February 11th, 2014
Apt Question from FaceBook reader Harry Green.
“Any suggestions on how to be water conscious these days in Southern California. Our water prices are high, and I fret to think of those days I left water on for 8 hours, while printing for 8 hours. How to survive ? I used to wash DW prints and use hypo clearing agent. What is practical now a days.”
Thanks for the question!
I went through 2 rationed droughts in Carmel while I was working for Ansel and another in San Francisco when I had my studio there. Typical ration then was 50gal/day per person/per household. Because photography was a profession, Ansel got an extra allowance, and so did I in San Francisco. But all the dedicated artists were stuck with 50gpd.
• DON’T leave the water running.
• DO change the water in your print-holding tray several times during a print session.
• DO use a hypo-clear or proven wash-aid for film and prints.
• DON’T run a toning or wash load except for a “full” load. If prints have been rinsed well, they can be screen-dried after initial fix/rinse and kept aside until a full load is ready.
• Current archival standards do NOT call for elimination of all traces of fixer. We can get by with MUCH less than we thought in the late ’70s. In the words of RIT’s James Reilly at the Image Permanence Institute: “DO tone your prints. DON’T over-wash” A modest trace of fixer actually acts as an anti-oxidant. A light tea color with an HT-2 test is a good guide.
• Washing. It can be tedious, but you can save a huge amount of water by using dump-and-fill methods for film, or cycling between trays of clean water for prints rather than using an archival washer with running water. You can safely wash 2 rolls of 120 film with 2 gallons of water!
More on fixing and washing:
Answer to a comment advocating trashing the hardener bottle that comes with Kodak Rapid Fixer:
I generally buy Ilford fixers. I usually get the Hypam, because it can be used with or without a hardener. I process my sheet film in trays, so I add a hardener for that, but I use it without the hardener for prints. The Kodak Rapid fix DOES come with a bottle of hardener, but like the Hypam, you can use it or not. I use the fixers 1:3 for film and1:4 for prints – single bath only, 45 seconds with agitation. Among its other assets, selenium toner is ALSO a test for residual silver (adequate fixation). If your prints do not stain in selenium it is proof that they were fixed adequately. I do recommend using a wash-aid, but I personally have neither the time nor energy to wash each print by hand, and the more a print is handled, the more it is subject to physical damage.
Hope these tips help!
February 11th, 2014
When Ansel hired me in July of 1974 to be his assistant in Carmel, he actually hired me to be his #2 assistant. Ted Orland had already been on board for about two years, working Monday through Friday. Ansel, not personally having any concept of “time off,” wanted to work seven days a week and hired me to work Friday through Monday.
- Ansel’s routine was to print in the morning during the regular week and do the selenium toning and washing in the afternoon after lunch. Being Ansel’s regular assistant, Ted would be in the darkroom for the morning sessions, and I would be called in to help with the toning and washing. In those days, “archival” print washers were anything but mainstream, and things were pretty basic in the Carmel darkroom. Prints 11×14 and smaller were washed in a big rotating “squirrel-cage” washer, and 16×20 and 20×24 prints were all washed by hand – moving batches of prints from one tray of clean water to another, dumping the first tray and filling it with clean water, moving the prints back to that tray and dumping the second tray, and so on, until maybe 10 or 12 exchanges had been made. Tedious and exhausting, but as it happens that process uses relatively little water and gets prints extremely clean.
After I had been on the job for several months, Ted left to carve out his own career, and I was then “first” (and actually only) assistant. I wasn’t married or busy with a lot of activities during the weekends and often popped by the house, helping out with this-or-that on a Saturday or Sunday, so my old position of Friday-to-Monday assistant was left vacant.
So now, the darkroom truly came to be my domain. What an experience!
Setting the Stage
Ansel’s darkroom was purely functional and consisted of nothing elaborate. In fact, nothing about Ansel was elaborate! He drove a Ford LTD which he bought used. His “sound system” consisted of an old mono amplifier, an old turntable and one speaker built into a wall. He rarely turned it on. Except for the Hasselblad, even his camera equipment was a mish-mash of rather tattered gear. One lens didn’t even have a brand name on it, but it sure was sharp!
The darkroom itself was long and narrow, with three sinks taking up most of the length of one wall and enlargers along the other. One end of the darkroom, next to the pocket entrance door, was a chemical-mixing counter with various chemicals on shelves above, and drums of Hypo crystals below. At the opposite end of the darkroom there was a “panic door.” This was intended as an emergency exit in case of earthquake or other calamity. (Ansel’s nose was broken in an aftershock of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and he was somewhat fixated on that particular risk!)
The layout of the darkroom was principally engineered to accommodate the making of “mural” sized prints. His 8×10 enlarger was built by San Francisco’s Adolph Gasser out of an old 11×14 studio camera and set up to project its image horizontally. The machine ran on tracks on the floor and projected an image on an 8-foot tall vertical easel which also rolled on the same tracks. The lightsource consisted of a bank of 36 50-watt reflector bulbs, each on its own on-off switch. If Ansel wanted to give a general “dodge” to part of an image, he could turn off the lamp illuminating that region. The easel was faced on front and back with metal sheet, so paper could be attached firmly with magnets. A roll of mural paper could be inserted over a crossbar at the top of the easel and the paper pulled down like a window blind and held flat with magnets. On the opposite side of the easel and 8×10 enlarger was a counter which held two 4×5 Beseler MCRX enlargers. One of the Beselers had an innovative lightsource (Codelight) for printing on variable-contrast papers, and it could be turned towards the rolling easel and tipped up for horizontal projection in case he wanted to use it for big prints. The other Beseler had a condenser lightsource and was rarely used except for demonstration.
One staple of nearly every darkroom was absent in Ansel’s–an enlarging timer. There wasn’t one. Being a musician from his early teens, he was accustomed to counting beats, and had an electronic metronome set at 60 beats per minute. Every print he ever made in a darkroom of his own was made by simply counting seconds! This augmented his creative control immensely. Time was not something some gizmo measured and ruled, time was a deeply rooted internal feeling for Ansel. Twenty-two seconds felt like twenty-two seconds!
On the sink side, there was a long, fairly narrow sink for processing, with a ledge at the back for chemical containers and a wide ledge at the left and right for developer and fixer containers. On the left there was a 15-gallon stainless tank that held the Dektol stock solution, and on the right there was a 25-gallon tank that held the F-6 formula fixer we mixed from scratch. A shelf over the back of the sink held the metronome, various graduates and sundries. To the right of the processing sink was an approximately 3×3-foot print holding sink. To the right of that was another large sink, about 4×6-feet which held the squirrel-cage washer and maybe another rinse tray. If Ansel were making mural prints, the equipment could be removed from the sink and a wet 42×60-ish mural print could be laid flat.
In use, with the door closed on the long, narrow room, with white lights off, amber safelights on, water running, exhaust fans on and the rhythmic beep of the metronome, it had all the feeling of being in a fantasy submarine!
Coming up: A Days Work
April 9th, 2013
In Part I of this blog on how to create a more expressive image, I talked about visualization–the difference between what the camera sees (the literal) and what the photographer sees in his or her mind’s eye as the final print (the expressive.)
The two may be quite similar or quite different, but being able to interpret what you see and picture the final image on paper is critical to the making of an expressive image because it dictates what techniques and equipment will be required to execute your vision successfully.
The first consideration is point of view–choosing the proper vantage point for camera and lens. This may seem almost simplistic, but you would be amazed at how many strong, compelling visions are lost in the final image because the photographer didn’t take the time to find the most favorable position.
Why does it matter so much? If you don’t set your camera and lens in the rights spot, you may wind up with elements in your final image that compete with your vision and weaken it. And yes, you can fix some of these things with cropping and Photoshop, but not always, so it really pays to get it right from the beginning.
I’ll use a photograph I did not long after I moved to Santa Fe to demonstrate the things to consider when choosing your vantage point. This is a wonderful old adobe about 15 minutes from house. Interesting to note that shortly after I made this image, the fence and gate were replaced with a tall wall, completely obscuring the building behind. Great example of why, if you see something you’d like to photograph, do it now!
Gate and Windows, Galisteo, New Mexico 1996
The first thing I did after I decided to photograph this beautiful building was to use my cut-out card with a hole the same shape as my film (see part I of the blog). This helped me evaluate the various aspects of the scene as elements in a clearly defined structural arrangement.
I also looked through the card with just one eye so that I could see the subject in two dimensions rather than three. And by “cropping out” much of the detail surrounding the scene I wanted to photograph, it was much easier to concentrate on the relationships of the objects within the scene to each other.
Now that I had the basic scene isolated and determined, I had to decide where the best vantage point would be. And vantage point includes not only your position with your tripod, but also the exact position of the lens.
I thought about whether I should stand near or far and experimented, again using my cropping card. I moved closer to the scene and noticed that the gate would be larger than I wanted relative to the size of the windows. When I moved back from the scene, the gate was not as prominent as I wanted. I ultimately chose a position that gave me a relationship that felt right.*
The other consideration in choosing a vantage point and setting up the camera is where the lens should be–up, down, left or right? In my image, if I lowered the lens too much, the pickets at the left would run into the little window, and I would see the threshold of the door through the gate. If I raised the lens too high, the pickets merged with the bottoms of the two larger window frames. The left/right position was carefully chosen so that none of the picket points ran directly into any of the architectural features in the background.
Lens & Filter
Although I will be going into detail about lens choice and filter use in the next installments of this blog, I thought I would mention each briefly here for the sake of understanding how I approached realizing my vision in this photograph.
The choice of a focal length helped refine the exact lens position. I had framed the subject with my hands and knew where I wanted the framed edges to be (cropping). I already knew where I wanted to stand near-far, so choice of lens was simply to pick up the one that gave me the angle of coverage I wanted.
Another consideration was whether to use a filter. In this case, the adobe wall of the house was a deep reddish-brown. I decided to use a strong green filter to darken the wall relative to the white fence and gate.
Bottom line when considering point of view….take your time in setting things up, don’t just happen on the scene and click away. Don’t be afraid to experiment by moving around a bit and seeing what happens when you move in, back, left, right or even up! It doesn’t have to take hours, but paying attention to the details at the beginning will help ensure a better image in the end.
* Note: I mentioned that I chose a position that felt right to me. There are numerous “formulas” for determining compositional structure–the Rule of Thirds, the Golden Sector and others. I have personally never used any of these because I have always felt comfortable with my own sense of “balance.” But if employing one of these time-tested structural aids helps to refine your own seeing, I certainly encourage it.
I’ll leave you with a short quote from Mark Twain in his essay, Fennimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses, “Eschew Surplussage!” In other words, if it doesn’t contribute to your statement, leave it out!
- Choosing the right lens to properly frame the subject
- Knowing enough about filters and exposure to record subject tones in the most useful way
- Following through in the darkroom or computer lab, aka the “light” room
February 19th, 2013
In 1927, during one of his regular trips to Yosemite, Ansel Adams trekked up to the “diving board” on the west shoulder of Half Dome. There, he made a dramatic image of the monolith using a mild yellow filter to darken the sky a bit—a generally recommended and accepted practice in those days.
But what Ansel felt about the scene before him was more dramatic than what he knew the yellow filter would give him. With one plate left unexposed, he daringly made another exposure, this time using a red filter that he hoped would result in an image that was more in tune with what he imagined, or visualized, the final image should be, instead of what was actually in front of him.
The image that resulted from this experiment proved to be a turning point for Ansel in his photographic explorations. For the first time, he was conscious of the difference between what his camera lens saw (the literal) and what he saw in his mind’s eye (the expressive) as the final print.
Ansel ultimately came to refer to this freedom from recording only that the camera and lens could capture in a technical sense to visualization, and he wrote about it extensively during his lifetime.
By itself, visualization doesn’t assure a successful final image, but it does set the stage for the ensuing choreography of photographic steps. To my way of thinking, it is the single most important element in creating an expressive image.
So…just what is visualization and how do you visualize?
Simply put, visualization is a confluence of imagination and technique. It is the ability to picture the final print in your mind before releasing the shutter and possessing the technical know-how to create the image that’s in your mind, even if it differs from the reality of the scene in front of you.
One of Ansel’s favorite sayings was, “There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” At the same time, a concept can be sorely limited in clarity by a fuzzy knowledge of technique. The two go hand-in-hand.
In Ansel’s case, his knowledge of technique—knowing what a strong red filter ought to do—enabled him to imagine, or visualize, a final print with a much darker sky than the yellow filter would have afforded. He visualized how he wanted the print to look and used the techniques to execute his vision.
Visualization does not, however, require that you see a finished print that is markedly different from the real qualities of the actual scene. It could be as simple as “seeing” a final color image in delicate pastels rather than in bold, vibrant colors and contrasts. It might mean choosing a particular vantage point to emphasize the qualities of a foreground object. But in all cases, visualization dictates the techniques required to achieve the vision.
The next time you’re out photographing, try taking a moment to disconnect from the reality of the scene in front of your lens, and try to see it as a print. Is the sky in that print going to be darker than your meter says it ought to be? If it’s in black-and-white, will skewing color relationships with a filter strengthen your statement? Will a longer or shorter exposure enhance motion in a scene? These are all things I consider – usually even before I set the camera up. With practice you won’t even know you’re doing it – you will have already done it! That’s visualization.
A cut-out card is a great way tighten up your composition!
And here are some thoughts by Georgia O’Keeffe on the concept of rendering something seen:
“The Ranchos de Taos Church is one of the most beautiful buildings left in the United States by the early Spaniards. Most artists who spend any time in Taos have to paint it, I suppose, just as they have to paint a self-portrait. I had to paint it – the back of it several times, the front once. . . . And I long ago came to the conclusion that even if I could put down accurately the thing I saw and enjoyed, it would not give the observer the kind of feeling it gave me. I had to create an Equivalent for what I felt about what I was looking at——not copy it.”
Georgia O’Keeffe, 1976
Coming up….executing your vision.
- Choosing an appropriate vantage point so elements in a scene don’t compete with your vision
- Choosing the right lens to properly frame the subject
- Knowing enough about filters and exposure to record subject tones in the most useful way
- Following through in the darkroom or computer lab (“light” room).
October 4th, 2012
I got a request a few days ago about my thoughts re small/large format and digital vs film. It seems to be an active topic so I hope the following can shed some more “light” on the subject!
Dear Mr. Ross,
… was wondering if you would be kind enough to answer a couple of questions regarding your use of large format cameras. In particular, I was wondering two things:
1. Why do you continue to use large-format cameras for your art? Do you find some benefit in them that you cannot obtain from a 35mm camera?
2. It is my belief from what I have read that you prefer film over digital photography. For example, I noticed your comment in response to the Popular Photography article, Photoshop and Photography – What is Photography? “I have never seen an inkjet print that could match the depth of image in a traditional silver-print.” Is my assumption that you primarily use film correct? Is there ever a time (from a fine art standpoint) where digital would be more beneficial in your mind?
I am sure you are frequently inundated with questions from fans and fellow photographers, so I thank you in advance for taking the time to read these questions, and hopefully responding to them.
Camera size: First, consider that you can only cram a certain amount of information in a given amount of space. At 24x36mm (1×1.5 sq. in) a 35mm camera has a negative with 1.5 square inches of area. A 4×5″ negative has 20 square inches and 8×10 has 80! So, given an equivalent film in both cameras, a 4×5 negative has over 13 times the information (detail) as a 35mm. Also, most 4×5 cameras have all sorts of adjustments allowing controls of focus and image geometry not available with “solid-body” cameras. Further, there is only one exposure on each piece of 4×5 film, so each image can be developed according to its own merits. Lastly, I personally kind of like the slower, contemplative approach often associated with working with a bigger camera.
Film vs digital: They both have their merits. I got a Canon 5D MkII several months ago and think it is a wonderful tool. Digital can certainly do things film cannot do – capture color and BW at the same time, have different ISO speeds with the twist of a dial, record a staggering number of images on a single memory card and offer instant replay immediately after exposure among other things. Downside- there is nothing permanent about a digital image. If an image has not been printed and its storage drive fails without backup, the image is gone forever. Currently, digital recording has nowhere near the tonal scale of a BW negative, and to some degree, a color negative. With Digital, many common scenes would require multiple exposures and subsequent HDR processing to record the brightness range easily captured in a single exposure on bw film. That said, there is just something I intrinsically like about working with film. I have an Epson 3880 printer and think it produces quite lovely prints – but they still don’t have the tonal depth of a silver-gelatin print. And it’s more fun to see the image emerge in the developer than watch it get spit out of a printer.
I hope this helps – I’ve only scratched the surface of the topic! Bottom line, any camera is only a tool. Each style has its own merits and drawbacks – they are just different, not better or worse! One can drive a screw with a hammer – but it may not produce the most satisfying results!
Would Ansel Adams Shoot Digital?
September 16th, 2012
How Do Light Meters Work?
Most of us can understand that a reliable light meter, either in-camera or hand-held is pretty essential to getting good film or digital exposures – but just how they work might be a matter of some mystery or confusion!
When light meters were first made, they were pointed from camera position toward a scene, measuring a rather broad area, evaluating the average brightness of objects either emitting light or reflecting some amount of light back toward the camera. The assumption was that if you mixed all the lights and darks in an “average” scene into one brightness, that mixture would be some sort of middle gray.
It was decided that that middle gray represented a neutral color reflecting 18% of the light falling on it. Photoshop-wise – that works out to a black set at about 55% opacity.
In photography, this works out fine so long as your meter (or camera) is reading an equal mix of lights and darks, or you are metering something that is itself middle-gray in brightness.
• But what if you are photographing a white horse in the snow? The meter thinks it is looking at something gray – and thus will give you the correct exposure to make that horse and snow GRAY! The solution is to give MORE exposure to your film or image sensor so that the scene is given enough light to look like a textured white in the image.
With film, this is about 2.5 to 3 stops more light than your meter reading.
With digital, this may be only 1.5 to 2 stops more light than the meter reading.
• Conversely, if you are photographing something dark in a dark surround, the opposite approach comes into play. The meter will tell you how to expose to make that DARK scene a middle gray! You then need to give LESS exposure to force that scene to look dark.
With film: a 2 to 3 stop reduced exposure will run you from a textured dark to nearly black.
With digital: a 1.5 to 2.5 stop reduction will typically run you from a textured dark to nearly black.
(Pssst: that’s pretty much the real basics of the Zone System! Hint – that 18% “middle-gray” is Zone V…!)
A word of caution: Some, if not many, of the modern in-camera meters with computer analytics can come up with completely unpredictable exposures. First, they seem to all be calibrated towards acceptable exposures for color slides or digital – so if you are working with a bw negative film (and to some extent color neg) you are almost certain to get a good looking contact sheet with terrible shadow detail. Second, computer analytics are not the same thing as thinking! The most sophisticated metering system in existence has no idea of WHAT it is analyzing! If you want to be in control of image tonality, you need to have an understanding partnership with your metering system and equipment.
June 19th, 2012
Polarizing Filters – You can’t mimic these in Photoshop!
A polarizing filter is one of the few filters that is equally effective with color imaging and with black-and-white. It can:
• Minimize or eliminate reflections in glass, water or most any surface except metal.
• Darken skies in color photos as well as in black-and-white
• Cut through haze
• Increase the saturation of colors
Types: There are two basic types of polarizer, the original “linear” polarizer and the comparatively new “circular” polarizer. They essentially accomplish the same thing, but linear polarizers pose problems with most modern through-the-lens metering systems, so circular polarizers were developed to minimize or eliminate metering issues.
Filter Factor: Most filter manufacturers list polarizers as having a variable filter factor, usually 2 to 4 depending on the effect of the polarization. I personally just use a factor of 2.5 (1.3 stop correction) because any further darkening, say, of a sky is an effect I want, and do not want to override.
Use: The great thing about using a polarizer is that you can actually see the effect before taking the picture. When held up to the eye or placed on a lens and rotated in a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction, you can see gradual lightening or darkening as you rotate. You can pick just the degree of effect you want. At its lightest orientation, it is essentially just a 1.3-stop neutral density filter. If you are using aa non-through-the-lens camera (rangefinder, Holga, etc) you will need to hold the filter up to your eye and note what part of the filter is at “12 o’clock” for the effect you want, then put the filter on your lens in the same orientation.
Above, a polarizer effectively eliminating reflections in glass. Note that the reflections in the polished table are only moderately affected – that light was polarized in a different direction. Below, note how the polarizer has darkened the sky, increased saturation in the colors and reduced haze.
Using Polarizers with Wide Angle Lenses: Polarizers work by darkening light in the subject that is already polarized. If there is no polarized light, the filter has no effect other than neutral density. The light in a sky is not evenly polarized, so if you are using a wide-angle lens, you will capture part of the sky that may be highly polarized AND also include part of a sky that is less polarized. If you are using a wide-angle lens on a subject that does not include sky, you may not notice any odd effect.
In the end, no well equipped camera case should be without the versatile polarizing filter!
June 4th, 2012
Affordable Authentic Ansel Adams Prints
Thunderstorm, Yosemite Valley
One of Ansel Adams’ personal commitments was to share his energy and abilities in support of the things he believed in, most notably, photography and the environment.
In the cause of both, Ansel and his wife, Virginia, selected six photographs of Yosemite and offered them for sale through her family business, Best’s Studio, in Yosemite National Park. The year was 1958.
Ansel’s intent was to present photography as an affordable art and to showcase the environmental grandeur of Yosemite National Park. Never much of a fan of the “curios” that were the staple of most Park concessioners at the time, he also wanted to offer visitors a quality memento of their time in Yosemite.
The 8×10 prints would be made from the original negatives by an assistant under Ansel’s precise direction and be printed in sufficiently large batches to make them affordable.
This collection, entitled the Yosemite Special Edition Photographs, proved immensely popular and over the years, Ansel added more images to the set until the total was capped at 30 at the time of his passing in 1984.
Today, Best’s Studio is known as the Ansel Adams Gallery, and continues as a family-run business. Ansel’s Special Edition Photographs of Yosemite are a mainstay of the Gallery’s offerings and heritage. Each print is still made by hand directly from Ansel’s original negatives, using his approach and methodology to ensure strict adherence to his standards and aesthetic.
And while Ansel’s archives eventually became part of the permanent collection of the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona at Tucson, he made special provisions for the Special Edition Photograph negatives to be held back from the archive so that the tradition of offering high-quality original art at affordable prices would continue as his personal legacy in support of the arts and the environment.
Making the Special Edition Prints: Chosen by Ansel
I became Ansel’s assistant in the middle of 1974, working with Ted Orland, who had been Ansel’s primary assistant for the previous two years.
When Ted left in early 1975, I inherited not only the responsibility of keeping all of Ansel’s photographic operations running, but also the making of the Special Edition prints. Don Worth, Gerry Sharpe, Liliane DeCock, and Ted had all served in this capacity before me, all of us working as Ansel’s eyes and hands in the darkroom. Not easy, but an immensely rewarding challenge.
Although Ansel’s hands were not in direct contact with the Special Edition printing, his vision always was. He was consulted through test and sample prints, and the challenge was to be able to anticipate and respond technically to his requests.
”Make it a little darker over here,” he would suggest, or, ”Can you make it a bit more contrasty?” he would ask. The final approval was a slap on the back along with a hearty, “Ya got it, man!”
In 1979, I left Ansel’s employ to open my own studio in San Francisco, but he liked the way I was printing his negatives and asked me to continue making the Special Edition prints. In his autobiography, Ansel said, “Alan was my photographic assistant from 1974 until 1979, and he continues to make the Special Edition Prints with sensitivity. He knows those negatives thoroughly and interprets them as closely as possible to my original fine prints of those images.”
Making the Special Edition Photographs is an assignment I continue to this day, with Ansel’s vision and standards always in mind as I work. The prints are still made directly from Ansel’s negatives and in the “traditional” way: in a wet darkroom with amber safelights, chemicals and running water. The prints are still silver-gelatin prints, meaning that the image-forming element is literally metallic silver. Precious.
And after nearly 40 years, I can honestly say that I never tire of seeing these images come up in the developing tray. It’s an honor and privilege to play a small part in continuing Ansel’s legacy.
To see the full selection of the Yosemite Special Edition Prints, please visit the Ansel Adams Gallery website.
For the technical details on the making of the Special Edition prints, click here.
Alan Ross Photography would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of the Ansel Adams Gallery staff and Freestyle Photographic Supplies.
May 6th, 2012
A previous post discussed the basics of how and why colored filters can change the relationships of different subject colors in black-and-white photography. This writing will give some visual examples of the effects of filters in BW work.
The example above shows a still-life scene containing a wide range of neutrals and colors, rendered in color, black and white with no filter and then with four strongly colored filters. The effects are commensurate with the color-wheel in the previous post:
#12 Yellow. The lemon and banana are lightened significantly. The near-yellows – red, orange, green are lightened somewhat. The cyan bowl is darkened. Neutrals unchanged.
#25 Red. The lemon and banana are not quite as light as with the yellow filter, but the tomato, radishes and apple have become quite light. The cyan bowl is now quite dark. Neutrals unchanged.
#58 Green. It has turned its opposite and near opposites, radishes, tomato, apples near black. The lettuce is lightened somewhat. Neutrals unchanged.
#47B Blue. Wowzer! But consider – yellow is opposite blue, and red and green are adjacent to yellow. It darkened everything – except the cyan bowl, which it lightened because that color is its neighbor!
A note: Red or Green with foliage. Green plants and trees don’t always behave the way one might think! Living plants also reflect a great deal of infrared. Broad-leaf plants usually lighten with a green filter, Junipers and piney growths usually do not.
As I mentioned in the previous post, digital images are best “filtered” post-capture. The examples shown here should suggest the post-process effects.
Next time – polarizing filters! You can’t mimic these in Photoshop!
April 6th, 2012
Filters – How to Choose and Use
I think the thing I like most about working in black-and-white is the fact that it’s much more an expression of how I feel about a subject than a representation of “reality.” The world doesn’t exist in Black-and-White (my mother told me that…) so a b/w image is by its very nature an abstraction of the things we see.
The judicial use of filters can greatly enhance the impact of how a subject appears, and in black-and-white we can even skew the way colored subjects relate to each other.
I normally like to be fairly subtle about my use of filters; a photograph shouldn’t look like a filter was used, just as a print shouldn’t look like it was dodged and burned! One of the most generally popular choices, a #8 Yellow, is usually so subtle that I don’t see much point in using it. Another popular choice, the #25 Red, is often too strong, rendering skies and day-lit shadows illogically dark.
My two favorite filters, a #12 Yellow (“minus blue”), and a #23 Red, respectively, have both more strength and finesse than the ones found in most camera bags. The #12 yields an effect almost as strong as a #15 orange, but with only a 1 stop filter factor, only slightly greater than the #8. The #23 tends not to make skies quite so artificially dark as the #25.
Understanding the relationships of different colors of light to each other is key to choosing a filter. A standard color-wheel is shown below. The numbers in various color areas are Wratten filter-number designations, an industry standard utilized by many filter manufacturers. A #12 filter, for example is pure yellow, a #8 is a light yellow. The capital letters in bold are called Additive Primary colors, and the lower-case letters are Subtractive Primaries.
Red is opposite Cyan
Green is opposite Magenta
Blue is opposite Yellow
In Black-and-White photography the practical effect of a filter is to lighten its own color and darken its opposite color.
In purely scientific terms, a filter has no effect on its own color and darkens everything else, including “neutral” colors. When we apply a “filter factor” to the exposure, neutral colors remain unchanged and then the filter’s own color becomes lighter and its opposite becomes darker.
What we commonly call a “blue” sky is technically a bit more cyan, which is why a red filter will darken the sky more than a yellow filter. Orange is in between. Keep in mind that outdoor shadows are illuminated by the sky, not the white light of the sun. Any filter that darkens the sky will also darken the shadows!
Green or red filters can be quite useful in the Southwest, for example, where we might come across a brilliant green plant in front of a red sandstone wall. With no filter used, the b/w film will see the green and red as being largely the same: gray mush. A strong green filter will make the plant light and the sandstone dark, the red filter will do the opposite.
For workers using digital cameras for b/w, my tests indicate that it is better to use a computer-simulated “filter” after a RAW capture, rather than an actual filter for the capture itself. While this may only approximate the effect of using a filter with film, the effect ought to be similar – without any need for exposure compensation for the filter’s own density.
Polarizing filters are also extremely useful for both B/W and color work – but we’ll cover that in another post!