Ansel adams moonlight equation

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thankfully, he had the moon to work with!

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

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.

 

[removed account4]

Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure

I can't believe you are saying that in mixed company !
you mean someone's behind the red curtain ??
next thing you are going to say is smoking is good for you
I should be eating a high fat / red meat, low fruit/vegetable diet
and we should be passing around the orb. at least the vw bug in the cave will still start...
I don't know ... because he was able to think on his feet and improvise ...

Thankfully, he had the moon to work with!

I don't think it is real, it might be combination printed or retouched to LOOK LIKE the moon was actually there ...

 

[Vaughn]

...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...

I guess he 'grew up' using a light meter instead of an exposure meter...

And I believe only half the negative was toned/intensified...but with selenium. I did it with this image -- selenium toned the upper half of the 4x10 negative (carbon print). Along the Merced River, Yosemite Valley...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My avatar was underexposed and very hard to print, so selenium toned it. Worked great!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So what? People liked the photograph enough to buy prints from him. Mission accomplished.

Well, you know photographers... We have to over analise everything

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, you know photographers... We have to over analise everything

and pick on successful dead guys since the cannot fight back. Such a low blow by low people. Sad.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Maybe he can still talk to him, but I have not heard a peep in years. Next time you talk to him ask him why he does not write to me any more.

 

[BrianShaw]

LOL… he said he can’t recall who you are. Otherwise he would keep in touch.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure

He 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.

 

[removed account4]

He 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.

Hi Andrew
I don't know Adams and have never seen the print in person ( just in books ) but I know the kind of person he was. I think he might have been the kind of person who could screw something up,
and make a negative that the rest of us would have though was ruined or beyond repair, but he know his materials well enough that he knew what to do to manipulate it and fix it and make a great print. We all
take knowledge of selenium and chromium intensifiers, burning, dodging and negative/print retouching for granted, we have read his manuals and the internet and this stuff is all pretty run of the mill for a lot of people, hobbyists and teachers and professionals alike... probably the serious hobbies back in the 30s-60s didn't know what selenium / chromium intensifiers were, and Adams well he stood on the shoulders of the giants who taught him what to do ..
I can see why jtk said that, for most people it was "botched" but for him well, just something to stick in another chemical and make it do what he wanted.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

He was a master printer, no doubt about it. He would have loved PS.

 

[bluechromis]

Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

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..

He was a master printer, no doubt about it. He would have loved PS.

exactly ! anyone who says otherwise is woefully misinformed...

 

[Chan Tran]

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...

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.

 

[removed account4]

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

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

"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?

 

[BrianShaw]

In which book and which page?

See the section on “Creation” for the citation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico

 

[Chan Tran]

See the section on “Creation” for the citation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico

Of course I am too young to read that magazine so I never read it. I read several of AA books as well as his video and in all of them he told the same story. The earliest book was published in 84 just before his death.

 

[Arthurwg]

Chrome intensifier. He botched the exposure

Probably right.

But why a green filter?

 

[cowanw]

 

[faberryman]

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.

Perhaps he didn't have time to run down to the crosses and get a meter reading. I bet I'd have a tough time getting a meter reading of the crosses with my spot meter at that distance. He wouldn't have had a chance with his Weston.

 

[cowanw]

A representative shot of the straight contact sheet, in the post two above.
Judge exposure for yourself!