I was recently in Bishop and visited the Mountain Light Gallery. I was struck by how about a third of GR's photos seemed to be way over saturated. The counter person assured me that the prints, although produced from digital scans, accurately represented the old "analog" prints. My question is for the old timers who worked with color film and (non digital) prints and who have visited the gallery. Was it really possible to get such saturated prints with film as the most saturated ones in the gallery? Thanks!!
Yes. However, it takes a great deal of careful dichroic filtering and careful print development, not to mention a transparency.exposed to render greater saturation.
Greater saturation in color trannies is achieved by slightly underexposing the film, usually by about one-third to 1/2 stop from a previously identified exposure index. The problem that arises, especially with films such as Kodachrome and Velvia (both of which Galen used extensively) is that underexposure may cause the deepest shadow areas to go completely black. The high values (assuming the dynamic range isn't to great) will be slightly underexposed. Additional saturation can be achieved by using a polarizer.
I have visited Mountain Light many times over the years. Personally, I too find the prints to be oversaturated (and in some cases) too noisy for my taste.
-P
-
Posted by Mat Malone on September 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM
In "Inner Game of Outdoor Photography" Rowell talks about his process of converting his old film images to digital. Using digital adjustments like adding saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc., he could replicate what he actually saw MORE accurately than what he could do with film. The implication is that the prints from digital do not look the same as the prints from film.
Posted by Steve Sieren on September 1, 2009 at 1:34 AM
Yes, some are noticeably more saturated but not all of them.
For anyone who hasn't seen his old non digital scanned prints, you can still find them in the Mountain Light book. The difference is amazing especially for anyone who has never shot film. There are many pro still working photographers that have books that were done solely in film and is a real treat to look at and see how they survived w/out the digital darkroom.
Well no doubt walking through MLG is a real treat and is like a candy store for us photogs. One does not have to agree with the level of saturated images on display to at least enjoy many of the compositions.
Mat makes a good point in his comments. In a fairly current photographic book it was stated that there is more acceptance toward adjustments made in post processing that replicates the "look" the photographer recalls during the capture event. I thought that a bit interesting over the "purist" approach of working with exact non-tweaking guidelines. Of course that can also leave the door wide open for certain folks to recall seeing everything with "intensified rose colored glasses" too.
Posted by Harley Goldman on September 1, 2009 at 11:06 AM
From looking at the prints at the gallery, they are way over-saturated them for my tastes. As a regular Velvia user, you do not get that look from straight Velvia trannies. Somebody's finger slipped on the saturation slider. I also find many of the prints to be too big for the quality of the film. They are too grainy, too noisy and since Galen often used the old light consumer zooms with really soft corners, some prints are really soft. Given that, he does have amazingly strong images with great emotional impact and that is what sells.
People buy them. The gallery is there to make money and if they sell, they sell. The gallery is not out to please the nit-picky photographers who drop in. The emotional impact sells the prints, not the print technicals.
Galen was not a master of photographic craft, but rather a very excellent picture taker. His videos and interviews are full of misinformation and incorrect science. Yet, he was a great mountaineer, explorer, and imagemaker. He knew exactly where to put the camera, which is THE most important factor in photography. He researched his subjects extensively. His timing was unequalled. Saturation was all the rage during his times, and of course, he was a businessman and knew exactly what the public wanted to see and buy. His estate/corporation is not going to mess with that. I remember the first time I visited that gallery, there was a table of his slides (dupes, of course) that you could look at with a loupe. Much of the saturation was there. But I was shocked that they were extracting 25 x 40" prints from them. There simply is not enough information in 35mm to yield a quality print at that size. That's where modern digital technology comes in. The public loves them, but we disect them with our eyes, finding noise, sharpness issues, and bad contrast masking edges. I believe we'd enjoy them more if we didn't look so close. Now when I visit there, I stand way back to view Galen's prints, and can then enjoy the sense of place and adventure that is the true value of his work. It is in the guest gallery room that we can look real close and be very satisfied. The artists who have exhibited there present a quality of photography, craft, and detail that blows Galen's stuff right outa the place. Of course, a lot of it is 4x5!
Jeffrey, you're right about the sizing issue for sure. I'm not sure the intent originally was to push the 35mm to that level by any means, but they sure try hard to squeeze it to a point of lost detail at the much larger prints.
Again, between the over sizing squeeze and saturation one has to lean more toward the compositions to take the gallery in as it's presented I guess.
As Harley stated,
People buy them. The gallery is there to make money and if they sell, they sell. The gallery is not out to please the nit-picky photographers who drop in. The emotional impact sells the prints, not the print technicals.
Posted by Steve Sieren on September 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Yep, they are just buying a feeling.
If I could afford one of his prints and I had to chose between a small print with good quality pixels and a large unsharp print with noise, I would buy the large print.
I'll echo Steve. How often do you stare at 30in prints from a few inches away once they're hanging in your living room? The point is to be able to get that emotional impact while sitting on the couch across the way... at which distance the lack of detail and grain is a non-issue. Of course, as photographers we love to pick at these little things, but I rather enjoy going there and seeing that in the end, it doesn't really matter when it comes to selling the prints (at least, I imagine they do sell some ).
Posted by Eric Good on September 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM
As time has gone by, I too think quite a bit of Galen's stuff hanging in the gallery is over-saturated... as well as much of my own previous work. I guess I'm becoming more and more sensitive to that aspect of prints. But I still stop and enjoy my visit every time I can. In the end, I suppose it is no more outlandish than the typical shots that grace the pages of the popular British photography magazines.
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Well stated Jeffrey and Harley.
Since I've never been to the gallery, my question to the group is, do they have any prints hanging that are Ciba/Ilfachromes or Type R's? Or are all the prints hanging now Fuji Crystal archives from scans and digital processing?
I was going to say that the direct printing of Velvia to something like Cibachrome would certainly make colors pop and contrast was excellent. But even without having been to the gallery, my guess is that the "digital" processing was certainly tweaked to match someone's/Galen's vision?
I like what you said Paul:
Of course that can also leave the door wide open for certain folks to recall seeing everything with "intensified rose colored glasses" too.
There's a lot of truth to that and there's no way to draw the line or even attempt to quantify what one person's recollection of a scene is compared to another's. I know in my own work, saturation and contrast has been increasing with my throttle being what is "believable" to me.
Lon, yep, as I stated about Mat's comment earlier, I also read there is more and more "acceptance" for prints to be a recall of what one saw or could recall from the field work.
To my knowledge Galen's work are all scans and digitally processed these days. I'm sure in the early days Galen as well as many others, me included, found the Velvia and Ilfa or Ciba chrome(s) the way to go years back now. WOW
Anyway, I think I read long before Galen relocated to Bishop he had already started using the Fuji Crystal approach.
Maybe others will know for sure.
Posted by Richard Wong on September 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Having never seen GR's transparencies, I've heard from a 1st hand source that he did like to push the limit for acceptable saturation - the America the Beautiful book is a prime example of this but I just overlook that and enjoy the vision of a great photographer.
I often wonder what his work would look like now with today's RAW technology and a 5D MKII.
Posted by Paul Duval on September 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM
I try to visit Mountain Light when in Bishop if I can to be inspired. Most of the comments here would pass directly over the general public's head, like the B-1's I saw when photographing Whitney this spring. The gallery is really for them not photographers especially ones who are good enough to make a living at it. I don't know who's harder on Galen's work us or him, he was always questioning the validity and relevance of his images. I think some of the over saturation arguement goes back on us, just revisit the Earth, Sea and Sky Gallery and you'll see a plethora of saturated images. Are they oversaturated? I don't know I wasn't there when there when the shutter was clicked. I've seen amazing light and color, I've been lucky enough to be there with a camera on some occasions. But I shoot allot of my landscapes at the lowest ISO I can and I always underexpose for saturation, so I'm copying some of Galen's technique's in my own picture taking. Many of the nits brought up I have seen myself in the gallery, but as far as the over saturation goes. I think we might be guilty of being a little hypocritical and calling the kettle black the observer's being the pot's.
Posted by Reno DiTullio on September 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I think most of us have the habit of "putting our nose on the glass" when we look at prints. I saw a beautiful 25 x 40 + print of GR's hanging in a winery near Plymouth, a view of SF from the Berkeley Hills I believe; from across the room it was gorgeous, up close it sucked, way too big.
I like this thread and am rather reliefed to have read the statements about Galen Rowells work (Paul, pReston, Steve, Jeffery), because it has appeared to me, there was a certain mystification among american photographers about his landscape work, totally leading away from what his really strongest assets were. he was a greatgreat writer, storyteller, mountaineer, adventurer and a good photographer (but not a great landscape photographer). I also grew up with his columns and books and all. And I have visited his gallery twice. I have spoken to folks who worked on his files in PS and he truly WAS very eager to saturate his images a lot. (according to them "more saturation" was among the words they most often heard from him...not to be meant in a negative way, though) So it's not the folks in the gallery to blame, who just want to sell his stuff, it was - most of all - the way HE intended his prints to look like, I believe. the fact that the are WAY to big for what the 35mm trannies hold is very obvious but when you see the one large billboard driving into Bishop, it looks good, when viewed from the car... I also remember he only started to really like his own prints only from the time on, when he could really post process it for printing with a lightjet printer on a digital basis.
again, I always been a big fan of GR but not so much of his photographic artistry than for other things. So I was glad to read some of your comments, that seemed to be very down to reality again, thanks...
georg
Hey Georg, nice to see a visitor from another region & part of the world pop in to share their perspective and ideas on this post. Please feel free to join in on any future posts, you're always welcome here.
I sure missed the play on words until your comment here, georg. You should be thankful to have such an easy name to spell and pronounce too. My own is a prime example of one for those who may like spelling challenges.
Posted by Cory Freeman on September 4, 2009 at 6:03 PM
I too have thought his images are a little over saturated. But then again I thought I read somewhere in his gallery or one of his books that he was trying to match the colors/luminosity of the slide when placed on a light table. Ya there's grain and artifacts/what have you if you put your nose up to the large prints. But come on, it's about how the overall image affects you right? If you want perfectly rendered detail, maybe you ought to be doing Trompe L' Oeil or collage!
Posted by Paul Duval on September 12, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Sometime, maybe the next time you go inside the gallery, don't shut out the ambient noise listen to what the other people are saying about the work. The other people being the buying public, and before you go ballistic I'm not condoning going outside of our own individual comfort zones as to what is acceptable. I have several pictures hanging in my house but the only ones I have personally purchased are Ansel Adams prints bought at an antique show ( not originals) the others are my own. So I guess I'm saying as photographers we go through the doors to view with a very different agenda than John and Jane Doe. I want to be inspired, when my inspiration is flagging, and actually truth be known I find the flaws encouraging in a way. If every image was perfection realized, I know I'm not perfect, I might be discouraged as here is a successful photographer, slash journalist adventurer whose work is far beyond what I could ever hope to be compared with.
Discussion
21 repliesGreater saturation in color trannies is achieved by slightly underexposing the film, usually by about one-third to 1/2 stop from a previously identified exposure index. The problem that arises, especially with films such as Kodachrome and Velvia (both of which Galen used extensively) is that underexposure may cause the deepest shadow areas to go completely black. The high values (assuming the dynamic range isn't to great) will be slightly underexposed. Additional saturation can be achieved by using a polarizer.
I have visited Mountain Light many times over the years. Personally, I too find the prints to be oversaturated (and in some cases) too noisy for my taste.
-P
-
For anyone who hasn't seen his old non digital scanned prints, you can still find them in the Mountain Light book. The difference is amazing especially for anyone who has never shot film. There are many pro still working photographers that have books that were done solely in film and is a real treat to look at and see how they survived w/out the digital darkroom.
Mat makes a good point in his comments. In a fairly current photographic book it was stated that there is more acceptance toward adjustments made in post processing that replicates the "look" the photographer recalls during the capture event. I thought that a bit interesting over the "purist" approach of working with exact non-tweaking guidelines. Of course that can also leave the door wide open for certain folks to recall seeing everything with "intensified rose colored glasses" too.
People buy them. The gallery is there to make money and if they sell, they sell. The gallery is not out to please the nit-picky photographers who drop in. The emotional impact sells the prints, not the print technicals.
Galen was not a master of photographic craft, but rather a very excellent picture taker. His videos and interviews are full of misinformation and incorrect science. Yet, he was a great mountaineer, explorer, and imagemaker. He knew exactly where to put the camera, which is THE most important factor in photography. He researched his subjects extensively. His timing was unequalled. Saturation was all the rage during his times, and of course, he was a businessman and knew exactly what the public wanted to see and buy. His estate/corporation is not going to mess with that. I remember the first time I visited that gallery, there was a table of his slides (dupes, of course) that you could look at with a loupe. Much of the saturation was there. But I was shocked that they were extracting 25 x 40" prints from them. There simply is not enough information in 35mm to yield a quality print at that size. That's where modern digital technology comes in. The public loves them, but we disect them with our eyes, finding noise, sharpness issues, and bad contrast masking edges. I believe we'd enjoy them more if we didn't look so close. Now when I visit there, I stand way back to view Galen's prints, and can then enjoy the sense of place and adventure that is the true value of his work. It is in the guest gallery room that we can look real close and be very satisfied. The artists who have exhibited there present a quality of photography, craft, and detail that blows Galen's stuff right outa the place. Of course, a lot of it is 4x5!
Again, between the over sizing squeeze and saturation one has to lean more toward the compositions to take the gallery in as it's presented I guess.
As Harley stated,
If I could afford one of his prints and I had to chose between a small print with good quality pixels and a large unsharp print with noise, I would buy the large print.
Since I've never been to the gallery, my question to the group is, do they have any prints hanging that are Ciba/Ilfachromes or Type R's? Or are all the prints hanging now Fuji Crystal archives from scans and digital processing?
I was going to say that the direct printing of Velvia to something like Cibachrome would certainly make colors pop and contrast was excellent. But even without having been to the gallery, my guess is that the "digital" processing was certainly tweaked to match someone's/Galen's vision?
I like what you said Paul:
There's a lot of truth to that and there's no way to draw the line or even attempt to quantify what one person's recollection of a scene is compared to another's. I know in my own work, saturation and contrast has been increasing with my throttle being what is "believable" to me.
Lon
To my knowledge Galen's work are all scans and digitally processed these days. I'm sure in the early days Galen as well as many others, me included, found the Velvia and Ilfa or Ciba chrome(s) the way to go years back now. WOW
Anyway, I think I read long before Galen relocated to Bishop he had already started using the Fuji Crystal approach.
Maybe others will know for sure.
I often wonder what his work would look like now with today's RAW technology and a 5D MKII.
again, I always been a big fan of GR but not so much of his photographic artistry than for other things. So I was glad to read some of your comments, that seemed to be very down to reality again, thanks...
georg
georg