Getting the Wood Effect with Panchromatic Film

2. I think you may be overestimating the filtration effect in Adams prints relative to the controls he applied in printing. In most of the cases you are likely thinking of, a straight print of the negative would shock you. Adams did a lot of burning work on his skies, particularly in his later printings (which are the versions people are most familiar with). A quick example would be his famous Mt. McKinley/Wonder Lake. In fact on the negative the sky is virtually the same tone as the mountain. He carefully applied a lot of burning to the sky, also using a card in the shape of the mountain, with a deep "sawtooth" edge. There are lots of other examples.

Click to expand...

Yes, Adams' printing is the key. If you see the original negative of Moonrise (was in a video on Youtube) the sky is actually a mid grey.

Far better than a red filter, in my opinion, is to use a Minus Blue (Wratten 12) filter. Adams used this filter a lot and, when I used to do nature landscapes where I wanted dark skies, this was my number one choice giving dark skies with good mid-tone separation.

For the urban landscapes that I now do, I prefer the skies to be a good strong mid grey. This I achieve with no filtration at all. I use Delta 400 in a two-bath developer and I get the skies I want with no need to burn them in. During my most recent exhibition, a number of visitors enquired what filter I used and were visibly shocked when I replied "none".

Here is an example of the effect that I get (straight print):



I would suggest using the Minus Blue filter and processing in a two-bath developer. You should then get strong skies which you can, a la Adams, then burn-in further.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

David A. Goldfarb said:

Try a film with a more traditional spectral response than T-max, and you should get a stronger filter effect--Tri-X, Pan-F, FP4+, any of the Adox films, etc. If you're worried about grain, shoot a larger format.

Clive's suggestion of using a polarizer or 25a plus polarizer for even more is a good one, as long as you're not using an ultrawide lens (in which case you'll get uneven polarization in the sky).

Click to expand...

Yup, A polarizer with a red gives amazing results. Not just sky, with ice on lakes too.

David Allen said:

a Minus Blue (Wratten 12) filter.

Click to expand...

Slightly off at a tangent, and not a question directly for David, but does anyone know of an accurate equivalence table for Wratten numbers against filters from various common manufacturers (e.g. B+W, Hoya), who all seem to use there own numbering ; Photo forums all over the web are littered with questions of the "is a B+W xx the same as a Wratten yy" type, yet I've never been able to find a table anywhere - not even Schneider seem to have one.

brian steinberger said:

I recommend an orange filter and polarizer together. I use this combo all the time. I get great results regardless of film. I'm surprised you're not getting good results on Tmax. I found Tmax films to have less blue sensitivity than traditional emulsions.

Here is an example with Neopan 400 in Xtol 1:1, orange and polarizer:

View attachment 82570

Click to expand...

This! The color of the orange filter is exactly opposite blue on the color wheel. You get the darkest tones from a red filter from green, which is opposite it on the color wheel.

Excellent example, Brian!

I have had good luck with a graduated ND filter too.

I should have pointed out that I used the gelatin Wratten filters from Kodak. These can still be found quite easily on eBay.

I have no idea if any manufactures of glass filters make an true equivalent of the Minus Blue. There was a company called Tiffen (I think) that sold a Minus Blue (Yellow 12) filter but whether that has the same spectral transmission as the Wratten ones I do not know.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

pdeeh said:

Slightly off at a tangent, and not a question directly for David, but does anyone know of an accurate equivalence table for Wratten numbers against filters from various common manufacturers (e.g. B+W, Hoya), who all seem to use there own numbering ; Photo forums all over the web are littered with questions of the "is a B+W xx the same as a Wratten yy" type, yet I've never been able to find a table anywhere - not even Schneider seem to have one.

Click to expand...

On a tangent here, but important info...

B+W has a downloadable catalog. In it are the equivalent Wratten numbers. Heliopan uses "International" designations that are the same as Wratten numbers. Tiffen uses Wratten numbers (they manufacture the Wratten gels). Hoya and others use older designations, but these are easily converted to Wratten numbers. Check out the Wikipedia page on Wratten numbers and you'll see the older designations next to the Wratten numbers.

Best,

Doremus

David A. Goldfarb said:

Try a film with a more traditional spectral response than T-max, and you should get a stronger filter effect--Tri-X, Pan-F, FP4+, any of the Adox films, etc. If you're worried about grain, shoot a larger format.

Clive's suggestion of using a polarizer or 25a plus polarizer for even more is a good one, as long as you're not using an ultrawide lens (in which case you'll get uneven polarization in the sky).

Click to expand...

+1 on this. One of the reasons I stuck with FP4+ as my go-to Landscape film instead of the Delta 100 (with less grain)... Although I think that started my push to bigger formats. With Acros, I've given up on a red, as it doesn't darken the sky all that much, and loses almost all detail in foliage. Other filters + a polariser work well-- a yellow or orange works great for this.

From my experience, Acros is the worst in this regrad, with Tmax and Delta a bit better. HP5 and Tri-X are fantastic, as is FP4. Fomapan works well, too, and idk if it's just my workflow but Fomapan 100 is a bit less grainy than FP4.