Thankfully, he had the moon to work with!
He did know the luminance of various things like today we know the exposure settings for various things in term of aperture/shutter speed/ISO but he knew them by the cd/ft^2 values and thus he had his exposure formula so he can convert the luminance value to shutter speed/aperture/ISO settings. I rarely use cd/ft^2 but I do use cd/m^2 often.I covered this in post #7 - the "looney f/11 rule." https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ansel-adams-moonlight-equation.185114/#post-2438414 It's a common rule of thumb that the moon's surface is a little darker than an 18% gray card, so instead of sunny f/16 you use f/11. This rule even has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_11_rule
St. Ansel didn't have wikipedia, so he used prior knowledge of the moon's luminance in surface brightness units, which is throwing everybody off because none of us are used to thinking in candles per foot^2. But for whatever reason, he thought and worked that way. I showed in post #7 that looney f/11 actually gives a very close approximation to the exposure he said he used, once you take into account that he put the moon on zone 7, filter factors, etc.
I can't believe you are saying that in mixed company !Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure
Thankfully, he had the moon to work with!
I guess he 'grew up' using a light meter instead of an exposure meter......St. Ansel didn't have wikipedia, so he used prior knowledge of the moon's luminance in surface brightness units, which is throwing everybody off because none of us are used to thinking in candles per foot^2...
So what? People liked the photograph enough to buy prints from him. Mission accomplished.
Well, you know photographers... We have to over analise everything![]()
If I’m not mistaken, he was quite accustomed to criticism and other points-of-view even when he was alive. He could deal with it then and he still can.and pick on successful dead guys since the cannot fight back. Such a low blow by low people. Sad.
If I’m not mistaken, he was quite accustomed to criticism and other points-of-view even when he was alive. He could deal with it then and he still can.
Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure
Hi AndrewHe hardly botched the exposure, considering there was some guesswork on his part, and the moment was fleeting. Many would have cracked under the pressure and just said, bugger it! If he had found his metre and it came out underexposed, then you could say he botched the exposure. The print looks amazing! It's probably his most successful.
Yes, the is what I have heard, that he wished he had at least a stop greater exposure. I wonder (f they had been available) if he would have wanted a grad filter to bring density to the graveyard while not frying the moon. So he wound up repeatedly dunking the lower part of the negative in intensifying solution. So much for the f/64 school dogma about not "manipulating" the image.Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure
He probably used a meter. His earliest accounts of the story are somewhat different than the most well known version (including a meter, different film developer/process). So who knows.
exactly ! anyone who says otherwise is woefully misinformed...He was a master printer, no doubt about it. He would have loved PS.
He wouldn't be able to take a reading off the moon but he didn't need to as he knew the moon brightness. I would want to measure the cross and the ground. He had the moon exposed the way he wanted but I believe he felt that he underexposed the foreground. He would want to increase the exposure if he could take another shot.maybe ? does it really matter?. if he did use a light meter / exposure meter would he have been able to get a reading off of the moon? from what I remember, for decades tourist photographers had exposure books and tables ( like the black cat exposure meter ) that gave them rough ideas what exposures were depending on where they went. old photo periodicals/journals sold them ... so he probably had a good idea even without a meter what he was doing .. he knew/used sunny 16, was the story I always heard. the story the history of photography teachers I have had then went on and said he didn't have time to do meter readings and knew what the exposure was from experience.
just goes to show that we all should be a little less reliant on our meters and gadgets and rely on our experience / intuition and being able to judge the light more.
he probably knew the straight photography mantra of f64 was more like a rule to be broken with a wink, he manipulated the hell out of just about everything he exposed... but for some reason it was OK, even though he and others in his f64 tribe castigated others for doing the same thing.. oh well, not much changed I guess, people were doing that 60 years before and are still doing that 80 years later..
exactly ! anyone who says otherwise is woefully misinformed...
exactly it didn't matter, so he had to use his own good judgement and experience to make the photograph. this whole conversation is kind of funny because none of it matters seeing he himself gave different stories, history books recount different stories, and everyone on the internet has probably concocted their own story about what might or might not have happened depending on what kool-aid they drank and what dogma they want to follow.apparently the values of the moon and the distant peaks did not lie higher than the A of the meter. The white cloud under the moon probably registered a light value about opposite the arrow of the meter
I never read or head that when making Moonrise AA had a meter. He almost always used it as an example when the meter is not available. He also used it as an example of his so called "Exposure Formula" which I found much harder to use than other methods of figuring out exposure using known luminance.The story of the Moonrise negative got sexier over time. First there was a meter, and Agfa 12 developer. Later, there was no meter, and eventually dilute D-23/water bath development.
It's a great picture, but the story is quite iffy.
In which book and which page?"The average light values of the foreground were placed on the U of the Weston Master meter; apparently the values of the moon and the distant peaks did not lie higher than the A of the meter. The white cloud under the moon probably registered a light value about opposite the arrow of the meter."
Ansel Adams, 1943
In which book and which page?
See the section on “Creation” for the citation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico
Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure
He wouldn't be able to take a reading off the moon but he didn't need to as he knew the moon brightness. I would want to measure the cross and the ground. He had the moon exposed the way he wanted but I believe he felt that he underexposed the foreground. He would want to increase the exposure if he could take another shot.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |