PDA

View Full Version : Ansel's Winter Sunrise.



Pfiltz
24-Sep-2012, 05:38
I need some help understanding what he did, to achieve such a beautiful image in the darkroom.

I don't have a darkroom, however; hoping to change that. I have bought my first enlarger, but haven't gotten a chance to pick it up yet. But that's down the road.

I'm new to film and especially 4x5. I've only been shooting 6 months now [film].

I just bought the Ansel App and I see this small slide show showing "Winter Sunrise". It shows what the original negative produced, then through 3 addition variations, what the final image looked like, through Darkroom Manipulation.

How in the world does one change very defined areas of a print through dodging and burning. I mean, I can only relate this to using Photoshop and using mask to create such contrast in "certain" parts of the final image.

How does one do that in the Darkroom. I wish I could provide a visual as to what the iPad app shows, but it's quite amazing to me.

Sorry for the newb question to those veterans here. If this isn't in the proper forum, please move it where it should belong.

I would like as an experiment to create the great levels on contrast on possibly one of my images shown below.... My first outing shooting landscapes ever, using a 4x5.

http://www.keepsakephotography.us/4x5/Seattle5.jpg

Ansel's Winter Sunrise

http://www.keepsakephotography.us/4x5/WinterSunrise.jpg

MDR
24-Sep-2012, 06:12
Adams influenced the outcome at the picture taking stage in short he used a red filter. In the lab he used dodging and burning, maybe some local bleaching as well. The light is also very important the sun seems to have been lower close to sunset or sunrise
Make your print a little darker especially the sky, dodge the light parts of the prints (hills and trees). Use a red or orange filter the next time and the most important part look for the light.

Dominik

Kevin J. Kolosky
24-Sep-2012, 06:13
I'm sure many others will chime in with more detailed explanations, but at its simplest level, more light makes things darker on a piece of photographic paper, and less light makes things lighter.

So you might make a print that you are satisfied with overall, but you see areas that could be lighter and areas that could be darker.

For those areas that could be darker you add light by dodging everything else that you don't want darker during additional exposure. And for those areas that you want lighter you dodge those areas during the initial exposure.

Dodging involves blocking the light that is coming from the enlarger to the piece of photographic paper in your easel. You can do it with your hands, with pieces of cardboard, and even purchased "dodging" tools.

So, for example, you would like your sky a bit darker. You would make your initial work print until everything looked the way you wanted it to look otherwise. You would then add some additional exposure to the sky by adding exposure to the whole print but blocking or dodging the light hitting the print everywhere else but the sky. You would have to move the blocking or dodging tool around so as not to make it look like it had been dodged.

Pfiltz
24-Sep-2012, 06:20
Appreciate it folks. I've seen tutorials on Dodging / Burning in the darkroom, and also understand using red filters as shown in one of my earlier experiements.. What still escapes me, is how very "defined" the lines are between the two contrast within his image. No bleeding at all.

But I do understand as well, Time of Day playing a big factor in trying to achieve your final goal as well.

Of course, not knowing or having worked in a darkroom, I find that image of his just fascinating, if it was done totally in there, during the printing process.

A feeble attempt at a Red filter shot

http://www.keepsakephotography.us/4x5/RedMill.jpg

Kevin J. Kolosky
24-Sep-2012, 06:27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCpZu6Y82XQ

RichardSperry
24-Sep-2012, 06:43
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?95008-New-Ansel-Adams-book-and-app-quot-Looking-at-Ansel-Adams-quot

The free app in this thread shows a straight print and the finished print. With a short blurb on technique included.

Pfiltz
24-Sep-2012, 06:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCpZu6Y82XQ

Amazing

Brian Ellis
24-Sep-2012, 06:51
If you're really interested in Adams and his techniques I'd suggest buying his book "Examples." It includes fairly detailed discussions by him of the thought-process and techniques he used to make forty of his most famous photographs including Winter Sunrise.

With respect to the lack of "bleeding," in his day that was mostly a matter of excellent technique in making the initial exposure, in developing the film, and in darkroom dodging and burning coupled perhaps with some flashing. Today those things are all still important in the darkroom but the use of variable contrast paper and filters (or a color/variable contrast enlarger head) can also help. With variable contrast paper if you have a light area adjacent to a dark area and wish to burn the light area without affecting the dark area, doing so with a low contrast filter (e.g. #1) while holding back the dark area will help prevent "bleeding." In the same situation, if you wish to burn the dark area without affecting the light area, doing so with a high contrast filter (e.g #4 or 5) while holding back the light area will help prevent "bleeding."

In the photograph of yours that you posted your use of a red filter is fine for what you used it for (presumably to make the sky black). On my monitor however it looks like you've lost all texture and detail in the area behind the silos or whatever they are and in the foreground. Assuming you wanted that information in the print, you could try dodging those areas if you were in a darkroom (and of course it would be a simple matter in Photoshop if the information is in the negative). But better yet you might have made a longer exposure in the camera to bring out that detail and then reduced the development time to prevent the highlights from being blown out by the longer exposure (which is the basic concept behind the zone system).

Your photograph may also show one of the problems of using a red filter, which is that it tends to turn green foliage black. I'm guessing there's some grass in the foreground of your photograph, which is mostly lost because it's black (on my monitor, maybe not so in the print). Maybe you wanted it black or maybe there's no grass there, I don't know. But if there was some green grass and you wanted to show its texture and detail it would be difficult to use a red filter to darken the sky without also unduly darkening the grass (which perhaps could be fixed in a darkroom by dodging that area, not having seen the negative it's hard to know for sure).

Pfiltz
24-Sep-2012, 07:00
But better yet you might have made a longer exposure in the camera to bring out that detail and then reduced the development time to prevent the highlights from being blown out by the longer exposure (which is the basic concept behind the zone system).

Something for me to remember. Thanks.

The red filter shot was nothing more than me playing with a red filter to see cause/effect. Yes there was grass in the foreground.

I may try this shot again, but changing up the exposure / development time.

To date, all the stuff I've shot, which isn't much, has been shot and developed based on the metered scene, and development times based on the developer...

I haven't tweaked either to see what happens, since I'm clueless ;)

RichardSperry
24-Sep-2012, 07:29
I haven't tweaked either to see what happens, since I'm clueless ;)

Get a copy of Adam's "The Negative"(then the other two in the series). It details dodging and burning technique.

Rolf Horn has this page with six examples of very intricate dodging and burning technique.
http://www.f45.com/html/tech/index.html

Both are very useful for the task that you are asking about.

The Adams app shows that Adam's printed Winter Sunrise at least two different ways. And did a major edit with spotting to remove white lettering from the midground hillside, in addition to blackening it.

Kevin J. Kolosky
24-Sep-2012, 08:10
Brian brings up some very good points about filters.

Here is a little deal to help you remember. Its called Red Cadillac by General Motors. That of course stands for Red and Cyan, Blue and Yellow, and Green and Magenta. Generally, when using a filter in black and white photography the filter will lighten (on the print) its color and darken the opposite color, and adjacent colors on the color wheel. That is why your Red filter not only darkened blue but also green, because blue and green are closely related to magenta, etc.

Drew Wiley
24-Sep-2012, 08:36
Well it obviously wasn't truly a sunrise. For one thing, direct light has reached way down the mountain slopes. For another, the sky has acquired a fairly intense blue capable of being strongly affected by a red filter. It was a little later in the morning, and what AA
achieved was an illusion of sunrise with very directional light. The big foreground hill was
strongly burned in, as well as having another infamous trick applied to it, which one can
read about. I got to see a very large print of this and it's really quite fuzzy compared to
what today's 8X10 film and lenses can do. That's why AA printed mural-sized prints rather soft and warm. But in the traditional sizes of 16X20 or 20X24 is has this classic high-contrast crisp look. The actual spot hasn't changed much, at least on that side of the
road. The other side is pretty developed.

ROL
24-Sep-2012, 08:47
How in the world does one change very defined areas of a print through dodging and burning. I mean, I can only relate this to using Photoshop and using mask to create such contrast in "certain" parts of the final image.

How does one do that in the Darkroom.

Making a Fine Art Print (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/making-a-fine-art-print)

"No RED filters, or Photoshop processes were harmed in the the making of this print."

ROL
24-Sep-2012, 09:17
If you're really interested in Adams and his techniques I'd suggest buying his book "Examples." It includes fairly detailed discussions by him of the thought-process and techniques he used to make forty of his most famous photographs including Winter Sunrise.

With respect to the lack of "bleeding," in his day that was mostly a matter of excellent technique in making the initial exposure, in developing the film, and in darkroom dodging and burning coupled perhaps with some flashing. Today those things are all still important in the darkroom but the use of variable contrast paper and filters (or a color/variable contrast enlarger head) can also help. With variable contrast paper if you have a light area adjacent to a dark area and wish to burn the light area without affecting the dark area, doing so with a low contrast filter (e.g. #1) while holding back the dark area will help prevent "bleeding." In the same situation, if you wish to burn the dark area without affecting the light area, doing so with a high contrast filter (e.g #4 or 5) while holding back the light area will help prevent "bleeding."

In the photograph of yours that you posted your use of a red filter is fine for what you used it for (presumably to make the sky black). On my monitor however it looks like you've lost all texture and detail in the area behind the silos or whatever they are and in the foreground. Assuming you wanted that information in the print, you could try dodging those areas if you were in a darkroom (and of course it would be a simple matter in Photoshop if the information is in the negative). But better yet you might have made a longer exposure in the camera to bring out that detail and then reduced the development time to prevent the highlights from being blown out by the longer exposure (which is the basic concept behind the zone system).

Your photograph may also show one of the problems of using a red filter, which is that it tends to turn green foliage black. I'm guessing there's some grass in the foreground of your photograph, which is mostly lost because it's black (on my monitor, maybe not so in the print). Maybe you wanted it black or maybe there's no grass there, I don't know. But if there was some green grass and you wanted to show its texture and detail it would be difficult to use a red filter to darken the sky without also unduly darkening the grass (which perhaps could be fixed in a darkroom by dodging that area, not having seen the negative it's hard to know for sure).

Brian has analyzed well your examples and the use of red filters. Many, many newb's incorrectly conclude that a red filter is necessary for that "Ansel look", however that is perceived. AA rarely used red filters, save for a couple of unfortunately (in)famous cases. He warns against their profligate use in his books, which have already been strongly recommended to you.

Not that it matters, but I never use red filters for panchromatic (normal) monochrome films. I use yellow filters (deep, medium, & light), not for darkening skies – though that can be an added benefit – but for resolving the topography of clouds, by removing blue light from the atmosphere. The yellow filters will not wipe out intermediate tonalities, allowing you to create a fully tonal print of your own visualization, once in the darkroom.

Drew Wiley
24-Sep-2012, 09:50
There's some debate about why strong yellow filters affected sky back then in a manner not possible today. But I'd challenge anyone to get that kind of black sky without a red or at least deep orange one. It ain't likely to be jes dodgin n burnin. And good VC papers weren't around yet. But it kinda funny how, when Fauxtoshop got invented, it tried to mimic not only the functions, but even the terminology, from traditional graphics processes. And now a younger generation is trying to think those steps back.

Kodachrome25
24-Sep-2012, 09:50
While I do love the darkroom, I try as much as possible to use a photojournalistic ethic in my fine art work which is quickly becoming the genre of photography that pays the bills. I do use split grade printing and paper flashing, it seems to work well, but for the most part, it is all in camera and basically what that amounts to is being sensitive to and quickly responding to phenomenal light and subject matter.

Don't get me wrong, I love Moonrise, the shot of Mt. Whitney ( my first 14'r ) and the ice lake in the Sierra's shot. But I am not sure I would normally go through all that to turn an average shot into what is referred to above by one as a "Fine Print", at least not in the age of photoshop.

I sold two 15" x 15" prints in 8 ply matt over the weekend that had just some basic split grade, paper flashing and perhaps two stages of burning involved. By far most of the impact was the natural light and the setting, they sold for nearly a grand each....just sayin'...

I do want to share a story of one lone exception in using the darkroom well beyond what I would otherwise do in terms of adhering to the photojournalistic ethic in my fine art work...

So several months back, my wife and I set out to drive about 4 hours away from home to get a fine art level image of the May 22nd annular eclipse, it would be my first eclipse since one that got clouded out in Hawaii in 1991. I wanted a wider view that gave the image perspective rather than often the dull telescopic photos one most often sees with this kind of event. So we opted for a high view above Canyonlands National Park in Utah. That morning, I set up a D800, Hasselblad 501 CM with a 100mm and my 4x5 field camera. I shot Fuji Acros 100 in the Blad, Tmax 100 in the 4x5.

I knew the light would be challenging as the canyon was backlit and the sun much brighter than the exposure for the bottom. But when a cloud moved in front of the sun it really upped the challenge factor by creating a "Frosted Light Bulb" effect. I ended up using two 3 stop ND grad filters for a total of 6 stops to hold back as much as I could on the top of the shot, bracketed and my wife and I really had to hustle our buns off to run all three cameras. Needless to say, when I got home, I was pretty disappointed in what my initial results were. Even in RAW, the D800, despite it's much improved range, simply did not come close to getting the sun rendered, it was a bright featureless blob of clouds….this did not bode well for the film so I thought.

So I ran half the 4x5 first, it too came out too contrasty to render an image. I then ran the other half at a greater dilution. It got a tiny bit closer but still no good for a fine art image…I wanted powerful, in your face, "Moonlight Over Hernandez" looking stark eclipse…I was not even close... So with only the one roll of 120 Acros remaining, I really thought my way out of this corner. I looked up really dilute ratios of Acros in Rodinal and the massive development chart only went to 1+50 with that film. So I did some math and decided that at 1+200, I would go for 26 minutes and do three gentle inversions every three minutes. I was stunned at what I saw, it totally worked and I really liked the contrail that went right through it, the shadow it cast! There was enough information on the negative to get the image I wanted in the darkroom.

So last month I printed part of an edition of 10 each of the image in 10" x 10" on Ilford Multigrade Warm Tone fiber based variable contrast paper. But as expected, it took a bit of work, so here is how it went, after about 90 minutes of careful test strips, dry downs and making burn in cards, I did the following in this order:

1. Used the paper flasher for 4 seconds on the top 1/4 of the paper only.

2. Printed the entire image at grade 4 for 9.76 seconds.

3. Burned in the top 1/4 of the image at grade 4 for another 2.45 seconds.

4. Burned in the top half of the image at grade 00 for 32.9 seconds, gradually working my way up for an even gradation, the beep every second helped greatly with this.

5. Burned in just the sun at grade 00 for another 11.6 seconds using a mask with a small hole in it.

Every print was totally consistent and looked great. The attached image is of the actual print on my outside deck using a D800, does not do it justice. This is what I would call an extreme case of retaining highlights and I still can't believe it worked…

MDR
24-Sep-2012, 10:15
Drew looking trough my copies of The negative, the print and the camera I saw plenty of examples for AA using a redfilter. The reason why yellow filter had a stronger effect is the film emulsion pre 1960's films were not as sensitive to red as todays films Efke 50 a copy of Adox a modern film in the 50's is not fully panachromatic. Using a yellow filter with a film with diminished red sensitivty equals using an orange or even sometimes a red filter with modern film.

Dominik

Jerry Bodine
24-Sep-2012, 11:03
With respect to the lack of "bleeding," in his day that was mostly a matter of excellent technique in making the initial exposure, in developing the film, and in darkroom dodging and burning coupled perhaps with some flashing. Today those things are all still important in the darkroom but the use of variable contrast paper and filters (or a color/variable contrast enlarger head) can also help.

Brian, not to criticize (love your signature statement - it's one of my favorites), but I'd like to point out that he did have VC capability, even as early as about 1970. When I showed him one of my negatives where I preferred local contrast increase in one particular part of the image, he went to the Beseler enlarger that had the Ferrante Codelite on it and a HUGE device to control the mix of blue/green light. That setup is shown on p.18 and discussed further on p. 26 in "The Print, 1st edition." He then printed my negative on a Dupont VC paper. I was very impressed to note that he used no test strip(s) prior to exposure, just looked at the image on the easel and set the exposure - based on experience. The resulting print was just what I wanted, but knowing absolutely nothing about VC at that time and lacking VC equipment I could not produce the same result in my own darkroom. Obviously, technology has come a long way since then.

Drew Wiley
24-Sep-2012, 11:20
MDR - I've done plenty of shots in the high Sierra in recent years using orthopan films, and
no way the sky will get that dark without red. It's has to have been something additional
besides film, and one hypothesis is how the sky might have been affected by all the diffused jet contrails over the years. Jerry- I've seen different prints of that Lone Pine shot on different papers, and the sky is rendered relatively dark in every case. I suspect
that very little of AA's fine art work was done on VC paper, though he unquestionably
experimented with it. And in those old books you can also find complaints about the way
those early VC papers toned. We sure are spoiled today, however!

Pfiltz
24-Sep-2012, 11:53
Appreciate all this information. Quite overwhelming to some extent...to be honest.

I doubt I'll ever sell anything I shoot, but man it's fun....

Bill_1856
24-Sep-2012, 12:29
After a few months in the darkroom, anyone can learn to do all the "seamless" manipulation of prints, dodging, burning, intensifying, reducing, toning, etc. It's certainly easier to do with digital processing, but the difference is in the vision of St. Ansel (and other great photographers) to know what the final result should look like.
Prime examples of those in today's world and Clyde Butcher and Roman Loranc. I'm sure there are others, but they just don't come to mind.

Jerry Bodine
24-Sep-2012, 12:58
Jerry- I've seen different prints of that Lone Pine shot on different papers, and the sky is rendered relatively dark in every case. I suspect that very little of AA's fine art work was done on VC paper, though he unquestionably experimented with it.

Drew- Your suspicions are apparently true. Reading further on p. 26 of The Print (referenced above) AA says that since he seldom used VC papers he had the Codelite adapted so that both tubes are blue - and only their intensities are adjustable. I can't quite comprehend the benefit of doing that, but surely he had his reasons.

RichardSperry
24-Sep-2012, 13:08
Drew,

In the straight print, which is present in the Adams app noted above, the sky is a very light grey.

Light enough to have been taken without a filter, or a yellow filter.

The blackened sky appears to be all or mostly darkroom burning.

While the jet trail hypothesis may be true or not, the straight print would appear to contradict it. I doubt you couldn't reproduce the tones of the negative with, say, HP5(or film of your choice) easily.

Drew Wiley
24-Sep-2012, 13:18
I don't think AA could have gotten the bold differentiation of the skyline simply by dodging
and burning. I've been nose to nose with prints of that image five feet across. And I doubt
his memory concerning specific filters was always accurate; maybe he had notes, maybe not. He certainly forgot the correct location names in that vicinity in numerous instances.
That shot was taken from only about 3000ft elevation, so unless there had been a recent
storm, the sky would not have been intense, even back then. But I do personally remember
how it once seem even deeper blue at high elevations than today. I'm frequently above
12000 ft in the Sierra, so know its light extremely well, and how various films and filters react to it. Adams' tendency to back off a bit from deep red filters was due to their tendency to blacken out mtn shadow values too much. But obviously in this instance he completely burned in the foreground hillside to disguise how he erased the letters "LP".

Bill_1856
24-Sep-2012, 14:08
Those of us not from the Western United States haven't the faintest concept of the intensity of blue skies out there. I wonder if it's like that in any other part of the world?

Jerry Bodine
24-Sep-2012, 14:24
Those of us not from the Western United States haven't the faintest concept of the intensity of blue skies out there.

I can vouch for that intensity. In 1971 nearing Mt. Rainier's summit (over 14K) on a clear July day, the sky appeared black while wearing very dark glasses in the sunlit snow. Removing the glasses very briefly, the sky was actually a very deep indigo blue, near black to the naked eye (photography aside).

Ken Lee
24-Sep-2012, 16:17
Mr. Adams describes it in Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs (http://www.amazon.com/Examples-The-Making-40-Photographs/dp/082121750X), pp. 164:

"I used my 8x10 Ansco view camera with the 23-inch component of my Cooke Series XV lens with a Wratten No. 15 (G) filter. The film was Isopan, developed in Kodak D-23"

Fred Picker had an 8x10 original in his home when he lived in White Plains NY (earl 1970's). He showed me where Ansel spot-toned the print to remove the white lettering on the dark hillside above the horse, which read (if I recall correctly) "Lone Pine Airport". Apparently every print had to be corrected.

ROL
24-Sep-2012, 16:25
I believe it was, and still might be for that matter, "LP" – Lone Pine. This town abbreviation on a conspicuous hillside is quite common in the rural West. If memory serves, Adams mentioned it as being the work of enterprising local youth.

Drew Wiley
24-Sep-2012, 16:25
I don't know if the bleaching part is true. He did at one point literally erase the letters LP
from the neg, which required total burning-in to hide. The white letters (presumably dolomite rock) were still there last time I drove by. It stood for Lone Pine High School. My
college roomate was the son of the principle, and they lived on the opposite side of Owens
lakebed next to the dolomite mill in a mobile home. One night a flashflood washed it, with
them still in it, eight miles onto the lakebed. Remarkably, it never rolled and they were unhurt! I remember climbing the steep Ordovician ridges behind that area collecting fossil coral and crinoid samples for a term paper in Invertebrate Palaeontology.

ROL
24-Sep-2012, 16:55
There's some debate about why strong yellow filters affected sky back then in a manner not possible today. But I'd challenge anyone to get that kind of black sky without a red or at least deep orange one. It ain't likely to be jes dodgin n burnin.

Oh, I dunno, the sky here is kinda (unintentionally) black. The left corner sky was burned a small amount to even out the tonalities, while leaving it somewhat lighter giving a more palatable indication of the sun's direction:


Granite Park
120 Tech Pan, B+W 023 (deep yellow), printed on Oriental grade 3.
http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/albums/High-Sierra/Granite%20Park.jpg



The way I see it (not that anyone but me cares) is that the question any photographic artist must ask themselves is what is the point of rendering a sky so black. Does it indicate an evening (or early morning ;)) or night sky? Is it simply to convey drama? Is it to convey what was actually saw and felt?

Pfiltz
24-Sep-2012, 17:04
I'd like to ask a question. I have no clue about darkroom techniques. Having said that, would my first image in this thread be capable of a decent print, based on darkroom techniques from someone that knows there way around one? I mean I think there is enough info in the neg from what little I know about neg's....

ROL
24-Sep-2012, 17:21
I'd like to ask a question. I have no clue about darkroom techniques. Having said that, would my first image in this thread be capable of a decent print, based on darkroom techniques form someone that knows there way around one? I mean I think there is enough info in the neg from what little I know about neg's....

It seems well exposed. However, the light, at least in the back of the scene looks flat to me. You can darken the sky with burning and perhaps increase contrast either with papers or filters, but I doubt whether, for me, it would ever rise to the level you are apparently looking for. On the other hand, there is already a nice softness of light that I find quite appealing. Recognizing the light you want, first translating it to film and finally the print takes experience, talent and sometimes luck. Try it and see for yourself! After all your posts, and I never do this, I strongly recommend you take a darkroom class or two, including printing techniques. Stop looking at f#@&ing computer scans and get into a darkroom!

Pfiltz
24-Sep-2012, 17:24
It seems well exposed. However, the light, at least in the back of the scene looks flat to me. You can darken the sky with burning and perhaps increase contrast either with papers or filters, but I doubt whether, for me, it would ever rise to the level you are apparently looking for. On the other hand, there is already a nice softness of light that I find quite appealing. Recognizing the light you want, first translating it to film and finally the print takes experience, talent and sometimes luck. Try it and see for yourself! After all your posts, and I never do this, I strongly recommend you take a darkroom class or two, including printing techniques. Stop looking at f#@&ing computer scans and get into a darkroom!

Thanks. Since I'm located in B.F.E. I'll have to learn the darkroom stuff on my own. Just as I did digital photography and running a studio. That's o.k. Too, since I'm more of a hands on person.

Bill_1856
24-Sep-2012, 17:25
80992
Two minutes with Photoshop Elements. Makes it more dramatic, but doesn't turn it into a great picture.

Edmond3
24-Sep-2012, 18:44
This print definitely has that Ferri look around the animal, I would put dollars to donuts that he did use a little bleach, though I never studied up on his printing techniques

Jerry Bodine
24-Sep-2012, 21:45
This print definitely has that Ferri look around the animal, I would put dollars to donuts that he did use a little bleach, though I never studied up on his printing techniques

I attended a visit that he made to speak at a local university, during which he showed this image and shared some details. He explained that sunbeams were dancing all around in the field where the horses (two) were grazing and after about 20 minutes one horse "finally turned sideways and became a horse" just as a sunbeam highlighted him. That's when the shutter was tripped.

Drew Wiley
25-Sep-2012, 09:06
He could have bleached the horse. That's would have been easy. The LP on the hill was
white in the scene to begin with, so spotting dye would have been called for in the print,
which would have been tricky. So he simply abraded the density from the original neg using
some kind of eraser, then burned in the whole affected area. On a few prints I've seen the
fuzzy remains of the abraded letters, way down the density scale where it's barely apparent. Overall, it's a very poetic image.

John Jarosz
25-Sep-2012, 09:41
I was unaware of the removal of the letters/sign in this photograph. That gives me a different appreciation for the use of Photoshop in today's world.

Rafal Lukawiecki
25-Sep-2012, 09:48
Get a copy of Adam's "The Negative"(then the other two in the series). It details dodging and burning technique.

Your edition might be a different one, but in my set of those AA books, dodging and burning is explained in "The Print". Nonetheless, "The Negative" is a necessary and an excellent read, too.

RichardSperry
25-Sep-2012, 11:39
The way I see it (not that anyone but me cares) is that the question any photographic artist must ask themselves is what is the point of rendering a sky so black. Does it indicate an evening (or early morning ) or night sky? Is it simply to convey drama? Is it to convey what was actually saw and felt?

What if the point is to simulate night, albeit with a starless night sky?

Does the creative photographer owe some obligation to a viewer scenic honesty or realism. If so I wonder where that is written.

I also wonder what the male to female ratio is in appreciation of such scenes. My hypotheses would indicate many more males "like" them than females. How would such a study take place.

RichardSperry
25-Sep-2012, 11:41
Your edition might be a different one, but in my set of those AA books, dodging and burning is explained in "The Print". Nonetheless, "The Negative" is a necessary and an excellent read, too.

Thank you for the correction. The Print, exactly.

RichardSperry
25-Sep-2012, 11:50
http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj598/William_Eggleston/5E1EDBCC-97DE-4F8B-8CF6-D0D9E36938DB-969-00000099CADEEA5B.jpg

Drew Wiley
25-Sep-2012, 12:56
Look at all that edge fog too! Some of his favorite negs seem to have been a lot of work
to print. I actually saw a retoucher at work on one of his Mt McKinley prints which had the
silouette of a mosquito in the sky, where it was resting on the neg during exposure. Now
that poor guy was in for a bad day. And besides the sky burn, I'll bet some bleaching was
done for light around the horse, and for adjacent trees. I remember reading those manuals
and how he's always recommend a soft work print first - something I never have done,
and see no need for whatsoever.