Galen used graduated neutral density filters. I'm sure he also made masks in photoshop as well as other post processing techniques. Master of Deception might be extreme in his case but my point was that he manipulated/modified his images as any good artist would.
Here is an image made with Velvia 100 at sunset that I find too saturated in red.
http://www.yosemitecollection.com/iview%20high%20country%20port./source/taftpointeraticclose.htm
Hugh, this picture is supposed to be a smoking gun proving he is a master of deception? Seriously? I pity you if you have never seen colors like this when the sun is low. The colors can actually get more saturated than this. Here's how: Be there for dozens of consecutive sunrises or sunsets, and wait to get lucky with the light. Also, the redness of light from a low sun is much more enhanced when you are at higher altitudes. I seem to recall reading in "Mountain Light" that the deepest red Rowell ever saw (at the time) was in California near Mt. Whitney, and he explained the atmospheric and geographic conditions that led to it. It was a bloody red, and I guess you would find that even more "objectionable." He had a standing offer to potential customers of his custom prints to see the original slide.
Someone who studies outdoor light as much as he did, and someone who returns to places over and over in search of the best light---such a person is unlikely to be a master of deception. Why work so hard when deception is so much easier? A master of deception, don't you see, could go once in almost any light to get some sort of picture and proceed to fake the result that he wanted.
Rowell was the opposite of a faker. You apparently endorse fakery when you write "manipulated/modified his images as any good artist would." Rowell thought it important to the integrity of the photographic image to not move, remove, or add elements to his pictures that differed from what he saw. He would not put a moon into an image that was not there. He would not make colors that differed from what he saw with his eyes.
Using graduated neutral density filters hardly counts as being a master of deception. One is just compensating for the weak dynamic range of film relative to what humans can see when we are there ourselves. Rowell did allow his images to have corrected colors to match what he saw more closely, and he did have film scratches removed, but these are the opposite of deceptive maneuvers---these are attempts to make the image you see look more like what he saw. Can you maybe see the difference between deception and faithful reproduction of what he saw?
There is a trap here that many fall into. If your image has a color cast that you know is wrong, such as an off-white looking white or an impossible skin tone, and if you correct the image with Photoshop to correct these colors, that is called color correction, not retouching, for you are merely attempting to reproduce what was there as best you can. On the other hand, if your sky was cloud-covered and you change it to blue because you wish the sky had been blue, that's retouching, and Rowell thought that improper.
Also, sharpening is just a counter to the blurring that always happens when images are recorded digitally. Again, sharpening is properly used to help the image become closer to what you saw. Again, this is the opposite of deception.
It is clear to me that his prints are less deceptive than what one gets from the activities that you say "any good artist would" engage in. Please consider reading his book "Mountain Light" to understand this issue better.
Here is an example of extreme reds. The film is VS, shot half an hour after sunset. I now use E100G for those dawn/dusk shots, as it gives a pleasant rendering of colors while not looking unrealistic. The image here is an accurate rendering of the original 4x5 slide.
http://www.8x10.se/pages/collectiongallery.asp?id=11
Lovely! I want to go there! Everyone should click it twice for the largest size.
Rowell discusses the Purkinje effect, and that is relevant here. When the light level is low, the true colors at sunset and sunrise are even redder than they appear to us. I find it totally believable that Lars has put no deceptive colors into the image. And this image is far redder than the example Hugh gave.
Lars, were there clouds in the sky that were lit up with a fiery red? I get approximately this same brilliant red about 3% of the sunsets (and perhaps 2% of the sunrises) in Utah during dry months when thin, wispy clouds are lit up bright red in a wide area of the sky---often with the sun well below the horizon. Do you recall checking the clouds? Also, compared to this image, how intense would you describe the reds that you saw at the time?
The other way for intense reds that I have experienced is a low, heavy, flat, thick cloud cover with the horizon clear in the far distance, but this only gives the amazing reds when the sun still appears at or slightly above the horizon. This happens much less than 1% of the time for me, unfortunately.
When either of these events happen, my heart races frightfully! I am sure many of you can relate.
I actually encountered this intense red effect when photographing the first light of sunrise on Mt. Whitney. My chromes came back with such a warm color caste that I plan on trying a cooling filter next time!
Here is sunset in Yosemite from Tenaya Peak using velvia. I made some some masks using curves that helped pull the forground and ballance the sky. I also used selective color to overcome the blues encountered at high elevation.
http://www.yosemitecollection.com/iview%20high%20country%20port./source/view_from_tenaya_peak_1a6d.htm
Lars
Great work and beautiful colors! I see you made it to the top of Clouds Rest. One of my goals is to take my camera up there for the sunset.
Does anyone notice the lack of sharpness of Astia vs. Velvia?
Astia is the sharper of the two - as well as going by the specs, I've seen this in some large (50"+) enlargements from 8x10. Small but noticable difference
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Tim, what do you base this on? From Fuji web site, pdf files on each film...
ASTIA 100F
60 lp/mm 1.6 :1 Contrast ratio
140 lp/mm 1000 :1 Contrast ratio
VELVIA 100 (rvp100)
80 lp/mm 1.6: 1 Contrast ratio
160 lp/mm 1000:1 Contrat ratio
A jump from 60 to 80 lp/mm is a 33% increase in sharpness in fine detail.... that's pretty significant, wouldn't you agree?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks