Mortensen's 7D negative

[olk]

Hello,
I don't get the steps required for making a correct 7D negative.

7D negative means measuring the lights and underexpose and overdevelop the film.

If a scene has a contrast range of 3 stops how do I adjust the eposure?
Do I have to underexpose by 2 stops (400 ISO box speed film exposed with 1600)?
But what about measuring the lights? If I measure the lights with the light meter (== Zone V) with the ISO 1600?
The I would have 4 stops underexposure if the light would be Zone VII in real but measured with Zone V.
etc.

I hope you can give me some advice.

Oliver

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html
According to this, expose for the light areas of the flesh tones of the subject. Bracket with roll film.

 

[olk]

But how to adjust the cotnrast if the contrast range of the scene ist for instance 2 stops?

 

[Kino]

I would surmise that the bracketing, if you bracket lavishly, will allow you to find the proper range. Maybe after a couple of large bracketed exposures, you could come up with a better estimation for yourself.

 

[Alan Johnson]

It might be supposed that using a more contrasty film and developing to gamma infinity (normal development process for him) might fix this.
But from reading "Mortensen on the Negative" ch 11 he notes that some films including Panatomic X are "less adaptable to the 7D procedure"
It's hard to explain this apparent contradiction to what might be expected.

 

[Carter john]

Barry Thornton had a chapter (12) on this technique in his book 'Edge of Darkness.' It is simplified, so easier to understand.

 

[Bill Burk]

Looking at Mortensen on the Negative, it looks like you need to control the lighting, (low contrast).

Then in Zone System terms, you meter the high value and place it on Zone IV. Then develop it N+3 to raise that high value up three Zones from Zone IV up to Zone VI where it belongs.

 

[removed account4]

But how to adjust the cotnrast if the contrast range of the scene ist for instance 2 stops?

the point seems to be to have bulletproof negatives and make contact prints.
often times its hard to translate onto roll film what the masters mortenson were doing with sheets of film.
you can try this by shooting a roll of 120 or sheet of film .. flat light, over expose a little bit, but not too much (. juuuuust right )
and then processing the film in something low contrast like caffenol c for 15-20 minutes or even longer depending on how active your developer is .. then... with a very bright light make contact prints. my favorite paper to do this with is RCpaper, any kind. .. and a 300 watt bulb, usually a 10-15 second exposure ... if i can dig up some samples i will post them. sadly my cataloging methodology isn't one that makes it easy fo find things on a whim...

 

[cowanw]

While Mortensen was writing about Pictorial lighting and portraiture with controlled lighting "so as to secure the fullest gradation in the lightest area of the image", I doubt very much he thought that a two stop subject brightness range was in the ball park of pictorial lighting.
Mortensen did specify that the 7D negative " is the result of exposure only slightly less than standard, combined with full development."
It seems unlikely that slightly less exposure meant 3 stops under ideal exposure.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here is a modern exposition of his method, first noted on Photrio by Raghu, that reads fairly well on google translate:
http://experimentelle-fotografie.blogspot.com/2019/07/william-t-mortensen-belichte-auf-die.html

 

[Lachlan Young]

It really isn't complicated.

Flat light.

Slight underexposure to 'create'/ deepen a shadow.

Bracket widely.

Process for a high enough CI to place your neg onto your preferred grade of paper, with allowance for Mortensen's optical system having more flare than today. Mortensen attempted to use various developers that would eventually run out of steam (ie reach 'gamma infinity') at around the desired contrast - along with what he thought (without any real analytical backup) was some degree of 'compensation' of tonal values.

Make your print, then subject it to various procedures, possibly including paper neg steps, to turn it into something that is very desperate to pretend it isn't a photograph.

That's about it.

Oh, and Mortensen used 120 rollfilm, not individual sheets.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It really isn't complicated.

Flat light.

Slight underexposure to 'create'/ deepen a shadow.

Bracket widely.

Process for a high enough CI to place your neg onto your preferred grade of paper, with allowance for Mortensen's optical system having more flare than today. Mortensen attempted to use various developers that would eventually run out of steam (ie reach 'gamma infinity') at around the desired contrast - along with what he thought (without any real analytical backup) was some degree of 'compensation' of tonal values.

Make your print, then subject it to various procedures, possibly including paper neg steps, to turn it into something that is very desperate to pretend it isn't a photograph.

That's about it.

Oh, and Mortensen used 120 rollfilm, not individual sheets.

Now that is a great summary. You save me years of my life working though how to photograph supernatural creatures such as werewolves, vampires, zombies, and virgins.

 

[cowanw]

Probably not a werewolf, vampire, zombie, or a virgin

 

[grain elevator]

First time I read about it. But now I don't see what the fuss is about. Surely, the concept doesn't start with the exposure or development, but with the preference for flat lighting (so "7D negative" is a misleading name, it's a negative with bog standard contrast, the original scene is what's unusal, being very low in contrast). Then you make a negative adapted to that lighting, i.e. an expanded one. You could also get there from metering the shadows and using a standard developer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

"Mortensen on the Negative" is only about producing a 7D negative, generally for expanding skin tones in portraits and getting better tonality.
AFAIK all his books were about straightforward portraiture.
But he managed to get famous for "artistic pictorialism" , a form of pictorialism that apparently did not meet the approval of some MOMA (is that right?) authorities and seems to have got him written out.
His technical books and his most famous photographs are two different things.
It probably didn't do him any favors when in 1941 he published a book advocating developing to gamma infinity when the F64 group didn't have their own book on the negative.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The method of developing to finality used by Mortensen was discovered independently in the UK (Amateur Photographer 1951-52) but eventually (1952 p258) it was pointed out that it was in Mortensen's book already.
I compared FP4+ @EI 1000 developed in stock D-76 for 80m 20C with Rollei Retro 400s @EI 200 developed in stock D-76 for only 9min. Both were metered from the light hair.
It would have been better to use a slower traditional grain film maybe 25 ISO to give the same EI as the Rollei.
The FP4+ developed by this Mortensen procedure was actually less contrasty than the Rollei on this dull day.
It seems possible to get similar results to Mortensen's method just by using this modern Rollei film, which is derived from a film produced for aerial surveillance.

 

[macfred]

Hello,
I don't get the steps required for making a correct 7D negative.

7D negative means measuring the lights and underexpose and overdevelop the film.

If a scene has a contrast range of 3 stops how do I adjust the eposure?
Do I have to underexpose by 2 stops (400 ISO box speed film exposed with 1600)?
But what about measuring the lights? If I measure the lights with the light meter (== Zone V) with the ISO 1600?
The I would have 4 stops underexposure if the light would be Zone VII in real but measured with Zone V.
etc.

I hope you can give me some advice.

Oliver

Hi Oliver,
maybe from interest for you (German language only) : http://experimentelle-fotografie.blogspot.com/2019/07/william-t-mortensen-belichte-auf-die.html

 

[Alan Johnson]

He did explain that for outdoor portraits very diffuse light or very directional sunlight were not good for his procedure.
https://archive.org/details/outdoorportraitu00mort_0/mode/2up

 

[macfred]

He did explain that for outdoor portraits very diffuse light or very directional sunlight were not good for his procedure.
https://archive.org/details/outdoorportraitu00mort_0/mode/2up

Thank you for sharing this !

 

[DREW WILEY]

If Mortensen actually went through all those steps himself, he was doing it the hard way. But I suspect he was just teaching method instead, and had many personal shortcuts all along. Note that in this case, his technique was specially adapted to moderate or low contrast studio conditions with respect to portraiture and his own idea of a standardized film. And having used an analogous technique myself on infrequent suitable occasions, one has be confident the complexion of the subject is actually suited to expanding a upper midtone texture and tonality. This would not have been an ideal approach for high school year book pictures with a lot of zitty faces, or a wise method for retirement home gals wanting to look 50 years younger than they really are. But with period 11X14 and 8x10 stand cameras, you got a nice big neg easy to use smudge pencil on. The starving yearbook photographer would have just used vaseline on his lens instead, so didn't need to be concerned with fine tonality gradation; he just wanted to get paid.

I used my 8x10 camera with a 14" multicoated Kern dagor lens (highest contrast rendering of any lens I've ever used in any format), classic studio hot lights with diffusers, TMX100 film underexposed a stop or so (shot @ 200), then overdeveloped in staining pyro. Basically, an all midtone to highlight effect. Soft shadows, and blacks turned deep gray. The harshness of a high contrast neg was removed, while still preserving the superb microtonality, by "snatch" developing the paper (underdeveloping, snatching it out of the dev bath prematurely, not to be confused with lith printing). With certain premium graded papers of the past like Brilliant Bromide or EMaks, and careful toning, wonderful results could be obtained. I haven't found any suitable replacement papers currently on the market.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Drew, that seems to be a technique including the method of Adams p148 which as you say does not give such a high contrast as Mortensen 7D.
https://archive.org/details/negative0000adam/page/148/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/negative0000adam/page/150/mode/2up

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've never seen anything by AA resembling it, in terms of actual "look". He mainly resorted to minus development of the negative itself, combined with a bit of overexposure, for a gentler portrait look, whereas Mortensen commended underexposure along with overdevelopment of the neg.

But in terms of myself going forward, instead of snatch development of the print, I do full dev with VC papers like MGWT and tweak or possibly split print them as needed. Not quite the same thing either, but lovely in its own manner. I never did much portrait work; it was usually commissioned by someone collecting my landscape prints, and they expected something special
that looked good in a frame itself.