Talk:Photographic filter

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Filmmaking This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. ‹See TfM› Glass Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Correct use of English please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.1.21 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to create a filter that cancels out colours and produces a black and white image?

I've wondered that too. But with this being so easy to accomplish in Adobe Photoshop, I'm not sure what the use of such a filter would be. But a b/w mirror, now that would be something amazing! ShutterBugTrekker 23:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No passive optical device (e.g. a filter, or the like) could do this. It would have to be capable of responding to the light and re-emitting it as white light. You might be able to do something like it with an image intensifier or micro-channel plate. In general it will have to be the functional equivalent of a camera plus a black-and-white display. --Bob Mellish 23:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps any, many film crews expect a photographer to use light blue gels over their cameras to simulate the nearly colorless night visual effect of moonlight on a dimly lit scene, such as a bedroom or lawn at night. So, in that respect, you are going in the direction of changing a scene to something much closer to black & white than is usually the case. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the days of Ansel Adams, Large format cameras and the Zone System, monochrome photographers used to use a Viewing filter that de-colourised the image when held in front of the eye - often in a frame with the right aspect ratio (eg 4"x5") to aid composition. In practice it would just be dark enough to mute colours and murky brown or purple to disguise the colours. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you call filters that make effects as you can see them here and how do they produce this effects? I even once had fun sun glasses that produced a lot of smileys whenever you looked in a bright light source. --Abdull 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be called "star filters" — We should have an entry for that. The monkeys sound like a hologram of some sort; maybe an entry for that too... Steve Pucci | talk 16:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I doubt if there's such a thing as a holographic filter for photography; sounds more like a novelty sunglasses kind of thing. Steve Pucci | talk 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The effect is quite likely a diffraction pattern, similar to those laser pointers with various tips to project different images. Anything transparent you can see and take a photo thru could legitimately be termed a photo filter, though perhaps not a very widely used or standardized one... - Akb4 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star filters are the same as Cross Screen filters, as it says in the summary at the top. I've just tried to reorganize the "types of filters" section to make it a bit clearer that these are types of uses of filters, and I took a stab at filling in some of the stub types. Steve Pucci | talk 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all color correction filters implemented with color subtraction? Doesn't this mean color correction is a special case of color subtraction? If so, maybe we should reorganize those two sections. Steve Pucci | talk 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now. These are two different types of uses of filters. I've tried to make that a bit clearer in the article. Steve Pucci | talk 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A specialist dealer in England ([1])gave me the exact dimensions of a Series VII retaining ring; it'd probably be really useful if we can get the other sizes, and the sizes of the filters themselves, listed. I don't know enough about machining to know if diameter and thread is enough; I would think thread depth and wall thickness would also matter, and I have no idea if tolerances were part of the specification. The series adaptors I've tried (maybe half a dozen or so?) always fit correctly, so there must have been a spec... - Akb4 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are different types of thread. However, there is a USA standard type of thread (UTS) and it is probably that.

The section on Series Filters state that they were manufactured till the 1970s. Although Series Filters have become much less popular -- being replaced by direct screw in filters for most uses, they are still being manufactured and are still used for some professional applications. Tyrerj (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two lenses, a Sigme 8mm fisheye and a Makinon 500mm reflex, that take filters but not on a conventional filter ring. In the case of the fisheye, the front half of the lens unlocks and the filter goes in between the front and rear groups. In the case of the reflex, the filter thread is accessed through the bayonet mount before mounting the lens on the camera. As this lens has no aperture control, 2XND and 4XND filters are supplied with it. In both cases, there's a neutral filter supplied which is an essential part of the optics when no other filter is in use. I'll eventually get around to taking some photos of these lenses and adding the info to the article, but if someone else wants to that's fine. Andrewa 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is important advice, it doesn't seem to really fit with the article as a whole. 72.164.242.36 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, more Wikihow material. 88.105.37.25 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditched Noodle snacks (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the material did not belong in the article I'll include it here for those stuck or curious. This is from the 2 December 2008 version of the article.

The rings on screw-on filters are most often made of aluminum, though in more expensive filters brass is used. Aluminum filter rings are much lighter in weight, but can "bind" to the aluminum lens threads they are screwed in to, requiring the use of a filter wrench to get the filter off of the lens. Aluminum also dents or deforms more easily. (See "Stuck filter removal" below.)

Stuck filter removal

Filter rings are generally made from either aluminum or brass. Lens barrels, particularly the threads to which filters attach, are usually made from aluminum. Filter rings, particularly aluminum ones, can sometimes "bind" to the aluminum lens threads and be difficult to remove. Aluminum is a relatively soft metal; attempting to remove a stuck filter by squeezing with the hand generally puts a lot of inward pressure on just the two areas being gripped; this can bend and deform both the filter ring and the lens threads, permanently weakening or damaging both and making the filter even more difficult to remove. Methods should be employed that apply pressure evenly around the filter ring. Typically this is achieved either by use of a filter wrench or by cupping the filter ring and front of the lens with a piece of fabric to protect them and provide friction, then pressing the combination against a hard surface and twisting the lens barrel. Other aids to stuck filter removal include using either a tightened rubber band or shoelace around the rim of the filter to improve grip.

Oddly, the Wikipedia article had failed to mention this manufacturer suggested technique to remove a stuck filter. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems I have with the car photo. Top and bottom match up perfectly despite the photographer clearly holding the camera (It may be possible to correct this aspect through digital matching means). There is motion blur on the road and the car is clearly in a lane with moving traffic behind it. This isn't a problem in itself except that two photos need to be taken, one without the filter and one with it. Even though some time elapses between the photos, an attempt should be made to keep the conditions the same (time of day, angle to the sun, preferably not focusing on clouds in the sky, general environment/scenery around the car). Everything about this picture rings a marketing shot, which doesn't give me, the viewer a decent expectation that I can trust it. But maybe the results are as stated?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmg46664 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imbedded in the first paragraph of polarizing filters is the dumbfounding sentence, "A polarizer is ineffective if the camera's filmbay is not loaded correctly."

I have been an enthusiastic amateur photographer for 60 years, film and digital, and I cannot even figure out what a filmbay might be, nor how to load one (correctly or incorrectly), nor how that might have anything to do with the polarizing filter. Looking up "film bay" and "filmbay" definitions in Google helps not a bit--there are no such terms returned by the search.

Might it be that whoever wrote that paragraph has his own unique photographic vocabulary, or originates in some different culture (non-North America is what I mean by that)?

At the very least, if the concept (incorrect loading) and the location (filmbay) are necessary items to introduce in the discussion, some sort of brief definition or introduction would be absolutely necessary . . . Moremesa (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. If anyone can fix it or source it, they can put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh ... I like a puzzle ! I could understand it in a 3D cinema projection booth, where Left + Right channels could get swapped, but not in a camera. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the verge of buying a "fluorescent" filter for my inexpensive Panasonic camcorder when it occurred to me, I really wasn't sure what a fluorescent filter does. I understand that these kinds of filters are commonly included with UV filters, when you buy them via mail order. Can anybody explain the differences between UV filters, and fluorescent filters? What kind of angstroms, or whatever they are called, do fluorescent filters strip out, compared to UV filtes? Thanks. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluo filters are generally churned out by huge factories in China, to add percieved value to UV + CPL (circular polarized) filters as a set of 3. Used with film to counter green cast with Fluorescent lighting. Obsolete with Automatic White balance in digital cameras. Useful for sunsets ! Often plastic. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever the discussion comes up on whether to use a filter for the protection of the lens or not, it almost always concerns the protection of the glass elements.

Well - of the eight lenses I own, six have suffered from one kind of impact or the other, some several times. None have suffered from damage to the glass elements. All have received damage to the threads. Five lenses habe metal threads; three of these could be "repaired" into a condition where filters could be attached again (not neccessarily as easily as on undamaged lenses). One lens had plastic threads. Deformation was not an issue here, instead, part of the plastic simply broke off. Filters can still be attached, but less easily and the space between filter and lens is no longer sealed.

All of these incidents occured when no filter was attached. I also have quite of number of damaged filters. They took the damage which would otherwise would have damaged the threads (or added further damage to already damaged threads).

Now, why don't I just change the article to reflect my findings about the thread-protective properties of a filter?

First of all, it's original research - everybody else is just concerned about the glass elements, it seems.

Second, one does not actually require a filter for protection. A glassless filter ring is sufficient (I use the remains of my collection of damaged polarizers, for example). On two lenses, I use lens hoods.

Whatever. Perhaps someone else has a clue of whether such information should be included in the artcle or not? Or perhaps just the alternatives to "filters as protectors" (like the glassless rings or lens hoods)? --136.8.33.70 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The example photograph for the diffusion filter section has four versions of a photo of some white flowers. The label tell us what three of them are, but never mentions how the bottom right image was made. Does anybody know? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

would like to propose merging UV filter into this page--Robert Treat (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably should be merged. The UV filter article is short doesn't seem to say much more than this article, and there is a lot of duplication. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have an editor who has created material relevant to UV filter sunscreens. So I guess rather than merging, we should allow this article to grow as a UV filter for sunscreen has little connection with photographic filters. Lourdes 06:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose given the many other uses of UV filters beyond photography; that page changed a lot since the initial proposal was made. I'll remove the merge template. Klbrain (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At present the article has:

There's an issue with the caption in that per the image description (click on the image to see it) the lens was broken. Ideally, we would have a picture that shows an example of where the filter was damaged but not the lens. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears in the Diffusion section. The caption does not tell what filtering was used for the bottom right photograph. It should, even though it obviously is not a diffusion filter. That bottom right photograph is as dramatically different from the original as the two that are identified, so readers should also be told how it was made. —98.10.53.0 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the 1st section note that they are not magic? Of course they arent magic😂. It's funny and harmless enough to be left as is imo but I need an explanation! 2601:803:C501:D7D0:7C43:BB6C:A432:53AA (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed it. For future reference, if you find something that is obviously there as a joke, feel free to remove it yourself. Miner Editor (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]