with it than my brother, but more willing to take on the project,) it fell to me to digitize the library of images and distribute them to everyone. I started with a couple of second-hand Nikon Coolscans, which were incredible, but short-lived and no longer available. I have a PrimeFilm now that scans slides or negative strips. I've been using Vuescan software to operate all my scanners since 2011 or so. Vuescan can run standalone, but it also installs itself into the Photoshop import menu, allowing scanning directly into Photoshop.

I posted a comparison of a single image scanned with flatbed vs a film scanner on my Flickr page here. (I need to update that, because that was my first film scanner, which is about a quarter of the resolution capability of my current scanner, but even so, the difference in sharpness is clear.)