136 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

From the original article: " He then presented these images in color in slide lectures using a light-projection system [right] involving the same three filters."

He not only got to see it, he showed it to several others.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

you are right. but could they make prints from that?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

He did not make color prints from it. Only could view with 3 projector system.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I use neutral density filters a lot and don't see this effect. It *is* a registration error. Go here:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html

The key is the portion that reads, "A single, narrow glass plate about 3 inches wide by 9 inches long was placed vertically into the camera by Prokudin-Gorskii . He then photographed the same scene three times in a fairly rapid sequence using a red filter, a green filter and a blue filter. "

That "fairly rapid sequence" might have been fast, but in the time needed to switch from the red, to the green, to the blue filters, the water will have moved enough so that it is now impossible to get the separate images to line up perfectly. Bang! A chromatic aberration caused by registration errors.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@crossmr

you are talking about something completely different, thus making you appear foolish.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Still haven't figured out how to play well with others, eh Crossmr? The first step is learning to be nice. The second step is learning how to communicate. That includes listening ... or in this case, reading. Cfuse was talking about this picture:

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p12_00003966.jpg

Don't you agree the "registration errors" he mentioned make the water look "particularly trippy"?

Now just so you know, a neutral density filter doesn't create the effect you think it does with water. A neutral density filter allows a photographer to use a larger aperture, which has a subtle effect on the way light falls across film or an imaging sensor. This gives some photos the appearance of richer colors with greater contrast ... I really like the look I get from my filters, especially in video. But that misty, streaky look you're seeing in water doesn't come from any filter at all ... it's the result of long exposure times. The same effect at night gives streaky head and tail lights on cars, and for daylight photos, the effect simply looks better if you use a filter.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Yes. The result of long exposure time coming from using Neutral density filters to greatly reduce the amount of light getting into the camera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter

A neutral density filter has no effect on the richness of colors or contrast. It modifies all light equally unless you're using a graduated or split filter (often used with sunsets if you have a nice clean horizon to work with).

Now you might want to look at the first water picture I posted and note that it doesn't look anything like the rest of them. It has no trippy colors in it. The first picture looks much like a photo of any running water taken with a strong neutral density filter which smooths out the water over the long exposure. In bright daylight you cannot naturally slow down the shutter speed enough to create that kind of smoothing or effect without those filters. If you do, you'll significantly overexpose the image. The filter doesn't create the streaks, it allows you to use the camera to create them.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Why don't you read the whole article and understand how the images where made?
I think it's cool. You can use the "registration errors" to see what moved while the 3 images where taken. Check out which kids couldn't stay sill in #27. With that info you can get motion out if it. A little 3 frame movie from 100 years ago.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"A neutral density filter has no effect on the richness of colors or contrast. "

I said a neutral density filter gives some photos "the *appearance* of richer colors with greater contrast". The word "appearance" was used as a qualifier. I was attempting to describe the effect in conversational terms.

"The first picture looks much like a photo of any running water taken with a strong neutral density filter which smooths out the water over the long exposure."

The neutral density filter does *not* smooth out the water. That is purely a function of a long exposure time. An NDF makes it easier to get pleasing results out of that long exposure in strong daylight, but you can get away without one on overcast days, at twilight and sunset, with slow exposure film (which is probably what these Russian photos used), and with lower aperture settings.

"In bright daylight you cannot naturally slow down the shutter speed enough to create that kind of smoothing or effect without those filters. If you do, you'll significantly overexpose the image. "

Yes you can ... depending on the speed of the film. Slow film takes longer to expose and usually gives clearer, less grainy images. As I said above, that's almost certainly what the Russian photographer used. Neutral density filters really didn't start to come into use until after WWII as film speeds rapidly started to improve.

I take it you now see what Cfuse was talking about?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I never said the russian photographer was using a neutral density filter, I said the effect of combining 3 images in the first water image gave a similar appearance to what would happen if you used one.

As I've also repeatedly said, yes a neutral density filter doesn't smooth out the water itself, it just allows you to slow it down and do it in situations that might not otherwise allow it.

Jesus try to keep up.

Yes in the other images there are issues, but not chromatic abberation. This is ghosting caused by combining multiple images that is manifesting itself to look like that.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"As I've also repeatedly said, yes a neutral density filter doesn't smooth out the water itself, it just allows you to slow it down and do it in situations that might not otherwise allow it."

Isn't at all supported by:

"It's not a registration error. It comes from a long exposure. You can create the same effect from using a neutral density filter on your modern camera. "

"It [a neutral density filter] causes water to flatten out, just like it did in that picture."

"Taking 3 pictures over time would mimic a neutral density filter."

"The first picture looks much like a photo of any running water taken with a strong neutral density filter which smooths out the water over the long exposure."

All of which you said in this very thread. Now you're claiming what you said means the very opposite of what you've written? How can *anyone* keep up with that? You're making up contradictory things as you go, apparently because you just can't accept the possibility that you were flat-out WRONG when you claimed to Cfuse that the trippy colors weren't a registration error, but the result of a neutral density filter. A double mistake on your part because you thought he was referring to a different image (a minor misunderstanding) AND you claimed an NDF could create the same effect as a long exposure. You really did say it -- let me repeat it for you once more: "It's not a registration error. It comes from a long exposure. You can create the same effect from using a neutral density filter on your modern camera." You said the effect comes FROM using a neutral density filter! I might grant you the slim possibility that maybe you meant to say the effect comes from a long exposure *while* using a neutral density filter, but that's technically wrong, too because you really don't need an NDF with a small enough aperture and slow enough film. Honestly, you come across as someone who tries to sound wikipedia-knowledgeable about something with no personal experience with the techniques or tools you're discussing.

Oh, and that's very much a chromatic aberration. The difference is that it's not introduced by a lens system in this case, but by a process that fringes objects that move, as X2arden points out. Chromatic aberration *usually* occurs when a lens system improperly breaks white light down and allows component wavelengths (colors) to spill around the edges of shapes. In this case, the separate images are monochromatic, but represent component colors and a time difference between each image allows moving objects to break down into component colors where they don't register (overlap) properly. It's a highly unusual case that isn't discussed often in photography because that's not how we make color photographs anymore.

Just think about the etymology of the words "chromatic" and "aberration" and you'll see why that's exactly the right phrase to describe the effect. Can you think of a better one? If you can, I'll happily use it and concede the point, but I don't think there's one. Chromatic motion blur? No, the individual elements don't really cause a blur. Three-color temporal instability? I'm just making these up, but I'm sure you know the right description for the chromatic aberration -- let's hear it, Wikiboy!

• Reply