In newly released footage, legendary landscape photographer Ansel Adams recounts capturing one of his most popular images: Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.
Adams' son Michael recently explained in an interview with Marc Silber of Advancing Your Photography how the events unfolded the day the photo was taken. Riding along with his father, he remembers how Ansel caught sight of the moon rising over the landscape and pulled the car over to take the photo. In the clip above, you'll hear Michael and Ansel Adams himself explain how the image was created, thanks to some quick thinking when a light meter couldn't be found. The resulting image is, of course, a classic.
I remember taking an Ansel Adams photography workshop in 1987 (Ansel had left this world by then) and we went to his house, met Virginia and someone brought out the original negative and print (waaaaay lighter) of this classic shot and I almost fainted. No one said a single word for about 5 minutes. Will never forget!
wonder why more than 90% of commenters here keep saying they're not impressed about this particular work of AA because it's not a "masterpiece of art" or something ...
of course it's not! and he says it himself in the video too, that many people don't like this particular photo but he's using it as a good example of how a so-so photograph can be manipulated in the darkroom and look a lot better than if it were to be presented as a regular, straight print!
already commented about this elsewhere on this page: i'm sure he'd have loved it even if he were to resist it at first ... in fact, Photoshop (or any other image editing and manipulation computer program) is the result of decades of hard work by great photographers like AA himself, isn't it?
i just hope traditional photography using film, paper and chemicals won't disappear altogether because the combination of both film and digital photography is a real blessing for those who appreciate the hidden power in the combo!
unfortunately, we have already lost great emulsions such as the Kodachrome or unbelievably super-easy yet super-elegant processes such as the Cibachrome and we're losing even more of them everyday! that's so sad ...
it's not digital killing film, it's consumers demand ...
I seem to recall that Adams himself wrote that a good photograph is one that emotionally resonates or causes emotional response with the viewer. Not sure of precise quote but he essentially admitted that "good" is ultimately subjective. Some don't like Moonrise. Many do. Print or buy what you like.
I was going to comment that, although I love Adams' work, I don't get why this particular shot is so revered. Now I see that the majority of these comments seem to be along the same line. I wonder why this image has achieved the status that it has. (Perhaps that is discussed in the vid. I'll be watching it later.)
I have never understood how this is such a popular specimen of his work. If someone were to post this to one of the DPR forums today, as a new work, it would be ripped apart for various compositional defects, blown highlights, and the central position of the moon. If it did not have the provenance of being one of his works, it would be an OK photo.
I like the video, however, its always good to see well respected artists in human form, rather than ethereal beings of pure thought that float around in art history tomes.
On 1x.com there is at least one person with an old Linhof or similar Camera, and he does his pictures like AA on a glass plate, now that is Photography into it's purest term...just holding camera xy, hit the shutter, and it's done is way too ordinary. My deep respect for guys like these who take all the hard work, and even developing their own film, or -plates & negatives nowadays by themselves. Photography is not click-click, kick a instagram filter over and saying "that's it".
In the video, Ansel suggests he has far better images but people seem to really like this one. I think this was one of those images he saw at the instant he put his foot on the car brakes, but was never quite as happy as every second struggling to get set up, lost some of the intrinsic qualities he had to later work hard in his darkroom to recover. As time passed upon much reflection he darkened the sky even more to further convey and concentrate the mood he felt when he first put his foot on the brake.
There is quite a few AA books, but the pic that floors me is that of a craggy faced Indian behind a fly screen door. The neg was from a Linhoff and scanned on a drum scanner. Truly beautiful work. Take a Saturday morning and go to a decent library and be truly amazed.
Some years ago we had Ansel Adams daughter visit us for lunch. We discussed ‘Moonrise Hernandez’. Her father used to travel with a tripod mounted on the back of a lorry using an 8x10 plate camera. At a retrospective in San Francisco I was able to see the original negative which was actually taken in daylight with the moon clearly visible. The backlit negative was shown with a series of large prints each of them being printed darker finally culminating with the famous print that we all know. Ansel made sketches of each of his works outlining where the print should be darkened or held back. I am pretty sure that he would have loved Photoshop.
no doubt he'd have yielded to image manipulation using computer and software even if he'd resist it at first ... especially, when using film material as the original medium, process it using the old-fashioned way with chemicals, then scanning the negative or slide (prints even) and working on them using computers ... after all, what we have in computer image editing techniques today is in fact the outcome of what people like Ansel Adams did with film, paper, chemicals and the *darkroom magic* ...
that's why i wonder why some people still insist on NEVER using computers today and stick with traditional methods in photography ONLY ... nothing wrong with that as a challenge or hobby or 'religion' whatever, but if 'final output' is what matters most and we are results-oriented people, then mixing the two (or more) mediums is certainly the best way to do it!
Comparing the "straight" print to the final print AA produced as shown on the computer screens, it is overwhelmingly evident that AA was also an excellent artist and craftsman who was able to metamorphose a regular negative into a work of art.
Photography is not just pressing the shutter and travelling to exotic dangerous places, it is also producing a work of art that could fetch upwards of $600,000 with just a single print.
If AA had Lightroom and Photoshop, he would have a brain explosion from all the excitement of handling this newfangled arsenal.
But photography isn't mainly about art, it is about photography.
There are as well skilled photographers who can make our take the photograph in camera as is an be ones that can be sold as well at high prices.
And AA didn't create anything in dark room, he only reveled what did he see when taking a photo. Meaning he wasn't a great artist but a great photographer.
A darkroom development and process AA used wasn't art process but photography process. And that is big difference.
And this difference is as well made clear in art colleges and universities, where photography to become art, the is requirement to be done far more than AA did.
The is this typical problem that many can't comprehend differences between art and photography and likely stamp photography as art as is. Beside otherwise they believe that others might think photography or photographers are nothing compared to art and artist. A one problem that has existed since photography was invented, as artists felt threatened by it.
That something is visually pleasing, doesn't make it art as is by default.
I totally agree, it always makes me laugh when hipsters with film cameras claim photoshop is cheating and cite Adams as an example of pureism, oblivious to the fact that the guy was a master of post processing,
I agree, as he said, it is always two parts: The negative = score, print = the music. It all begins with the photographer's visualization, which guides the photographer through each and every step. We were fortunate enough to film his story of visualization = the moment of his big breakthrough as a photographer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxLCCZH6LOs
Tommi - that 'revealing' is what Adam's created in his darkroom. And his visualization changed through time. If, as the saying goes, art is in the eye of the beholder, then Adams' work is seen by many as art. Their opinion holds as much worth as yours. And you may be in the minority.
nothing wrong with the attempt at "getting it right in the field/camera" but it simply fails to work more than 90% of the time!
technically, 'exposure' (ie, light, color and contrast) in photography is done in two major steps:
- at the moment of taking the picture (using film or digital cameras) - and later in post processing (darkroom, computer)
those who have not grasped the meaning of this have not understood what photography is all about, technically at least ...
even painters do similar things: they make their pencil or even color 'sketches' in the field but they work on it later in studio to complete the artwork ...
Interestingly, albeit I like Ansel Adams's work (he is not among my favorite photographers but one master once being in a dark room), I don't find this photo particularly striking.
This photo was taken in 1941. It's easy to say in 2016 that the photo isn't all that wonderful with all of the digital help we have today but try getting something like this today using the technics AA had to use in 1941.
I think it is perfectly fine not to be "wowed" by a photo. I don't dislike that particualr photo, but it does not appeal to me. Again, all photos are rather subjective, some will appeal to more people than others. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
As far as I am concerned, I don't think there is anything to do about the timeline. There are some old photographs that simply blow me away, but not that one. I don't find the subject matter particularly interesting. Again, that's just my opinion.
What is all the hype over this photo for? I realize its somewhat subjective and I am not one who would know how to critique photography, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't eve really like it to tell you the truth.
I would say it's OK to not like the photo, but it is equally OK to like it. The thing is, art triggers different responses in different people, and some art doesn't cause any response at all in some people. It's all good, even if it's hard to say why you respond the way you do.
To me, it has always evoked the Shakespearean quote from Macbeth, "The night is long, and never finds the day".
Night is coming to Hernandez, no matter how hard the sun tries to illuminate that little town, the arrival of night is inevitable. In the end, the sun must settle for lighting the moon, and Hernandez will have to settle for what little light the moon can offer. Tomorrow will come, but only in its own time. Hernandez will have to struggle on, nonetheless.
Thank you for an excellent article.Moonrise has never been anywhere near my favorite Ansel image. Two of his printers told me that if you saw the negative ,you would toss it in the garbage.Now I understand why.And I have far more appreciation for the process.
Having tried to re-create Moonrise from Glacier Point September 15, 2005 from Glacier Point with my trusty D-70 (please don't laugh) I found new respect for his darkroom skills - and the fact that his prints have more dynamic range than I ever imagined.
Here in germany it was called "bonanza bike"...these bikes, before the BMX boom came into the early 80's...mostly with Steven Spielberg's E.T...i must admit - i wanted also one, and i have had a lot of fun with it, and my other friends back then onto the BMX.
One shouldn't miss the Ansel Adams - A Documentary Film
I will take this video, save it somewhere and keep it ready to rub in the face of anyone who whines about modern digital editing as opposed to the 'true' photography done in the old days ...
It's funny how pretty much everything I do in Photoshop is exactly what I did before in the darkroom, but with more accuracy. I get strange looks from people when I tell them Ansel Adams "photoshopped" the living heck out of his photos and it worked great because it enhanced the emotional accuracy of a 2D array of pigments.
When I was taking film classes in high school, I would have literally failed the classes if I never did a single thing to enhance the photos in the darkroom. Dodging, burning, compositing, local/global contrast adjustments, developer chemical tricks, print toning, hand tinting, dust spot removal, stitching panoramas, and so on. The equivalent of taking your film to the automated film shop, was just the same as pretending that out of camera JPEG is somehow the purest form of photography.
Actually the phrase "photoshopped" means a different thing than what a typical darkroom process was. That phrase means that you manipulated the picture like you removed or added people or objects. That is why "photoshopped" has a negative impact as it is like saying "it's lied"
And in pure photography those are not allowed.
AA is hyped for his darkroom skills, but same time his camera work is rejected or even forgotten. As he learned that what are limits of his film and camera, and then learned to use those limits to expose the scene on film in a way how he saw the final print to come out. And he told many exposures to get the one that allowed darkroom process as wanted.
While the "photoshopped" style is to start manipulating the content by altering what shapes, objects or colors it has and not just adjusting what there is. And this is why Adobe created lightroom as photographers don't need such tools from Photoshop. But Adobe was required to add some manipulation tools like "spot removed" that was named as "dust spot remover" so it wouldn't sound so bad. And yet many goes and Fremont elements like birds, cables, people etc from photos with it, manipulating the photo and so on lying to viewer. It is exactly same thing as darkroom masters who were hired to manipulate historical photos afterwards by removing people from groups or adding them.
While master photographers used camera to get things in photo as should. So if the was a person passing by the frame, wait so there isn't no one, instead cloning the person away in photoshop/lightroom.
And do you have a dust on sensor? Well you didn't then take care of your camera and master it..... Why so many laughed back in the days when Olympus brought their SSW dust removal system as many defender said it was easy to just remove dust spot in photo with a few clicks.
And this is as well difference between photographers who make photos, and those who just take them, by making sure that everything in frame is as they want before photo is taken. Meaning cleaning all the products that are getting photographed so there is no dust, scratches, unwanted reflections etc. Or then using something on camera to hide them, like vaseline or sock etc as filters.
Tommi - I don't think you understand photography or it's history very well. The vast majority of photographers work in a darkroom - traditional or digital - to finalize their interpretation of the image they wish to present. The techniques employed may be minimal to quite altering. This can and usually does take much longer than the time spent actually taking the image. This is what Adams did. It is where the final image is created - the performance. The idea of pure photography is just that - an idea. The reality is it doesn't exist - every photograph is manipulated in some way.
Exactly right -every photograph is manipulated in some way. Many, many years ago, I spent a lot of time in my darkroom. Today, I do pretty much the same things with my camera's internal controls, or later in my computer. Every film alters reality, as does every JPEG engine, and every RAW converter. So every shot I take; whether post processed or not is altered. For that matter, every editor gives different results, as do different brands and models of printers, print paper, and monitors.
Tommi, I am not quite sure what your point is, but "Photoshopped" has really become just a sort of derogatory term used to dismiss any work that may have been altered in any way. I get asked all the time by people looking at my prints, "Is that Photoshopped?". For I reply, "what does that mean?" Nearly 100% of the time, people don't even know what they mean by the word. To them it's just a word used to say, "is your photo fake and dishonest?"
I then often ask, what is more dishonest, a black and white film print with nothing done to it, or a color print from digital with some adjustments made in post?
I also point out that visual accuracy and emotional accuracy are rarely attainable at once. I often ask people, how many times have you taken a shot with your cell phone and been disappointed that the picture doesn't do the scene justice. The darkroom, both digital and analog, is the last viable step in the process for making sure the emotional accuracy of an image is retained.
I was fortunate enough to have attended one of Ansel's touring photo exhibitions at the Chicago Art Institute. There were over 400 photos on display and they were amazing. But, there was one image that absolutely stopped me in my tracks. It was a 40"x60" print of Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park. The emotional impact of that image was beyond words.
ChicagoRob I know how you feel. I saw an exhibit of Adams' work and mounted on a diagonal wall with nothing else on it was Clearing Winter Storm. It literally stopped me in my tracks. It instantly became and still is my favorite AA image. I have several posters and reproductions in my home and really appreciate Adams' (otherwise known as " St. Ansel of the Sierras") darkroom skills. I have also seen some of his work that I looked at and had no clue why he would want to photograph it. I can agree with some of the posters about the lack of enthusiasm over Moonrise Hernandez; it is not one of my favorite images. But it does come with a hell of a good story about getting the shot, though!
Here's the lesson in this: regardless of if your camera/sensor (or film if doing legacy) has deep or shallow dynamic range, make sure to expose for the right middle tones to maximize your potential to manipulate at will. Capture soft & mellow images what many call "flat", save the contrast for post process. I hear people say "bleh.. just shoot raw".. well raw can't capture that which is outside the dynamic range of your equipment - that´s where the photographer´s judgement comes in. That, imho, is what Ansel was best at, capturing the right data onto the film to be able to perform art in the darkroom.
That is reason why techniques like ETTR are not best out correct, why 35mm isn't better than m4/3 or 1" or even a 1/1.8". Or why raw isn't better than JPEG.
When a photographer see the moment and see the light and can position camera so that unwanted is left outside of frame or hidden, a single exposure, is what is needed.
Gear geeks can't accept that as it doesn't matter what they argue here at forums.
And that what truly had changed photography in last 40-50 years is a good EVF. It makes a big difference to get the shot in JPEG with a single exposure and get it look great at wall so easily.
I agree, that is what the Zone System was about essentially. Get the exposure right and maximise the amount of data on film (or sensor) and the print is easy.
The thing is, I don't think the Hernandez print was easy. He was 'tweaking' it for years afterward. Maybe a graphically accurate print is easy, but knowing what you want a print to 'say' to a viewer is never easy.
Remember that "exposure right" doesn't mean ETTR, it means "exposure correctly".
ETTR means different thing and it isn't most of the times correct way at all.
The zone system was about choosing your camera exposure range to capture the light range that illuminates the wanted scene. Meaning you will have over and under exposed areas but you just control the main scene.
Ansel Adams etc worked cameras that had 7-9 stops exposure range. Today even a m4/3 has 13 stops and capability after that to pull 5 stops and push 4 stops, giving in total of 22 stops range if mastering the camera.
We don't need to bracket exposures with mirrorless cameras because EVF, no checking photo after etc. We have even models that has ETTR exposure modes etc.
And yet we have people whining that they need more, and they simply can't accept that final photo is allowed to have lots of deep shadows of blown highlights or even slightly out of focus etc.
Thank you so much for your appreciation of his work. Feel free to check out more videos about some of Ansel Adams' other work, such as Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite, and his insights about the darkroom : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0259E01FE91549DD
Interesting question. I guess - but might be wrong - that they do not dare. The risk is that it is too easy or someone comes up with a better result. Then the magic is decreased.
His darkroom notes are most interesting and reminded me of when I was darkroom printing in college, I used to make similar annotations on paper so I could follow the formula from print to print.
Though crowd... I'm not even all that much of an Ansel Adams fan (there are many photographers who I admire more) and and yet this photo is a really great one in my book... absolutely iconic. The video to me though leaves something to be desired. It's basic points are that the exposure was determined without a meter and that major darkroom work had to happen in order to pull out what was truly great about the image. Both of these things seem to be pretty much common knowledge and the video doesn't really ad any new revelations or go into much tech detail that would be interesting to those of us who understand anything about this sort of stuff...
Yes, I was a bit disappointed when they looked at Ansel's drawings regarding the plan for the image and said - "I do not understand a bit of this". Then - by all means - put some effort in and try to understand! It is probably not all that hard.
His son was not a photographer, instead he became a pilot and flight surgeon (not a bad resume) -- but now he represents Ansel better than anyone else, but he doesn't presume to have his technical skills of photography.
Love it. Thanks for sharing DPR ;). I met Ansel when I was a child before he died. My step father idolized him and took us on a trip to see him. I credit my step father and Ansel's work as a spark that first interested me in photography many years ago.
I am with you. I admire lots if his work and his craftsmanship because there was way more effort (time and money) and skill necessay to create such great pictures like he did back then, but I do not get the whole fuzz about this particular picture. But beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. The story behind it is interesting though.
It's a simple question of word of mouth inflating a given work over time. Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is far less interesting than his Last Supper for example but its popularity is notorious.
I never understood the big deal with this image until March of last year when I saw the actual print for the first time. Then my eyes were opened. A beautiful and amazing print it was.
I have to agree. I attended a gallery showing his work along with a few others and I was blown away. Coming from the film era myself, you have to see the prints to really appreciate his work. An image can become even greater when seeing a well done print. There were even prints from other landscape photographers that used high end digital backs of the time on giclee/epson high end printers (listed next to the print in the bio) and they couldn't touch Adams' prints.
I saw W. Eugene Smith's jazz loft photos at the Center for Creative Photography in 2013. The prints were stunningly beautiful. In fact I was overwhelmed & had to leave the room to regain my composure. No art exhibit has ever affected me so. His blacks are velvety, there are several shades of white to lead your eye around the prints, and a range of fabulous grays. His prints have a tactile quality -- you want to run your hands over them -- and depth too. I was admiring a street photo, marveling at the gorgeous sensuous grays, when I realized it was a picture of *asphalt*, of all things. That's printing genius, to make even asphalt exquisitely beautiful, and that's when I broke out in a cold sweat & had to leave the room.
Adams used everything available to him from the camera, the film and the processing. He also used high contrast developers and paper to craft his work. He had a technique. Other great photographers captured images and developed them in the original exposure. They relied on capturing the Image in its original light. Adams often shot about ev +.3. He knew he could burn in the image to balance the exposure. Then use developers that added more contrast as with the paper. He also understood the dynamic range of his film. Many who never processed their own prints are not aware of how dynamic the process. Lens filters added yet another dimension and it took time and skill to create a great photo. Today we have photoshop which in the right hands is an incredible tool and I know Adams would have embraced it.
There is a print of this picture in the Amon Carter in Fort Worth that I've seen many times, along with several other prints. It's just 8x10, you might expect it to be bigger. Images are ubiquitous now, they have no value, but this is different.
Easily the most thought provoking article I have seen here in a long time.
In the late 50s I worked as a bike repairman in Yosemite Valley. I was a college junior but heavily into photography. My boss gave me an extra hour on my lunch breaks so I could chase down Ansel's workshops. I listened intensely. Later in San Diego after 10 years as a commercial photographer I opened "Industrial Photo Supply". I carried Ansel's favorite film, an Agfa 120 film. One day Ansel came in. He asked about the price of film and I told him. He asked if he could get a discount. I asked him the price of an 11x14 print of my favorite shot, "Winter Sunrise Lone Pine". He replied $150 but no discount available. I sold him the film without a discount but didn't have the money for the print. Years later the print sold for nearly $20,000. Oh well! He was the best in his day, an innovator, my hero and a great inspiration. I am much better off for having rubbed shoulders with him.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Is that better, ewelch? Seriously, I've seen many people here in DPR and around the internet take incredibly sophisticated and better digital photos using Photoshop techniques and camera/lens know how. Your insults are not appreciated.
To Serenity Now.... If Ansel Adams was a plumber, would you defend him? How about Robert Mapplethorp's images? Nobody here claims his work was great. It's too easy to call people names on the internet.
What a stupid man Ansel was. Why did he just not use PS back then. Duh. Shifter please show us your gallery of pioneering PS gallery images and some of your priceless works. Ansel legacy are priceless prints and works. I looked and you are not where on the internet. What gives?
Shifter, Photoshop didn't exist then. His camera was a film camera (I believe it was a Pentax) where everything was set manually. The photo was a result of a long chemical process. The digital age changed the way we shoot and process photographs but in the end, it's the talent of the photographer and his tools that matter most.
Wow. It's amazing how people get their feathers ruffled and defending Ansel Adams! The attacks upon me are amazing. What is the matter with you people? Adams edited his film pictures too in the dark room! It was his "Photoshop"! It's well documented. He edited his photos!
You are missing the point. You edit and so did he. You are nobody. He is world famous and while he as alive owned priceless works. You should be careful to put Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz to someone who was doing something unique in his time. Have you read his books ,etc. He did not have a Scott Kelby to help him with a pre packaged program. What did you expect?
Just a brief comment here about the great difference between the before and after pictures, which I think should come as no particular surprise. The full Moon is so much brighter than the dark sky, the contrast between the two exceeds both the latitude of film and the dynamic range of current digital cameras. The key to getting an image of a well exposed nearly-full Moon along with a decently illuminated foreground in a single shot (as in the Moonrise picture) is to shoot when the sky is still fairly bright, that is, when the almost-full (99%) Moon has risen above the Eastern horizon before the Sun has set below the Western horizon. That usually takes a bit of advanced planning, but it's easily done.
At one time it got the highest price paid for a photo in an auction. No photo is liked by everyone for sure. But when you read what he wrote about it, that he underexposed it and then used his knowledge of the Zone System to compensate, it's quite interesting. For example, he used selenium toner on the bottom half of the negative to compensate for the underexposure.
And knowing what he was going for (the sun on the crosses in the graveyard) helps to understand what he was seeing that caused him to almost drive in the ditch to get out and get the photo.
It is often claimed that Adams used a "selenium toner" to intensify the image of Moonrise. In fact he stated that he used Kodak IN-5 Intensifier, which is not selenium based but is a Silver Intensifier.
Maybe they make too much of some details. I mean, who do not know how to expose the moon? Interesting to see the non manipulated image though. And nice to see the old man himself.
Regarding this image. I have never been able to decide what I think about it. It has something, but it is not my favorite. Interesting also that the old man himself was a bit surprised that this image is one of the favorites.
Actually I don't think that many people would know what manual exposure to use since cameras have exposure meters and autoexposure function. In addition, he wasn't just metering for the moon (that was his starting point) but the forground as well. Remember he invented the zone system that allows you to get that perfectly exposed shot. I'll bet that various exposure metering systems on modern cameras are based on this system.
When the sky is dark, you can use the moon F11 rule. The moon consists of a rather dark material and is in perfect sunshine. In the broad day time, the moon shine is mixed with the sky, i.e. brighter. But, as long as the light is such that the moon is obviously brighter than the sky, you can use the moon F11 rule.
For the moon being brighter than the sun lit ground, I assume you have to wait for sun set. Maybe the sun shall be so low that it is 2 or 3 stops dimmer than the midday sun.
On the other hand - Ansel Adams made lots of work in the darkroom, so the moon did not actually have to be brighter than the ground. It only had to within the exposure latitude of the film.
It may be that because you know it, you think that everyone else would as well. I've taken moon shots and managed to get good exposure after a short period of experimentation but this is the first time I've heard of a moon f11 rule.
"For the moon being brighter than the sun lit ground, I assume you have to wait for sun set." He said that he took the shot and before the cartridge was even out of the camera back, the forground was dark. So yes the sun was setting.
I'm sure you're just trying to point out that any competent photographer could take that image but Adams was at the right place at the right time and was quick-thinking and experienced enough to estimate the metering off the top of his head. I think that's the lesson for all of us.
I love the name :D It doesn't say in the wiki link you gave but I assume that this is for a full moon. I wonder how this rule would work for different lunar phases? Would it become an f/8 rule for a quarter moon, for example?
I'd think the "Looney 11" would apply to all phases of the moon. The issue is that the surface of the moon is receiving full sunlight, regardless of phase. That would be if you want to see some details like large craters.
Oh ok, now I get it. I was thinking that this rule applied to photographing terrestrial subjects from the reflected light off the moon in the same way the sunny 16 rule is not for photographing the sun directly but for estimating how much light is on your subject. Checking back to my own images of the moon itself, they follow the Looney 11 rule quite closely (give or take 1/2 a stop).
While in graduate school in Monterey California in 1982/1983, through a mutual friend, I had the opportunity to go over to Adam's home and meet him. I felt a little awkward in his presence with him being such an icon. I mean what do you say to him that he hasn't already heard. So we pretty much made small talk. He asked a few questions about physics, mostly about light, (physics was my major), and showed me around his gallery in his his house. Prior to leaving he autographed a few of his books for me. The following year, I also had him sign a set of his posters at his last book signing in Carmel CA. He passed shortly after that signing.
The photos in his house that he showed me went on tour after his death across the country as part of an AT&T sponsored thing; not sure. Anyway, it was really special meeting him. I'll never forget.
I've seen this part of the Ansel Adams Doku many times the past years - "Moonrise over Hernandez" is one of Ansels best work, i know this picture since i was 10 or 11...and i still love it. Ansel was truly *the* Landscape Photographer & Pioneer into many ways - he also invented the Zone System. If Ansel would live still today, and could use current Tech, what would he made with this..is the Question.
Henri-Cartier Bresson was *the* Street Photographer, Ansels was Landscape, and the Yellow Stone Nationalpark.
One should really have read "The Camera, The Print & The Negative" from Ansel Adams.
Also way interesting from Ansel Adams, "Exclusive Look Into Ansel Adams' Home and Darkroom"
I remember seeing a copy of the photo in a UK photography magazine in the early 1980's just after I had started to get interested in photography and I thought then, as I do now, it is an amazing photo. Many thanks for some of the back story.
I grew up shooting color slides, getting to the point of buying a bulk loader and doing E-6 processing in my parent's laundry room sink. If it didn't happen in-camera, it didn't happen, period.
So at the risk of being ex-communicated, I've got to say I never 'got' the appeal of Adams, and all that hushed talk of tonality. I had a wet darkroom in my basement, and did a massive amount of B&W for my high-school yearbook and newspaper, but the dodging and burning was strictly utilitarian; I never enjoyed that part of the process. Creativity comes in all forms, I guess, so to each his (or her) own.
Black and white photography as practiced by Ansel Adams, Minor White, Wynn Bullock, even W. Eugene Smith, et al, is not a depiction of "reality." It is a translation of reality into abstract, even artificial, tones. That is its appeal.
It's entirely subjective, of course. With someone like Bresson I have strong reaction that inspires me (and my camera) to explore visually. Thinking of how Adams appeals (or doesn't), maybe it's not abstract enough? I was intrigued that in his later prints he was going for more contrast.
With all due respect, Ansel Adams' photographs are *vastly* superior to yours in all respects. "Vastly" definition: 1. of very great area or extent; immense: the vast reaches of outer space. 2. of very great size or proportions; huge; enormous: vast piles of rubble left in the wake of the war.
Good grief. I wasn't claiming anything about the quality of my photos. Just that I never enjoyed working in the darkroom, or felt that it was an integral part of photography...for me. We all experience photography differently.
That's what I thought before I had seen any of them. :) Fortunately, some friends explained to me why they are great, and you know, they were right. When I finally saw an exhibition of his works, I knew beyond any doubt.
KrisAK, you did say, "...I never 'got' the appeal of Adams, and all that hushed talk of tonality." That's a shame because the man was a great artist, pure and simple, regardless of how he made his photographs. Forget about all the camera and dark room stuff, and just try to appreciate his photographs as the great art they are. Once the light has turned on in your head with the artistic aspect of it, and being a photographer yourself, you'll probably then appreciate what went into making the photographs a lot more. The same thing could be said about great works of art in other disciplines. Beethoven and modern symphony musicians who realize his work, for example, are technical geeks as much as Ansel Adams and his dark room assistants were geeks. We don't care so much that Beethoven and the musicians that realize his music are geeks as much as we appreciate their profound art.
@Mark You go into a museum and stand in front of a work by an acknowledged master. But you get nothing. Bupkis. You think to yourself, "I need a better understanding of the work to fully appreciate it." You read a book...then ten books...then go back to the museum. Still nothing. So you get a Master's Degree in Fine Art, going so far as to write a dissertation on the greatness of the very work by the very artist in question. But deep down you know, with great shame, that it still fails to move you.
That's how I am with Adams. (Minus the dissertation. And most of the Master's Degree.)
KrisAK, Adams' work is great art, and like most great art, you don't need a fancy art education to understand it. Beethoven's music is like that - you don't need a fancy music education to be inspired by it. There are people who don't get Beethoven, and more often than not, these people don't have the discipline to sit undistracted for 30 minutes, and remain 100% focused as they listen to a Beethoven symphony from beginning to end. To be able to "get" great visual art, sometimes you need a type of visual and mental discipline or focus before things click. Schooling isn't necessary. What do you look for in a great photograph?
A few years ago my wife and I were vacationing in NM and while driving I asked her for a map check (I was either hungry or needing a bathroom). She replied, we just passed through a dot called Hernández... I think I scared the hell out of her when I slammed on the brakes and said, that Hernández? She had no clue, but for the next 20 minutes she let me search for some spot along the road that appeared in some black and white picture. The area is now heavily overgrown and the foreground is divided into yards and parking lots... but I saw the white crosses of the grave yard and then the church... BINGO! I walked through the graveyard with my wife trailing behind, until she saw the molted snake skin... she was thinking I lost my mind until she saw the name on the property across the tiny dirt road in front of the church: Moonrise Ranch! I think I spent more time there than Ansell did... my Canon 50D image was no match for his view camera, talent, and expertise.
I was in Tucson last February & stopped by the Center for Creative Photography at Univ. Of Arizona to see a "Treasures of the CCP" exhibit where a large print of Hernandez Moonrise was on display. Near by was a metal print cabinet where one could open a large tray to see the original negative, an original working print, Adams's printing notes, & other pertaining papers. I was shocked at the dullness of the negative and by how flat and bland the straight print is. If it had been my negative & print, I probably would have tossed them, thinking I'd failed to get the exposure. I was also impressed by the detail and meticulousness of Adams's printing notes (seen in the video). It's a reminder that even the giants had to work hard to pull an excellent image out of the ordinary.
Funny that one so meticulous, exacting, & experienced as Adams couldn't find his light meter at the time!
In the new Arbus biography it says she didn't use a meter & rarely did printing manipulation. Interesting...
Yes, and that isn't even the half of it. Years later he used a special process to intensify the image, thereby improving detail in the shadows. That must have taken some courage.
Yes, he printed with stronger contrast in later years. Perhaps a change in his tastes? Playing with different developing chemicals? Like Frank Lloyd Wright, he didn't ossify artistically as he grew old.
That image would have been missed today by the "photographer" Mulling which lens would give the best bokeh, what metering pattern to use, what ISO to use, what aperture to use, JPG or RAW? (I'm scared of RAW but I hear its good), What Art filter to use? should I Instagram it immediately? etc. It used to be fun to look at the world instead of the menu.
Not really. Many of today's great landscape photographers do what Ansel invented 50 years ago. In essence he invented the image processing now behind LR and photoshop.
Also, perhaps he would have missed the shot because the lighting would have disapated by the time there was a lull in the heavy traffic. As for the telephone/electric lines, Ansel would have said, "Thank goodness for Photoshop!"
Your comment makes no sense, because much of what you are complaining about would have been an issue back then too. An experienced photographer does not get bogged down by the issues you are concerned with. Also, an inexperienced photographer wouldn't have been able to capture that image now or back then. The equipment and choices of today's tools are NOT a limiting factor for creating remarkable images.
We went to his show in Toronto a few years ago. I walked up to ta large original print and asked one of the workers if they would take a check. The person responded - it is priceless.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
The instant camera market is heating up, and with four formats and 15+ cameras to choose from, we felt it was high time to examine them all and pick our favorite.
Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.
What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
Google's Super Res Zoom technology uses pixel-shifting methods to achieve zoom results comparable to some optical solutions. Google has published an in-depth explanation on its AI blog.
Toy manufacturer Tomy has launched a no-battery-required smartphone printer that is remarkably like the one Holga has been promoting via a Kickstarter campaign but which is already available for $40/£39.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
After shaking up the Lightroom ecosystem with Lightroom CC last year, Adobe has released version 2.0 of the cloud-centric photo organizer and editor. We look at new features like People View, how far Lightroom CC has come in its first year, and where Lightroom is headed.
The weather and has most definitely taken a turn toward fall here, and our shooting opportunities have followed suit. We brought the Canon RF 35mm F1.8 along to a harvest festival of sorts and a few of our usual haunts.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has signed House Bill 1346 into effect, which imposes a fine upwards of $300 to drone operators who invade the privacy or harm the physical wellbeing of citizens.
Sigma is a company in flux, but CEO Kazuto Yamaki is undaunted by the upcoming prospect of developing lenses for eight lens mounts. The challenge will be keeping the company's identity along the way.
If you've been meaning to convert all of your old photos, video, and audio to digital formats, but simply lack the time or willpower to get through it all, a new service from Kodak will help you get the job done.
Almost all new cameras include impressive video features, but for the best results you'll often need an off-camera recorder. Chris and Jordan take a look at the brand new Ninja V from Atomos, and explain why it might just be one of the most useful tools you can add to your camera.
Sick of using your plain ol' keyboard to edit your photos in Lightroom and Photoshop? TourBox is hoping to expedite your post-production workflow using a clever combination of dials, buttons, and knobs.
We sat down with the Google Pixel camera team to learn about key new camera features on the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL, and an explanation of the sophisticated software advancements that power them.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The FAA has issued a warning to drone pilots in anticipation of disaster response following Hurricane Michael, noting that fines for interfering with emergency operations can exceed $20,000.
Comments