That is, expose for the highlights in B&W and let the shadows work themselves out, so that you can leave the negs in the developer for an indefinite time and never worry about overdevelopment short of base fog?
Printable View
That is, expose for the highlights in B&W and let the shadows work themselves out, so that you can leave the negs in the developer for an indefinite time and never worry about overdevelopment short of base fog?
You have checked out the article on Unblinkingeye.com and/or the pg.s 142-145 of
Barry Thornton's "Edge of Darkness"?
From what I've read, Fred Picker of Zone VI fame eventually evolved to exposing for Zone VIII but I don't believe he did the total development thing like Mortensen. I always found it ironic that a zonie singing praises of Ansel would also advocate an exposure technique shared by the Antiansel.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorke
I had not seen this one before: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mo...mortensen.html based on a later Mortensen book than mine ("Projection Control" from the 30's)Quote:
Originally Posted by garryl
thanks!
Has anyone on APUG done this? (BTW, I'd rate Gibson as a user/abuser of Mortenson's "unacceptable" 9-D combo)
Hi Bjorke
My first year in photo-college 1973, we were forced to do a negative ring a round and a paper ring around that looks alot like this article, I did not have a clue at the time the purpose of this experiment.
I think if I did one now I would have a better appreciation on push and pulls with over , under and normal exposures.
We also were forced to do a colour ring around from nuetral density and colour and the results are quite amazing.
Still do colour ring arounds with interns here and I will force them to do a black and white ring around after looking at this article.
Wasn't Mortenson the arch-nemesis of the f64 group?
As for exposing for the highlights, I have done this on several occassions while photographing the new mexico landscape, and I have great results.
This post got me looking on my bookshelves. I have the first edition, 6th printing of Pictorial Lighting by Mortensen. A very neat book.
Well with at least two of the group- Adams and Weston. The rest of the group, I haven't run across their opinion in writings. In "letters and Images" you get a flavor of the caustic feelings of both. An in one set of interviews, Adams refers to Mortensen as the "anti-christ"of photography.Quote:
Originally Posted by david b
That is one of the two best sources for an explaination of his exposure system. I've noticed that the whole secret is the fact that rearly does he go over a lighting ratio of 4:1. He take a flat subject and expands the mid tonesQuote:
Originally Posted by mfobrien
and highlights. BTW, Barry Thornton did try the Mortensen technique with a ringlight("Edge of Darkness"; pg.s 142-145).
While I often give highlight readings as much attention as shadow readings, I haven't tried Mortenson's technique as such. Sounds very much like "stand" development on steroids - parallel, perhaps, to the "aging" of food in Tupperware containers at the back of the fridge.
The technique does sound interesting, though, and potentially useful in certain circumstances. But, techniques, like tools, (I believe) should be used for the things for which they are effective, but not elevated to a religion.
The apparent conflict between Mortenson and the f64 boys strikes me as similar to the rivalry between the realist and impressionist schools in painting. Too much time spent narrowly thinking about technique, and not enough about producing images in styles befitting the subject.