James Ravilious Photography 'Look'

[Dave Blackham]

Im interested in the look that James Ravilious http://www.jamesravilious.com/ created with his photography. It has a very immediate and organic feel to me particularly with his chosen subject. It seems he shot in to the light for many of his photographs and used older Leica lenses, some uncoated, its said he didn't care for the newer ultra sharp glass. He used a homemade lens hood to reduce flair from card board and tape. Also he used a very light yellow 0 filter as the photographs are black and white. I dont know what effect film stock played in this but the whole image seems to have an extended tonal range.

My question is, is it possible to reproduce the look but in colour. Im not sure what sort of filter would be suitable to use instead of the yellow filter he used. My reading of it is the yellow filter reduced the high end blue and UV. Any suggestions here would be welcome.

Here's some links about what was said to have been used.

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00O7w9

http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg253668.html

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1464-4258/8/5/006

 

[Philippe Van Horebeek]

I understand that he likes to use the glare of uncoated lenses. The yellow filter in this is used to absorb the blue light, so the panchromatic films 'sees' a little bit more like the human eye. It changes the overall impression of brightness in the picture. You get darker skies, but also darker details in the shadows who where affected by the blue light from the sky. E.g. green grass won't change. Orange flowers, a yellow wall ..... with no share in blue light will not loose anything in brightness and therefore will look like clarified in relationship to other colors who are translated in darker greys.
So the filter is all about the overall balance of brightness.

However, you need to adapt in the development if you want to extend the tonal range. Therefore it is best to use a more diluted developer. It will increase the development time drastically so the silver halide crystals in the less exposed areas (the darks) have more time to develop to details.
There is of course a disadvantage or a restriction to the length of development because you also raise Dmin (basic veil).

Stretching the tonal range the same way in color isn't possible I think, unless you do that in post. E.g. with digital RAW photo's.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, you could simply buy the older lenses and try to replicate his process as best you could for video but I think the results can't be matched entirely due to the natural technical differences in still versus video. However, you could get dang close and the lenses would be where I would start. Don't forget, post solutions might be able to help emulate this as well (ie. Tiffen Dfx, Magic Bullet, etc.)

Although, to be fair, I'm not really sure I see what's so special with James' photographs on that technical level. I'd be in the camp that thinks you could get similar results with modern lenses and then get that "look" in post. Looking in his gallery at the picture with all the people standing in the room, that looks like it could easily be emulated just by lighting techniques alone. If I read correctly, the problem you will have when trying to emulate this on video is when you try to emulate his use of natural light elements. Cameras demand different things when it comes to stills and video and natural light photography hasn't really been as strong in film and video as it has been in still photography. I would say though that your best bet is a video DSLR, as of this moment the GH1 which would be the only fully Leica-compatible 24p camera, which offer much better light sensitivity than a RED One and could be better suited to emulating this particular style. Of course the big problem is that the Epic and Scarlet are on the way so you may actually have better luck with them.

Let's not forget though that you could always emulate the style but not necessarily using the same equipment. Who's to say that you couldn't emulate this with a Canon video DSLR and a Canon or Nikon 35mm prime or a rare Contax Canon-converted 17-35 zoom?

See, I'm not really into the whole nitty-gritty this-is-good-this-is-bad technical details when it comes to lenses. People say Nikon's 35mm 1.4 prime is a terribly soft lens but when I took a look it seemed very sharp especially compared to my DX zooms. It's like, what are they basing this on? I've read so many reviews about various lenses and I come to find the same thing when I check them out for myself, a lens will look terrible in Vimeo or Youtube tests but looks really nice in person, and it gets to the point where you ask "How good does it have to be?", "What is so bad about this lens again?", "I could see that it would be a problem if you were zoomed in 100% but the pictures definitely do speak for themselves", it's just silly you know?

Ultimately, I think that's one of the issues you'll be facing when trying to emulate James' work, he is using older lenses but only because they look good to him, nobody said you couldn't soften and take the edge off of a modern sharp lens in post, but that's just something James' has chosen to do with his photography.

 

[Bill Anderson]

There's nothing here that can't be done with modern optics or
digital acquisition. Remember, when you're shooting digital, for black and White,
you have 3 color channels to work with. A ton of information
and post malleability. Still, it helps to start off with something
in the ballpark. A yellow filter won't have much effect when shooting
into the sun (at this altitude) it will have a subtle effect on shadow
quality, and it also adds another piece of glass to further move
the optics in this desired direction. Some photographers preferred
using "portrait lenses" to impart a certain "luminosity" to landscape
work, but that all seems a bit quaint these days, just like most
of the effects of platinum or palladium printing. And keep in mind
darkroom procedures: types of paper and developers
( something like a Metol - Ansco- Selectol Soft- or better yet, AMIDOL recipes).
And these papers that are no longer available for the most part.
Then there is the quality of light on the Island, and in Devon itself.
You might be a little more hard pressed to emulate this if you live
and work at 6000ft in the Rockies. The work itself is fairly ordinary,
and its quality not too unique.

 

[Philippe Van Horebeek]

Since this is an off topic thread : Do you like to get these results on film or with digital acquisition (photo/video) ?

Without judging his work, I can say that it is impossible to judge the quality of prints on the web. You simply cannot reproduce the quality of prints for web publication. I'm sure that the richness in tonal display (eg in the shadows) will be far greater then we can see here, certainly in the case of prints on fibre-based paper with a baryta coating. It is a science and an art to get this.
That isn't even near as exposing to a histogram, making few mousse clicks and saying : let's make that "look" in post.

But I agree that a lot can be done with digital acquisition, where you can stretch the tonal range in post (if you made a correct exposure).

 

[Dave Blackham]

Since this is an off topic thread : Do you like to get these results on film or with digital acquisition (photo/video) ?

Without judging his work, I can say that it is impossible to judge the quality of prints on the web. You simply cannot reproduce the quality of prints for web publication. I'm sure that the richness in tonal display (eg in the shadows) will be far greater then we can see here, certainly in the case of prints on fibre-based paper with a baryta coating. It is a science and an art to get this.
That isn't even near as exposing to a histogram, making few mousse clicks and saying : let's make that "look" in post.

But I agree that a lot can be done with digital acquisition, where you can stretch the tonal range in post (if you made a correct exposure).

I had hoped it possible to shoot with Red or perhaps an alternative camera, a 5D perhaps. We have a good deal of post kit here so can emulate all sorts of looks and increase the contrast but I think its best to get as near as possible with suitable lenses and other techniques first that may not be replicable in post. I've got a few Leica lenses not as old as the ones used but they do have a similar organic feel to them. One aspect that Im unsure about is is use use of the yellow filter that said to be used, as most people use yellow filters in Black and white photography to reduce blue as the film stock is more sensitive to blue. It seems to cut haze significantly and I wondered if a haze 2 or perhaps a strong UV filter would help in this respect.

 

[D Fuller]

I had hoped it possible to shoot with Red or perhaps an alternative camera, a 5D perhaps. We have a good deal of post kit here so can emulate all sorts of looks and increase the contrast but I think its best to get as near as possible with suitable lenses and other techniques first that may not be replicable in post. I've got a few Leica lenses not as old as the ones used but they do have a similar organic feel to them. One aspect that Im unsure about is is use use of the yellow filter that said to be used, as most people use yellow filters in Black and white photography to reduce blue as the film stock is more sensitive to blue. It seems to cut haze significantly and I wondered if a haze 2 or perhaps a strong UV filter would help in this respect.

A haze or UV filter will help to cut the haze a polarizer may also be worth trying for that, but that's not the primary work of the yellow filter in B&W photography.

The yellow filter is doing something considerably different in B&W. It's increasing the contrast in a way that's different than just an overall contrast shift. It's lightening greens and yellows a bit and darkening blue a bit, which has the effect of making grass and trees more luminous, golden grains and grasses more luminous still, and skies more dramatic. You can see the effect in Photoshop using the channel mixer, outputting to monochrome. There's no simple filter that will mimic this in color; it will take a fair amount of delicate grading, spending a lot of time with secondaries, to get to a similar feel.

The other thing that characterizes this work in a technical sense is a very long, shallow slope at the bottom of the tone curve. That produces rich but detailed blacks, and the resulting steep-ish midrange curve separates the dark tones from from the more luminous ones -- especially in the greens and yellows that would be present in his landscape. Again, this would require a really careful grade, but it's certainly do-able.

It will be much easier to achieve this sort of feel with a subject that has a limited color palette .

 

[Philippe Van Horebeek]

Yep, a haze 2a filter would do the job very nice , it has also a very light yellow color (which would compensate for the sensor's less sensitivity for blue). I think you're right to get as near as possible with the right lenses before post.
If you would use a Canon 5D, then the following link could maybe of interest to you

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_db.html

 

[Dave Blackham]

Hi Guys, thanks for the interest and advice. Im going to use a haze 2A and Leica Summilux lens for starters possibly with a pola and then attempt to create a look in post which David refers to stretch the shadow tonal range creating a more luminous feel. I realise a Summilux is not an older lens persay but is what we have available right now. Ill let you know how I get on.

Dave