Don't they also prolong the life of a print? I heard that was another reason for sepia and blue toning.
I thought that "all" his prints were processed in some kind of toner ... the checmicals used determines whether the white of the paper is toned somewhat browner (sepia) or bluish. This step is done after the developing and fixing of the image.
A "duotone" is an offset printing term, used for a process in which a photo is printed using two colors of ink in an attempt to simulate the look of a toned print. Photoshop's Duotone mode is a method for creating those two pieces of film.
To mass-produced Adams' work by offset printing (like calendars) they use a quad-tone technique using four different gray-black inks to try and closely approximate the look of the photographic prints -- I once knew the ink combination but forgot! : (
I think that, although many old printed are "toned," there really is no such thing as a "duotone" phopographic print -- just ones in which the toner plays a more or less important role.
===============================
"Image color is a property of both emulsion and paper base combined (the term "color" as used here bears no relation to color photographs, but refers to the subtle hues of greater warmth or coldness in reference to neutral black and white). The color of the base can range from a cold (bluish) white through neutral to slightly warm and very warm (ivory or buff) colors....
"The image color is further modified by the development, and still further modified by toning....
"I work for a cool purple-black image by using a cold-toned developer and slightly toning in selenium. With this combination I feel that I can achieve an image of maximum strength and beauty of print color -- an image that is logically related to the clean crisp sharpness of the image formed by the lens."
--Ansel Adams, The Print, 1983
You're correct, I shouldn't have used "duotone" in that way, I was responding to a questiona nd didn't think through the implications of it. He used 'toners", of which selenium was the more frequent. And of course, as already noted by both of us, the actual developer used would provide a range of different "tones" to the finished image.
(Actually, you didn't say that, but I did. There are cold and warm developers. The bluish cast referred to earlier, however, is almost certainly the selenium toning I think. It's been a long time since I did this...)
(Re: duotones, by far the best reproductions of Ansel's work are in fact printed on offset presees as duotones...)
I read somewhere that Ansel photographed wildlife, animals and such, but have yet to see a single photo like this. Did I read wrong or are there some photos like this out there?
I do not know if it was purposeful or not, but the majority of Ansel Adams' landscapes had great depth of focus. Some of the prints I have examined at Sandia Laboratories have blue toning which seems to add to the starkness of the scene. In any case, he will be remembered long for his prolific work and much admired style.
He was known for his great DOF. However, many photographers who are partial to shallower DOF or softer backgrounds were influenced by and employ the Zone System which he helped devise. So to discount an image because it is not tack sharp throughout the image is not warranted IMHO. Even if we wanted most of us could never achieve f/64 with our limited equipment in anycase. Not picking on your post in particular ElGordo - just to point that out. :)
I read somewhere that Ansel photographed wildlife, animals and such, but have yet to see a single photo like this. Did I read wrong or are there some photos like this out there?
I do not know if it was purposeful or not, but the majority of Ansel Adams' landscapes had great depth of focus. Some of the prints I have examined at Sandia Laboratories have blue toning which seems to add to the starkness of the scene. In any case, he will be remembered long for his prolific work and much admired style.
He was known for his great DOF. However, many photographers who are partial to shallower DOF or softer backgrounds were influenced by and employ the Zone System which he helped devise. So to discount an image because it is not tack sharp throughout the image is not warranted IMHO. Even if we wanted most of us could never achieve f/64 with our limited equipment in anycase. Not picking on your post in particular ElGordo - just to point that out. :)
But "our" challenge is to emulate Ansel's "style", not to "take a zone system photograph". So in my own opinion, and only my own opinion, images with shallow DOF do not even come close to emulating Ansel's work. As for the f:64, that was for an 8x10 View camera; F:22 on a 35 mm camera has MUCH more DOF than f:64 on an 8x10, that's not a problem for us.
MY GOD!!!
After reading, re-reading and re-reading this thread again I have resubmitted my entry for the challenge about 15 times & I am still unsure of the final image. So sod it, if it does well then cool, if not then roll on the next challenge. :-)
I must say though this challenge is the hardest i have worked on since joining last year. Still good fun though.
I do not know if it was purposeful or not, but the majority of Ansel Adams' landscapes had great depth of focus. Some of the prints I have examined at Sandia Laboratories have blue toning which seems to add to the starkness of the scene. In any case, he will be remembered long for his prolific work and much admired style.
He was known for his great DOF. However, many photographers who are partial to shallower DOF or softer backgrounds were influenced by and employ the Zone System which he helped devise. So to discount an image because it is not tack sharp throughout the image is not warranted IMHO. Even if we wanted most of us could never achieve f/64 with our limited equipment in anycase. Not picking on your post in particular ElGordo - just to point that out. :)
But "our" challenge is to emulate Ansel's "style", not to "take a zone system photograph". So in my own opinion, and only my own opinion, images with shallow DOF do not even come close to emulating Ansel's work. As for the f:64, that was for an 8x10 View camera; F:22 on a 35 mm camera has MUCH more DOF than f:64 on an 8x10, that's not a problem for us.
Robt.
Thanks for pointing that out. So what would f/1.4 equate to on a field view camera, if it's possible?
I haven't been able to get anything that remotely resembles an Ansel Adams shot, or a good photo for that matter. Finally a black and white geared challenge, and I can't get a sniff of a good photo. Thanks for widening the horizons bear though, I was looking at a book of his works, and while amazing landscapes were obviously his specialty, he's photographed an amazing range of things. I think you're right, it's the style we've got to go for, I don't think Adams would have wanted us to slavishly reproduce a landscape just to be in his style. More likely, he would have wanted a good photo to win this challenge, with full tonality and a great DOF.
I'm relatively pleased with my entry....I wish the image had more context, but I think I was able to capture the tonal range pretty well. The process certainly taught me more about dodging/burning than I ever thought I would know.....we'll see what the voters think.
I do not know if it was purposeful or not, but the majority of Ansel Adams' landscapes had great depth of focus. Some of the prints I have examined at Sandia Laboratories have blue toning which seems to add to the starkness of the scene. In any case, he will be remembered long for his prolific work and much admired style.
He was known for his great DOF. However, many photographers who are partial to shallower DOF or softer backgrounds were influenced by and employ the Zone System which he helped devise. So to discount an image because it is not tack sharp throughout the image is not warranted IMHO. Even if we wanted most of us could never achieve f/64 with our limited equipment in anycase. Not picking on your post in particular ElGordo - just to point that out. :)
But "our" challenge is to emulate Ansel's "style", not to "take a zone system photograph". So in my own opinion, and only my own opinion, images with shallow DOF do not even come close to emulating Ansel's work. As for the f:64, that was for an 8x10 View camera; F:22 on a 35 mm camera has MUCH more DOF than f:64 on an 8x10, that's not a problem for us.
Robt.
Thanks for pointing that out. So what would f/1.4 equate to on a field view camera, if it's possible?
Well, let's see... A "normal lens" on 4x5 cameras is roughly 150mm; on a 35 mm camera it's 50mm. F:1.4 on a 50mm lens would be a 35.7 mm opening. On a 4x5 view camera mounted with a 150mm lens that would equal f:4.2... The "normal" lens for 8x10, if I recall correctly, is 210mm, so a 35.7 mm opening on a 210 would be f:5.8...
To look at it another way, at a "normal" field of view, which is a 210 mm lens on an 8x10 camera, if you wanted to have f:1.4 you'd need a physical aperture of 150mm, or close to 3/4 of an inch. They don't make large-format lenses that fast, because the shutter mechanisms would be unwieldy. These lenses use "lead shutters", the kind that spiral open, and the mechanics of it don't work.
MY GOD!!!
After reading, re-reading and re-reading this thread again I have resubmitted my entry for the challenge about 15 times & I am still unsure of the final image. So sod it, if it does well then cool, if not then roll on the next challenge. :-)
I must say though this challenge is the hardest i have worked on since joining last year. Still good fun though.
Darren
Well. I'm a "trained" Zone System photographer, and TAUGHT Zone System for years, and did all my personal work with a view camera and Zone System for 25 years, and I still have reworked my entry to this challenge maybe 12-13 times and actually submitted 5 variations of it along the way, so don't feel bad...
Great starting thread Robert. I recently became fascinated by Adams' work. I've been looking up biography's and his images all week it seems to get a sense of his style. Bear Music helped me a lot with the explaination. However, how can Robert say that someone with a shallow DOF has no chance in this challenge, if Ansel himself took closeups of varioius leaves and artifacts? I don't beleive that every submission should have a deep DOF. If the composition is good, and the image has good tone, lighting and all the qualities of a B/W photo, then points should not be deducted because of a shallow DOF.
Thanks for answering my questions Robert. You are one of the most helpful and knowledgeable people on this site. Would it be too much to ask you to post a scan or two of your film work - I think it would be appreciated by all who enjoy your posts.
To look at it another way, at a "normal" field of view, which is a 210 mm lens on an 8x10 camera, if you wanted to have f:1.4 you'd need a physical aperture of 150mm, or close to 3/4 of an inch. They don't make large-format lenses that fast, because the shutter mechanisms would be unwieldy. These lenses use "lead shutters", the kind that spiral open, and the mechanics of it don't work.
Robt. [/quote]
Your math is a bit rusty Robert. 150mm is approximately six inches. I have a view camera that uses a focal plane shutter (Speed Graphic)on which I have used a 135mm f/2.3 lens, nearly 60mm, 2.3 inches, clear aperture. That lens is heavy and puts a strain on the lens board that I feel is precarious. I placed that camera in my 'antiquities' display some years ago.
To look at it another way, at a "normal" field of view, which is a 210 mm lens on an 8x10 camera, if you wanted to have f:1.4 you'd need a physical aperture of 150mm, or close to 3/4 of an inch. They don't make large-format lenses that fast, because the shutter mechanisms would be unwieldy. These lenses use "lead shutters", the kind that spiral open, and the mechanics of it don't work.
Robt.
Your math is a bit rusty Robert. 150mm is approximately six inches. I have a view camera that uses a focal plane shutter (Speed Graphic)on which I have used a 135mm f/2.3 lens, nearly 60mm, 2.3 inches, clear aperture. That lens is heavy and puts a strain on the lens board that I feel is precarious. I placed that camera in my 'antiquities' display some years ago. [/quote]
Ummmm... 150 CENTIMETERS is just shy of 6 inches....
Thanks for answering my questions Robert. You are one of the most helpful and knowledgeable people on this site. Would it be too much to ask you to post a scan or two of your film work - I think it would be appreciated by all who enjoy your posts.
As I've mentioned before on other threads, over a decade ago we had a basement flood of catastrophic proportions in San Diego while we were away for a week, and my entire body of work, prints and film, was lost. I am working on having my sister take a couple shots in for scanning...
To look at it another way, at a "normal" field of view, which is a 210 mm lens on an 8x10 camera, if you wanted to have f:1.4 you'd need a physical aperture of 150mm, or close to 3/4 of an inch. They don't make large-format lenses that fast, because the shutter mechanisms would be unwieldy. These lenses use "lead shutters", the kind that spiral open, and the mechanics of it don't work.
Robt.
Your math is a bit rusty Robert. 150mm is approximately six inches. I have a view camera that uses a focal plane shutter (Speed Graphic)on which I have used a 135mm f/2.3 lens, nearly 60mm, 2.3 inches, clear aperture. That lens is heavy and puts a strain on the lens board that I feel is precarious. I placed that camera in my 'antiquities' display some years ago.
Ummmm... 150 CENTIMETERS is just shy of 6 inches....
Robt. [/quote]
150 centimeters is almost 5 feet!!! You know, 100 centimeters/meter, your math is in worse shape than I thought.
To look at it another way, at a "normal" field of view, which is a 210 mm lens on an 8x10 camera, if you wanted to have f:1.4 you'd need a physical aperture of 150mm, or close to 3/4 of an inch. They don't make large-format lenses that fast, because the shutter mechanisms would be unwieldy. These lenses use "lead shutters", the kind that spiral open, and the mechanics of it don't work.
Robt.
Your math is a bit rusty Robert. 150mm is approximately six inches. I have a view camera that uses a focal plane shutter (Speed Graphic)on which I have used a 135mm f/2.3 lens, nearly 60mm, 2.3 inches, clear aperture. That lens is heavy and puts a strain on the lens board that I feel is precarious. I placed that camera in my 'antiquities' display some years ago.
Ummmm... 150 CENTIMETERS is just shy of 6 inches....
Robt.
150 centimeters is almost 5 feet!!! You know, 100 centimeters/meter, your math is in worse shape than I thought. [/quote]
Yes, I was busy cooking dinner and slipped a unit of measurement. 150 millimeters woudl be roughly a 6 inch aperture, and this is what I should have said in the first place. I learned my metrical system long ago, and I just slipped a cog in the rush here. Actually 150 mm = 15 cm = just shy of 3/4 of an inch.
This has been so helpful thanks Robt and everyone else. I'm heading out again today to see if I can improve on what I've got sofar.
Was tempted to enter this shot, but couldn't get the grey tones right
would have been voted down I know, but having looked through a lot of his images online his comments on society are my favourites.
Sue, I think the range of tones here is great, as is the detail. The only issue for me, ...from an "Adams perspective", might be the large blown highlight at the left. Nevertheless, I would have given it an 8.
Thanks for answering my questions Robert. You are one of the most helpful and knowledgeable people on this site. Would it be too much to ask you to post a scan or two of your film work - I think it would be appreciated by all who enjoy your posts.
As I've mentioned before on other threads, over a decade ago we had a basement flood of catastrophic proportions in San Diego while we were away for a week, and my entire body of work, prints and film, was lost. I am working on having my sister take a couple shots in for scanning...
Robt.
Sorry to hear of that great loss Robert. I look forward to seeing those. Do you still have your medium/large format gear? It's a fascinating medium I'd love to learn more about, although with the direction digital in going in, it's doubtful that I'll ever buy any of that equipment.
