right spot? medium format with black and white film

[Andrew Laverghetta]

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct spot because I think it could fall under a few but I'll try here I guess. I've been shooting a lot of black and white recently and I've been trying to use red and deep red filters to get the sky to go as dark as I can without excessive burning. I'm looking for the ansel adams kinda thing in Monolith. I'm using a Seagull and putting the filters on the front of that and recently I just bought a light meter, first one, and I was wondering if the way I was meter may have had somethign to do with the skies not being as dark as I would like them. Is there the posibility that using the handheld meter on incident/ambient could help with this (along with the correct exposure compensation)?

Thanks!

-Andrew

 

[Donald Miller]

Your problem could be as simple as using the wrong grade or filtration of paper. What grade of paper or filtration (on VC) are you using? Of course it could be involved with exposure and/or film development too.

How do the negative shadow regions appear? Do they contain detail? If so then I would consider increasing development time on the negative to arrive at a higher negative density range (contrast). Conversely if the shadows contain no information, increase exposure of the film first.

Correct metering can make a difference on exposure. There is basically no difference between a reflective and incident meter suggested exposure provided the meter is used correctly.

 

[Joseph Allen]

Andrew, this may be pointing out the obvious, but one thing you have to keep in mind is that you need a nice blue sky to begin with in order to get a dark (sometimes almost black!) sky with a red filter. If the sky is pretty pale, you aren't really going to get as dramatic of a sky as you might like. I assume you're using 25 (red) and 29 (deep red) -- the 25 will require 3 stops of extra exposure and the 29 will require about 4.

When you meter, what are you metering for? If you are metering the sky, then maybe that is what is getting your skies too light. I mean if you meter the sky, then you're going to end up with it as a middle grey. You should meter a midtone in the scene and then let the sky fall where it may. Or if you do an incident meter reading (of the same light that is falling on your scene) and apply the appropriate filter factor, that should get a good result too.

Another thing I might suggest, is a polarizing filter. I have recently "discovered" that this is a very useful filter for B&W! I like dark, dramatic skies, but a red filter also affects things like darkening green trees, etc. which sometimes I don't want. If you use a polarizer, you can darken the sky w/out changing the way other colors are rendered. You can also use the polarizer in conjunction with an orange or red filter for super-dramatic results.

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

normally when I meter, especially with one of the filters on and when i'm going for a darker sky, I try to have as little sky in there as possible but then it seems like the land or anything else is a bit darker than the sky so I figure it'll want to make it lighter. That's why I was hoping that the handheld on incident would help out with that problem. Also, generally when the skies are darker blue to begin with, at least with some of my last few shots/rolls. The sun normally isn't too high either.

 

[Joseph Allen]

Well I honestly think a lot of it just comes down to having the right weather conditions -- some days just have the right deep blue skies for it, some don't. But yeah I don't see why incident metering could hurt. That's usually how I meter, provided that the same light is falling on me as in the scene I want to photograph, and it elminates the need to decide what is a midtone, sort of like relfective metering off a grey card. Maybe some day I will get really precise and get a spot meter, etc., but incident works well for me. You could also meter and then bracket a stop under or 2/3 of a stop under. That would darken the scene overall.

 

[Jorge]

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct spot because I think it could fall under a few but I'll try here I guess. I've been shooting a lot of black and white recently and I've been trying to use red and deep red filters to get the sky to go as dark as I can without excessive burning. I'm looking for the ansel adams kinda thing in Monolith. I'm using a Seagull and putting the filters on the front of that and recently I just bought a light meter, first one, and I was wondering if the way I was meter may have had somethign to do with the skies not being as dark as I would like them. Is there the posibility that using the handheld meter on incident/ambient could help with this (along with the correct exposure compensation)?

Thanks!

-Andrew

To get the AA effect you need to use the red filter and a polarizer.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Andrew,

No, incident isn't a good idea as it keys exposure to the highlights, depriving you of shadow detail in many pictures where the subject has a long brightness range. Favour the shadows when you take your reading (i.e. point the meter towards the darker areas); meter; and don't forget the filter factor.

Quite lot of AA's captions refer to a deep yellow/orange screen, some to orange/red or red, none that I recall to a polarizer. I've just checked my copy of The Negative (where filters are dealt with) and he refers to their use in darkening skies in colour as well as suppressing reflections generally. Besides, a pola would be a bastard to use on a Seagull.

Remember that the filter factor varies with the filter and the film, too.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[juan]

Another thing to consider is how much of the sky you show in your print. You say you have as little as possible in there - does this mean that you are only including sky just above the horizon? If so, I doubt that you will be able to get the Adams effect regardless of filters.

You don't say where you are located, but remember that Adams shot most of his dramatic skies in the western United States at somewhat high altitude. The sky has more blue there. Clyde Butcher photographs at sea level in Florida and gets dramatic skies. He told me that the only way he's able to do that here is by use of very wide angle lenses (121mm on an 8x10) - giving him a view of the bluer sky high above the horizon.

As others have said, you have to begin with a blue sky.
juan

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . How do the negative shadow regions appear? Do they contain detail? If so then I would consider increasing development time on the negative to arrive at a higher negative density range (contrast). Conversely if the shadows contain no information, increase exposure of the film first. . .

Donald points out an important point in all photograpy, especially for dramatic effects. Selecting a high contrast fine grain film works better for me than increasing development. Kodak Tech Pan processed in an active developer (I usually used a prewash and print developer at about four minutes) gave high contrast without much grain. Shadow or highlight detail suffers where the foreground already has much contrast. In the red rock country of the American west, it did work.

 

[Jorge]

Quite lot of AA's captions refer to a deep yellow/orange screen, some to orange/red or red, none that I recall to a polarizer. I've just checked my copy of The Negative (where filters are dealt with) and he refers to their use in darkening skies in colour as well as suppressing reflections generally. Besides, a pola would be a bastard to use on a Seagull.

Remember that the filter factor varies with the filter and the film, too.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

:rolleyes:

See, I wrote "To get the AA effect....." I did not write " AA used a pola and red ...."

IMO the idea of these forums is to provide an answer to a question without having the person spend 3 days and $1000 testing. Yes, I could have written that if he was using Tmx film then the red filter effect is less since Tmx film is more red sensitive, (the reason skies with it look better when used without filters). I could have written he needed to make his own tests with a target and see which is the best development/filter factor for each filter he uses (it is what I did for all my films and filters I use) but in the end, the easiest way to get the AA red filter effect is to slap a red filter and a pola, wether this is easy to do with the lens one has is another matter, but not what was asked. One should think that if he can put a red filter he can also use a pola.....right?

 

[c6h6o3]

AA used a deep red filter (#29) on 'Monolith'. The negative for that picture is a glass plate, so the emulsion may have been orthochromatic. Depending on where the sun was he may have gotten a lot of natural polarization. Anyway, I think all bets are off on trying to reproduce AA's results. (Why would you want to, anyway?)

I think the easiest thing for you to do is, as Jorge says, slap on a deep red filter, make your exposure calculations as you usually do and then just add the filter factor (which for a 29 is at least 3 stops). This will probably get you closer than all the arcane tests you could do. If the sky isn't dark enough, add a polarizer. I used to use one on my Rollei TLR. It was a pita, but doable.

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

cool, a lotta good stuff here. Yeah, I actually have used a bit of tmax film and recently i've been doing trix400 for medium format. What about a linear polarizer? That's the right name isn't it? I've only used autofocus 35mm slrs so I've only used circular. How do the other ones work? There's a small notch part around the outside of my polarizer...is that all that matters is the position of that notch? The outside ring that you rotate so you can hold that steady after looking through it normally and then screw on the other part to fit it to the camera? I hope that made sense...

Yeah, I read in AA's autobiography that it was first done with a yellow filter and then with a deep red filter. The yellow filter isn't very dark at all. It looks more natural but I have never seen that much difference I guess. I'll have to mess around some, yeah.

 

[Lopaka]

Yes, the mark on the polarizer should be pointed toward the sun. If you are using a SLR, you can see the effect on the ground glass as you rotate it for maximum effect.

Bob

 

[Joseph Allen]

You can use the linear or circular polarizer for your TLR. It won't matter. The both have the same effect -- you can just hold it up to your eye and rotate it around until you get the effect you want. Then just keep it in that same orientation and put it in front of the taking lens -- don't know what would be the best way to mount it, but some blue-tac springs to mind, like that stuff you used in college to put posters on the dorm room wall without ripping the paint off. Contrary to what anyone might tell you, polarizers have a fixed filter factor regardless of how much it is rotated -- I think it varies a little by brand, but I think it is usually about 1.5 stops. If the scene is sidelighted you generally want to give an extra 1/2 stop of exposure, and sidelighting is the type of light where the polarizer will give the most dramatic effect -- i.e. when the sun is 90 degrees to you. Basically if you are using negative film, just give 2 stops for your polarizer and you'll be good. Anyway, it's really not as much trouble as it would sound like -- just look at it through your eye and then keep the orientation the same when you put it over the lens.

Also, I agree very strongly with the person who commented about how much sky you include in the photo. The area around the horizon will not darken as much as the part further away.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jorge,

Fair dinkum: you did indeed say 'to get the AA effect'.

I'm still not entirely in agreement, though. Two filters at once is something I always try to avoid (vignetting, veiling flare...) and I am not convinced you can confidently assert that the 'AA effect' is attainable with a polarizer plus another filter.

I'd argue that at best, what you are saying is 'I have found I can duplicate the effect this way'; but clearly, as AA himself used polas very little (or kept quiet about it if he did) I do not think you can postulate polas as a necessary or even common part of the AA look.

Incidentally I undertstand you have not been well. That' s not meant to be a patronising 'You didn't know what you were saying', but the opposite: 'I respect your arguments but disagree'. My wife had cancer of the breast in 2000 which led to our current re-assment of how we live, and I'd like to wish you the very best of luck in whatever afflicts you. As we say in France, 'bonne courage' -- not really translatable but I'm sure you get the gist.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Jorge]

Not only do I can confidently assert it, I can show you.....12x20 fp4 with red 25 and pola. I really dont care what AA used or not, I care how to get the effect easily. BTW, this was taken with sunny sixteen rule (forgot my meter) plus a 12x exposure factor.

Dear Jorge,

Fair dinkum: you did indeed say 'to get the AA effect'.

I'm still not entirely in agreement, though. Two filters at once is something I always try to avoid (vignetting, veiling flare...) and I am not convinced you can confidently assert that the 'AA effect' is attainable with a polarizer plus another filter.

I'd argue that at best, what you are saying is 'I have found I can duplicate the effect this way'; but clearly, as AA himself used polas very little (or kept quiet about it if he did) I do not think you can postulate polas as a necessary or even common part of the AA look.

Incidentally I undertstand you have not been well. That' s not meant to be a patronising 'You didn't know what you were saying', but the opposite: 'I respect your arguments but disagree'. My wife had cancer of the breast in 2000 which led to our current re-assment of how we live, and I'd like to wish you the very best of luck in whatever afflicts you. As we say in France, 'bonne courage' -- not really translatable but I'm sure you get the gist.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jorge,

Thanks for the picture, which indeed looked very good as far as I can tell from the monitor on my internet computer. If it looks good on that it's probably excellent on anything else.

Even so, you have to allow it's not the ONLY way.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Jorge]

I dont recall saying it was the only way........ it is a simple way to get it without spending hours testing though. Yours is not the only way either......

Dear Jorge,

Thanks for the picture, which indeed looked very good as far as I can tell from the monitor on my internet computer. If it looks good on that it's probably excellent on anything else.

Even so, you have to allow it's not the ONLY way.

Cheers,

Roger