Discussing a James Ravilious Photograph

[Samuel West Hiser]

South coast of England ... the light ... you have to be there to believe its evanescence.

 

[Samuel West Hiser]

Space and ...

snip

the message is clear... which, I think, is part of what a good portfolio should do for the viewer... BE CONCISE)

snip

Some other things that struck me -
His use of space....

snip

Wonderful assessment.

I too observe Ravilious' space as painterly.

Oddly, the other English photographer whose work strikes me in this way is Larry Burrows.

 

[michael markey]

There is a very good youtube vid .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq2iZmEmF8A

Michael

 

[SuzanneR]

There is a very good youtube vid .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq2iZmEmF8A

Michael

Thank you for that link... is there more to this documentary about Ravilious?

 

[lxdude]

Yes, Suzanne, there is. I saw it online some months back. But dang it, I can't remember where! Like his work, a real treat.

 

[michael markey]

Yes, Suzanne, there is. I saw it online some months back. But dang it, I can't remember where! Like his work, a real treat.

Is there really.
I`ve only ever seen the youtube extract which is a firm favorite of mine.

Michael

 

[Steve Roberts]

Another element that I think is emotive, is that whether we like it or not, there is a certain romanticized image of rural life.. and these images play to that concept... Many of the images depict "perfect" examples of this or that "character" from the farm-mythos.... ...

As someone who was born and has always lived in Devon, not far from where many of Ravilious' photographs were taken, I'd respectfully suggest that the subject matter of the images itself is not born of romanticism. The way of life he portrayed did and still does continue in the county, and his characters are still plentiful in the farming community. That's what it's like here, with many small farms that would be said by many to be in a time warp. Ravilious only told it like it was. He certainly didn't have to look very far or hard for his subjects, but the difference was that he was there in all winds and weathers, very early and very late, when the rest of us were still tucked up in bed, and did such a fine job of capturing the essence of those scenes and people around him.

Steve

 

[michael markey]

That`s an interesting comment Steve.
I was going to add to my comment that times had not changed that much down there.
I deleted it because its been a few years since I was last in Devon feared that I was out of date.
I was always a summer visitor but I know ,and its apparent from the photographs ,that the weather can be harsh.
I`d not want to be out and about with a camera like he was at times like that.

 

[Steve Roberts]

That`s an interesting comment Steve.
I was going to add to my comment that times had not changed that much down there.
I deleted it because its been a few years since I was last in Devon feared that I was out of date.
I was always a summer visitor but I know ,and its apparent from the photographs ,that the weather can be harsh.
I`d not want to be out and about with a camera like he was at times like that.

No, you're not out of date, Michael. Whilst there are of course some larger farms that are run along modern lines, there are plenty of examples of things not having moved on very much. Until only a couple of years ago, a farmer I knew used a shire horse to work his farm for the simple reason that most of his land was too steep to work by tractor. (Curiously, when the farmer died, the horse died not long after!) Only a mile away from where I live is a farm that still doesn't have mains electricity and you wouldn't have to look too hard to find other examples of that.
One more aspect that Ravilious would have had to overcome was to gain the trust of those he photographed in order to get the results he did. The farming community can be protective of itself and suspicious of anyone pointing a camera. Farming has always had to 'work around' the law here and there (it's not all like that chap Adam's farm on Countrywise!) and I can well imagine that a farmer might worry that any misdemeanours captured for ever on film might find their way to the authorities. The standard joke around here used to be that when the Ministry man came around, a certain number of sheep had to shipped from farm to farm so the count-up in the fields would tally with the number claimed for on the subsidy paperwork!

Steve

 

[michael markey]

Steve
Yes that is the other aspect that comes over in his work...he gained the trust of the farming community.
I`ll declare my hand here...since retiring I look after my daughters horse and other horses so spend my day on a farm.
Also involved with the local drag hunt.
Grandfather was a farmer so guess there`s a genetic link at work
These communities are often as you describe.
Not to long ago I met up with a prof photographer who was attemping to emulate Ravilious and had lined up some possible farms.
He was looking for an introduction but unfortunatley I didn`t know any of the families.
I`m surprised that he got the shots he did.
I don`t think that a street shooting approach would have got him far.

Michael

 

[Steve Roberts]

I don`t think that a street shooting approach would have got him far.

Michael

A street shooting approach to a farmer down this way might provoke a two-word invitation to depart, a flea-infested collie sinking its teeth into his ankle, a close-up view down a pair of slightly tapering, rusty steel barrels or even a permutation of these!

Like your daughter, my sister is very keen (putting it mildly!) on horses, and I'm frequently subjected to long diatribes about how Dobbin's martingale needs adjusting so that his fetlock doesn't develop a bad case of the glanders or something similar. I nod sagely and try to look as if I know what she's on about!

Steve

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

This video is by a photographer who wanted to try the same camera and lens type that James Ravilious used.

 

[snusmumriken]

I didn’t see this thread until today, but as it has been re-awakened, please can someone solve a conundrum that has bothered me for years?

I think I’m right in believing that an un-coated lens has more internal flare. That ‘stray’ light will affect all the tones in the image, but more significantly the shadows, because they otherwise receive little light. So overall, the shadows will probably be lighter in tone, resulting in a shorter tonal scale as someone observed when this thread was last active.

Presumably, though, a coated lens would differentiate better between deep black shadow and not-quite-so-deep shadow, thus delivering better shadow detail. Interestingly, one doesn’t see blank shadows in Ravilious’ photographs. I suppose he must have exposed generously, explaining why he also used a compensating developer to control highlights (I don’t know which, though I have seen Perceptol 1+2 mentioned). He also routinely used a light yellow filter, which should have made the shadows darker - but would it also have reduced shadow detail?

My puzzlement is whether or not he could have achieved the same tonality using a coated lens and adjusting development to cope with the longer tonal range? Is the answer all about mid-tones as opposed to mud-tones?

Feel free to correct anything I have misunderstood - so long as you have answers!

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I didn’t see this thread until today, but as it has been re-awakened, please can someone solve a conundrum that has bothered me for years?

I think I’m right in believing that an un-coated lens has more internal flare. That ‘stray’ light will affect all the tones in the image, but more significantly the shadows, because they otherwise receive little light. So overall, the shadows will probably be lighter in tone, resulting in a shorter tonal scale as someone observed when this thread was last active.

Presumably, though, a coated lens would differentiate better between deep black shadow and not-quite-so-deep shadow, thus delivering better shadow detail. Interestingly, one doesn’t see blank shadows in Ravilious’ photographs. I suppose he must have exposed generously, explaining why he also used a compensating developer to control highlights (I don’t know which, though I have seen Perceptol 1+2 mentioned). He also routinely used a light yellow filter, which should have made the shadows darker - but would it also have reduced shadow detail?

My puzzlement is whether or not he could have achieved the same tonality using a coated lens and adjusting development to cope with the longer tonal range? Is the answer all about mid-tones as opposed to mud-tones?

Feel free to correct anything I have misunderstood - so long as you have answers!

I have seen an exhibition of James Ravilious photos and they are excellent.

I have also seen photos by Chris Chapman who used a 35mm SLR camera and his prints are also excellent, so your question of coated lens compared with non-coated are very debatable.
I look forward to reading the replies.

I remember reading that the photographer felt that the old uncoated lenses gave him an aesthetically pleasing pictorial effect which he didn't consider the coated lenses provided.

 

[bluechromis]

This was in fact the reason why he used the old uncoated lenses - makes quite a difference. I knew someone once who did a series of pictures of a village in the South of France at midday, normally a total no-no because of the screaming contrast of the overhead sun, but he used an old Nikon F and original lens, which shortened the tone scale considerably and gave a very pleasing effect. I use an uncoated 5 cm Elmar myself from time to time for the same reason.

Regards,

David

It would be interesting to see the same scene shot with both a coated and an uncoated lens.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have seen an exhibition of James Ravilious photos and they are excellent.

I have also seen photos by Chris Chapman who used a 35mm SLR camera and his prints are also excellent

Same here, and I couldn't agree more.

so your question of coated lens compared with non-coated are very debatable

I hope you are not misreading my genuine search for understanding?

 

[Mark J]

Thank you for that link... is there more to this documentary about Ravilious?

There is, but it's unfortunately quite hard to find. If it's out there somewhere, then it would be a great service to this thread if it could be linked. It was on the BBC many years ago, and I think it has been on Youtube, but likely was taken down by the BBC. The full film I think is an hour long. I have it saved on DVD-R. The documentary itself is a work of art ; commentary by Alan Bennett, music by Arvo Pärt.

I feel that Ravilious is probably my favourite British photographer. He has the same stunning facility with composition that I see in Brett Weston, though the subject matter is hugely different.

 

[Mark J]

1. I think I’m right in believing that an un-coated lens has more internal flare. That ‘stray’ light will affect all the tones in the image, but more significantly the shadows, because they otherwise receive little light. So overall, the shadows will probably be lighter in tone, resulting in a shorter tonal scale as someone observed when this thread was last active.

2. Presumably, though, a coated lens would differentiate better between deep black shadow and not-quite-so-deep shadow, thus delivering better shadow detail. Interestingly, one doesn’t see blank shadows in Ravilious’ photographs. I suppose he must have exposed generously, explaining why he also used a compensating developer to control highlights (I don’t know which, though I have seen Perceptol 1+2 mentioned). He also routinely used a light yellow filter, which should have made the shadows darker - but would it also have reduced shadow detail?

3. My puzzlement is whether or not he could have achieved the same tonality using a coated lens and adjusting development to cope with the longer tonal range? Is the answer all about mid-tones as opposed to mud-tones?

1. Yes, there is more of a wash of stray light ( veling glare ) across the picture.
2. I believe there are two effects but they trade-off somewhat. The wash of stray light from an uncoated lens doesn't raise the contrast or detail of shadows ( in the aerial image ) , it actually degrades it. However it does raise the value of shadow areas, which may put them above the threshold, or the shallow toe, of a film, improving the actual recorded shadow contrast.
3. I wonder about this, and I understand your comments. It seems likely he wanted to use the stray light to reduce the overall value range in the picture, because he was trying to keep highlights on the curve, to preserve tonality there.

 

[Mark J]

If it's out there somewhere, then it would be a great service to this thread if it could be linked.

Actually it's still out there on DVD for sale, in various places. Here's one :

DVD -James Ravilious: A World in Photographs - Burton at Bideford

Documentary about James Ravilious, one of the great unknowns of British photography, who took more than 80,000 photographs of a small area of Devon from the 1970s-90s.

www.burtonartgallery.co.uk

Hopefully it can be shipped internationally.

 

[Ian Grant]

It would be interesting to see the same scene shot with both a coated and an uncoated lens.

Some years ago I stuck some LF lens on my DSLR using a set of bellows, I posted the results on this Forum. Essentially a 120mm f6.8 Daror, a 165m f5.3 CZJ Tessar (the f5.3 versions are rare), and a Goerz-Ihagee f6.8 135mm. The resulting contrasts were as you'd expect, excellent for the Dagor with two internal air/glass surfaces, a noticeable drop with the Tessar with 4 internal air/glass surfaces, and low contrast from the Goerz-Ihagee dialyte 6 internal air/glass surfaces.

It has to be remembered that before lenses were coated photographers would develop to much higher contrasts.

Back around 2007 I used an uncoated 135mm f4.5 Tessar (while first living in Turkey), I was not happy with the results compared to my 150mm Sironar N and other MC lenses, I bought some CZJ T coated 150mm Tessar cells (on this forum) and such a huge difference.

I use much older lenses, various Rapid Rectilinear, Petzval, and others, but they almost all have only two internal air/glass surfaces, so have excellent contrast.

Now back to the look Ravilious liked from uncoated lenses, that works as long as other FL lenses are similar.

I must dig out "The Pastoral & Pictorial" article that mentions of Ravilious in the 1980s Ten.8 magazine, "Rural Myths", devoted to UK landscape photography. The more important article "Where the Wild Things Went" this is about the British apostles of Minor White.

Meanwhile, in the US you had the highly influential New Topographic movement, the exact opposite to Ravilious.

In recent weeks I've been really getting in to how Stanley Kubrik uses lenses. Particularly in his film Barry Lyndon, well worth checking out.

Ian

 

[snusmumriken]

There is, but it's unfortunately quite hard to find. If it's out there somewhere, then it would be a great service to this thread if it could be linked. It was on the BBC many years ago, and I think it has been on Youtube, but likely was taken down by the BBC. The full film I think is an hour long. I have it saved on DVD-R. The documentary itself is a work of art ; commentary by Alan Bennett, music by Arvo Pärt.

I feel that Ravilious is probably my favourite British photographer. He has the same stunning facility with composition that I see in Brett Weston, though the subject matter is hugely different.

The biography of JR by his wife Robin (James Ravilious - A Life) is human, heart-warming, well illustrated and very informative. Also very affordable. I thoroughly recommend it.

 

[snusmumriken]

I must dig out "The Pastoral & Pictorial" article that mentions of Ravilious in the 1980s Ten.8 magazine, "Rural Myths", devoted to UK landscape photography. The more important article "Where the Wild Things Went" this is about the British apostles of Minor White.

Yes please, Ian!

 

[snusmumriken]

The wash of stray light from an uncoated lens doesn't raise the contrast or detail of shadows ( in the aerial image ) , it actually degrades it. However it does raise the value of shadow areas, which may put them above the threshold, or the shallow toe, of a film, improving the actual recorded shadow contrast.

I hadn’t thought of that. But with a coated lens, a little extra exposure would achieve the same thing, surely?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I hope you are not misreading my genuine search for understanding?

No, not at all. I too would like to understand more about whether comparable results can be achieved with coated lenses. I find Ravilious choice of lenses and modification of lens hoods intriguing.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have seen an exhibition of James Ravilious photos and they are excellent.

I have also seen photos by Chris Chapman who used a 35mm SLR camera and his prints are also excellent

You know, it’s quite possible that Ravilious and Chapman could have met up and photographed the same subjects together. Without wanting to favourite one over the other, it would be a very interesting comparison from a technical point of view.