PDA

View Full Version : Blank skies - would filters help?


EdmundH
27th December 2016, 09:55 PM
My one disappointment so far with B&W is the number of blank skies I get. Although I don't produce many landscapes in the usual sense, many of my photographs do include sky. Somehow there rarely seem to be any individual clouds around when I take my camera out, just cloudless blue, or overall cloud cover. Basing the exposure on ground based subjects frequently leaves the sky bright and featureless. Would a yellow filter help? - I recall reading somewhere that it's quite usual to always have a yellow filter fitted, but I don't necessarily want to increase contrast in the scene overall.

Lostlabours
27th December 2016, 10:15 PM
Printing technique helps far more, ry flashing.

Ian

Mike O'Pray
27th December 2016, 10:35 PM
I take it, Edmund, that in the skies to which you refer there were white clouds against a blue sky i.e. it wasn't a uniform white/grey such as we get on most days at this time of year?

If it was white clouds in a blue sky then a filter such as a yellow can and will bring out the clouds by darkening the blue giving the sky a kind of English summer's "gentle" afternoon appearance.

Even more contrast can be achieved with orange and red. Some films it is said are better than others. TMax is said to give a yellow filter look withou yellow but but such examples often come from U.S. users where I suspect a lot live in clear high altitude areas and considerably further South than we in the U.K. or the rest of N. Europe find ourselves.

I have seen skies in such pics taken with a light yellow filter that I couldn't manage with red plus a polaroid in the U.K.

In my opinion any shot landscape shot on a sunny day with a reasonable amount of sky will benefit from at least a yellow filter

Mike

vincent
27th December 2016, 10:38 PM
A yellow filter can help but I find that the orange filter gives a better result. Red can be too strong and should only be used for creating a strong contrast. While traveling in Spain I found the orange to be too strong for my likening and now use a yellow filter when photographing there.

Martin Aislabie
27th December 2016, 10:48 PM
Yellow, Orange or Red filters - in increasing effect, make clear blue sky darker.

However, they do nothing for cloud - which stays almost featureless white.

The filters also have much more limited influence on the watery blue skies we typically get in the UK, when the sun does shine.

If you have a sky which is uniform cloud cover - which happens a lot in the UK, the only way of getting any detail in the cloud is by the use of a graduated filter (2/2.5/3 stop range) - Lee or similar.

If you use a spot meter to meter a scene, you find that clouds are about 3 stops brighter than any feature on the ground - which is not unsurprising when you think about it - they are translucent objects backlit by the sun.

Ian is right, flashing and burning at the printing stage, can help render detail in the clouds but it takes practice to produce something that looks realistic/believable.

In addition to the standard yellow/orange/red filters to darken a blue sky you can also use a yellow/green filter, a green filter and a polariser - or combinations of the polariser plus one of the other coloured filters.

If you look at the Hoya web site you will see the effect on sky of the various colour filters, although in my experience , the effect is much less dramatic in the UK.

In dryer countries - where there is much less water vapour in the atmosphere, the effects or filters start to approach the effects shown on the Hoya web site.

I have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to refine my use of filters to get the effect on the sky and clouds I am seeking and are still learning.

The best way to learn is to experiment with the various colour filters - I would say its better to buy one and use it until you are familiar with its effects before adding a new one to your repertoire - frequent swapping will only confuse you - or at least it did me.

Have fun

Martin

Lostlabours
27th December 2016, 11:01 PM
I'd been printing for years until a workshop at Peter Goldfield's in the Quantocks and Peteer Cattrell at that point Fay Godwins printer.

Watching him use flashing was all I needed - a real eye opener. se a lot but it's a very important darkroom tool

It's not something I use a lot but it;s a very important darkroom tool.

Ian

big paul
27th December 2016, 11:24 PM
I find that fomapan film brings out the clouds ,there's a song here ..




www.essexcockney.com

EdmundH
27th December 2016, 11:39 PM
The type of sky I'm having most trouble with is overcast but certainly not featureless, often with turbulent grey cloud masses. In many cases there is some detail in the negative, but a lot of additional exposure is needed to bring it out. I do have a set of Cokin ND grads, but reluctant to use them as some of my favourite subjects are tall structures, which would be adversely affected by the darkening effect. Pre-flashing sounds interesting, what would be a starting point here?

Richard Gould
28th December 2016, 08:31 AM
Like Paul I use Fomapan, and I often do not use a filter as I find that Fomapan tends to give a Orange filter look to skys, but with uniform grey or clear blue skys then no filtering is going to give you detail in the sky, it simply is not there, if there is some detail in the sky, such as clouds in a blue sky then yes, a yellow or orange filter can help,if the is detail in a grey sky sky, such as light and dark grey, then no amount of filtering wil help, in both of the above cases then you will need to burn the skys to bring out the detail, flasing is a tool, it helps sometimes, in my experiance, another thing that I find helps is to burn the sky with a lower contrast filter,I:E make you original exposure at,say grade 2 then burn you skys at grade 1 or even lower at 1/2 will give you better skys, this form of split grade printing is something that I often do to get some detail in skys, If you have just no detail then you can often burn in the high sky to a dark grey, nearly black and burn the lower sky to a lighter shade of grey, which can make the sky interesting,
Richard

John King
28th December 2016, 08:45 AM
If the sky has definite varing tone try printing for the main area with multigrade filtration that gives you good detail, the using a softer grade of filtration re-expose the sky area which will reveal detail in the clouds. You will probably have to try multiple test strips to get it right.

It is a great pity we are equipped with only two arms because sometimes a 3rd arm would be useful at time when a little bit of dodging can lift the detail even more

Brock
28th December 2016, 09:58 AM
Learn to embrace white skies, Edmund. Sometimes they can help simplify composition. Here's a good example from Cartier Bresson that I love:

2630


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

photomi7ch
28th December 2016, 10:59 AM
When it comes to flat grey or blue skies I burn them in. Using a graduated filter look where the sky is dark at the top and lightening as it gets closer to the ground. I use a number of other Technics as well to give the sky impact.

EdmundH
28th December 2016, 01:26 PM
This negative is a case in point; on this scan I can see detail in the sky, but printing with proper contrast gives a white sky. If I burn in the sky, the tops of the posts will most likely be black. I did toy with the idea of cutting a black mask that fitted exactly over the beach and posts, just leaving the sky area clear for further exposure...

Richard Gould
28th December 2016, 02:47 PM
This negative is a case in point; on this scan I can see detail in the sky, but printing with proper contrast gives a white sky. If I burn in the sky, the tops of the posts will most likely be black. I did toy with the idea of cutting a black mask that fitted exactly over the beach and posts, just leaving the sky area clear for further exposure...

Cutting a mask would be your best bet, but remember to keep the mask moving the whole time, an alternative would be to burn the sky above the poles, just enough so that detail shows, or just enough to give some tone to the sky, no amount of filtering at the taking stage is likely to help as it looks a very overcast day, no blue sky at all, just tones in the grey, the other answer, as suggested, is to learn to love blank sky's, you also could, with a lot of care, using a board with a suitable hole made in it, burn the sky in between the posts, not easy to do well, takes practise, but it can be done, I have done so myself in the past just to get a bit of tone in an otherwise non discript sky,
Richard

Brock
28th December 2016, 02:59 PM
You could pre-flash the top half of the paper before exposure under the enlarger to help overcome the "inertia" it has. Using this technique would possibly record some detail in the sky which a little extra burning in at a softish grade would enhance without darkening the poles too much.


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

Terry S
28th December 2016, 02:59 PM
I wouldn't darken the sky too much or even at all Edmund, as I think the light grey sky that you have at the moment (on screen may look different to the print of course) as it shows how the whole scene looked at the time. If needs must, a GENTLE burning in from the top right hand corner and down a little bit at an angle with a softer filter grade should be more than enough.

Terry S

Tony Marlow
28th December 2016, 03:49 PM
If you burnt in the sky at a soft grade, 0 or 00, you would darken the shy but it would have very little effect, if any, on the posts which are at a dark tone. If there is some detail in the sky not showing burning in at grade 5 would bring it out. At the taking stage a graduated ND filter would help, preferable a rectangular one in a holder where you can slide it up and down to to cover just the sky. A soft grad. Would lesson the effect on areas overlapping at the horizon.

Tony
Tony

John King
28th December 2016, 04:52 PM
I have just printed a couple of B&W images one did not need any extra work at all, but the 2nd I printed was a lot different. It was a landscape overlooking Nidderdale in Yorkshire with the base needing 28 seconds using G3 or 80 magenta on my colour head. The whole print including the sky was given the same exposure.

I then made other test strips with all the filtration removed in other words it was now G2

This then allowed me to print a sky with detail, but to get this detail it required an aditional 47 seconds!

the print is too big to scan (12x16) but when it is dry I will take a photograph and upload the final result so you can see what I mean.

John King
28th December 2016, 07:25 PM
This is the print I mentioned in my last post. The cloud formation was actually blue sky as well so you can get away without using filters. although a yellow one would have helped.

You have to be patient and do the exposure in two stages and don't be afraid of using more than 1or 2 or even 6 test strips.

Mike O'Pray
28th December 2016, 07:39 PM
Nice print, John. Has a real wintry look, even in the sky. Just goes to show that you don't need a lot of snow to convey winter.

Mike

John King
28th December 2016, 08:14 PM
Yes it was winter, January 2014 and errrr brass monkey weather at that height.

Attached is a quick resume of my method for burning in or dodging prints.

Marking and Cutting Out A Mask.

Materials.

What you need is a sheet of thinnish card – ordinary paper is to flimsy and will bend. A sheet of something about the thickness of photographic paper is just about right.

Fine tip marking pen.

Stanley knife or scissors.

Method

Shut off the light. Place the negative in the carrier and set enlarger head so that the negative can be focussed on the baseboard at the size you want. Focus roughly at this stage, accurate focussing can come later.

Lower the head to about 8” to10” from the baseboard and refocus, again pin point accuracy not needed. Place the paper under the enlarger so that the image is in the centre of the paper. Now mark out with the pen the outline of the area you need to either burn in or dodge out.

Remove the paper and using the Stanley knife or scissors cut along the edge of the line you have drawn.

Now raise the enlarger head up to the height to give you the print size you need. Focus accurately.

Do your test strips for the 'normal' area , then do further test strips including the original timing first, not forgetting to add or subtract filters as needed. (Dense skies use a softer filter).

When you come to make the final print using the mask, do a dry run so that you can judge where the mask should be held under the enlarging head. If it is held roughly the same distance it was from the base board when you marked it out you will find to be just about correct.

Make the exposure holding the mask where you need it to be, then move the mask up and down an inch or so, so that you blur the edges and don't get a sharp shadow.

You may not get it right the 1st or even 2nd time but practise will make it seem like second nature.

Richard Gould
28th December 2016, 08:52 PM
Nice wintry print.John, makes me feel cold just looking at it,
Richard

EdmundH
29th December 2016, 08:14 AM
Thank you to everyone who has commented here. I shall return to the darkroom (when I get time!) armed with this information. The negative scan I attached is very deceptive, as I digitally cut the highlights to bring out cloud detail.

NJHrs
29th December 2016, 10:41 AM
The scan also seems to be low contrast, I suspect lower than you are going for in the darkroom?

Paper flashing looks a good idea I will be trying that one in some cases as its so straightforward.

B&W Neil
29th December 2016, 11:23 AM
Unfortunately, I find, with B&W, a featureless sky will always be uninteresting - filtered or otherwise. However, a total black sky, which can be obtained with infrared film is sometimes useful.

I soon realized, with such skies, they are best avoided unless you are after that featureless look, which some photographers, such as Trevor Crone, use to good effect.

Neil.

Alan Clark
29th December 2016, 02:55 PM
It is interesting to see how well-known photographers have treated the sky in their photographs. Fay Godwin said that she had an aversion to dark skies in black and white photographs. Some of her skies are pale and featureless, and even those with what was obviously a blue sky and white clouds are usually played down and printed rather pale. This low contrast look is carried through into the land itself, so all her photographs have a gentle, homogenous look about them. In other words, the treatment of the sky fits in with the overall look of the entire photograph.
The same homogenous look is apparent in Don McCullen's book "Open Skies", though his photographs are very different from Fay Godwins. Here we have dark brooding skies, and dark brooding landscapes. Heavy printing, and high contrast, conjuring up feelings of moody unease. McCullin said he only did these photographs in Winter. And he probably chose his weather conditions carefully. Fay Godwin, on the other hand, seems to have gone out in all weathers, bright and dull, Summer and Winter, photographed what was there, and somehow managed to produce light, under-stated prints whatever the conditions.

Alan

Nabhar
29th December 2016, 09:36 PM
Hi EdmundH,

I don't have acces to a darkroom at this time, so I give prominance to ''in camera'' metering and negative development adjustments.

At the point of shooting, I select my chosen shadow zone placement, then measure the difference to the brightest part of any cloud cover within the frame.
If, as an example, the shadow placement is on Zone IV and this places the brightest cloud on Zone IX, then I develop the negative N-1, or more if I want a more heavier grey sky. I have used this technique with a yellow filter also, and I was happy with the range of tones among the cloud cover that the negative produced with a simple scan. I'm sure plenty more localised in-cloud tonal differences could be brought out in the darkroom. One of these days I'll get to try it.

''expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights'' - Ansel Adams

JP

Martin Aislabie
30th December 2016, 02:01 PM
Unfortunately, I find, with B&W, a featureless sky will always be uninteresting - filtered or otherwise. However, a total black sky, which can be obtained with infrared film is sometimes useful.

I soon realized, with such skies, they are best avoided unless you are after that featureless look, which some photographers, such as Trevor Crone, use to good effect.

Neil.

+1

Martin

NJHrs
31st December 2016, 03:02 PM
Well I started printing again for the first time in 25 years last night (6 hr crazy session). First off I will say the RH Analyser Pro is the best thing since sliced bread, its LOL stuff it really does work. Anyways my contribution on this subject is that I printed a picture for which I have a really nice scan (King Alfreds Tower), the print and the scan look very very close to each other but the sky in the darkroom print looks darker and heavier due I think to the grain on the scan looking much more prominent. For that picture it was a clear blue sky with the sun behind me and I used a B+W 040 Orange filter. Tri-X and filters seems to help a lot in my case, gets the negatives close to the end look I am trying to achieve. Don McCullin lives near me I believe over the border in south Somerset, its interesting just how much people can get such a different look and feel in their photographs just from preferences in the imaging chain. I like his landscape photographs but find them a bit depressing.

I also avoid empty pale skies but more limiting I love the light when its behind you and just lights things up, it makes them come alive in my eyes so I tend to do most of my shooting when the sun is out (brooding clouds at the same time even better!).

Alan Clark
31st December 2016, 03:21 PM
... Don McCullin lives near me I believe over the border in south Somerset, its interesting just how much people can get such a different look and feel in their photographs just from preferences in the imaging chain. I like his landscape photographs but find them a bit depressing.

I also avoid empty pale skies but more limiting I love the light when its behind you and just lights things up, it makes them come alive in my eyes so I tend to do most of my shooting when the sun is out (brooding clouds at the same time even better!).

NJHrs, find it interesting that different people have different preferences. When I lived in Staffordshire I had a painting buddy who liked to have the light coming from behind him, wheras I like a side light for painting and photography (though not exclusively) We would often paint the same subject, but from different angles...
If you look at the photographs of James Ravillious, he had a real liking for shooting straight into the sun, which can be very dramatic, but also technically difficult to pull off.
He often had pale skies too, though they were often just an unimportant bit at the top of the picture; the real subject being people in the landscape.

Alan

John King
31st December 2016, 03:26 PM
Are we not getting a bit involved and away from the original topic?

Alan Clark
31st December 2016, 04:22 PM
Are we not getting a bit involved and away from the original topic?

No, I don't think we are. The OP asked about making the sky more prominent in the print. In my view there has to be a reason for this. It has to be part of the overall concept, not just something done at the end, carried out because "it's what you do".

Alan

John King
31st December 2016, 05:13 PM
Surely then it should be about technique and how to do it.
How to get the desired effect not merely suggesting images to look at but no guidance how to do it. Yes it describes what is done but not HOW its done.

Brock
31st December 2016, 05:31 PM
Does it really matter much if we are getting away from the original topic? Can't see it doing anyone any harm.


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

Alan Clark
31st December 2016, 05:39 PM
John,
The OP has received plenty of good advice here on how to get more prominent cloud effects in his prints. He doesn't need this advice repeated by me.
You say this is a "desired effect". But in his opening post he says that he often goes out when there are no clouds in the sky, and that clouds are not an important part of his thinking. And the photograph he posted doesn't need a prominent sky to make it work. So it may not actually be a desired effect for him to have prominent skies in his photographs. I was merely pointing out that the concept of what you want your photographs to say has to come first. Then you apply what is needed, to achieve your vision. There is room for thought here, as well as nuts and bolts practicalities.

Alan

NJHrs
1st January 2017, 03:28 PM
100% agree Alan. Interestingly for me at least is I don't find the lack of dramatic sky in the OPs scan off putting at all. My own preference when shooting things like rocks or wood or buildings/stonework other things with texture is I would want to get as much texture or grittiness in them as possible, for this reason I like TriX or the departed neopan overprocessed a bit, or my current fav souping the TriX in Rodinal. I think doing something to punch up some detail on those wooden posts in the OPs scan would be the single best thing to improve it.

Alan Clark
1st January 2017, 04:26 PM
100% agree Alan. Interestingly for me at least is I don't find the lack of dramatic sky in the OPs scan off putting at all. My own preference when shooting things like rocks or wood or buildings/stonework other things with texture is I would want to get as much texture or grittiness in them as possible, for this reason I like TriX or the departed neopan overprocessed a bit, or my current fav souping the TriX in Rodinal. I think doing something to punch up some detail on those wooden posts in the OPs scan would be the single best thing to improve it.

Thanks NJHrs. I too like texture and grittiness, and have also found that TriX serves me well, unlike Dlelta which smooths out texture somewhat. I think the quality of light comes into play as well, though I shouldn't say too much in case I get accused of straying off-topic again...

Alan

B&W Neil
2nd January 2017, 10:34 AM
If the discussion has strayed from the op's post surely this is the time for a new thread ???? It's called 'forum etiquette.'

Neil.

Brock
2nd January 2017, 03:24 PM
Can someone start a thread about "forum etiquette" please. That's a new one on me. :)


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

B&W Neil
2nd January 2017, 05:02 PM
Can someone start a thread about "forum etiquette" please. That's a new one on me. :)


www.theonlinedarkroom.com


You are obviously not on many forums then ? :rolleyes:


Neil.

Brock
2nd January 2017, 05:07 PM
I just thought it meant that you had to have your toga on straight.


www.theonlinedarkroom.com

B&W Neil
2nd January 2017, 06:44 PM
I just thought it meant that you had to have your toga on straight.


www.theonlinedarkroom.com


Nothing to do with that I'm afraid - but I'll give you a clue:

It is not polite to hi-jack someone Else's thread. ;)

Neil.

Mike O'Pray
2nd January 2017, 10:18 PM
Deciding when and if a thread has reached the end of its life in terms of answering the OP's needs is always difficult.

Frankly compared to another forum I can think of, where threads have reached more than 30 pages and then bear no resemblance to the original topic we are a paragon of virtue here on FADU and generally we have the right spirit to maintain this.

The main thing is that we maintain this kind of bonhomie and goodwill that characterises this forum.

In my opinion we are all still defined by the meaning of "the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus".

No small achievement after about 10 years of existence

Mike

Michael
2nd January 2017, 11:56 PM
It's not at all clear to me that this thread has either been hijacked or gone far off-topic. I have found it interesting. The only change in it is that has developed from brief information-giving to wider discussion, in which the OP has also participated. Certainly no Colosseum antics here.

alexmuir
3rd January 2017, 12:04 AM
My one disappointment so far with B&W is the number of blank skies I get. Although I don't produce many landscapes in the usual sense, many of my photographs do include sky. Somehow there rarely seem to be any individual clouds around when I take my camera out, just cloudless blue, or overall cloud cover. Basing the exposure on ground based subjects frequently leaves the sky bright and featureless. Would a yellow filter help? - I recall reading somewhere that it's quite usual to always have a yellow filter fitted, but I don't necessarily want to increase contrast in the scene overall.



I don't think this has been said yet, but the problem arises because most panchromatic B&W films have a greater sensitivity to blue than other colours. Unfiltered, therefore, blue will appear lighter than it would if the film had a uniform sensitivity to all colours. White, however, as we see the sky quite often in the UK, should be recorded quite accurately by the film. The other thing that comes into play is the relative brightness of the sky, even if it's overcast. It might be beneficial to test the extent of this by metering an overcast sky, then comparing the reading to an average tone on the ground. Certain films, as mentioned above, seem to give more detailed skies. These tend to be films with an extended red sensitivity, approaching the near infrared spectrum. Fomapan and Rollei Retro films have this property. It might be worth giving them a try. I agree with the advice already given about filters and printing techniques. There is a filter described as 'minus blue' which I have heard of, but never found an example. Perhaps someone else would know of a manufacturer producing this today. The problem of a subject projecting into a featureless sky is something I have struggled printing. The Cartier Bresson example above works, in my opinion, because of careful composition. That's probably the most important consideration, although like you I'm not keen on featureless skies in my own work.
Alex

EdmundH
3rd January 2017, 12:13 AM
Please calm down people. I'm pleased that my query has raised such a lot of interest and discussion. I don't necessarily agree with all sentiments expressed, but I now have some very good recommendations which I'll be trying out in the coming months. For the record, I like my prints to be fairly representative of the original scene, with smoothly graduated mid tones. Not gritty or ominous.

Mike O'Pray
3rd January 2017, 05:54 PM
Alex, interesting that you mention a "minus blue" filter. I think it is David Allen who is a friend here who highly recommends this filter for skies.

I think his posts on this are elsewhere but it appears that then usual yellow filter may not be as good as the "minus blue" and no doubt he has given an explanation in those aforementioned posts but I cannot recall why the minus blue is a better filter than a yellow.

Hopefully he might chip in if he sees this thread

Mike

Mike O'Pray
3rd January 2017, 10:18 PM
I have just done a bit more research. The minus blue appears to be have a wratten 12 designation whereas my yellow filter has a K-2 designation. Both filters have a factor of 2X so are equal there but the K-2 only blocks light below 465nm whereas the minus blue blocks light below 500nm


My knowledge of light wavelength theory is poor but I take it that by blocking light higher up the scale, the minus blue increases the effect on the colour blue's range such that more of blue light is blocked this improving the effect of this filter compared to the yellow.

David Allen says on more than one occasion that a minus blue is quite different from yellow filters. In fact from my research even a deep yellow only blocks light below 470 so is still 30nm less than the minus blue.

I take it that when David says that it is quite different from yellow he is effectively saying that this 30-40nm increase in its light blocking range is enough for a user to see the difference in two shots of the same scene, same light etc between the yellow and minus blue

I cannot say as I do not have a minus blue nor can I compare a minus blue with an orange which will block up to 530nm but it looks as if an orange filter, based on its light blocking range, may give a darker look to a blue sky compared to a minus blue but the "improvement" of orange over minus blue will be slightly more marginal than a minus blue over a K-2 which is usually the yellow that most users will have or be sold if they ask for a yellow filter

It might also be that the 30-40nm extra range that the minus blue has takes you to the end of the blue colour range and the extra 30nm that orange then provides becomes more marginal. It is also worth noting that an orange increases the exposure factor compared to a minus blue which, all things being equal, is a drawback.

The proof of the pudding is always in its eating so ideally two prints of the same scene with a yellow and a minus blue would be worth seeing.

Feel free to comment on my statement above

Mike

EdmundH
4th January 2017, 11:44 AM
I have just done a bit more research. The minus blue appears to be have a wratten 12 designation whereas my yellow filter has a K-2 designation. Both filters have a factor of 2X so are equal there but the K-2 only blocks light below 465nm whereas the minus blue blocks light below 500nm


My knowledge of light wavelength theory is poor but I take it that by blocking light higher up the scale, the minus blue increases the effect on the colour blue's range such that more of blue light is blocked this improving the effect of this filter compared to the yellow.

David Allen says on more than one occasion that a minus blue is quite different from yellow filters. In fact from my research even a deep yellow only blocks light below 470 so is still 30nm less than the minus blue.

I take it that when David says that it is quite different from yellow he is effectively saying that this 30-40nm increase in its light blocking range is enough for a user to see the difference in two shots of the same scene, same light etc between the yellow and minus blue

I cannot say as I do not have a minus blue nor can I compare a minus blue with an orange which will block up to 530nm but it looks as if an orange filter, based on its light blocking range, may give a darker look to a blue sky compared to a minus blue but the "improvement" of orange over minus blue will be slightly more marginal than a minus blue over a K-2 which is usually the yellow that most users will have or be sold if they ask for a yellow filter

It might also be that the 30-40nm extra range that the minus blue has takes you to the end of the blue colour range and the extra 30nm that orange then provides becomes more marginal. It is also worth noting that an orange increases the exposure factor compared to a minus blue which, all things being equal, is a drawback.

The proof of the pudding is always in its eating so ideally two prints of the same scene with a yellow and a minus blue would be worth seeing.

Feel free to comment on my statement above

Mike

I just found this page from Kodak which is well worth a look - it contains descriptions and curves for all Wratten filters. From this I can see that a 'Minus blue' filter is basically deep yellow, but with a slightly sharper cutoff than standard deep yellow.

http://motion.kodak.com/kodakgcg/motion/products/lab_and_post_production/kodak_filters/wratten_2_filters/default.htm

Mike O'Pray
4th January 2017, 05:14 PM
Thanks for the link, Edmund. I had a look at the minus blue curve and yellow curve and there was a difference, although how much difference this makes in a print is difficult to say without two prints from the respective filters being in front of the viewer.

However when it comes to the difference in curves between the deep yellow and minus blue they looked to be the same or as near as damn it, the same.

So I do wonder what to make of David Allen's statement that the two are quite different. It might depend on how one defines "quite" and maybe what one person's perception is compared to another.

Mike

SanMiguel
4th January 2017, 10:49 PM
Another one who had a lot of empty skies in his work was Robert Adams. Buried deep in this lengthy, but very readable article are details of the developing technique he employed to get very smooth skies -taping the ends of the roll film together and then manually passing the film through the chemicals in total darkness.

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/07/robert-adams-missing-criticism-what-we.html

Michael

MartyNL
5th January 2017, 12:53 AM
Another one who had a lot of empty skies in his work was Robert Adams. Buried deep in this lengthy, but very readable article are details of the developing technique he employed to get very smooth skies -taping the ends of the roll film together and then manually passing the film through the chemicals in total darkness.

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/07/robert-adams-missing-criticism-what-we.html

Michael

Thanks for the link. A ripping good read.

SanMiguel
5th January 2017, 01:32 PM
Thanks Marty I must admit I greatly enjoyed reading it too. I like Adams' work a lot. Even though at first glance there isn't much going on in many of his photographs, they do have a habit of drawing me in. Perhaps it's because living in Northern Ireland I don't get to see many cloudless skies...
Michael

NJHrs
24th January 2017, 10:21 PM
Brilliant thread this, thanks for all the links and references guys.

Having said that I like grit and contrast I was printing a photograph the other week and after leaving a couple of test prints for a few days ended up going for a soft contrast grade and fairly long print i.e. to print down the highlights. Like all these things it depends on the image and what you want to it to convey.

The easy perhaps obvious answer to the original question is just to try printing at a much softer grade and for a good long time to get the grey. Always worth a try just to see how it looks.

RobertJMan
3rd January 2018, 09:22 PM
Hi,

My thanks too for the lead, I have long admired Mitch Epstein's work having seen a moving (for me, personally) exhibition in a gallery I forget the name of in Amsterdam. Robert Adams may be the "lodestone" for some of MAs work (American Power).

More importantly I am DELIGHTED to find a photography forum that offers both practical help for my practice and a place to admire (and learn from) others. :cool:

Robert