“Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico”

<p>How did Ansel Adams capture one his most famous images, <em>Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico</em>?</p>

<p>What I would like to know:</p>

<p>OK, they drove around the American West, found themselves in the New Mexican desert, Adams suddenly saw something he had to photograph, they frantically got out, pulled the equipment, not having a meter, he perfectly chose the perfect exposure.</p>

<p>But how did he do it? Digging up a bit about this, I find two accounts. He had a <em>Weston Master</em> meter and the meter metered the Moon and the distant peaks on where<em> A</em> lay on that meter's scale. I wish I had a picture of that meter to understand what that meant. The foreground was on <em>U</em>.</p>

<p>The other account states that Ansel Adams knew the luminance of the moon, 250 candles per square feet, which is around 2700 lux in SI units, put the Moon in Zone VII and voilà!<br /><br /> One retelling of that tale states that what Ansel knew about the Moon was actually a version of the “ƒ/16 rule”. Does anyone know the precise formulation of that rule as applied to the Moon?<br /><br /> <br /> So how did Ansel convert <em>A </em>and <em>U</em> / 250 footcandles in exposure settings, especially how did he place the 250 footcandles using something known as <em>Exposure Formula</em> into Zone VII?<br /><br /> <br /> What type of (8 × 10) in. camera did he use?<br /><br /> <br /> In the technical information about the development, I found this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> … dilute D-23 and ten developer to water sequences.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> What does “dilute ten developer to water sequences” mean? </p>

<p>First AA didn't chose the perfect exposure. The image needs a lot of darkroom work.<br>

I never read anywhere that AA had a meter at the time. He couldn't find the meter that all I ever read about the making of that photograph.</p>

 

<p>Adams has told the story of this photograph in his own words in his book<br>

(1983)<br>

<em>Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs</em>. Little, Brown and Company. pp. 40-43.</p>

<p>There was also a <em>Popular Photography</em> April issue article "fixing" the photograph with Photoshop...</p>

<p>I couldn't find it, but from the date, you can imagine.</p>

<p>The rule of Sunny 16 says that in bright direct sunlight to set the camera aperture to f/16 and the shutter speed to the reciprocal of the ISO (ASA). For example for 100 ISO, use f/16 at 1/100 sec. A full moon is in direct bright sunlight so the rule of Sunny16 should apply on the moon as well. It is sometimes suggested that for moon shots you should change the f/16 to f/11.</p>

Adams tells how the photo was made on page 127 of his book "The Negative". Part of it can also be found here on page 12:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=8U_7AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=moonrise+hernandez+because+of+the+focus+shift&source=bl&ots=NE3A5q8LNu&sig=pBGPF2xQJH_7wExRkec8D_QUPwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2JhiUouCD4yA9gTA8YDwDw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=moonrise%20hernandez%20because%20of%20the%20focus%20shift&f=false

 

The 8x10 camera he used is not important, all the camera does is hold the film and the lens. He used a Cooke compound lens 23 inch element in front. That would be about equal to a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.

 

He couldn't find his exposure meter so he used what, in effect, is called the Luney 11 rule. Never mind foot/candles, this is what it comes down to - For a proper exposure of the moon set the camera to f/11 and the shutter speed to the reciprocal of the ASA (ISO) of the film.

 

This is what he states - "With a film of 64 ASA the exposure would be 1/60 sec at f/8."

 

According to the Luney 11 rule that would overexpose by one stop but he had to open up from 1/60 sec to 1/20 sec anyway since he was using a dark filter.

 

This all still comes down to placing the moon on Zone VII. He knew that the moon was 250 ft/c at Zone VII would mean 60 ft/c for Zone V, a two stop difference. So he based his exposure on that but it still came down to the Luny 11 rule.

 

 

And, the negative was only the start. A lot of darkroom work went into making the print, as most people see it. A straight print would show the sky as gray not as black as the finished print shows the sky.

<p>Here's a video by Marc Silber with Ansel's son, Michael, retelling of the event ...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p2cPfjBPTOA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p2cPfjBPTOA</a></p>

<p>And one by <strong>Ansel</strong> himself talking about "Moonrise Over Hernandez"...</p>

<p><a href="

<p>That's all folks.</p>

<p>jim</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So how did Ansel convert <em>A </em>and <em>U</em> / 250 footcandles in exposure settings, especially how did he place the 250 footcandles using something known as <em>Exposure Formula</em> into Zone VII?<br /><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't have time earlier to elaborate. First if you want to see what the Weston Master just querry google should have quite a lot of pics come up. There are many version but they are quite similar. Ansel Adams did own and use the Weston Master but I have not seen any account saying that he used the meter when shooting Moonrise. Even if he had the meter he could not measure the brightness of the moon because the meter has quite a wide angle of receptance. <br>

For the Exposure formula which Adams found useful I found quite useless to me. The formula requires one to know the brightness of the subject in Cd/ft^2 which I don't either remember nor have a meter that readout in that unit. With the value in Cd/ft^2 and take the square root of that you come up with what he called The Key Stop. So in the case of Moonrise taking the square root of 250 it's about 15.9 or f/16. The shutter speed is the inverse of the ISO film speed which he had ISO 64 so the 1/60 shutter speed. Now he wanted to use f/32 which stop down 2 stops from f/16 so the shutter speed is 1/15. He wanted to place the moon on Zone VII so he increased the exposure by 2 more stops and that brings the shutter speed down to 1/4. He had to account for the 3X filter factor which is 1 and 2/3 stop more exposure which no bring the shutter speed down to a third of a stop shorter than 1 sec and so he used 1 sec shutter speed.<br>

For the diluted D23. He used a diluted D23 developer and not full strength. The ten developer to water sequences is that he put the film in the developer for 30 sec and then in the water bath for 2 minute and then back to the developer again and then the water bath and do that 10 times.</p>

<p>AA did not have his meter handy and guessed at the exposure. The negative was under exposed. Later on AA intensified it. As others have said it took a LOT of work in the darkroom to get the image printed.</p>

<p>Years ago the Ansel Adams museum in San Francisco had an exhibit of the evolution of the moonrise photo. It started with a contact print of the negative and showed chronologically the various prints Adams made of the photo over the years. It took several years and major revisions of the print to arrive at what is now considered the final print. This final print looks nothing at all like the contact print.<br>

<br />So the exposure of the negative is only 10% of the final print. Darkrrom manipulation was 90% and it changed over the years.</p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>… dilute D-23 and ten developer to water sequences.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Read as "… dilute D-23, and ten 'developer-to-water' sequences."</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This final print looks nothing at all like the contact print.<br /> <br />So the exposure of the negative is only 10% of the final print. Darkrrom manipulation was 90% and it changed over the years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said. Here's AA with the contact and final prints side by side. He looked pretty happy.<br>

http://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/</p>

<p>He had every reason to be happy.<br>

http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The price for a print of <em>Moonrise</em> in the early 1970s was $500. Then the value of the creative photographs of Ansel Adams skyrocketed. At an auction in 1981, the sale of Moonrise set a record price for a photograph - $71,500!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And then,<br>

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11.asp</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In 1996, Adams biographer Mary Alinder estimated that 1,300 prints of <em>Moonrise, Hernandez</em> had been made over 40 years -- often produced by Adams whenever an order for a copy came in, most of them done in the 1960s and ‘70s -- worth a cumulative $25 million. Still, one might presume that the market had some rational way of valuing individual prints. By the year in which they were printed. By the square inch. By whether or not they are signed. But it's not so easy, especially in the rising art market. Sotheby’s New York includes a print of <em>Moonrise</em> in its photo sale on Oct. 5, 2011, printed in the late 1960s or even 1970 at what is called a “mural size” (30 x 40 in.), which carries a presale estimate of $300,000-$500,000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As an aside. After creating the "final print" in a traditional darkroom, duplicating more copies can be challenging. Meticulous records of manipulation along the way must be kept, and followed exactly by a skilled printer.</p>

<p>That simply is not the case with digital prints. Manipulation records are automatically kept in PS History (ok, most of them). After creating a master file and making the "final print" (ok, printing notes need to be kept), duplicating it is only a few mouse clicks away.</p>

<p>If you shoot in a particular type of light often enough you have the opportunity to note and remember exposure values.</p>

<p>When I was shooting ISO 100 slide film frequently, the "magic hour" (on clear days) would start out at about 1/60th @ f/16, then progressively move down to 1/30th, 1/15th, etc. By the time that the sun was setting, I was shooting at 1/4 or 1/2s, and just after it dipped below the horizon, I was generally shooting at one or two seconds. Five to ten minutes after sunset, I was shooting at 4 to 8 seconds, f/16, ISO 100.</p>

<p>I never went out without a meter, but if I had to, I probably could have gotten reasonably close just by using my eyes an bracketing at -1, 0, +1 around my estimate. These days, digital photography has made me lazy. I should drill myself in Manual Exposure Mode from time to time to see how close I can get to a correct exposure based on observation, weather, and time of day.</p>

<p>Maybe AA just knew from experience approximately how long to expose this image.</p>

"What does “dilute ten developer to water sequences” mean?"

 

It is also known as a "water bath" development and was a way of controlling contrast by limiting the action of the

developer on the densest parts of a negative - these areas would form the highlights in the print- while letting less dense

áreas in the negative develop moré completely. The goal was to lower overall contrast while increasing separation

between highlight values while retaining tonal value separations in middle and dark tones.

 

It was a way of developing film. You'd first soak the negative in a tray of water to saturate the emulsion so the developer

would reach all parts of the negative and then very gently slip it into a tray of diluted developer and let it stand with no

agitation for a brief period and then move it gently again to a tray of fresh water where you'd Rock it gently as the

developer that had soaked into the film was exhausted. During the soaking the developer in the densest part of the

negative (corresponding to highlights in a print) would exhaust itself first. During this second water bath you'd examine the

negative by the light of a very dim green light. If it looked like negative could use more development you'd repeat the

developer/water bath cycle till it looked right in your judgement.

 

Others have noted that the original negative is badly underexposed and there is very little separation in the shadow values. At one point during the 1950s he tried a chromium intensifier on the lower half of the negative to make it easier to print but It didn't work.

 

 

If you are really interested in Adams the best read is Mary Street Alinder's unauthorized posthumous biography of Adams.

She was Adams studio manager for the last decade or so of his life, good friend to the family as well as to Ansel, the

uncredited ghost author of his hagiographic autobiography, and a fine writer. There is antire chapter devoted to

"Moonrise", mostly focusing on the last time time Adams, with the help of his last assistant John Sexton , made a print

from the negative.apparently it was at least an exhausting two day ordeal to make what Adams believed to be an

acceptable print. Sexton' sown notes are here: http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=Sexton,_John._Moonrise,_Hernandez._Ansel_Adams_Printing_Notes_—“Translation”

 

One of Adams favorite teachings came from his background as an aspiring concert pianist before he decided to become

a full time professional photographer in the 1920s. . "The negative," he'd say, "is the score and the print is the performance."

Ellis says: "If you are really interested in Adams the best read is Mary Street Alinder's unauthorized posthumous biography of Adams. " I'll second that opinion--it's remarkably informative and interesting. It gives a look--as Ellis said--at Saint Ansel from a slightly different perspective. (I call him St. Ansel in sheer respect, I'm not being sarcastic. I also refer to "the Venerable Edward of Carmel.") ;-)

 

A side note: I've bought a couple of assorted Weston (no relation to Edward) Master meters cheaply on that large auction site. One of them not only still works but is still fairly accurate--a great surprise, considering. When exposure isn't critical--and I'm pretty casual about it most of the time--I enjoy using that, or my Sekonic 398 Studio Master--both beautiful old instruments and a pleasure to use, much like some of my ancient cameras. :-) Enjoy the Alinder book!

A few things,

First Adams didn't find his Weston meter so he didn't use it to measure the moon luminance so he based his exposure on the known luminance of the moon.

Second the Weston meter readout in feet candle (Adams term) but it's actually Candela per foot squared.

His exposure formula isn't based on the sunny 16 rule. It's a bit complicated and it does require that you know the luminance of the subject. It's similar to using an exposure meter with a K factor of 10. Most modern meters are calibrated with K factor of 12.5 or 14.

If you want to know more about his exposure formula I can elaborate.

A 6 year old thread resurrected!

 

It doesn't take much brainwork to figure out that the moon is lit by the same light-source as the earth, and in astronomical terms is the same distance away. Therefore it needs the same exposure as the earth in full sunlight. No exposure meter, nor any complicated mental arithmetic required. So all of AA's self-inflating quoting of foot-candles is pure hooey. Even in its umpteenth retelling in most of Adams publications; including his autobiography.

 

The landscape beneath the moon was probably well underexposed, and according to John Sexton and others, the negative is a nightmare to print.

So all of AA's self-inflating quoting of foot-candles is pure hooey. Even in its umpteenth retelling in most of Adams publications; including his autobiography.

 

Go on. rodeo-joe, tell us what you really think. Why hold back?

 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't you a William Mortensen fan (see LINK)? :p

The luminosity of the moon changes at different points above the horizon. This is because you are viewing it through different amounts of the atmosphere. If memory serves me right, it's not that the negative is that difficult to print but that Adams printed differently with the sky becoming more pure black over the years.

AA like many other artists had the gift that comes from hard work, persistence and natural talent.

 

With his years of experience, his light meter would only confirm the value he knew intuitively. Ansell did not simply point, shoot, develop and print.

 

His genius was, to transform the what he saw in his mind's eye when he looked at a scene, and transfer it onto photographic paper.

 

To use a time worn cliché, many of his photos have "soul"; the ability to stir one's emotions.