Is Ansel Adams over-rated?

John King · Mar 18, 2008

Hi again 5

55 Terapixels said:
You're almost right to call me 5. I set my name to be 5.5 terapixels,
not 55. I have no idea why the dot dropped because I see some other
people with the dot. Like Mr. Canon or something.

Anyway, I get you and I don't mind.

The "Wheels of the Gods ... " and all that. Who knows why some of these things happen. I had a post where the Unix parser decided that my punctuation was a de-limit character, and left the tail-end off the title ... It completely changed the meaning of my post, and I won't make the same mistake again ;-]] !

Anyway, in Oz we constantly use names in some play on words (red headed blokes are ALWAYS called 'Bluey'; but red-headed girls {aka 'sheilas'} are not called 'Bluey'. Blue Heeler cattle dogs are blue coloured and are therefore distinguished from Red Heelers, which have a red coloured coat; same breed, different coat colours ... doh). Contractions are the order of the day.

So Aussiegirl88 becomes "Girl88"; and John becomes "you b@st@rd", or some such, depending on who you are talking to ... lol.

So I "borrowed" 'Hi 5' from the sporting "salute" - "high five". No offence meant, just playfulness.

I hope my post to you was helpful, rather than mean. I did not intend it to be mean; but it was rather late, and I had had a bugger of a day. On re-reading it, I was a bit harsh, and apologise for that. If you take it in the context of all the other things I have said on this thread, it is not so harsh, but just some well-meant advice.

The main difference between our species and Neanderthal man is that we decorate everything. Neanderthals lived side by side with us in the same communities for nearly 170,000 years. They made the most exquisite tools, toys for their children, weapons - and never decorated any of them.

So it appears that it is our art that truly sets us apart as a species. When I see someone denigrating art, in any of its many forms, it upsets me because that way lies a descent to our most brutal natures.

It is not merely an expression of likes and dislikes; these are our "moral duty", as they indicate that we have considered and chosen, based on informed opinion and discrimination. There is a subtle, but very important difference between these two things - one is an exercise of our higher functions, the other a debasement of them.

It is sometimes hard to differentiate between the two, but putting someone down in order to bolster one's own standing or feelings of self-esteem is generally a pretty good indicator, IMHO. One should stand on one's own merits, not those of others ...

Sorry about the lecture; I just can't help myself at times ...

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Bird Control Officers on active service.

The Davinator · Mar 19, 2008

You'll find out very quick that Scott Eaton doesn't check facts. He is right, no matter what comes up later in the thread.

Chato · Mar 19, 2008

Dezafinado said:
You "respect" his accomplishment but don't understand why? That's a
leap of logic!

He's not God after all...

He only photographed the stuff that someone else made...

Dezafinado said:
You really need to work with film, large format cameras, spend time
in the darkroom and hike around Yosemite a few days just to get an
idea. Even today, you'll often see large format photographers around
Yosemite attempting to do what Adams did.

Each year when I renew my bond, I have a treat coming. The office of these people has a dozen pieces by Adams. All well framed, all quite large. So I sit down there and wait my turn and I'm transplanted to other worlds and times.

You bet, short of comparing him to God, he's not over rated. His work holds up today against anyone.

Of course much of my reaction is "taste." Sorry about that. But I print for others as well as print for myself. You bet, his work improves the larger you make it. That's odd isn't it? But it's true.

Dave

Dezafinado said:
Not to nitpick but the Model-T was never a state-of-the-art machine
when you compare it with cars made by European make of the day. It's
the assembly line that made the car iconic... lower cost, faster mass
production.

snow4ever said:

Jogger said:

I can respect his accomplishments.. but, it seems like hes the
defacto standard that people compare to. People like to "drop" his
name on issues such as whether equipment matters.

For instance, the Ford Model T was ground breaking for its day...
state of the art.. but, are people comparing today's cars with the
Model T? Standards have risen, people have accepted that in every
field.

So, ppl, stop comparing yourself to Ansel Adams.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JensR · Mar 19, 2008

Hi John!

John King said:
John King said:

I just don't see anything here. ... All I see is a slightly tilted, messy,

uninteresting landscape, some bright clouds and a moon. Umm. So. What
am I missing?

Click to expand...

Jens, what you are missing is the exactly the point I am trying to
make. EVEN in my "coffee table book" (I don't think Little, Brown
would like to hear their book described this way ... ), this print
just "pops", to use the current argot. It is a tour de force of
exposure, timing, composition, resolution and capture.

As I tried to say: I do not see great composition here. Exposure? May or may not be good. The various digital samples I have seen range from black shadows to white highlights, so I am willing to believe that the original is perfect here. A great post-processing and printing achievement beyond shooting a. Timing? Even with a slow view camera as he used, a rising moon does not strike me as hard to capture. This shot taken 5min earlier or 5min later would have looked the same. Resolution? I do not care much about it - beyond a certain threshold, I consider it a technical merit mostly, with little artistic meaning. Capture? For me this is the sum of the other things (and maybe one or two more) that you mentioned.

John King said:
The processing
and printing are just further sublime examples of a master craftsman
at work.

I think I can appreciate his skills in these fields.

John King said:
The image on the web site is the largest I could find and is
a whole 191 KB!!!

As I said, I think an iconic image would touch me at this small size, too. I'm beginning to realise that I am looking for things in photos that Mr. Adams wasn't looking for. Just as I mostly don't "get" Hendrix or Monet, I don't "get" Adams.

John King said:
John King said:

I think you underestimate the worshipping that Mr. Adams receives.
HCB is a distant second and third place is so far away it doesn't
matter. That's my own guesstimation, of course.

Click to expand...

I can think of lots who come before both. Quite a few are nameless,
we only have the results taken in the 1850s - 1900s in particular.

Oh. I am talking about the worshipping, not the quality. Mr. Adams and to a lesser degree Mr. Besson are icons and criticism of their work is almost impossible without getting accused of having no idea and possibley getting insulted further. I guess posting the same post with one of the other names you used would hardly generate the massive uproar.

But maybe I misunderstood you: If you think that other photographers are worshipped more than Mr. Adams and Mr. Besson, I'd honestly be interested in their names.

John King said:
Of course you are right. I merely suggest this as a catholic,
encyclopaedic, once-over-lightly of the history of our craft and art.

Ah, okay. It is a good idea to have an overview, but...

John King said:
Like all education, whether as a photographer or as a brain surgeon,
the completion of the formal training is the beginning of the "real"
training ...

...I see a slight risk for a beginner to see those "selected" images and think that they are a guideline. Which they shouldn't be, IMO.

John King said:
The "hostility" is expressed in the original post, and was
calculated to raise the ire

Hm. I think you might be right. Initially, it didn't strike me as particularly hostile, but if I try to see it from the perspective of an Adams appreciator, I guess I can see it.

John King said:
John King said:

Sadly, lots of the pro-Adams replies read either as uneducated as the
Adams-sceptics are told they are or as if desperately trying to sound
educated...

Click to expand...

Come on, Jens. Please don't exercise your mind by jumping to
conclusions - it is un-becoming ...

Some of the pro-Adams replies read like copies of other replies, with little personal "flesh" around the "but the prints...". Some people here are leaping to conclusions concerning Jogger's state of mind, state of photography and other things. Maybe I did let myselg get caught in that. Sorry.

John King said:
I do not know many people, or value the opinion of those people, who
unquestioningly accept anything. But an essential part of this
equation is that one must take the trouble to form an informed
opinion, preferably before shooting off one's mouth ... I believe
Ambrose Bierce defined "Positive" as "Mistaken, at the top of one's
voice".

hehe# Good quote indeed.

John King said:
John King said:

I usually can decide whether I like a shot from a small sample:
Composition, subject matter, structure, light. I do not need RAW or
large prints for that.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Jens, you are wrong about this - absolutely. In order to
properly appreciate anything, from a child's sand castle to the
greatest work of art you can think of, it is necessary to actually
experience it as the creator intended it to be experienced. Anything
else is a mere shade, illusion or delusion. That is, you are fooling
yourself - generically speaking.

I can understand your reasoning, but if Mr. Adams art is his photos, his photos should touch me even as online samples. (A few of them do, BTW.) There are many photos that make me go "wow" in smaller sizes and poorer resolution than the sample you posted, so it is possible.

If, however, his art is his prints, well, then I'll probably never love it: For me, a great print has to be printed from a great photo. And as I do not like most of his stuff, he'll never be the iconic untouchable photographer for me that he is for others.

Still, in closing this post a bit more mellowly, he did a lot of good for Conservation, recognition of photography, education and refinement of technique. Thanks to his and other pioneers' work, "we" were able to improve.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

Mark Smith145430 · Mar 19, 2008

JensR said:
a. Timing? Even with a slow view
camera as he used, a rising moon does not strike me as hard to
capture. This shot taken 5min earlier or 5min later would have looked
the same.

Here is the story behind the photograph:
http://www.anseladams.com/content/ansel_info/ansel_ancedotes.html

Quote

" I struggled to change components on my Cooke Triple-Convertible lens. I had a clear visualization of the image I wanted, but when the Wratten No. 15 (G) filter and the film holder were in place, I could not find my Weston exposure meter! The situation was desperate: the low sun was trailing the edge of the clouds in the west, and shadow would soon dim the white crosses.

I was at a loss with the subject luminance values, and I confess I was thinking about bracketing several exposures, when I suddenly realized that I knew the luminance of the moon – 250 c/ft2. Using the Exposure Formula, I placed this luminance on Zone VII; 60 c/ft2 therefore fell on Zone V, and the exposure with the filter factor o 3x was about 1 second at f/32 with ASA 64 film. I had no idea what the value of the foreground was, but I hoped it barely fell within the exposure scale. Not wanting to take chances, I indicated a water-bath development for the negative.

Realizing as I released the shutter that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a duplicate negative, I swiftly reversed the film holder, but as I pulled the darkslide the sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late!”

So he did it in one take with a guessed exposure, with no time to make a duplicate "safety' negative.

If you love photography you owe it to yourself to see this shot as the artist intended, it is breathtaking. I have always thought that landscape photographers were lazy or just creating 'postcards' But when I first saw Ansels work 'the clearing of the winter storm' I must confess I felt shattered, almost cried- it's that perfect.

I was a 19 year old just starting out in my career, and to see the high watermark of his work was awe inspiring.

I don't like landscapes much, prefer the work of Brassaï of Kertesz and Cartier-Bresson later Arbus and Szarkowski

Adams deserves to be respected, even if you don't 'see it' and looking at 200kb we pngs is no substitute for 4 feet wide prints, you wouldn't judge a Canaletto from a postcard- they made them big for a reason.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

JensR · Mar 19, 2008

Hi Mark!

Mark Smith145430 said:
Here is the story behind the photograph:

Thanks. What does this add to the photo, though?

My initial assessment that the shot would have worked 5minutes later, too - was seemingly wrong. What about 5min earlier? With correct equipment and preparation? };->

Mark Smith145430 said:
If you love photography you owe it to yourself to see this shot as
the artist intended, it is breathtaking.

Does the landscape suddenly become untilted and unmessy?

Mark Smith145430 said:
I have always thought that
landscape photographers were lazy or just creating 'postcards' But
when I first saw Ansels work 'the clearing of the winter storm' I
must confess I felt shattered, almost cried- it's that perfect.

Wow. And I thought I'm emotional. For me, it is a "good" shot, nothing shattering. #shrugs# But to each his/her own.

Mark Smith145430 said:
Adams deserves to be respected,

As every human being who lives a rightful life.

Mark Smith145430 said:
even if you don't 'see it' and
looking at 200kb we pngs is no substitute for 4 feet wide prints, you
wouldn't judge a Canaletto from a postcard-

Trust me, I would. I'm evil. And stubborn. I'm a bad combination

Mark Smith145430 said:
they made them big for a reason.

So the "size matters" people would buy it? Sorry, could not resist

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

Ed Leys20479 · Mar 19, 2008

John King said:
Jens, what you are missing is the exactly the point I am trying to
make. EVEN in my "coffee table book" (I don't think Little, Brown
would like to hear their book described this way ... ), this print
just "pops", to use the current argot. It is a tour de force of
exposure, timing, composition, resolution and capture. The processing
and printing are just further sublime examples of a master craftsman
at work. The image on the web site is the largest I could find and is
a whole 191 KB!!!

John,

This one is no larger, but it does show a bit more of the detail:

http://masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_moonrise_full.html

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

Mark Smith145430 · Mar 19, 2008

Hi Jens

JensR said:
Thanks. What does this add to the photo, though?
My initial assessment that the shot would have worked 5minutes later,
too - was seemingly wrong. What about 5min earlier? With correct
equipment and preparation? };->

Well isn't that the thing about photography? a captured moment in time, recognizing that time, the light and composition that may only ever happen once.

In this case 5 mins either way and the image would go from extraordinary to just ordinary- the image will never re-occur, he saw it from his car, and captured it just in time

I have a friend who is a well known landscaper. He drove 300 miles to take an image, lived out of his camper for nearly a week before he recorded an image he liked (it rained for two days) at 5 in the morning!

JensR said:
JensR said:

If you love photography you owe it to yourself to see this shot as
the artist intended, it is breathtaking.

Click to expand...

Does the landscape suddenly become untilted and unmessy?

well, Jens lets just say its becomes almost 3 dimensional.

JensR said:
Wow. And I thought I'm emotional. For me, it is a "good" shot,
nothing shattering. #shrugs# But to each his/her own.

Isn't that the thing about art? no two people feel the same about any image, emotion can be brought about by simple things, smell of your first loves perfume, the sound of the first LP you bought, your favourite wine etc

I can honestly say emotion doesn't cover the first time I saw the perfect image, 3D translucent; believable, and thats something for a B&W image which is pretty far from reality

JensR said:
JensR said:

Adams deserves to be respected,

Click to expand...

As every human being who lives a rightful life.

Of course a talented nice guy will often be derided, not just by those who don't 'get it' which is fine, but by the more jealous and divisive who do 'get it' but rubbish it for inverse snobbery.

You know the 'I could do that with a $50 P&S' crowd, belittling something that others find great just for effect.

JensR said:
Trust me, I would. I'm evil. And stubborn. I'm a bad combination

LOL

OK instead of eating good food cut out the cardboard image from a box, serve it up it tastes just as good, wine just use coloured water

JensR said:
JensR said:

they made them big for a reason.

Click to expand...

So the "size matters" people would buy it? Sorry, could not resist

Yes indeed, if you have ever been to an art gallery and seen a work you admire for the first time? It can be interesting as regards to 'size matters'

I always loved the Van Gogh works he did in Arles when I first saw the images I imagined from the little Taschen postcards to my surprise the were 40" wide! and the colours were better that I'd imagined.

I do honestly think my own 20" prints look better than the 4" proofs but then that could be a personal thing.
Mark

JensR said:
--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom
rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Kendunn · Mar 19, 2008

The web just does not do it justice. The print is unbelieveable. The light dancing off everything was amazing. The web image was garbage, I agree.

David Mazeau · Mar 19, 2008

John King said:
Just one other little thing that makes Adams great is his
DEDICATION to his craft. He thought nothing of lugging 50 Kgs of
equipment and plates up the side of a mountain to get his photo - not
once, but as many times as it took for him to get it "right". Are you
as dedicated as that? I'm bloody sure I'm not !! I wish I were, but
I am not.

" DEDICATION to his craft " ... has nothing to with anything. All that matters is bringing home the bacon, it terms of an image that moves the human spirit.

The image you have there, the famous one, it's fine ... no problem, a good image. It moves the human spirit. But others could get lucky and get an image just as moving... with very little effort.

The problem isn't Ansel, it's that photography is, to some great extent or another, a mechanical process.

Search

Is Ansel Adams over-rated?

John King

Forum Pro

The Davinator

Forum Pro

Chato

Forum Pro

JensR

Forum Pro

Mark Smith145430

Veteran Member

JensR

Forum Pro

Ed Leys20479

Senior Member

Mark Smith145430

Veteran Member

Kendunn

Leading Member

David Mazeau

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts