Ansel Adams Film and Method

[Donald Qualls]

But a 1:1 enlargement will probably be as good as a contact print anyways.

Not quite -- but if you're viewing at a normal distance instead of leaving nose grease on the print, you won't see the difference, at least if the copy lens used was of top quality and optimized for 1:1.

 

[takilmaboxer]

There used to be a photo gallery in Santa Fe that owned several large prints of Moonrise. One year they had a huge modern print hung on the back wall, and a host of other large (3X4 feet or so) prints on the other walls, showing how his prints evolved from "straight" prints before intensification, to the black sky version. I remember clearly, that I was shocked at how un-sharp those prints were, especially at the corners. They really only had full impact if the viewer stood ten feet away from them.

 

[faberryman]

There used to be a photo gallery in Santa Fe that owned several large prints of Moonrise. One year they had a huge modern print hung on the back wall, and a host of other large (3X4 feet or so) prints on the other walls, showing how his prints evolved from "straight" prints before intensification, to the black sky version. I remember clearly, that I was shocked at how un-sharp those prints were, especially at the corners. They really only had full impact if the viewer stood ten feet away from them.

I saw the Ansel Adams retrospective in San Francisco In July. They had approximately 100 of his prints and, with the exception of a few prints from the 1920s, they were all sharp, and I got my nose right up to them. Some of them (including Moonrise, Snake River, etc.) were large, though I didn't have my tape measure with me so I can't say exactly how large. Still I would say 20x30. Maybe they got the sharp versions for the exhibition.

 

[kfed1984]

I will update everyone when I receive my 8x10 AA print, zoomed in.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You mean your Alan Ross print from an AA negative. It will probably look even better than if AA himself had printed it. Of course, the price is about 5 or 10 % as much as a vintage one might sell for.

 

[Vaughn]

AA Dreams

 

[kfed1984]

You mean your Alan Ross print from an AA negative. It will probably look even better than if AA himself had printed it. Of course, the price is about 5 or 10 % as much as a vintage one might sell for.

Yes the Alan Ross print of course. I'm aware the AA original is worth $10k and above. But for me its the technical aspect. I hope its a high quality print that I can use as reference for my own work. A standard to compare to.

 

[kfed1984]

AA Dreams

AI-generated image? LOL

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ansel was certainly not the apogee of technique, even in his own time. That's a common myth. What he was superb at is translating his emotional feel for a certain kind of lighting into an effective print communicating that very thing. As per Alan, he was personally coached by AA how he wanted his prints to look, and has done a faithful job of it. Of course, specific printing papers have changed over the years, so there are going to be minor differences in any given image. When Seagull G paper came out, it proved to be Ansel's favorite choice for that Tenaya Creek image (versus his routine choice of Galerie Graded). I don't know what paper Alan would use today, though if it were me needing to find a substitute for Seagull, it would be Bergger Prestige Neutral Tone.

Alan is of course a highly regarded photographer and printmaker in his own right as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was under the impression that many of the Ansel Adams prints that are available in quantity were prepared by first making enlarged copy negatives which incorporate any necessary dodging and burning, and then using those copy negatives to contact print the resulting prints.

No, in my understanding from Alan Ross, he print negatives directly into prints, develops them, and tones them as designated by the family in the sizes and numbers that they direct. Some selected versions of Ansel's earlier prints may selected for photographic coping for specialized graphic arts printing.

 

[kfed1984]

So I got my print today, gotta say I'm satisfied. Feels like a contact print. Would be better if the blacks were darker. Overall very sharp throughout. I will send some closeup pics in the morning.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You mean your Alan Ross print from an AA negative. It will probably look even better than if AA himself had printed it. Of course, the price is about 5 or 10 % as much as a vintage one might sell for.

I agree. Alan has the personal contact working the negatives with Ansel, Ansel's notes and years of experience working with the negatives, so it is entirely possible that Alan could produce a better print.

 

[kfed1984]

Yes I meant the Alan Ross print, I understand that its not an original AA print, I just called it AA print since its an AA special edition print from his negative, maybe original negative.

 

[pentaxuser]

I just thought I would share this Ansel Adams "image". Approximately thirty years ago while visiting my daughter who was living in LA at the time we passed a building with a wall facing an alley. I just happened to notice the wall and had her turn around and go back. Fortunately I had my camera with me and made this image. I wondered how many people ever recognized it and why it was painted facing an alley and if it still even exists. It was painted in color photographed with 2 1/4 Tri-X As i recall it was at least 20ft or more in height.
View attachment 349717

ABOUT | JEFFREY GLASSER

HOME | SCULPTURE and PHOTOGRAPHY

It looks very good I have often wondered how an artist maintains proper perspective when painting a picture that size.

pentaxuser

 

[kfed1984]

so the print is worth the buy for me, I keep looking into it, detail is quite good. The photos are with my phone up close, its a bit better in life.

 

[kfed1984]

Cannot tell if this is FB or RC paper as it's mounted. But it does feel thick.

I guess AA really had to stop the lens down to get everything into focus, maybe f/64. I tried 8x10 on subjects this close at f/8 and only some of the scene goes into fine focus, the rest is a blur. Although the site says the exposure for this shot was 1/2 sec, so maybe not f/64.

Anyone knows at what f-number the diffraction limit begins to take over the depth of field in terms of sharpness on a contact print, for 8x10 negative? For this type of scene.

 

[kfed1984]

Three trunk through a magnifier. Sharpness is good, cannot complain about it. You can see the grain, which I think is the original negative grain, not the print paper grain.

 

[kfed1984]

AA book, examples of 40 photographs, does not say much about f-number of type of film, etc.

 

[Sirius Glass]

AA book, examples of 40 photographs, does not say much about f-number of type of film, etc.

View attachment 350519 View attachment 350520

His books and others rarely talk about f/stops and shutter speeds because paper, chemical and equipment are constantly evolving. Putting such details are extraneous, would be quickly out dated and would never apply to a particular darkroom.

 

[DREW WILEY]

kfed - moderate diffraction is seldom an issue with LF work because the degree of enlargement is so small. In an 8x10 or even larger format contact print, even f/256 diffraction might not be noticeable. But in my case, making 16x20 or 20X24 FB black and white prints, I try to limit 8x10 stop-downs to f/64 or less. For 30X40 inch color prints, I try to limit it to f/45; but that is still only about a 4X enlargement. Few 8x10 photographs are taken at apertures as wide as f/8 unless a very shallow depth of field is in mind. None of my own 8x10 lenses even have that wide of an aperture to begin with.

But in terms of AA's vintage work, he simply didn't have the advantage of the same modern lenses or camera precision we do today. Later, approaching old age, he did. Nor would his sheet film have been consistently flat. That's evident by uneven horizon lines in some of his ocean pictures. And his earlier films themselves were quite grainy.

pentax user - people who make big wall paintings and use plotted grids with general lines sketched in by pencil in advance. Fresco muralists like my Aunt used big paper "cartoons" temporarily taped in place, then little pin indentations to mark the outlines in the plaster. That was a lot more difficult because true fresco requires the painting upon its surface before the plaster has dried. The plasterers work directly ahead of the painter. There are no re-dos like in oil painting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

kfed - moderate diffraction is seldom an issue with LF work because the degree of enlargement is so small. In an 8x10 or even larger format contact print, even f/256 diffraction might not be noticeable. But in my case, making 16x20 or 20X24 FB black and white prints, I try to limit 8x10 stop-downs to f/64 or less. For 30X40 inch color prints, I try to limit it to f/45; but that is still only about a 4X enlargement. Few 8x10 photographs are taken at apertures as wide as f/8 unless a very shallow depth of field is in mind. None of my own 8x10 lenses even have that wide of an aperture to begin with.

But in terms of AA's vintage work, he simply didn't have the advantage of the same modern lenses or camera precision we do today. Later, approaching old age, he did. Nor would his sheet film have been consistently flat. That's evident by uneven horizon lines in some of his ocean pictures. And his earlier films themselves were quite grainy.

pentax user - people who make big wall paintings and use plotted grids with general lines sketched in by pencil in advance. Fresco muralists like my Aunt used big paper "cartoons" temporarily taped in place, then little pin indentations to mark the outlines in the plaster. That was a lot more difficult because true fresco requires the painting upon its surface before the plaster has dried. The plasters work directly ahead of the painter. There are no re-dos like in oil painting.

For 4x5 film, would you divide the aperture max by 2? For example, limit to f/22 for 30x40 inch prints. Or should another f stop be considered?

 

[kfed1984]

kfed - moderate diffraction is seldom an issue with LF work because the degree of enlargement is so small. In an 8x10 or even larger format contact print, even f/256 diffraction might not be noticeable. But in my case, making 16x20 or 20X24 FB black and white prints, I try to limit 8x10 stop-downs to f/64 or less. For 30X40 inch color prints, I try to limit it to f/45; but that is still only about a 4X enlargement. Few 8x10 photographs are taken at apertures as wide as f/8 unless a very shallow depth of field is in mind. None of my own 8x10 lenses even have that wide of an aperture to begin with.

Ok good to know, I wasn't sure if the contact print will still maintain its sharpness at such high f-number. Also, one of my best lenses has some balsam separation at the edge, so maybe stopping it down will nullify the issue. Is it true that vignetting becomes less of an issue with higher f-numbers? Then maybe my 8x10 lenses could be used for larger format than 8x10?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan, it's all in the final visual effect. 8x10 photography depends on juggling several things : attaining sufficient depth of field (which is half of that of a comparable 4X5 perspective - in other words, if you get you're desired depth of field at f/22 in 4x5, you'd need twice that, f/45, to get the same depth on 8x10, because you'd need twice as long a focal length lens.

You also have to factor film flatness. For critical work, I use adhesive or vacuum holders for 8x10. With 4x5, standardizing on f/32 instead of f/22 has the benefit of better handling film flatness issues.

I don't like to tempt diffraction; but for my levels of enlargement, that limits me to f/64 or preferably f/45 with 8x10, or f/32 in 4x5 work. But a contact printer can get away with much smaller stops because he's after only a 1X scale of reproduction.

But yeah, vignetting is a factor too. For instance, I have certain 240 and 250 lenses which easily cover 4x5 format at wide f/stops, but might need to be stopped down to f/45 or f/64 just to competently cover 8x10 with significant movements involved, like front tilt or rise.

 

[pentaxuser]

pentax user - people who make big wall paintings and use plotted grids with general lines sketched in by pencil in advance. Fresco muralists like my Aunt used big paper "cartoons" temporarily taped in place, then little pin indentations to mark the outlines in the plaster. That was a lot more difficult because true fresco requires the painting upon its surface before the plaster has dried. The plasters work directly ahead of the painter. There are no re-dos like in oil painting.

Thanks for the explanation, Drew

pentaxuser

 

[kfed1984]

I mainly bought this print to use as a standard to compare my prints. Inspiration for composition and sharpness of print. The only thing is it doesn't seem black enough, it has a slight bluish tint, maybe it was selenium toned.