How would Galen Rowell have taken this photo?

[tomfrh]

I like using velvia, however I rarely get it to expose as nicely as this:

How would Galen Rowell have taken this shot? What sort of metering/exposure, and what filters (soft ND grad?)?

Anything else he is doing here?


Would the transparancy have looked like this? Or has this been processed for publication?

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Sirius Glass]

His photograph would not have come out as well as yours has. Forget about him and enjoy your work.

 

[frank]

I would guess there's some digital manipulation going on. I may be totally wrong; its just a guess.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The OP does have writing all over the image.

 

[RobC]

I would guess there's some digital manipulation going on. I may be totally wrong; its just a guess.

does that mean its too good to be film and darkroom skills only? Methinks cycnacism is creeping in.

But having said that, its a stock photo and today all stock photos are digitised for online proofing and purchase.

 

[frank]

does that mean its too good to be film and darkroom skills only? Methinks cycnacism is creeping in.

My statement was 100% neutral. Any cynicism you perceive is your own inference.

 

[Bill Burk]

It looks like a 3 stop hard edge "Galen Rowell" Singh Ray filter.

Meter for the foreground and place the filter with the dark side at the top.

I guessed hard edge because you can see a sharp change in the mid-ground.

I guessed 3 stop because he has a similar shot with less brilliance in the foreground where he said he would have used 3 stops if he had the chance to do it again.

I didn't guess about the metering. He wrote about metering the foreground.

 

[Bill Burk]

You would, of course, meter the bright background and "discover" that you had 2 or 3 stops too much range to capture on film, and then you would choose the 2 or 3 stop filter accordingly.

 

[RobC]

The OP does have writing all over the image.

It's a Galen Rowell image and not the OPs

 

[Sirius Glass]

So it is a case of image manipulation for the purpose of foisting a fraud.

 

[tomfrh]

does that mean its too good to be film and darkroom skills only? Methinks cynacism is creeping in.

But having said that, its a stock photo and today all stock photos are digitised for online proofing and purchase.

it is a stock photo, however that's simply the web copy I linked to.

It looks much the same wherever you see it, e.g. on the Galen Rowell website:

http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.easternsierra/images.html


When you say "darkroom", how does that work with slide film? I get my slides processed at a lab, and then project them, so am oblivious to that side of things.

 

[tomfrh]

It looks like a 3 stop hard edge "Galen Rowell" Singh Ray filter.

Meter for the foreground and place the filter with the dark side at the top.

I guessed hard edge because you can see a sharp change in the mid-ground.

I guessed 3 stop because he has a similar shot with less brilliance in the foreground where he said he would have used 3 stops if he had the chance to do it again.

I didn't guess about the metering. He wrote about metering the foreground.

thanks for the info.

In terms of lighting of the scene, how do you think the foreground is illuminated? Is that just diffuse sky light?

 

[jimjm]

thanks for the info.

In terms of lighting of the scene, how do you think the foreground is illuminated? Is that just diffuse sky light?

Yep. Using the split contrast filter allowed enough exposure for the foreground to appear sufficiently exposed, without the mountains/sky being blown-out. Sometimes, blue cast from the sky (think late afternoon in the shadows) can be corrected by using a split-grade warming filter. Galen writes about these techniques in detail in many of his books.

Another advantage he had was he lived in this area (Eastern Sierras) and knew the light and the changing conditions like the back of his hand. Heck of a lot easier to get great shots when you're in the right place at the right time.

 

[RobC]

it is a stock photo, however that's simply the web copy I linked to.

It looks much the same wherever you see it, e.g. on the Galen Rowell website:

http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.easternsierra/images.html


When you say "darkroom", how does that work with slide film? I get my slides processed at a lab, and then project them, so am oblivious to that side of things.

Many people develop their own E6 films. Some have a stache of ciba/ilfochrome but he digitises his transparencies. See his statement at:

http://www.mountainlight.com/print_info.html

that image was taken at dawn hence the low contrast foreground with no direct light on it and the high ridge in direct sunlight. But at dawn not as bright as later in the day I would suggest. I really don't think you can guess if a grad was used or not and be sure of being right.

 

[tomfrh]

Many people develop their own E6 films. Some have a stache of ciba/ilfochrome but he digitises his transparencies. See his statement at:

http://www.mountainlight.com/print_info.html

that image was taken at dawn hence the low contrast foreground with no direct light on it and the high ridge in direct sunlight. But at dawn not as bright as later in the day I would suggest. I really don't think you can guess if a grad was used or not and be sure of being right.

If there's no grad, and he's packed all of that range into velvia, then he's no master, he's a magician!

 

[RobC]

If there's no grad, and he's packed all of that range into velvia, then he's no master, he's a magician!

But you have no way of knowing that the original subject was not the same contrast as you are seeing. The assumption that a grad was used is saying that actually the original subject was even higher contrast. At dawn and dusk contrast is significantly lower. The light is much weaker even on the bits in direct light than it is in the middle of the day. Thats why colour photographers go out at those times, to catch the light when its at its best.

 

[tomfrh]

But you have no way of knowing that the original subject was not the same contrast as you are seeing. The assumption that a grad was used is saying that actually the original subject was even higher contrast. At dawn and dusk contrast is significantly lower. The light is much weaker even on the bits in direct light than it is in the middle of the day. Thats why colour photographers go out at those times, to catch the light when its at its best.

You're right that I don't know what the scene actually was. I'm basing it on my own experience here shooting slide (and digital) here in australia. I find if a mountain range or something is lit up with direct light and the foreground still in shadow then that's just too much contrast.

 

[RobC]

there's that magic period of 20 minutes or so when the sun is just coming up or down which gives the wonderful side lighting with not too much contrast (sometimes).
I'm not saying he didn't use a grad, I'm saying you can't be sure he did or didn't. Not that it makes any difference whether he did or didn't.
It's a striking image but I don't particularly like it, the foreground is a bit messy.

 

[gone]

Who is Galen Rowell? You might wish to ask him (or her, as the case may be).

 

[Bob Carnie]

Looks like the image was taken into LAB and in curves the contrast boosted in the A B channel by dramatically steepening the angles.

or The Man From Mars technique (Dan Marguilis ) was used.

 

[Trail Images]

Who is Galen Rowell? You might wish to ask him (or her, as the case may be).

As Galen and his wife Barbara were killed in a plane crash back in 2002 that is not possible. But, their gallery in Bishop has most details associated with his work.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The real work here was waiting for three practically identical shooting stars to streak by simultaneously in the sky, especially at day break.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Galen was a huge influence on my work back in the 80's and 90's until I moved on from color. I've met him a couple of times and visited his tiny studio on Solano Ave in Berkeley back before he even moved it to Emeryville, and then Bishop. His books were my bibles. This was clearly Velvia and using his famously promoted and Galen Rowell-branded Singh-Ray Graduated ND filters.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

It's a Galen Rowell image and not the OPs

So maybe the OP simply meant, "How did Galen Rowell take this photo?". Just giving the benefit of the doubt, ya know?

By the way, in my long past youth —while working at Denevi Camera store and, later, when I managed Palmers Camera in Berkeley, I had the honor of selling sh*tloads of film to Galen Rowell. I don't remember the film type (probably a chrome of some sort, maybe Koda-, maybe Ekta- .. I don't remember if Fuji had yet made headway into that domain) but he was a quite a nice guy and, —don't forget— in addition to being an excellent photographer, he was a damned good climber! I used to also see him in the Valley, in the 70s, when I'd hang-out with and sleepover with climber friends at —I believe it was called "Camp 4". Bouldering madness!

 

[RobC]

The real work here was waiting for three practically identical shooting stars to streak by simultaneously in the sky, especially at day break.

Nah, that's three fast jet vapour trails