Blue ice in B&W

[John Kasaian]

I hope to try photographing some ice climbers. The ice is a different color than snow---there is a lot of blue in it, and while in the past I've been mainly concerned with capturing the crystalline detail of the snow, I think this outing is going to require a different technique.
I've got a choice of film in my freezer: Fomapan 100, FP-4+, and Tri-x.

Does anyone here have suggetions as to exposure. filters, and which film to use?

[Gem Singer]

Try a #15 (yellow-orange) filter with either of the three films.

Use one and a half stops as a filter factor.

[Mike1234]

Yes, what Gem said... or a #25 red.

[Steve Gledhill]

Try a polarizing filter ... in combination with a yellow.

[Gem Singer]

Refering to pages 144- 147 in Ansel Adams "The Negative":

There is a discussion about photographing snow and ice, and Ansel explains what happens when you over filter with a strong filter such as a red #25, as well as the effect of using polarization on snow scenes (with B&W film).

(Your copy of "The Negative" might have this info. on different page numbers than mine. Look in Chapter 6).

[Mike1234]

Refering to pages 144- 147 in Ansel Adams "The Negative":

There is a discussion about photographing snow and ice, and Ansel explains what happens when you over filter with a strong filter such as a red #25, as well as the effect of using polarization on snow scenes (with B&W film).

(Your copy of "The Negative" might have this info. on different page numbers than mine. Look in Chapter 6).

I believe most of the film used by Adams was orthochromatic... not pan.

[John Kasaian]

I believe most of the film used by Adams was orthochromatic... not pan.


A lot of AA's B&W photography was with Tri-X & HC-110, IIRC. I think much of his early ortho work was done on glass plates, but I'll refer that to the Ansel-estas :)

I'll look up the cite in The Negative. Thanks for the tips!

[David Karp]

I believe most of the film used by Adams was orthochromatic... not pan.

Depends on what era. Once pan film was available, that was what he used.

[John Kasaian]

The thought of using ortho has occurred to me---the blue wouldn't register and it should make for an interesting very B&W look but the ortho I have is dreadfully slow (APHS) and I'd think the climbers would move faster than the exended exposure would allow.
Besides I'll likely be shooting handheld (unless I can figure out how to rope a tripod to an icy mountian side!)

[Bruce Watson]

The thought of using ortho has occurred to me---the blue wouldn't register...

Huh? I think blue is about all that registers for ortho; it tails off in the greens and is most insensitive to reds IIRC. Or do I recall wrongly? Wouldn't be the first time. :rolleyes:

For the films you mention I think that the blue in the ice would give you a mid to light gray in the final print. A "minus blue" filter (about a yellow #12 IIRC) will take out all blue and drive the color of the ice toward white in the final print. If you want it a little gray then you might want less filter, say a #8? But I suspect a yellow deeper than a #12 (or orange or red) won't have any more effect on the blue in the ice than a #12. Once the blue light is gone, you can't take out any more, can you?

[Toyon]

Richard Ritter uses a blue filter for his ice photos. It tends to bring out more detail in shadow areas.

[csant]

Besides I'll likely be shooting handheld (unless I can figure out how to rope a tripod to an icy mountian side!)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=31123&d=1252929723 ;)

[percepts]

Huh? I think blue is about all that registers for ortho; it tails off in the greens and is most insensitive to reds IIRC. Or do I recall wrongly? Wouldn't be the first time. :rolleyes:

For the films you mention I think that the blue in the ice would give you a mid to light gray in the final print. A "minus blue" filter (about a yellow #12 IIRC) will take out all blue and drive the color of the ice toward white in the final print. If you want it a little gray then you might want less filter, say a #8? But I suspect a yellow deeper than a #12 (or orange or red) won't have any more effect on the blue in the ice than a #12. Once the blue light is gone, you can't take out any more, can you?

Well you have to distinguish between blue and cyan and fact is that most of what we call blue is in fact cyan and cyan is removed with red filtration. So I'd tend to agree with the deeper yellow or orange filtration to take out the blue and good deal of the cyan too.

[Peter De Smidt]

For printing, you might consider using Tim Rudman's lith process (http://www.timrudman.com/), and then toning in a gold toner. This technique can give you beautifully delicate blue tones, and it's a permanent process.

[Brian Ellis]

With all due respect to those who have replied, before anyone can tell you whether to use a filter at all and if so, what filter, there are a couple things that need to be known. First, is the snow in shade or sun or both? Two, what other important objects are in the scene besides the snow? You mentioned climbers. How about foliage or trees, rocks, etc.? Obviously any filter you use will affect other things in the scene as well.

FWIW my first inclination is always to avoid using a filter unless there's some objective that can't be accomplished without one. I actually no longer use any on-camera filters other than the occasional polarizer because the Photoshop filters work better and give you more flexibility than on-camera filters. But even in the days when I used filters for black and white on camera, unless I knew that I'd always be in sun or always be in shade I probably wouldn't use any filter in your situation and instead would just place the snow on Zone VII or VIII if the snow is in sunlight or Zone VI if it's in shade and develop normally. That's particularly true in your situation where you mention that you will be photographing hand-held and may need all the shutter speed you can get.

[Andrew O'Neill]

It depends on what effect you want. If you want extreme contrast in the ice, then go with red filters. With my own personal experience with ice, I never went higher than a #12, and always gave a bit more exposure than the recommended factor, due to the blue in the ice... If it's a sunny day, then that's a whole different game of shinny.

[Drew Wiley]

If the sky is blue, the shadows will also have blue in them. To optimize texture, use
pan film and a red filter. Green or yellow filter will have a lesser effect. If the sky is
heavily overcast or foggy, a filter won't do much - you just have to plus develop for
extra contrast. If you are comfortable with your film, you can somewhat visualize the
effect by looking through the filter with your eye or through the groundglass. Takes a
little experience to know how much is right, and how much too much.

[Mike1234]

^^^ Yup... mostly.

[Hal Hardy]

I would shoot with color slide film and make an internegative. You could even make partial exposures with different filters if necessary.

[Mike1234]

Ooh... I really don't like internegs... too much loss of detail.

[RPNugent]

Just curious, what film would you be using to make a 4x5 interneg since I haven't found any still being made at least for color output?

[Hal Hardy]

Just curious, what film would you be using to make a 4x5 interneg since I haven't found any still being made at least for color output?
TMAX 100, mainly because the developing time remains constant with different filters. No pulling a green filter or pushing a blue one. Very conveniant when doing color seperations. I've always used the red filter developing time as a baseline with other films for no particular reason.

[Hal Hardy]

Ooh... I really don't like internegs... too much loss of detail.
I've always made the interneg at the final size and contact printed it. The loss in detail isn't as bad as enlarging the interneg. I've never gone larger than 8X10. If John wants to make 16X20 prints, this might not be cost effective.

There are techniques I used when I made direct screen seperations for a newspaper that I adapted to my darkroom work. They can't be done out in the field and they usually improve the image enough that it makes up for for the short comings of an interneg.

[Mike1234]

I suppose for contact prints internegs would be fine. However, I like large prints... or at least the option of going large.

[al olson]

Huh? I think blue is about all that registers for ortho; it tails off in the greens and is most insensitive to reds IIRC. Or do I recall wrongly? Wouldn't be the first time. :rolleyes:

For the films you mention I think that the blue in the ice would give you a mid to light gray in the final print. A "minus blue" filter (about a yellow #12 IIRC) will take out all blue and drive the color of the ice toward white in the final print. If you want it a little gray then you might want less filter, say a #8? But I suspect a yellow deeper than a #12 (or orange or red) won't have any more effect on the blue in the ice than a #12. Once the blue light is gone, you can't take out any more, can you?

I agree with the first paragraph, but using a yellow filter, the blues will be partially blocked, leading to less density on the negative. This would cause the blue areas to print darker, possibly a medium gray for the final print. This is why blue skies are darkened with a yellow filter.

[domaz]

The thought of using ortho has occurred to me---the blue wouldn't register and it should make for an interesting very B&W look but the ortho I have is dreadfully slow (APHS) and I'd think the climbers would move faster than the exended exposure would allow.
Besides I'll likely be shooting handheld (unless I can figure out how to rope a tripod to an icy mountian side!)

Use ice screws- that's what the climbers use. If you are actually going to be hanging in a harness it will probably be pretty much impossible to do anything but handheld work though. If you are not going to be hanging maybe you should consider it- you can get better angles than being down below or up top.

[Drew Wiley]

Why would there be any loss of detail in an interneg? Sounds like someone is doing
sloppy work. From a large format original, a contact-printed interneg should easily hold
all the detail up to at least a 30x40 print and be superior in this respect to a scanned
image. So should an 8x10 interneg enlarged from 4x5, if someone knows what they are
doing. Getting ahold of interneg film is harder. Fuji sometimes has it, but other neg
films can be used if one knows how to correctly balance them. Not a service you're
going to find in commercial labs anymore, however. If you want it done right, you have
to do it yourself!