William Mortensen's technique
Xosni
mentioned William Mortensen technique for underexposing his portraits
and over developing the negative (when the studio light is direct and
uniform). It's sounds really interesting. And he got even more
interesting when I read that he was- to Ansel Adams- the antichrist!
Who is Mortensen, and what about his alternative methodology?
Regards
Xosni
email prefered
xo...@gega.net
Robert Hoffman
stood for derivative number 7. The idea was to use controlled light-
ing and underexpose and overdevelop, the purpose for which was to
enhance separation in the high values. I believe there is some inter-
esting reading on this subject at http://www.unblinkingeye.com.
As a large format landscape photographer, Mortensen isn't exactly my
cup of tea, but I feel he was a dedicated and serious artist.
Robert Hoffman
Fixer Man
news:5cb2a3f0.01120...@posting.google.com...
You might want to check out this site: http://www.pictorialism.com/
Sam G
it briefly in the bookstore, but after getting it home, I have some second
thoughts (but have not read too far into it).
Sam
Xosni
> Some famous portrait photograpthers used the "under expose-over develop"
> method, especially in the classic Hollywood era. I remember reading not to
> look for shadow detail in Hurrell's photos....there isn't any. It's easy to
> print black through a clear negative!
As I'm mainly interested in portraiture, I found that my worst
portraits are those that are overexposed and underdeveloped and the
best were those that were slightly overdeveloped. Being abselutely
anti-realist myself I'm getting really interested in Mortensen.
Xosni
Xosni
Somebody, here on the Usenet, had recommended it to me a while ago; I
did order it and it's great really. Though it has some unnecessary
memoir style, Thornton offers some really advanced tips. It's woth the
money still!
Xosni
email prefered
xo...@gega.net
Fixer Man
used on ebay from time to time. They usually don't sell cheap, but they
might be of value to you since they cover his techniques in detail.
Fixer Man
"Xosni" <xo...@gega.net> wrote in message
news:5cb2a3f0.01120...@posting.google.com...
Richard Knoppow
Well, underexposing and overdeveloping results in high contrast. I'm
not at all sure what Mortensen actually did. His book on making
negatives has a good section on elementary sensitometry but the
description of his technique of negative making ignores the advise
given in it.
Remember that Mortensen did an enormous amount of work on prints.
They don't really represent the way the negatives printed.
He also recommended developing using stagnent developing technique,
that is, allowing the negative to develop in very dilute developer for
hours with no agitation. This results in shouldering of the highlights
or what is sometimes called compensation. Its a useful technique for
special purposes but not for routine use.
Mortensen used a technique in printing he called "Abrasion-tone".
Details of it can be found on the Bostick and Sullival site at
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com
Remember that Mortensen worked at a time when it was popular to use
"black magic" techniques. These came from the lack of understanding of
how the photographic process really works.
Mortensen's books were largely written for him by his assistant. He
was an interesting character.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Jaan Peets
much more than underexposure/overdevelop.
He was detested not only by Adams, but by many other photographers, because
he deliberately and painstakingly mimicked paintings in his photographs
(pictorialist) - his critics were on a mission to get photography accepted
as an art form unto itself - a struggle that continues to this day. I
find some of his work interesting, but much of it is very dated and
artificial (for example see
http://www.thescreamonline.com/photo/photo06-01/mortensen/commandtolook1.htm
l). Not my taste, and light years from Weston, Bullock, or White.
"Xosni" <xo...@gega.net> wrote in message
news:5cb2a3f0.01120...@posting.google.com...
Lloyd Erlick
> Mortensen's books were largely written for him by his assistant. He
>was an interesting character.
>
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, CA, USA.
>dick...@ix.netcom.com
dec601 from Lloyd Erlick,
No kidding! That's amazing. The assistant must surely
have been worthy of recognition. There must be a story
there. Who was he (she??) and what became of him/her??
regards,
--le
-------------------------------------
Lloyd Erlick,
357 Richmond Street West,
Toronto M5V 1X3 Canada.
---
voice 416-596-8751
ll...@the-wire.com
http://www.heylloyd.com
-------------------------------------
Xosni
> sky...@aol.com (SkyGzr) wrote:
>
> >Some famous portrait photograpthers used the "under expose-over develop"
> >method, especially in the classic Hollywood era. I remember reading not to
> >look for shadow detail in Hurrell's photos....there isn't any. It's easy to
> >print black through a clear negative!
> negatives.
> Underexposure and overdevelopment just raises the contrast. It may
> loose shadow detail but will also make highlights block up.
> Hurrell had complete control of lighting, which is an excellent way
> to control image contrast. Despite the his claim that he didn't use
> makeup I sort of doubt it, at least on female subjects.
> Actually, the old rule for portraits was to overexpose and
> underdevlop to get the contrast down. In fact, the "look" of a
> portrait has more to do with lighting and the characteristic curve of
> the film used than exposure and development. Male portraits were often
> made with orthochromatic film, which tends to exagerate skin textures.
>
> The old "portrait" films had upsweeping curves similar, but not as
> extreme as Plus-X and Tri-X sheet film. Both will give very bright
> highlights.
> ---
>
But the developer used seems to make a big difference. DK-50 yield a
very sparkling highlights and a higher contrast than D-76. It's
imposible, and meaningless to overexpose and underdevelop with this
developer. In densitometric terms, I wonder if this is the same
priciple that Mortensen was trying to achieve.
Xosni
email prefered
xo...@gega.net
Richard Knoppow
DK-50 is a considerably more active developer than D-76, it develops
faster, meaning that for the development time is shorter for a given
contrast. Within the limits of "normal" negatives it should be
possible to get the same contrast index with both developers.
Overexposing and underdeveloping should actually be easier with D-76
since it requires less developing time.
For modern films DK-50 must be diluted 1+1 for reasonably long
development times. In fact, even D-76 must be diluted 1+1 for some
films to get the times longer than about five minutes. Shorter times
tend to result in uneven development.
Developers have some, but not much, effect on the shape of the
characteristic curve of film; the curve is determined mostly by the
exact way the emulsion is made. The shape of the curve has a strong
effect on the tonal rendition of the film. Most of the older
"portrait" films tended to have long toes and upswept curves. Plus-X
Pan sheet film, Tri-X Pan sheet film, and Ektapan, have similar types
of curves, although they are probably more upswept than the older
films. This type of curve tends to reproduce highlight very briliantly
and to reproduce mid tones darker than a straight line or short toe
film. The choice is a matter of taste and the subject matter. The same
subject photogrraphed on T-Max 100, a relatively short toe film, and
on Plus-X sheet film, and printed for the same shadow and highlight
points, will look very different. This is quite independant of the
developer used.
About the only strong effect on the curve shape is the generation of
a shoulder by so called compensating developers.
The thing to remember is that the contrast of the negative is not
the same everywhere. Usually some average is used to specify contrast
for time/temperature or other purposes. Kodak uses what they call
Contrast Index, a straight line drawn from some shadow point to some
highlight point, it is effectively the contrast of a straight line
film for the same scene. Other manufacturers use average contrast,
abbrieviated as G with a bar over it. It amounts to the same thing is
CI. Both are useful where the film has only a short straight line
portion or none at all, as is the case for the three Kodak films
mentioned above. The older name for contrast "gamma" applies only to a
straight line portion of the negative and can be very misleading for
films with strongly curved charisteristics.
Underexposing and over developing tends to place the entire image on
the toe of the film. In the case of a short toe film, it doesn't work
very well since it may put some of the shadows down to the point where
they don't record at all. For longer toe films it results in the kind
of upswept characteristic that is built into Plus-X sheet film (the
roll variety is a different emulsion). For normal medium toe films the
technique will result in blown out highlights unless very careful
lighting is done. It is essentially pushing film and has the same
defects.
Overexposing and underdeveloping is simply lowering the negative
contrast. It may be desirable in some cases (used all the time for
Zone System photography) but does not really change the tonal
rendition of the film other than avoiding excessivily dense highlights
from highly contrasty subjects.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about tonal reproduction in B&W
photography. Not so much in color photography because the development
and printing is very standardized where its not at all standardized in
B&W.
stefano
has a lot of good sense and many things are clear but there's
something I don't understand. For example, Mr. Thornton seems to
prefer (for landscape photography) fast films like HP5+ in combination
with super finegrain developers, like Perceptol (or Thornton's
DiXactol). I use slow films, like PanF+ with normal developers (I use
Rodinal) but I don't understand why his method should be better. I'll
try, but I'm wondering if anyone else has such an approach to the
problem of high sharpness/fine grain.
Stefano
Ahriman
It is a book that you re-read when you have made a few advances in your
understanding of exposure, developing and printing and you tend to
appreciate a bit more of it. Then do the same a few months later. And again,
a few months after that. I like that, as every time I read this or his first
book, Elements, I learn something new that I missed first time around
because I didn't understand it at that point!
Ahriman
John Stockdale
order to capture movement of grass and branches if there is a breeze.
John Stockdale
sharp, and if they are moving he wants to freeze them. I didn't
express it very clearly.
Xosni
Latitude. A fast film has more tonal range than a super fine-grain
slow film like PanF plus.