Filters v's Dodge & Burn

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, t00l1024 said:

Ansel had two plates remaining on his hike that day for Monolith. Took one with a yellow filter (realized his mistake), and his second/last one was with a red...

Thanks for that, tOOI.

Just for fun I had a root-around to try to find the passage I had half-remembered reading and found two sources. The first is in the 1952 edition of 'Natural Light Photography' which is book 4 of his 'Basic Photo' series of volumes published by Morgan and Lester and the second is described in great detail in chapter 6 of 'Ansel Adams - an Autobiography' published by Thames and Hudson (1985).

Interestingly the plates used in each book show different 'interpretations' of the "Wratten #29 (F)" (Red Filter) negative; that in the earlier volume having both a lighter lower-sky and a lighter cliff-face than the newer publication. In all the other books which I have that include 'Monolith' (all of which post-date my editions of the 'Basic Photo' series of books) the tonality of these areas always resembles that of the later print in having a very dark sky pretty much from the horizon so perhaps he decided that More Drama was his preferred way to go? Certainly that possibility would match comments he made in the Autobiography volume.

In light of this when considering how these prints look - early and late - it is noteworthy to read Adams' caption accompanying the plate as written in 'Natural Light Photography' and especially the last sentence;

"One of my earliest photographs (1926). This represented a 4,000-foot climb with a 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 plate camera and a magnificent bit of luck. I arrived not 30 minutes too soon for the fine distribution of sunlight on the 2,000-foot sheer granite cliff of Half Dome. I was using Wratten Panchromatic plates and a 6 1/2-inch Bausch and Lomb Tessar lens - uncoated of course - and a very uncertain shutter. An F filter was used (Wratten No. 29). The exposure was fortunate - not many in those days were - and the developer was pyro. The progression of sky tones from horizon to zenith is interesting; even with a strong red filter a considerable area above the horizon is rendered very light..."

I doubt I will be allowed to post a pic I've just taken showing three plates from these two volumes which is a bit of a shame as they show a print made from the negative exposed using the K2 Yellow filter and examples of the '1952'-style and '1985'-style #29 (F) filter prints.

I will ask a moderator just on the off-chance. In the meantime if anyone wishes to contact me by PM......

Philip.

[t00l1024]

13 hours ago, pippy said:

In light of this when considering how these prints look - early and late - it is noteworthy to read Adams' caption accompanying the plate as written in 'Natural Light Photography' and especially the last sentence;

"One of my earliest photographs (1926). This represented a 4,000-foot climb with a 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 plate camera and a magnificent bit of luck. I arrived not 30 minutes too soon for the fine distribution of sunlight on the 2,000-foot sheer granite cliff of Half Dome. I was using Wratten Panchromatic plates and a 6 1/2-inch Bausch and Lomb Tessar lens - uncoated of course - and a very uncertain shutter. An F filter was used (Wratten No. 29). The exposure was fortunate - not many in those days were - and the developer was pyro. The progression of sky tones from horizon to zenith is interesting; even with a strong red filter a considerable area above the horizon is rendered very light..."

I doubt I will be allowed to post a pic I've just taken showing three plates from these two volumes which is a bit of a shame as they show a print made from the negative exposed using the K2 Yellow filter and examples of the '1952'-style and '1985'-style #29 (F) filter prints.

I will ask a moderator just on the off-chance. In the meantime if anyone wishes to contact me by PM......

Philip.

Yes!!!! Sadly, I lost some of my Ansel Adams book in a flood in the house several years ago. Glad you brought this up!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Pyrogallol]

On 1/23/2024 at 12:24 PM, pippy said:

Thanks for that, tOOI.

Just for fun I had a root-around to try to find the passage I had half-remembered reading and found two sources. The first is in the 1952 edition of 'Natural Light Photography' which is book 4 of his 'Basic Photo' series of volumes published by Morgan and Lester and the second is described in great detail in chapter 6 of 'Ansel Adams - an Autobiography' published by Thames and Hudson (1985).

Interestingly the plates used in each book show different 'interpretations' of the "Wratten #29 (F)" (Red Filter) negative; that in the earlier volume having both a lighter lower-sky and a lighter cliff-face than the newer publication. In all the other books which I have that include 'Monolith' (all of which post-date my editions of the 'Basic Photo' series of books) the tonality of these areas always resembles that of the later print in having a very dark sky pretty much from the horizon so perhaps he decided that More Drama was his preferred way to go? Certainly that possibility would match comments he made in the Autobiography volume.

In light of this when considering how these prints look - early and late - it is noteworthy to read Adams' caption accompanying the plate as written in 'Natural Light Photography' and especially the last sentence;

"One of my earliest photographs (1926). This represented a 4,000-foot climb with a 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 plate camera and a magnificent bit of luck. I arrived not 30 minutes too soon for the fine distribution of sunlight on the 2,000-foot sheer granite cliff of Half Dome. I was using Wratten Panchromatic plates and a 6 1/2-inch Bausch and Lomb Tessar lens - uncoated of course - and a very uncertain shutter. An F filter was used (Wratten No. 29). The exposure was fortunate - not many in those days were - and the developer was pyro. The progression of sky tones from horizon to zenith is interesting; even with a strong red filter a considerable area above the horizon is rendered very light..."

I doubt I will be allowed to post a pic I've just taken showing three plates from these two volumes which is a bit of a shame as they show a print made from the negative exposed using the K2 Yellow filter and examples of the '1952'-style and '1985'-style #29 (F) filter prints.

I will ask a moderator just on the off-chance. In the meantime if anyone wishes to contact me by PM......

Philip.

In 1926 his plates were probably orthochromatic so the sky tones would have been different to (from?) modern panchromatic film?

[pippy]

37 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

In 1926 his plates were probably orthochromatic so the sky tones would have been different to (from?) modern panchromatic film?

Hmmm.......Not according to the caption which accompanies the plate, Pyrogallol;

On 1/23/2024 at 12:24 PM, pippy said:

"...I was using Wratten Panchromatic plates......and the developer was pyro..."

I could check in 'An Autobiography' to see if there is variance in his 'rememberings' but as the passage as quoted was written some thirty years before the later volume I would expect his memory to have been fresher when he wrote the 'Basic Photo' series of books.

As far as I can remember I don't think Orthocromatic emulsions - due to them being very sensitive to the Blue / Violet end of the spectrum - could register blue skies as anything darker than a pale grey?

Must do some more reading...

Philip.

Edited January 24 by pippy

[pippy]

On 1/23/2024 at 1:31 AM, t00l1024 said:

Ansel had two plates remaining on his hike that day for Monolith. Took one with a yellow filter (realized his mistake), and his second/last one was with a red...

 

22 hours ago, t00l1024 said:

...Sadly, I lost some of my Ansel Adams book in a flood in the house several years ago. Glad you brought this up!

 

On 1/23/2024 at 12:24 PM, pippy said:

...the plates used in each book show different 'interpretations' of the "Wratten #29 (F)" (Red Filter) negative; that in the earlier volume having both a lighter lower-sky and a lighter cliff-face than the newer publication. In all the other books which I have that include 'Monolith' (all of which post-date my editions of the 'Basic Photo' series of books) the tonality of these areas always resembles that of the later print in having a very dark sky...

Here are the versions as discussed earlier. Top left-(ish) is a print made from the first negative exposed which was shot using the Yellow filter; to the right in the same volume is the 'usual' version which we all know snapped with the Red and the plate shown lower left is how Adams showed the Red-Filtered Negative / Print as published in the 1952 volume;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I hope some of you find this image / comparison to be interesting.

Philip.

Edited January 25 by pippy

[t00l1024]

On 1/23/2024 at 5:24 AM, pippy said:

Just for fun I had a root-around to try to find the passage I had half-remembered reading and found two sources. The first is in the 1952 edition of 'Natural Light Photography' which is book 4 of his 'Basic Photo' series of volumes published by Morgan and Lester and the second is described in great detail in chapter 6 of 'Ansel Adams - an Autobiography' published by Thames and Hudson (1985).

Pardon the naive question, but 4 books in the series? I recall only 2. I feel as if I've missed out on something significant.

Also, how does one PM another member?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, t00l1024 said:

Pardon the naive question, but 4 books in the series? I recall only 2. I feel as if I've missed out on something significant.

Also, how does one PM another member?

Not naive at all.

The original series of Adams' 'Basic Photo' books was published by Morgan and Lester between 1948 - 1956 and comprised five volumes. These were;

Basic Photo Book 1, Camera & Lens: Studio, Darkroom, Equipment.

Basic Photo Book 2, The Negative: Exposure and Development.

Basic Photo Book 3, The Print: Contact Printing and Enlarging.

Basic Photo Book 4, Natural Light Photography.

Basic Photo Book 5, Artificial Light Photography.

Later on much of the information contained within these volumes was reworked and re-published in the early 1980's in a three volume set entitled 'The Camera', 'The Negative' and 'The Print'.

As far as PM-ing a member usually when I click on a forumite's avatar I get the option to send a PM.

Philip.

Edited January 25 by pippy

[robsonj]

It’s a shame the newer versions are only available as soft cover, such important books deserve a hard cover

[pippy]

16 minutes ago, robsonj said:

It’s a shame the newer versions are only available as soft cover, such important books deserve a hard cover

This is a good point.

The newset of my 'Basic Photo' books is now nigh-on 80(!) years old and will still be solid and useable for many MANY years to come. These editions were printed / issued in a time when quality of manufacture was considered to be a priority. Nowadays?.....Bah! Humbug!!!

Incidentally - and to add info to what I wrote in post #27 - it seems from info written in the half-title page in a 'third-printing' (1955) volume which I have of Book 2 that there was a sixth volume in the 'Basic Photo' series entitled "Twelve Photographic Problems". I have never seen one of these volumes. How curious?...

Philip.

Edited January 25 by pippy

[Pyrogallol]

I have a first edition of book 1 Camera and Lens, and Adams signed my copy of The Negative.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I have a first edition of book 1 Camera and Lens, and Adams signed my copy of The Negative.

Wow! A signed copy of 'The Negative' is a lovely thing to have. Congrats!

As it happens Book 1 is the only volume I don't have. It's been decades since I went around trying to find such books and when I was buying photo books regularly for some reason 'Camera and Lens' was something which never seemed to be available. Bizarrely I ended up with three copies of book 4...

I should also correct something which was written in an earlier post (#29). Having just checked I see that a couple of the volumes I have were printed as recently as 1971 and, as such, are mere youths being 53 years of age.

As far as the editions are concerned there are a pair of First Printing and the rest vary between Third- and Seventh-Printing. When I picked them up over the years - all but one of them were bought when I was a student - I was never interested in which edition I had found as they were bought solely for their content. As long as they were in good-enough condition I was happy. All the books I have also retain their dust jackets although the spine of a couple are somewhat discoloured.

Philip.

Edited January 25 by pippy

[pippy]

18 hours ago, pippy said:

...Incidentally - and to add info to what I wrote in post #27 - it seems from info written in the half-title page in a 'third-printing' (1955) volume which I have of Book 2 that there was a sixth volume in the 'Basic Photo' series entitled "Twelve Photographic Problems". I have never seen one of these volumes. How curious?...

A little bit more about 'Basic Photo Book - No. 6...' as mentioned above and as seen in Pyrogallo's upper photograph in post #30.

Having just had a (very brief) Google I came across this comment in some text from a bookseller who was / is selling a complete set of 'First Edition Vol's 1-5';

"A projected sixth volume titled Twelve Photographic Problems was never produced..."

I suppose that might explain why I have never come across one whilst on my travels?...

😸

Philip.

Edited January 25 by pippy

[Pyrogallol]

Maybe these will know https://www.anseladams.com/contact-us/

[t00l1024]

15 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I have a first edition of book 1 Camera and Lens, and Adams signed my copy of The Negative.

Sooooo jealous. 🙂

[Pintpot]

My 1999 paperback edition of 'The Camera' p167 - 169 discusses filters and refers to the use of a 25a red filter to darken the sky. In other parts of his 3 books he calls it a 'Tri Cut' red filter.

[ksrhee]

I'm jealous that you have the signed copy! As far as I know, the first three volumes, including the hard cover, are available via Amazon.  BTW these are the best books I have bought regarding photography!

Edited March 16 by ksrhee

[davidmknoble]

On 12/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, robsonj said:

I've owned a Q2m for a few years now, owned twice actually, having sold it once, then repurchased around the time that adobe turbo boosted the masking tools in LR classic.

I'm about to take delivery of a M11m and before purchasing color filters for my M lenses, I was wondering how many people still use color filters? I know on my Q2m, I have veered away from using color filters in preference to the LR classic masking tools that are now available. 

I'm sure there are many that swear by color filters, but are there people that lean on the masking tools more these days now that they are as good as they are? 

Cheers

Jonathan

Jonathan, just coming back to your original post.  I think there are places for both filters and dodging/burning (call it "D/B").  The key to color filters is that it separates tones in camera.  If the tones are too similar, D/B will not separate them.  For example, the green filter works really well with young green leaves on plants.  It brightens them up substantially, but it also darkens other primary colors. 

Yet, separating clouds and sky is not so difficult after in post.  I like orange and red filters with deep blue skies, but sometimes it may not be practical.

More importantly, any work by Ansel Adams is after he calibrated his chemistry to the film. It allowed him to use the same film and grab different levels of contrast based on the light.  We have one sensor, and everything else the same, can only capture light is it was designed.  Without filters, we cannot reduce contrast or increase contrast of what is captured. 

So, both are useful.  For landscape work, I prefer color filters, for just all around shooting or documentary work sometimes nothing, just post processing.

[jaapv]

And in that post-processing, the recent auto-select tool will make selections so easy ,fast and accurate that one can dodge and burn just one part of the image without affecting the rest. (PS)

[Stuart Richardson]

I have nothing in particular against filters, other than the loss of light and increase in flare and ghost that sometimes occurs, but I find that I rarely need filters these days. To be honest, I also rarely need masking. I think with a wide tonal range film like Tmax 400 or a high end digital camera, you have so much latitude and the tools for contrast manipulation are super robust now, so rarely do I need to do individual masks. I think that masks are also the easiest way to depart from a natural depiction (which is fine, if that is your goal). By avoiding masks the tonal relationship between all parts of the image is unadulterated, and therefore even if you change the tones or push them around a bit, their fundamental relationships remain the same. Whereas if you use masking and are not very careful, you wind up with photographs that land in a kind of uncanny valley, where something is "wrong" about them, even if most viewers cannot put their finger on it right away. A classic example would be a sky mask where the sky in unnaturally dark, while the landscape under it is comparatively bright. At best this will give you a very processed Salgado sort of look, but at worst it will just look like a HDR mess or Thomas Kinkade painting. So for me at least masking tends to be a weapon of last resort. Filters are kind of a different story, as they act on the whole frame. Graduated filters tend to look unnatural, but somehow the analogness makes them tend to look a bit more natural than a bad photoshop mask.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[robsonj]

I think, in the end, like most things with photography, there is no right or wrong answer or way, it’s all personal preference in the end. I do have a full set of filters, I tend to use them more when there is already contrast in the scene ironically, to enhance it, on flat overcast light, I tend to prefer to dodge and burn to crest some contrast where I want it. Am I right, no idea, it’s just what I do… still loving the monochrom though!