18% Grey Card. To use it or not.

[djdister]

It's comforting to know that even sometimes, Ansel had to wing it...

 

[MattKing]

It's comforting to know that even sometimes, Ansel had to wing it...

From the top of his car!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm sure he wasn't atop his car when that Moonrise shot transpired. And car roofs can be wobbly, even when a plywood platform is installed up there, like with Ansel's Plymouth "woodie" station wagon. Maybe he never was a photographer, but a surfer - they sure liked those wood-sided station wagons back in Beach Boys days. You just never know out in the desert. It can rain. I remember driving to Death Valley with inflated inner tubes tied to the top of the station wagon when I was 16. Badwater was filled with a shallow salt lake over 30 miles long. That has happened three times in my lifetime; in the last instance, people brought kayaks. What Ansel was probably doing was scoping out the real estate in rural New Mexico, plotting to buy it cheap, and then develop it as beachfront surfing property once the next deluge arrived. And he did it by moonlight, so nobody would notice him sneaking around.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you consider the meter calibration equation View attachment 408876 for Sunny 16 without factoring in K, you get View attachment 408877 or View attachment 408878 cd/ft2.
I don't know if that applies to the Luminance of the Moon or not.

256 is pretty close to 250.

 

[reddesert]

Hope does Adams in the article stating that the luminance of the moon—250 c/ft2 relate to the Sunny 16 rule, if it does?

You can work this out by translating "sunny 16" into a luminance value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value#EV_as_a_measure_of_luminance_and_illuminance

WIthout arguing about what K value to use, for K=12.5, luminance L = 2^(EV - 3), in units of cd/m^2, where the EV is given for ISO 100.

As another hint, the EV for "sunny 16" is given by this table of EV for f-stop and exposure time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value#EV_as_an_indicator_of_camera_settings
That should give you the info needed to turn "sunny 16" into cd/ft^2.

Adams wasn't far off of "loony f/11". Then per the story in "Examples", he put that on Zone VII, in other words he gave two more stops of exposure than the default, and wished he'd given a little more.

In reality, Adams was already a very experienced photographer, and he was probably using his intuition for light along with everything else. If his calculation had resulted in a unreasonably short or long exposure he probably would have figured that out and changed it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No way that was shot based on an f/11 analogy, if even his 8x10 lens would open that wide. More like f/64 for sake of depth of field, even factoring front tilt. I'd agree that experienced intuition probably had a lot more to do with it than some mental formula recall. He shot scenes with the moon in it rather frequently. But a bit of apocryphal lore is always fun when telling, and re-telling, and re-re-telling such stories.

 

[Hassasin]

It's comforting to know that even sometimes, Ansel had to wing it...

According to his darkroom notes he winged it a lot more than meets the eye, nor most anyone would want to admit. He proved beyond doubt the beauty of consistency is in inconsistency. Once that is clear, sky is the limit.

 

[Chuck1]

I'm sure he wasn't atop his car when that Moonrise shot transpired. And car roofs can be wobbly, even when a plywood platform is installed up there, like with Ansel's Plymouth "woodie" station wagon. Maybe he never was a photographer, but a surfer - they sure liked those wood-sided station wagons back in Beach Boys days. You just never know out in the desert. It can rain. I remember driving to Death Valley with inflated inner tubes tied to the top of the station wagon when I was 16. Badwater was filled with a shallow salt lake over 30 miles long. That has happened three times in my lifetime; in the last instance, people brought kayaks. What Ansel was probably doing was scoping out the real estate in rural New Mexico, plotting to buy it cheap, and then develop it as beachfront surfing property once the next deluge arrived. And he did it by moonlight, so nobody would notice him sneaking around.

I was going to ask about his shocks and springs...

 

[Bill Burk]

No way that was shot based on an f/11 analogy, if even his 8x10 lens would open that wide. More like f/64 for sake of depth of field, even factoring front tilt. I'd agree that experienced intuition probably had a lot more to do with it than some mental formula recall. He shot scenes with the moon in it rather frequently. But a bit of apocryphal lore is always fun when telling, and re-telling, and re-re-telling such stories.

Here zoomed in on.. f/32

So 1/250 at f/8 is the exposure formula (shutter is footcandles, f/stop is square root of film speed) - to place moon on Zone V. Open two stops to place on Zone VII. Open two stops for the green filter. Now f/2 at 1/250. Change f/stop to 32 which is 8 stops away from where you are. So for equivalent exposure changing shutter speed, you need to change from 1/250 to 1 second.

About.

Filter factor 3x is 1 2/3 stops not two stops. Close enough.

He didn’t want to blow out the moon and he hoped there would be enough light to see something in the foreground. A few sparkles of sunlight off the crosses made it a meaningful image for the faithful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"About" just about says it. Even film speeds were less consistent than today. Then you've got shutter speed variances, and questionable filter factors. What makes you think it was a green filter? You could be right, but I'm too lazy to look it up myself at the moment. He was in such a rush because the light hitting the foreground crosses was shifting so fast, and didn't allow him even enough time for a backup second exposure.

I suspect that his water bath regimen involved D23 in the first tray. I can't recall what film he was using; but overall, even his 8x10 images didn't hold up well if enlarged beyond 20X24 inch size. I've seen up close a rare 40X60 print of Moonrise, printed lower contrast on matte paper, as a different approach to minimizing the visual effect of development flaws in the sky. One had to stand away six feet or so to view it; closer up, it was rather fuzzy, just like most of his other "mural size" prints - hardly what we call murals today, but big for him.

 

[Vaughn]

I'm sure he wasn't atop his car when that Moonrise shot transpired....

My poor EuroVan does not like people on top of it....but being (or was) 6'4" (193cm) and going on my tip-toes to see the top of the GG on the 8x10 gives me a higher-than-average POV.

He didn’t want to blow out the moon and he hoped there would be enough light to see something in the foreground. A few sparkles of sunlight off the crosses made it a meaningful image for the faithful.

That's how I understand it, the moon was the center that the rest of the values had to revolve around. The intensification of the lower part of the image (esp. the crosses) helped to counter the need to keep the moon detail, but not make matters worse with the lower clouds.

I have a copy of Ansel Adams 1902 - 1984, published by the Friends of Photography in honor of Ansel's passing. The last image of the book is a photo of Ansel sitting with two copies (about 16x20) of "Moonrise..." above him. One a straight print, one a final print. Nice, a little small to see the detail in the prints. The final "Moonrise..." was presented fullpage the page before, but unfortunately printed backwards...something was looking weird with the moon. One gets use to people photoshopping moons into images, I just like them to get it right. But I also know that this moonrise image has been studied by astro-scientists to give the exact date and time of the exposure...so I knew Ansel wasn't pulling a fast one!

 

[DREW WILEY]

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. Just don't slide into his marketing BS that he waited days on end to bag that remarkable pseudo-light. On the other hand, Lik's giant rising moon Photoshopped partially in FRONT of a background Hawaiian ridge is just plain corny. I've never dubbed in a moon into a scene ever, nor even clouds. Old timers often dubbed in swirly clouds with red dye on the negative.

AA's moonrise is quite credible, along with those pancaked waves of lenticular clouds below. Many of us have seen comparable settings traveling the West.

 

[Milpool]

That’s right, and many of the best and/or most well known pictures are pretty flawed negatives, which is why I think most people would be better off reading book 3 before book 2.

According to his darkroom notes he winged it a lot more than meets the eye, nor most anyone would want to admit. He proved beyond doubt the beauty of consistency is in inconsistency. Once that is clear, sky is the limit.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’ve always been more inclined to take the original story as more likely the way it was:

The initial publication of Moonrise was at the end of 1942, with a two-page image in U.S. Camera Annual 1943, having been selected by the "photo judge" of U.S. Camera, Edward Steichen.[5] In that publication, Adams gave this account:[6]

It was made after sundown, there was a twilight glow on the distant peaks and clouds. The average light values of the foreground were placed on the "U" of the Weston Master meter; apparently the values of the moon and distant peaks did not lie higher than the "A" of the meter .

After all, we all know how elderly photographers can boast tall tales and get confused about facts…

 

[Stephen Benskin]

The moon is just about 250 cd/ft2. Keying off the Moon, placing it on Zone VII and having a filter factor of 3X (rounding down to 1.5), setting the f/stop at f/32 would put the shutter at 1 sec. The question is how much is it underexposed? The answer addresses the idea of the whole concept of exposure. From a little research, the EV you could expect close to sunset in New Mexico in late October / early November is from 9 to 11 and sunset is 6 to 8. As the light was lost right after the exposure, let's just say it's 9 to 9.5. Add the filter factor and you're down to EV 8 or 8.5. For 64 speed film, that puts the shutter at around 4 sec. and that is not including reciprocity failure.

Here's the thing. What would the image look like if an exposure was made at what the incident meter reading and a print made based on that? Probably gray. Moonrise was underexposed but to what degree depends on intent. From the stand point of reproducing a gray card in a print, it appears to maybe 2 to 3 stops under. From the standpoint of getting a dramatic image, maybe one stop as Adams was fighting the negative. Personally I like to have room to interpret and change my mind. If I'm thinking of going dark, I still give myself a good negative and print down. So when people say they rate a film at X, use Zone System testing, or use certain meter techniques, the measurement of a successful exposure is they can achieve their intent. This doesn't mean there isn't a standard and that it's not worth understanding. This also applies to whether of not to use an 18% gray card. Will the exposure be perfect? Technically, probably not, but no method can guarantee it.

 

[reddesert]

We are far afield from the original topic. Still, if we look at the discussion in "Examples" that Chan Tran kindly posted, a couple of useful time-and-date related facts:

- Ansel admits that he wasn't very careful about keeping track of the dates of negatives, and so for a while there was not certainty about the date or even year that the photo was taken, with 1940-1942 suggested and even 1944 (which would be impossible if it was first published at end 1942, of course). Some of his other recollections may also have been inexact, although I bet he kept closer notes on his intended development than on the dates.

- In "Examples" it mentions that David Elmore of the HAO in Boulder subsequently used the Moon's position and phase to work out that the photo was taken at 4:05pm on October 31, 1941 (article in "American Photographer," 1981). I haven't ever read that article, but that was probably MST and sunset in Hernandez was 5:09 pm that day. Although the photo looks like it's practically getting dark (in part thanks to the red filter), the foreground and distant clouds are illuminated by the sun or lit-up clouds behind the photographer in the west. I think his comments in 1942 or so that it was made after sundown weren't correct; memory is fallible.

The foreground looks brighter than it would at twilight, IMO, but of course it is hard to judge relative values in the scene given that darkroom heroics were performed during printing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Of course the foreground looked brighter than it really was; he deliberately intensified it, plus dodging.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A cute true story about Ansel Adams Moonrise over Hernandez Pictures at AIPAD.

A few years back, I attended the Association of International Photography Art Dealers [AIPAD], as it's more commonly known, held at the Park Avenue Armory in NYC. There were lots of Ansel Adams B/W prints. Many dealers from around the world were there selling his stuff. I saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez prints. One dealer had his at around $80,000; another at $115,000, and the last at around $140,000.


So I'm standing by the last dealer, the one with the $140,000 edition, when in flows this attention-grabbing couple. He, a rather ordinary fifty-something-year-old but dressed to kill, and she, a knockout blonde about half his age. So I overhear him telling her, "This is nothing. My Hernandez cost me $180,000." As they drifted away, he had a smile on his face. And she, well, I think she was impressed. I was. But not about the $180,000. Or that he had an Adams Hernandez. I was impressed that he had such a hot young girlfriend. Why else would anyone spend $180,000 on an Adams? Even the dealer selling his Hernandez seemed impressed as he winked at me in acknowledgement.

 

[Chan Tran]

A cute true story about Ansel Adams Moonrise over Hernandez Pictures at AIPAD.

A few years back, I attended the Association of International Photography Art Dealers [AIPAD], as it's more commonly known, held at the Park Avenue Armory in NYC. There were lots of Ansel Adams B/W prints. Many dealers from around the world were there selling his stuff. I saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez prints. One dealer had his at around $80,000; another at $115,000, and the last at around $140,000.


So I'm standing by the last dealer, the one with the $140,000 edition, when in flows this attention-grabbing couple. He, a rather ordinary fifty-something-year-old but dressed to kill, and she, a knockout blonde about half his age. So I overhear him telling her, "This is nothing. My Hernandez cost me $180,000." As they drifted away, he had a smile on his face. And she, well, I think she was impressed. I was. But not about the $180,000. Or that he had an Adams Hernandez. I was impressed that he had such a hot young girlfriend. Why else would anyone spend $180,000 on an Adams? Even the dealer selling his Hernandez seemed impressed as he winked at me in acknowledgement.

But Adams himself or his family didn't make that much out of the photo I don't think.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Adams apparently didn't turn a serious profit on either his books or prints until he was elderly. But his family and trust have benefitted tremendously. When I started having my own gallery gigs in Carmel around 1980, it was convenient to cross the street and spend time in the Weston Gallery and Gallery West chatting and viewing their print collections. High quality 16X20 versions of Moonrise were going for $8,000 then, but in the next couple years, jumped to $16,000.
These had been purchased by them from Ansel long before, at pricing unknown to me. But they were clearly making a distinct profit on them.

Then somewhere out of the blue, an auction turned up where someone payed $40,000 for one. So that started a giant uptick of pricing in general, which in turn flooded the market (since so many Moonrise prints exist), which in turn collapsed the pricing back down to $16,000 on average. That bursting bubble itself was decades ago. In the meantime, typical prices have climbed astronomically for this "must have" collector image.

I don't know how many of these are still held by the family trust itself. His Son owns a huge 30X40 one, not for sale.
20X24's have gone for as much as half a million. It's not my favorite image of his, by any means. And if I was collecting, I'd be looking at rare overlooked prints of his instead. But I have too many of my own damn prints; it would take a rebuilding of the Berlin Wall to display them all. I did once have the opportunity to display a number of them side by side with Adam's own larger prints. I admire his work and deserved place in photographic history; but I don't idolize him, nor attempt to mimic his technique. And as far as the Zone System goes, that's in the rear view mirror for me.

 

[Chan Tran]

Well yeah Adams said he made some 1300 prints of the Moonrise so it's a lot of money for the family but I doubt that the family or Adams sold any single print in the $100,000 range. Also because his newer prints are worth less than the older prints.

 

[Vaughn]

The family buys and resells AA prints all the time and makes good money at it.

Edit to add: The family trust most likely has made more income off of Moonrise than Ansel did himself.

One of my favorites from John Pfahl

Moonrise over Pie Pan, Capitol Reef National Park, Utah | The Art Institute of Chicago

John Pfahl, October 1977, printed c. 1981

www.artic.edu

 

[MattKing]

I saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez prints.

If they were titled "Sunrise over Hernandez", I would have checked the provenance.

 

[Chan Tran]

If they were titled "Sunrise over Hernandez", I would have checked the provenance.

Yes Adams photograph the tittle is only Moonrise. They may put Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico but never Moonrise over Hernandez.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Yes Adams photograph the tittle is only Moonrise. They may put Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico but never Moonrise over Hernandez.

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."