He once referred to it as moon over hernia if I remember correctly. No joke.
I can't tell you the number of times I've seen people write "Moonrise over Hernandez," and I always have the exact same thought as you--that is not what he titled the thing! I also continue to be amazed at how many times I see his last name written as "Adam's."
What difference does it make? If you have enough money to buy it, the gallery will figure out what you mean.
If they were titled "Sunrise over Hernandez", I would have checked the provenance.
I've seen quite a few big Moonrise prints - after all, it was not only his most famous image, but by far, his most printed cash cow, over 350 of them.
No need for Photoshop. Michael Fatali simply sandwiched 8x10 chromes together for sake of optical Ciba enlargements, in one instance three of them, with both the rising moon and setting sun in astronomical impossible proximity. One should get suspicious of exactly the same crescent moon appearing in the same place in the sky in several different images. But the result was far more seamlessly precise, even in a 40X60 print, than anything digitally altered and printed.
This is from Jack Holm's paper Exposure Speed Relations and Tone Reproduction.
MI = Exposure Meter Index.
<Hg> = statistically average film plane mean exposure (lux-seconds)
H18% = film plane midtone exposure (lux-seconds)
<Lg> = statistically average scene mean luminance (candelas per square meter)
r = Lambertian (perfectly diffusing) surface reflectance
E = Scene illuminance (lux)
View attachment 409299
Holms uses 128% for highlight reflectance for the paper. Most sources use 100% reflectance. "These values result in the mean luminance correlating with a Lambertian scene reflectance of 12% for 100% highlight reflectance or 14% for 128% highlight reflectance." So his one third stop lighter than average would be 1/2 stop if 100% reflectance was used for the highlight making the calibration average luminance 12%.
Equation 10:
t = shutter speed
A = lens f/ number
K = exposure meter equation constant (luminance or reflected metering)
EI = Exposure meter Index
View attachment 409300
View attachment 409307
What does this all mean and how would you use it? In simple language.
View attachment 409367
Tried to meter the moon the other day.
At first I thought it might be 250 candles per square foot so I went to test that assumption.
Setup this contraption, a tungsten light source with Kopp 5900 blue filter. Set the Sekonic L-758DR to ASA 100 and 1/250 and cranked up the light until it read f/10.
Dialed SEI photometers to match the light source. Then compared them to the moon.
The moon was less luminous by about two-third stops. About 160 candles per square foot.
-The moon is an object lit by the sun so it should be “Sunny 16”.
-Sunny 16 is 250 candles per square foot.
-But not at 18%, more like 12%.
-The moon has about 12% albedo.
-So the moon should be 250 candles per square foot.
Why is it closer to 160 candles per square foot?
View attachment 409367
Tried to meter the moon the other day.
At first I thought it might be 250 candles per square foot so I went to test that assumption.
Setup this contraption, a tungsten light source with Kopp 5900 blue filter. Set the Sekonic L-758DR to ASA 100 and 1/250 and cranked up the light until it read f/10.
Dialed SEI photometers to match the light source. Then compared them to the moon.
The moon was less luminous by about two-third stops. About 160 candles per square foot.
-The moon is an object lit by the sun so it should be “Sunny 16”.
-Sunny 16 is 250 candles per square foot.
-But not at 18%, more like 12%.
-The moon has about 12% albedo.
-So the moon should be 250 candles per square foot.
Why is it closer to 160 candles per square foot?
Wasn't there a big fight years ago that mid gray should be 12% not 18%? I think Adams or one of his friends was involved in the discussion. It might have to do with exposure for chromes vs negative film or reflective vs incident modes, but I don't recall the facts. Maybe your camera or light meter is calibrated to 12%?
View attachment 409367
Tried to meter the moon the other day.
At first I thought it might be 250 candles per square foot so I went to test that assumption.
Setup this contraption, a tungsten light source with Kopp 5900 blue filter. Set the Sekonic L-758DR to ASA 100 and 1/250 and cranked up the light until it read f/10.
Dialed SEI photometers to match the light source. Then compared them to the moon.
The moon was less luminous by about two-third stops. About 160 candles per square foot.
-The moon is an object lit by the sun so it should be “Sunny 16”.
-Sunny 16 is 250 candles per square foot.
-But not at 18%, more like 12%.
-The moon has about 12% albedo.
-So the moon should be 250 candles per square foot.
Why is it closer to 160 candles per square foot?
When presenting material from AI inquiries it might be good to also cite AI’s sources. AI don’t know much on it’s own.Google AI
This is what comes up clicking on the Lemniscate symbol.When presenting material from AI inquiries it might be good to also cite AI’s sources. AI don’t know much on it’s own.
Meters are calibrated to Luminance not a Reflectance. However, depending on the what the highlight Reflectance is based, a Reflectance can be applied.
View attachment 409387
View attachment 409388
From Jack Holm, "That the mean log luminance of a statistically average scene is approximately 0.95 log units below the highlight log luminance (edge of detail in white) and 1.25 log units above the shadow log luminance (edge of detail in black), and that this mean luminance is assumed to be the luminance metered, directly or indirectly, for exposure determination. These values result in the mean luminance correlating with a Lambertian scene reflectance of 12% for 100% highlight reflectance or 14% for 128% highlight reflectance. Values ranging from 10 to 18% have resulted from various experimental determinations."
I appreciate your hard calculations. Could you sum up in layman's terms what it all means?
First sentence... and, perhaps, the second. Ignore the parts that you don't understand.
Personally, I would suggest the part by Holm. The reasoning with the math will have to wait until I'm off work and there's more time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?