Am I the only one not impressed with Ansel Adams?

Hello all,

Ansel supports DPReview and the 'photographers' who endlessly and pointlessly search for the slightly 'better' camera. Because what we see of his output now is the dramatic, intensely detailed landscape.

Ansel used his imagination as well, look at his pic, 'The black sun' and you will see why.

He was at the forefront of photo technology at the time, if he couldn't buy what he needed he made it himself. Had he been about now he would have embraced Photoshop, worked closely with Adobe to make it better and in 1994 when Layers were introduced gone heavily into photo montage and said, "The file is the score and the edit the performance".

Here's one of mine;

From my upcoming photo book, "Everyman"

Cheers

Sometimes it is good to question, to think critically of what is offered.  With Ansel Adams there is a great depth to his story.  In 1930 when Group f64 was formed, they set a new standard for the photographic image.  His work has great historical value.

Then, to examine his prints, they are beautifully composed.  There is a slightly relaxed crop without extraneous objects.  Many of the images are mesmerizing in their calm beauty.  Most have clear lines of direction and focal points.  There is mastery of dynamic range in exposure and development with the black and white image.  Print quality exhibits strong black and whites with a dense richness of midtones.

On a personal level he spent a good portion of his life active in preservation and conservation.  He was an outstanding teacher of photography and a fine musician.  People wanted to be near him.

Further, the photographic and art community recognizes the value of his work, placing great value on his photographs.

With a modern eye, his conceptualization may not seem fresh.  But with an understanding of his stature and image quality he stands head and shoulders above us.

I'll try to add some context to the work of Ansel Adams, and hopefully you'll see it in a different light.

Ansel Adams was who opened my eyes to the possibilities of B&W film photography back in those misty days before digital. And for that I will be forever grateful.

First a caution when viewing the images. A computer screen has a fixed grid of pixels, it's impossible to show any resolution on a screen apart from the resolution of the screen. If you want to understand Adams work you really *must* see the original prints.

Adams was a master of his craft. He fussed over detail and precision in his presentation. But this is not to be confused, (as many do), with an obsession with detail in the image. In his book his teachings are towards visualisation and precise control of the *process* to achieve an *expressive* print.

A well presented wet print from a large format negative with a rich tonal range is a thing of beauty in itself, and something that can never be seen or appreciated on a computer screen. It can only be seen in print because only in print do you get the details and gradations of tone that are sometimes beyond the resolution of the eye, (a screen can never reach this point). This brings them much closer visually to the detail and gradation of tone you see in the real world and lends a large format print a range of texture you feel you can almost touch.

Like Edward Weston and Paul Strand, Adams was of an era that was developing and exploring the visual possibilities of photography when the emulsions and equipment available, when used with care, were capable of results many still find difficult to achieve today. If you like he showed the way and what was possible.

Now unlike the more modern *look at me* generation Adams was not interested in promoting himself as in *look how good my photographs are*, but was far more committed to show the general public how grand the natural world was. Something he devoted his life to in trying to preserve.

If you take "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite", or Tunnel View, he showed an expression of nature in a photograph that was only seen in paintings before. It was fresh and new, it showed the creative and expressive possibilities of landscape photography.

Today there are so many thousands of copies that the whole scene has been completely ossified, much like the *Instagram effect* photographers flock there to copy it.

Now with modern digital technology a lot of these images have a wow factor and instant grab that completely overshadow Adams when both are viewed on a computer screen. But, most of these copies are instantly forgotten whereas Adams' prints still command high prices. That alone shows a significant proportion value his work, and some of that value is tied to their historical and cultural significance. And anybody read in that history instantly recognises Adams' original when they view the copies.  

Just to pick a one of my favourites from "Yosemite and the Range of Light", "Tenya Creek, Dogwood, Rain, Yosemite Valley". It was shot on a dull rainy day and yet shows a range of tone and texture that is quite beautiful. The light on the dogwood blossoms are not only the subject but frame the image, and together with the variations of tonality on the different leaves create a real impression of quiet peace. One in which I can almost hear the sound of the stream running through. In short when looking at it I can imagine both myself being there and how Adams himself saw the scene. He didn't seek to capture the scene, what he did was used the medium to communicate why he found it beautiful. In this and many of his images he was successful to the extent that many seek to copy his work, but unfortunately think that the beauty was contained in *what* he pointed his camera at rather than what he achieved. Which was to explain to the viewer why he personally found it beautiful.

I hope this sheds some light on why many still find Adams work captivating.

ms18 wrote:

I always see many books and internet glorify certain photos of him. When I go and see them I'm not impressed at all. They are not bad pictures. But are they worth for this much praise? I don't feel so.

My objective here is not to undermine a person considered one of the greatest photographer but to understand why I feel so.

I don't enjoy landscape photography. I love to view galleries of them. Not just colour monochrome as well.

Let's take an anology. Bruce Lee is considered one of the pioneer in modern martial art. there is nothing I can refuse. But I can't place AA to that status in landscape photography. And I'm confused because not many feeling like me. So I put my blame on myself and trying to understand his work.

Looking forward to your help.

I have a folder on my hd for other people's photos that impress me. Every so often I go through it and look for inspiration. Usually I delete a few that have not lived up to expectations. I add new photos as and when I see images that I like.

There are quite a lot of AA photographs in there, and I haven't deleted any. What I like about AA images is that they are contemplative, what I mean is that they demand a slow appreciation. They are not about instant impact which I think a lot of photographers get sucked into.

And I like that he had to work with quite basic equipment. What was it that saying that if he got 12 keepers in a year it was a good year!?

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364

ms18 wrote:

I always see many books and internet glorify certain photos of him. When I go and see them I'm not impressed at all. They are not bad pictures. But are they worth for this much praise? I don't feel so.

I think if you could see a gallery of Ansel Adams's large format landscape prints alongside landscapes by other photographers of the same era, you would probably feel differently.  He gained his reputation many decades ago and his significance today is as a great pioneer in the history of photography.

It is not at all fair to try to judge his work purely against modern photography because the technology has moved on so much.  I think it very likely indeed that if he was starting out as a young photographer today he would not be using the technology he used back in the 1930s and 1940s, but instead he would be using modern technology in a highly imaginative and innovative way.

Had the opportunity a couple of years ago to view a showing of AA actual photographs instead of viewing in books or on a computer.  Absolutely amazed at the tonal range and framing of the subjects by him.  Given that his equipment was primitive by today's standards, he and Weston were the masters of the art and still are today.  I learn or appreciate something every time I view one of their works.  Best,  Bob

Diverse viewpoints is how it goes with pretty much everything.  Not being in the majority is perfectly fine.

For instance, I don't get much from the great world renouned street photographers of the past. Or street photography at all for that matter.

Or nightclub photography.

Or cat pictures

Yep, you're the only one.