Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica M11-P Safari ×
🇬🇧🇺🇸 New: Leica M11-P Safari ×

Ravilious again

Don'tknowmuch

By Don'tknowmuch
in Film Forum

Recommended Posts

Don'tknowmuch

Don'tknowmuch

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Morning all.

Head full of James Ravilious. I've done the decnt thing and scoured old threads but haven't found what I suspect is there but hidden. So please excuse this new thread on the subject. I hope many will be happy to revisit these thoughts, and that, for some like me, it will be instructive.

Onwards. My questions are twofold;

1. Lenses. Famous for using old lenses. But which ones? I've seen Hektor mentioned (and assume it was an f6.5 28mm?) and a 50mm Elmar but not sure if he actually used either of these. "Uncoated" always appears, and this is where I want to go too. I could do with a list of uncoated lenses or some sort of guide as to when Leitz began to use coating. For example the 35mm Summaron was about in both LTM and M Mount, but not sure if the lens was coated or uncoated in either manifestation. Are all Elmar 50mm's uncoated? Is a Hektor the only uncoated 28mm option - quite restricitng at f6.5.. That sort of thing.

2. Development. One of the threads I did find suggested the person posting was trying Ravilious' technique by overexposing and underveloping. I know that Ravilious also diluted developer and extended development time in order to achieve a degree of compensation. So; with TriX @200asa and HC110 can anyone give me some helpful pointers about the process I could try; times/developer concentration/agitation etc?

There's quite a lot here, sorry about that. The reason I got my Leica 1 going was to see if I could begin to produce prints anything like those I like so much from James Ravilious, and any help early on could save me years of fumbling about! Plus save costly mistakes too. I won't pretend to be able to produce photographs like Ravilious', but they have this silvery, light, fresh quality that I hope to achieve.

Many thanks if any feel they can help,

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
andybarton

andybarton

Posted
Posted

BIG Ravilious fan here too...

 

I have his book "The Photographs of James Ravilious" on my desk here now. On page 50, it says that he initially used, then rejected modern (80s) Leica glass as being too contrasty. So he moved to lenses designed in the 20s and 30s. They are only described as being 35 and 50 Elmar (see thread below) and 28 Hektor (f6.3?) lenses. He also designed his own lens hood and used an auxiliary VIOOH finder on his M3. He used a light yellow filter.

 

FWIW, I have a 60s Summaron f2.8 and that's coated, and I am pretty sure that my f3.5 version from '54 was too. I am guessing, but I would think that maybe all M mount lenses have been coated.

 

It also describes how he gave his negatives twice the normal exposure and then reduced the development time in "dilute, soft-working compensating developer". No brand given, nor further technical details for his earlier work. In later years, he used Tri-X at 200ASA, processed in Ilford Pereptol diluted 1:2 (no time given, unfortunately). He had an expert printer based in Devon somewhere, who really understands how to get the best out of the negatives. You really need to see the large prints of course to appreciate the incredible potential of his technique and the outstanding skill and love in every frame..

 

His work is what I would like to aspire to; the first time I saw it I was just completely in awe. I was fortunate enough to be invited to the opening of an exhibition of his work in London last Autumn, and met his wife, who was charming. If you ever get the chance to see his work for real, I implore you to make the effort - you won't be disappointed.

 

I have been trying to emulate his techniques, and really need to learn more about the infamous zone system, but I have found that by exposing Tri-X at 320 ASA, and developing in DD-X for around 15% less time than stated in the Massive Development Chart at Digitaltruth.com, I get negatives that have a broad tonal range that scan very easily with the Nikon V. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a darkroom, otherwise I would relearn what skills I used to possess in wet printing with these negatives.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/51464-ltm-elmar-35mm-f3-5-a.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
chris_livsey

chris_livsey

Posted
Posted

Just wondering if the single coated Voigtlander range is worth considering ?

 

The 40/1.4 Nokton VM

This focal length is a personal favourite of Mr Kobayashi apparently, and available is single coated and multicoated versions. The former makes a beautiful low contrast lens, and ideal for portraiture. It is also well suited to lower contrast Black & White work or subtle tonality on color negative film.

Lens mount: VM Bayonet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don'tknowmuch

Don'tknowmuch

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks all. The more observant amongst you will have picked up that I've asked some of the same questions before, and you've been good enough not to point out to me that you've answered me already! I apologise for this, but am pleased to say that thanks to you more has been learned.

It seems I'm going to be using Elmars and Hektors (6.3; thanks). Interesting that he used the 35mm Elmar as received opinion appears to be that this is not a terribly good lens, and is certainly less succesful than the 50mm one, but all the prints I've seen look equally good, and some are clearly wider than 50mm so would either be the Hektor or the 35mm Elmar.

I've been a big fan of his for years and have many of the books and the DVD. A few of my family (we have Devon connections) went to Beaford last year and surprised an incumbent at the centre by just turning up. He wasn't the right person to see at all, and compensated by being far too helpful. He sat us down and went to get a load of original prints that had formed a touring exhibition of Ravilious' work and left us with them for an hour or so. About 40 images, all full-sized and we simply handed them around and enjoyed the time immensly. The helpful chap looked in after a while and said he could tell I was interested in the photographic process and handed me a couple of files of negs! He said that he certainly shouldn't be doing that and would be shot for risking the irreplaceable archive, but I guess I seemed trustworthy! Anyway; that was fun seeing sheets and sheets of his negs, looking at the bracketing and at many unfamiliar pictures, albeit in negative form. I felt very special indeed as I'm sure you can appreciate.

These negs were HP5, and were, I think, developed in dilute Perceptol in a compensatory way. I know he also used Tri-X and Perceptol in the same way. Ansel Adams in "The Negative" says that he's happy with HC110 as a compensating developer, but I'm a bit at sea with the dilutions and times and so on but feel Tri-X and HC110 ought to be able to do the job I want.

I'm sure the printing process contributes much of the particular look of the prints, and, I'm afraid, I'm scanning and Photoshopping with the best of us so maybe I'm not going to be able to get the look I want. Manipulation in Photoshop ought to allow all sorts of "looks" to be achieved but I'm not so sure it would be the same. The striking nature of the prints I saw so closely really hit home.

Anyway - maybe more thoughts will come to us and I'll always be grateful for anyone's insights.

I'm grateful for your help - and I have considered the 40mm single-coated CV lens but might as well go the whole hog and pick up an Elmar. No coating v. one coat.

Oh; I know what I was going to ask. My Leica 1 with fixed Elmar. This lens unscrews to a certain point then it stops turning. Can I in some way take this Elmar out and use it on, say, an M2 with LTM adapter? Or is the thread not the same? Do uncoated Elmars all have the aperture adjustment on the front?

A final final thought; many of Ravilious' images were shot looking straight into the sun (with his funky hood) and this, no doubt, accounts for the silvery look I mentioned earlier. Any guides as to expose this sort of shot successfully would be gratefully received. I have a Weston IV meter (no incident facility).

Thanks. Bye. Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kenneth

kenneth

Posted
Posted

Wonderful caring photographs by a man who knew his subject intimately. His processing techniques were obviously handled with the same care. There is so much to explore in this wonderful medium I cannot see me exhausting it in this lifetime

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don'tknowmuch

Don'tknowmuch

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks all - I'm very grateful for advice and help. The more I look at Ravilious' images the more I see the Bewick engravings that he admired and was also inspired by. As a digression it's also of interest that Eric Ravilious' watercolours exhibited mastery of light and tone.

The more I ask the more questions I have... Going the next stage and buying, say, an M2 with an old Elmar or Hektor 28mm is, maybe, a bit unnecessary if I can get to grips with the Leica 1 I have already? What does anyone think? Is this a mad route and would it limit me?

Maybe I should get the thing CLA'd and hope that the shutter issues are sorted out? What might help me with this decision is if anyone can tell me that loading film in a 1 gets easier with practice... I find it unreliable and sometimes the film isn't advanced at all even though winding on seems to turn both knobs. On the plus side I don't take that many photos so I wouldn't be faced with trying to do it whilst out and about in many critical situations.

What are the options of a bolt-on viewfinder that would give me a 50mm viewpoint and would I be able to look through this with glasses on?

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don'tknowmuch

Don'tknowmuch

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's alright, I haven't gone crazy and started to reply to my own postings...

I had a thought in the night.

Pictures of James Ravilous' M3 show it has on it one of what I think are termed "goggles." Does this clue help to identify the lens he had in place? If so, would it, in fact, have been uncoated?

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites
andybarton

andybarton

Posted
Posted

IIRC there was a reason why he preferred to use goggles sometimes. The photo that I have on the back of his book has him with an M3, no goggles, and a 50mm, by the looks of it, with an external finder. (Difficult to tell which lens)

 

I have lent my DVD to a friend, so can't watch it to find out

Link to post
Share on other sites
chris_livsey

chris_livsey

Posted
Posted

Just another thought. If you purchased a coated Elmar for example I am sure there are optical houses/repairers who could polish off the coating and et voila an uncoated lens. I may not try it on a current ASPH lens, although no doubt a collector could be persuaded it was a unique piece.

You would need to find an uncoated yellow filter as well don't forget no use buying a MC one from B+W.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don'tknowmuch

Don'tknowmuch

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A thought in the night (and no, I didn't sleep well) was that I have read that these uncoated lenses can reflect up to 35% of incident light. Now if Ravilious rated 400asa film at, say, 200asa, and shot through an uncoated lens, this wouldn't be far off shooting at... well, without being so bothered as to work it out accurately... 320asa or so; not far off what many of us routinely rate Tri-X at. Does this mean anything? No - I've just worked that out. What it has made me realise is that the uncoated lenses must be acting as a filter unless they reflect all frequencies of light equally. What are the uncoated lenses like when working with colour?

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
elansprint72

elansprint72

Posted
Posted
A thought in the night (and no' date=' I didn't sleep well) was that I have read that these uncoated lenses can reflect up to 35% of incident light. Now if Ravilious rated 400asa film at, say, 200asa, and shot through an uncoated lens, this wouldn't be far off shooting at... well, without being so bothered as to work it out accurately... 320asa or so; not far off what many of us routinely rate Tri-X at. Does this mean anything? No - I've just worked that out. What it has made me realise is that the uncoated lenses must be acting as a filter unless they reflect all frequencies of light equally. What are the uncoated lenses like when working with colour?

Jim.[/quote']

 

Jim,

Enough thinking already! Just get your skinny out there and shoot some pictures; then post them in the photo fora here. :cool:

 

btw, my Mother_in_Law has been snooping around here recently and pronounced that (in my modest collection) Ravilious' books were second best only to "that train photographer", by which she meant O.Winston Link. Damn, that woman has a point. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...