Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Are diffusion filters dead?

Linda Barzini

Linda Barzini

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
269
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Chicago
Does anyone use Black Promist, Hollywood Black Magic, Classic Soft, Soft FX, Low Contrast, or Fog filters anymore? Is there a good argument for having any of these anymore?

I know some people use BPM 1/8 and 1/4 to "take the edge off" modern lens/sensors, but any other common uses?
 
Here in Spain, Black Promists and Soft FX are very very common. Glimmerglass, Pearlescent, Black Magic, etc. are less common but also in use as well.
I still like to use a Low-Contrast 1/2 (Harrison & Harrison) when I'm shooting with modern lenses and the [filtered] look fits the project.
 
Last edited:
Diffusion hardly ever leaves my camera. I see it as essential, secret sauce that makes your images stand out from the "unfiltered" crowd...
 
Yep, Black Pro Mists mostly and Glimmer Glass if I want to limit the halation.
 
Of course I use many different types all the time
 
Use them on just about every shoot. BPM, BF, SFX, HBM, low-con, Glimmer...
 
I can see the usefulness of diffusion filters for halation and softening the image, but is there still a need for Low-Con filters or the low-con effect/side-effect of diffusion filters when shooting RAW and grading from a Log type image?
 
We need DIFF filters now more then ever before. Sharp and clean is great for some projects, and we cant all own 3 different types of lenses. filters are a great way to create different looks with one set of lenses in camera.

Having said that, were here to help rent to you what ever you need. :)
Have fed-ex will travel, filters, lenses, etc.
 
Yes and no, if you mean if there are still uses for low-cons to lower contrast and increase information in the shadow range. I've found that any contrast-lowering method, including flashing of film negative, that involves washing the shadows with a weak amount of light, only gives you another 1/6 to 1/4 stop of extra shadow information, mainly what happens is that low-level detail is lifted into the narrower range of display gammas, but barely, and often recorrecting the blacks almost cancels any benefits for increased shadow detail.

However, the older low-cons do cause halation around lights so some people use them as a type of mist diffusion filter that softens less than a ProMist while getting you some halation. Most of "Barry Lyndon" was shot with a Tiffen Low-Con #3 as a form of diffusion.

They can also be useful in helping match shots if some angle looked naturally more washed-out and a new angle looks too clean in comparison, so a light filter can make it match the feeling of the other shot. And light filters can sometimes help a contrasty lens match another lower-contrast lens. In the case of "Barry Lyndon" again, the low-cons were removed for the candlelight scenes shot at f/0.7 because that lens created enough halation and softness all by itself to match the filtered look of the rest of the movie.
 
I always assumed that low-cons were intended to do two things at once: minimize noise in the shadows; and give highlights a softer edge. Is that correct? If so, then by physical necessity, these filters are useful and cannot be applied post-exposure. So to answer Linda's question, the answer seems to be a unanimous 'no'. ;-)

If I'm correct, a low-con will also allow you to slightly underexpose, which naturally pushes the shadows down while giving further highlight protection, right?

BTW not that long ago I learned about ultra-cons, which sort of do the opposite of low-cons, in that they suppress highlights but don't lift shadows.

So here's a question: if you combined low-cons with ultra-cons, would that allow you to overexpose, while retaining highlight protection? That way, your shadows will be cleaner still. Of course you might lose about 1/3 of a stop of sensitivity when you combine these two filters; and you will have to stretch out the image in post.

I'm also assuming that a low-con will allow you to push film without increasing contrast. This would be particularly useful for transparency film such as Ektachrome.
 
UltraCons don't do the opposite of low-cons, they are just a better design to lower contrast -- the older low-con design also softened detail and caused some halation being similar in design to fog filters. UltraCons use a finer grade of whatever particulates cause the light to spread so that it is less localized around a light in frame, so less halation and more of an even haze over the image, closer to the look of flashing rather than a foggy mist effect. And better sharpness. The softening of the old low-con was less of a design choice and more just an artifact of how they were spreading the light.

Tiffen SoftCons and Schneider DigiCons have some element the darkens highlights as well as whatever low-con filter they use as a base. They sort of do the slight underexposure for you though I've never been clear whether these filters somehow knock down highlights or just have some sort of mild ND element, in which case you might as well as just use the regular low-con or UltraCon and do the underexposure yourself. Schneider makes something called the Low Con 2000 I think, I believe it is closer to what a Tiffen UltraCon is rather than the older low-con design.
 
Troubles with using low-cons to counteract the increase in contrast from pushing film are that there is also an increase in base fog level with pushing that the low-con might compound, plus the loss of shadow detail from underexposing and pushing isn't completely counteracted by the low-con, plus sometimes underexposed footage looks softer and that might be made worse by using a low-con. However some DPs did subscribe to that theory and use low-cons when pushing. A lot of "Eyes Wide Shut" was shot with low-cons and the movie was pushed two-stops.
 
Linda Barzini said:
Does anyone use Black Promist, Hollywood Black Magic, Classic Soft, Soft FX, Low Contrast, or Fog filters anymore? Is there a good argument for having any of these anymore?

I know some people use BPM 1/8 and 1/4 to "take the edge off" modern lens/sensors, but any other common uses?
Click to expand...

I had stopped using them all together for years, since starting with the Epic 5k back in 2011 actually, then last year while testing a prototype Panavision Millennium DXL I used the BPM 1/8 for some Portraits shots, also because of the 8k VV and the Primo 70 Primes tough to be very sharp, but I actually ended up regretting using it, and I doubt I'll use it again on any of the 8K's as I prefer the natural sharper initial look to adjust in post instead of having it done at capture.

Here is a Frame pulled form that shoot Adrien and I did.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • DXL_Natalia.jpg
    DXL_Natalia.jpg
    56.2 KB · Views: 1
  • Panavision_Fashion.jpg
    Panavision_Fashion.jpg
    89.3 KB · Views: 1
David Mullen ASC said:
Troubles with using low-cons to counteract the increase in contrast from pushing film are that there is also an increase in base fog level with pushing that the low-con might compound, plus the loss of shadow detail from underexposing and pushing isn't completely counteracted by the low-con, plus sometimes underexposed footage looks softer and that might be made worse by using a low-con. However some DPs did subscribe to that theory and use low-cons when pushing. A lot of "Eyes Wide Shut" was shot with low-cons and the movie was pushed two-stops.
Click to expand...

Think most of that apply more to a celluloid work flow than a digital. Maybe I´m wrong but I doubt Cubrick would have done the same today if he was shooting digital.
 
We use diffusion all the time. Smoque is a new one that gets into the mix quite a bit, especially for trying to age an image, recreate the past. It's an old Rodrigo Prieto trick.

Otherwise, as others have noted, Classic Soft, Soft FX, Black Pro Mist, Hollwood Black Magic, Promist, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top