A question about Black Pro Mist Filter

[peruexplorer]

Hi everybody

Recently I was doing a research about some filter I could use for my photos and I found out that the Black Pro Mist seems to be very popular, some photographers even say that it is the best filter to take portraits.
However I ask myself if the Glow filter would give the same results because the idea of light blur seems to be the same.

Did you already work with this filter? Is it worth the price?

Thank you

[Video Hummus]

Black Promist is one of the best "mist" filters that preserves contrast, especially in the blacks, hence its name. I think it is money well spent to have a 1/8 or a 1/4 black promist in your bag. I haven't used any of the other filters.

[tupp]

2 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Black Promist is one of the best "mist" filters that preserves contrast, especially in the blacks, hence its name.

The word "Black" in the filter's name refers to the tiny black particles embedded in the filter to absorb light that scatters sideways through the diffusion, thus reducing "glow haze" and "halos."

 

This black particle technique first appeared in Harrison & Harrison Black Dot diffusion filters.

[MurtlandPhoto]

I love my 1/4 Pro Mist. It has such a pleasing look that cuts through the clinical sharpness of some of today's cameras. That said, the 1/4 strength can be overkill in certain situations when light sources enter the frame. So, for a more subtle effect that probably has broader uses I recommend the 1/8 strength to start.

[Video Hummus]

8 hours ago, tupp said:

The word "Black" in the filter's name refers to the tiny black particles embedded in the filter to absorb light that scatters sideways through the diffusion, thus reducing "glow haze" and "halos."

 

This black particle technique first appeared in Harrison & Harrison Black Dot diffusion filters.

yes, and those preserving the blacks without lifting them up.

[kye]

20 hours ago, peruexplorer said:

Hi everybody

Recently I was doing a research about some filter I could use for my photos and I found out that the Black Pro Mist seems to be very popular, some photographers even say that it is the best filter to take portraits.
However I ask myself if the Glow filter would give the same results because the idea of light blur seems to be the same.

Did you already work with this filter? Is it worth the price?

Thank you

This thread has more info on the topic than you could ever want....

 

[peruexplorer]

On 2/4/2021 at 6:06 PM, kye said:

This thread has more info on the topic than you could ever want....

 

Thank you very much for your answer. I liked a lot the thread that you recommend. I find that it has a lot of useful information, I personally prefer to have a glas to work with instead of doing everything in software.

[peruexplorer]

On 2/4/2021 at 9:46 AM, MurtlandPhoto said:

I love my 1/4 Pro Mist. It has such a pleasing look that cuts through the clinical sharpness of some of today's cameras. That said, the 1/4 strength can be overkill in certain situations when light sources enter the frame. So, for a more subtle effect that probably has broader uses I recommend the 1/8 strength to start.

Do you use it only when you have to shoot images of people?  I also think that the 1/8 is better because it is less "strong" than the 1/4

[kye]

2 hours ago, peruexplorer said:

Thank you very much for your answer. I liked a lot the thread that you recommend. I find that it has a lot of useful information, I personally prefer to have a glas to work with instead of doing everything in software.

There are many good reasons that having a physical filter is better than emulating the effect in post.  I'm considering filters myself, although I have lenses that have some of this effect built-in so I'm not starting with a blank canvas.

As pointed out in the thread though, lighting conditions and subject matter can make the effect very difficult to control.  For example, if you had a strong light in the frame then you might get a huge amount of the effect, compared to a shot with low contrast and no light hitting the filter which might have almost no visible effect.
Therefore, to get the two shots to match visually you would have to swap the strength of the filter on each shot to get an end result that looks the same.  This is one of the advantages of doing it in post, because you can adjust it afterwards, and don't need to buy every strength of filter, and you can even select values in between the ones that the filters come in, or even animate the effect so that it varies amount in the same shot.  For example if you went from a portrait shot and panned to show a scene with the sun in it then you would want more effect at the start of the shot than at the end, and a smooth animation would do the trick in post.

I suggest that the best approach is likely to combine the two, getting the majority of the effect using a filter while shooting, but evening it out in post.