MAXIMIZING YOUR VISION

by Dan Smith Copr. 1998

The camera used is one simple wooden Anba/Ikeda field camera capable of using both 5x7 and 4x5 inch film formats. I just change the back. The films are TMax 400 in 5x7 size and TMax 100 in 4x5. Lenses are as indicated with each image as we discuss them.

Here in Northern Utah we are lucky to have the Great Salt Lake as a photo subject. Vast marshes loaded with birds, great expanses of water, blinding white salt flats and open, unpopulated deserts all play a part in the visual treats that are available. The images that accompany this article are taken on the North arm of the lake within about 100 yards of the Transcontinental Railroad bed. The rocky promontory is called Monument Point, a prominent landmark along the railway and the site of some interesting historical photographs. It rises up about 80 feet above the Great Salt Lake shore which is mainly mud flats and sink holes right now. But, it is a good area for images.

I have been to the location a number of times and am working on a longer term project of documentary images around the Great Salt Lake. Every time I go west past the Golden Spike Historical Site, either on the dirt road or on the actual transcontinental railroad grade, I go past this formation. I have photographed it a few times but usually drive on to other destinations. This time I stopped as it was the destination.

I was out in the area early with a friend. Both of us looking for good images. The weather was cold and breezy and we drove through thick ground fog on the way out. We spent the morning looking at other areas on the way and even took a few photos as the sunrise popped through the fog. Then we finally made it to the rocks we wanted. If you go here, parking is easy on the clay areas near the formation. Stop, get your gear and a walk of a hundred or so feet and you are on the point. Depending on time of year and the water, you can walk around it on either mud or rock. Right now the mud extends out a hundred yards or so as the lake isn't too high. Car tracks go out into the mud flats. Drive on it if you want. Just be aware that no tow truck will pull you out if you slip into one of the sink holes and the nearest phone is miles away and cell phone coverage is nonexistant. But, as the photos show, idiots still drive on the mud and still get stuck. Just what you need, mud & muck with 35% salt & corrisive chemicals getting up into your chassis. Rustproofing gets eaten quickly here.

Back to the images tho. We walked around as my partner had not stopped here before. I wanted to look at light angles and see where the sun was tracking with the mud exposed. One thing I really wanted to see was the patterns made by the posts in the mud, posts left over from old brine, salt and chemical harvest areas from before WWII. Not much left now but patterns and I will be going back to work on them a lot more in the future.

But for now, up on the formation for a higher view overlooking the lake.

Ansel Adams made famous his view of the world. This was often a view above ground level using a longer than normal lens. I did think of this as I looked out over the lake. But, I'm not Ansel & don't pretend to be, though I do shoot this was often. With the rock formation it is natural as the view is different than most anywhere else on the North Shore area. It is the only place in the area where you are right on the shoreline with any elevation. So, we looked and set up tripods and got busy to the sound of geese flying overhead.

First I shot directly into the sun. Very high contrast and probably difficult to pick up on the monitor. But, the reflections worked well with the posts sticking out of the mudflats. I kept the lens pointed down a bit and shaded the front element when I shot to keep lens flare to a minumum. I really wanted to shoot one with the sun in the frame as well as the reflection, but when looking at it through the ground glass it didn't look quite right. The main reason was that we had driven out of the fog and their was not enough aerial haze for the shot I wanted. Just my luck. Usually I want clean & clear air and the one time I want haze to soften the direct sun as I shoot it is clear and clean. Just can't win sometimes. So, I shot what was there.

When shooting directly into harsh reflections I take it as simply as possible. My tests show TMax 100 to be used at a rated speed of 80. Shooting into the direct sun is contrasty as heck, so I shot at the "sunny 22" setting.(remember it-bright sun on light sand or snow). The exposure was the equivalent of F22 @ 1/60 second. The lens was a 300mm Nikkor(approx equivalent of a 100-105 in 35mm). Processing was normal. I want the contrast and know when I shoot the image I will have some darkroom work to get what I want. There is a lot of light falloff from the highlight reflections of direct sunlight to the dark mud to either side. Full shadow detail is not what I want here, so I don't worry about it and I don't spend time spot metering everything. I know the basic exposure & can concentrate on composition(& hope the shot works). So, I shot it & then moved on.

In this case moving on is simple. The tripod never moved more than about 2-3 feet for all these images. The head was moved for the angles I wanted. I couldn't move foreward due to a 60-80 foot dropoff. To the right & left the rock came in a bit, so I was limited. I could back up but within about 8 feet it started rising another 20 feet or so and was too steep to set up on,view and shoot without slipping. So, I shot from where it was comfortable and safe, relying on lens selection to help with the composition.

The second view is about 160 degrees from the first, to the North. I looked at the tire tracks in the mud and wanted them as part of the composition along with the snow on the peak in the Hansel Mountains to the North. The clouds worked well and were moving quickly so I had to set up & shoot quickly. I kept the 300 on the camera and got out the Wratten #25(red) filter and the polarizing filter and put them on the camera.

Now I had a problem.

Polarize very much and all the reflection on the mudflats disappeared and the tire tracks with them. I could see them, but hey didn't stand out at all. Even at minimal polarization they didn't show up too well. Meanwhile the clouds were moving out of the image. So, dump the polarizer, expose at the equivalent of 1/60 at F11 1/2(and opened 3 stops to compensate for the red filter) and shoot. I opened a bit from the full "sunny 16" exposure equivalent because the angle of the sun was relatively low on the horizon and some haze had drifted into the lighting, cutting the brightness a bit. Some who keep track of everything will notice I don't spend a lot of time metering. I do own a spot meter & use it when I need to, but this lighting situation is pretty straightforward and simple, so why waste time? I have plenty of detail in the image from shadow to highlight, the sky is acceptably dark and the only thing I need to do is minor darkroom manipulation to convey the feeling I want. I was worried about the tire tracks in the mud-remember the removal of the polarizer? So if I err on exposure in B&W it is on the side of overexposure. After all, if you don't have shadow detail(not enough exposure) you can't add it by any known photographic means(other than Photoshop). If you have too much exposure you can always burn in the image. This is not an excuse to be sloppy but a real reason to know what your materials can and cannot record on film and how it can be transferred to paper to get your personal vision in print.

So, I overexpose B&W print film if I have to make a choice.

The image prints easily with a #2 filter on Multigrade IV, this being the first print and having no dodging, burning or manipulation. It should show well after I work on it a bit. Since you look at it, take a look at the sky area. I have a relatively light sky considering the red filter. A lot of light scattering due to the fog helped this a bit. Also I don't want an overly black sky in this one. I would lose the clouds. I don't want the super high contrast & heavy feeling the overly black sky would impart. I do find I am working with more lighter sky areas as I go on, trying to retain a lot of the delicate cloud detail that attracts me to many scenes. Some images really work well with the higher contrast sky areas, just not this one.

The third image is a quiet scene looking WSW toward the Hogup mountains. The foreground has a good representation of the post patterns in the water and mud. This one called for a longer lens to bring up the distant mountains and emphasize the posts. This is one I will re-do when the water level rises this spring so I can get it without the idiot tracks(tire marks) in the mud flats. But, they were there and so was I and I wanted the image-so, I shot it. In changing lenses, I went with the 500(approx 160-180 on 35mm). Not really a big tele lens, but relatively light weight, quite sharp and easy to carry in the camera bag as I walk around. This had the effect of bring in the image a bit so I don't have to crop in the darkroom as much to get the image I want. If I didn't have the lens with me I would have shot and cropped the image I wanted in the darkroom later.

In order to bring out the clouds and darken the sky just a bit I used a combination of filters again. The polarizer and the yellow together. I faced three real problems that are able to be solved in the darkroom. The first was the light area on the left. Skies get lighter as they get closer to where the sun is. The second is the high clouds lightening the right corner of the image as the storm moves in. The third is the use of the polarizing filter. First, it doesn't polarize all angles of light evenly. Second, it doesn't darken high clouds to match the clear sky. Both are easily solved with minor darkroom burning in of the image if I want to, or, in the case of the high clouds to the left, with a higher contrast filter to lighten them in relation to the sky. If you take a look, the center area is darker than the edges mentioned. Polarizing will do this and the effect is even more pronounced with wider angle lenses. But, knowing I was going to have the effect when I shot put it into the planning of the image rather than a surprise!!! on viewing the negatives later. I planned on it, knowing it is easily fixed by judicious manipulation in the darkroom. As to the normal lighter areas due to sun or clouds, I can either burn it in a bit or not, as I decide looks best in the final image. But knowing it is there when shooting keeps me from being surprised and probably disappointed later.

The yellow filter poses another problem. Yellow darkens blue. Not nearly as much as red, but enough to be noticed. The sky is blue and the sky reflection in the water is also. Just out of the top of the frame the high clouds lighten the sky a bit which has the effect of lightening the water saturated mud flats a bit. Not quite enough for my taste so a bit of dodging is necessary in the print. But, it does help. If the high clouds weren't there I would have used only the polarizer. I want some contrast but DO NOT want to lose the posts in the mud flats. If all you do is throw on filters (because whoever told you that is what you do) you get some nasty surprises. One sure way to tell what they will do is to shoot the scene with them and do a direct comparison. Try a yellow, orange, red, blue or whatever-side by side and look carefully at your proof sheets. Then, try printing them. It will tell you a lot more than photographing color charts. Knowing what your materials will do is part of being good at what you do. If you can't control them or predict what they will do you are guessing and good results are luck and work directly against your talent. Learn the materials. You may not always get great results but you will get a lot fewer lousy results.

Anyhow, this negative looks as if it will print well. It is clean, no vapor trails and only one hawk captured in the distance I have to spot out(looks like a small, wide speck) if I want. The contrast is good and the layer of fog in front of the Hogups adds to the view for me. In another few months when the water rises a bit and floods over the tire tracks I will shoot it again(if possible) and see how I do. But, if something comes up and I can't do it at least I have a workable image now. I see that as one of the great benefits of shooting relatively near home. The ability to go back to really good areas often. The ability to plan on when you can go without a major trek as part of the process. Now if I were only more creative I would probably get more good images this way. A big factor in returning later is knowing where the sun will be in the future. The lighting angles will change a lot and the photo will be different as a result. When I come back for this one it will be later in the year, earlier in the day and preferrably as another storm is moving in to keep the sky clean and with the high clouds. Either that or with really good storm clouds and possibly lightening in the distance. One can always hope.

Next I changed lenses and moved the view a touch to the right(tripod still in the same location. I did this specificaly to get the cliff area in the photograph. I went to the 300 lens and shot in 4x5. I wanted the cliff to emphasize elevation. I used both the polarizer and the red filter to pop the contrast a lot. I wanted a more dramatic look to this one and got it. This also means I will have to dodge the mud area in the prints a bit more, but I do have the black skies at the top. When I work with this one a bit I will probably burn in the cumulus clouds in the upper left corner so they are not visible at all. They are distracting to me even though they were there. (Photogs decision-it is my print) This print has also been cropped just a bit in the darkroom to get what I want. When you look at it in comparison to the next one contact printed full frame you can see more of the view from where I was.

So, on to the next print. 5x7 format and full frame. Same filters, different film(Tmax400), different lens. A bit different rendition of the mud flats(and a touch of light leak at the bottom edges of the film-better check that out). I switched here to the 150 Apo Sironar. Tack sharp, very clean and it renders the out of focus areas very nicely. It is an excellent lens and with 5x7 is a mild wide angle view. This image shows the cliffs to better advantage as they rise from the lake. It also shows the idiot tracks a lot more, causing me to think even harder about placement. I could have moved but due to the cliff edges could not get the same view. I guess I could have built a scaffold but forgot my hammer & nails too. So, I shot. The tire tracks that curve into the center from the left just below the middle of the image(L side) do work well. But this is another image I will try to do when the lake is higher.

When shooting areas that change, such as this one with the lake level, re-doing them from the same angle adds value to the images for historical and documentary use. Known landmarks and activities help in this regard. A few hundred yards to the North is a famous view of the transcontinental railroad steam engine with a wagon train passing by shot in the 1800's that is not a classic image, a poster and post card and is in a lot of history books and encyclopedias. You never know the real value if your images at the time. Savage, Jackson and the others never really knew how valuable their images were to be, but I bet they sure had some good times taking them in spite of the difficulties. So, when shooting images, I often shoot for the record as well as for the esthetic image. I sell both and I keep both.

If I leave you with anything this month I hope it is the sense that locations can provide a lot more than one view. Light changes. Seasons change. "Progress" changes it all. If you are in an area and your mind does what mine does at times-absolutely nothing: don't shoot. Just sit & watch & wonder. Take a nap. Eat a sandwich. Maybe some inspiration will come and maybe not. But don't be afraid to either put down the camera & relax or to shoot like heck if you feel like it. I know when you travel to a location you want to shoot & get great results. But unless you are being paid to produce, you don't always have to shoot if you don't really feel like it. Just noting what is there and planning to return is, at times, the best thing to do. With this series of images we were just lucky the whole area was not covered in ground fog. The area to the east was. So, part of a good image is luck. But luck sure does favor those who are prepared, actually go out to shoot and know how to use their materials. If you work at it you get lucky a lot more often than those who don't.

When you go somewhere to photograph, really look at the area. When you concentrate on something remember to turn around and look the other way. At times this will get you a better shot than what you were concentrating on. This is one simple way to maximize your vision and improve your results and have more fun while doing it.

Dan Smith shooter@brigham.net