B to 1/500, plus T and (I believe) M and X flash synch. I say "I believe" because it's not here yet! I have some fresh RPX400 waiting for it! I have a spare Tempor with a SH Culminar on it, just in case. The Tempor looks and feels way cheaper than a Compur, but gets the job done too. Besides, with the limited maximum aperture on these folder lenses 1/500 is a bit OTT IMO, and that 1/500 is more like 1/400 most times too.[...]What's your speed range?
You thinketh wrong, mon ami: Moonrise was singed in the fire and requires a teeny bit of cropping and burning on an upper edge to Get It Right. That said you are correct about the filter: it indeed was a Wratten #15 (G) Deep Yellow, not a #25 Deep Red as I misidentified it:I think you're thinking of Monolith, not Moonrise. Moonrise was indeed made without a meter (and underexposed about a stop) but he used a yellow filter, and Moonrise was not in the darkroom fire.
Yup, got mine from Certo6, who said the same thing. 1/250 may be attainable, but not reliable. Your Compur sounds great, especially with the fine old Tessars!B to 1/500, plus T and (I believe) M and X flash synch. I say "I believe" because it's not here yet! I have some fresh RPX400 waiting for it! I have a spare Tempor with a SH Culminar on it, just in case. The Tempor looks and feels way cheaper than a Compuir, but gets the job done too. Besides, with the limited maximum aperture on these folder lenses 1/500 is a bit OTT IMO, and that 1/500 is more like 1/400 most times too.
His long lost cousin?BTW, if ic-racer is me, then who am I.
I hereby play The Age Card and chastise you for messing with an old geezer's mind, when his copy of Examples in storage at Fairbanks, AK.In the interest of accuracy, let's set this straight.
On p.5 of Examples is clearly described the fire damage to the Monolith negative, made in 1937.
On p.43 of Examples Moonrise was best dated as 1941, using the Wratten #15 (G) Deep Yellow filter.
Curiously, though, he shows in the Negative that the factor for #15 is 2.5 (daylight) and 2.0 (tungsten or warm light), not a factor of 3. And for a setting sun it seems the 2x factor would apply, so the 3x would have helped a bit with the low foreground luminance but obviously not enough. Here's what my exposure calculation comes up with, using the data he provided:
Exposure Formula requires the key stop to be f/8 (sq. root of ASA 64) at Zone V
1/250 @ Zone VII
1/60 @ f/8 = Zone V
1/4 @ f/32 (w/o 3x filter factor)
3/4 @ f/32 (w/ 3x filter factor)
3/4 should not require reciprocity correction
OK, he did say about 1 sec. (Not sure when he decided to be a stickler for record keeping). And it’s possible he applied a personal EI.
BTW, in the Negative he quotes Kodak's recommendation for reciprocity correction at 1 sec to be an additional 1 sec, so he was on the brink.
We probably oughta start an Ercona Owner's Thread. If you are getting good results with your camera, I doubt we would care if you used a crystal ball, or consulted squirrels--so long as it works! Don't you love those huge 6 x 9 negs?Hi! Late to the party here, but I love my Ercona II. I use it mostly outdoors, and rarely carry a lightmeter with me these days. I don't use exactly the ultimate exposure computer version of sunny-16... my version pays more attention to the nature of shadows ( e.g. shadows w/ crisp edges, blurry edges, just dark blobs under trees, not visible at all .... ) I can't remember now where I learned that but it works well except in deep forest/shadow where I pay more attention to how much open sky is above....
Still, for anything critical I tend to carry some kind of light meter, sometimes it might just be another camera with a meter that I'm well familiar with.
By the way, do you guys use the "red dot" snapshot setting? I've found it only useful for snapshots when the subject is ~3 or 4 meters away and you don't care if the horizon is sharp.... it's definitely NOT "hyperfocal" in the usual sense. cheers!
Yup, got mine from Certo6
Not the first time I've heard that. I personally have zero problems with Jurgen, but he can be prickly if he feels someone is being unreasonable, or demanding. How that shakes out on an individual basis, I couldn't say. His work has been fine with any task I asked and paid for.good luck with that ....
On p.43 of Examples Moonrise was best dated as 1941, using the Wratten #15 (G) Deep Yellow filter.
Curiously, though, he shows in the Negative that the factor for #15 is 2.5 (daylight) and 2.0 (tungsten or warm light), not a factor of 3. And for a setting sun...
Not the first time I've heard that. I personally have zero problems with Jurgen, but he can be prickly if he feels someone is being unreasonable, or demanding. How that shakes out on an individual basis, I couldn't say. His work has been fine with any task I asked and paid for.
So, Bill, you're finding it difficult to do meaningful research down in the darkness of the rabbit hole?
BTW, note my edit in post #33 regarding use of a personal EI.
Does anyone know the film used for "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico"?
I have a guess...he may have been shooting Eastman Super Sensitive Panchromatic Film.
You thinketh wrong, mon ami: Moonrise was singed in the fire and requires a teeny bit of cropping and burning on an upper edge to Get It Right. That said you are correct about the filter: it indeed was a Wratten #15 (G) Deep Yellow, not a #25 Deep Red as I misidentified it:
"I was at a loss with the subject luminance values, and I confess I was thinking about bracketing several exposures, when I suddenly realized that I knew the luminance of the moon – 250 c/ft2. Using the Exposure Formula, I placed this luminance on Zone VII; 60 c/ft2 therefore fell on Zone V, and the exposure with the filter factor o 3x was about 1 second at f/32 with ASA 64 film. I had no idea what the value of the foreground was, but I hoped it barely fell within the exposure scale. Not wanting to take chances, I indicated a water-bath development for the negative."--quote from Examples
Funny, but a former (early 80's) assistant to Ansel, David Pfau, told me this was a BS story they made up after the fact to add some drama. He tells it that Ansel was napping while his assistant drove. The assistant saw the potential photo, stopped the car and set everything up. Then he woke Ansel up to go trip the shutter, thereby making it a real Ansel Adams original. No panic, no missing light meter. I never did get the assistant's name. If you're ever skiing in Breckenridge, CO, stop in his shop on Main Street. But who knows, he might be full of crap, too.
Plausible, yes, but not certifiable.
Spreading rumors of this sort is analogous to challenging the integrity of someone who's no longer with us and cannot defend against this crap, in effect calling AA a liar after (1) witnessing him in a live public presentation describing his challenges at the time of his taking the photo, and (2) allowing his biographer to publish the story as he knew it. BTW, who are the individuals who concocted this story, identified as they? Yes, I'd say for sure "he's full of crap." And also, btw, I've not found anywhere on Mr. Pfau's website where he states he was an assistant to AA, after merely attending a Yosemite workshop in 1983. So please knock off this stuff.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?