Ah, forensics is QUITE a different matter! ;-)
I reasonably assumed from your post that you taught
"ordinary" photography...;-) For most, the common
impression that many commonly-used weak-colored
filters will aid image-making enough to buy and
bother to use them is false - but obviously for
your purposes (and the purposes of many other
photography-users), the effects of the
strong-colored filters can be useful. For most
others, though, the effects are generally confined
to adjusting the relative brightness of the sky
tones, since clear sky-blue is the only common
important highly-saturated color (that one might
wish to modify) likely to be in photographs...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:46:59 GMT, "McLeod"
<wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote:
>Actually, shooting the fire hydrant against the lawn is
an exercise we use
>to explain the use of filters, colour wavelengths,
processing film, and
>printing. All of
which lead into how the use of panchromatic black and
>white film can record certain forensic evidence better
than colour film.
>What sort of "real-world" shooting are you
referring to?
>> This was my point: for most average subjects, under
>> most conditions, the differences with most filters
>> will be minor; with high-saturation colors (mainly
>> the sky in nature, though flowers, hydrants, etc.
>> are also notable) the differences *are* noticeable,
>> but why would you want to modify the tonality of
>> a hydrant, car, flower, etc. (with the exception of
>> the sky...)? Otherwise, you are just doing
meaningless
>> exercises, like using inappropriate
color-correction
>> filters with slide film...;-) Sure, I can shoot a
color
>> chart with B&W film using various filters and
"prove"
>> their effects - but in MOST "real-world"
shooting, it
>> is useful to know that the effects of most filters
are
>> too subtle to worry about (or spend the money on,
or
>> lose the effective sensitivity for, etc.). This is
a
>> more useful lesson for students than finding the
>> few exceptions, I think...;-)
>> David
Ruether