Ansel Adams & Hawaii

[Colin Southern]

Yes, I am aware of Schumi's troubles, but I submit that that example is less than 100% valid. F1 driving, indeed other series as well, is far more physical than is photography. Race driving requires raw courage, instantaneous reaction time and physical endurance under high pressure in high temperatures. Photography, on the other hand, does not require those abilities, but is much more cerebral. In Schumi's case, age decimated his physical abilities, and the entire package was weakened.

It's not a perfect analogy, but none-the-less, Schumi's physical fitness was still better than most drivers on the grid; he spent around 5 hours a day in the gym. Reaction time has been proven not to change with age (and surprisingly, it's been demonstrated that reaction time for racing car drivers isn't any faster than most people; the difference is in the "muscle memory" ... ie "knowing exactly what to do when a reaction is called for, without having to think about it). And stamina actually improves around that age (look at the age of the top marathon runners).

Adams' encroaching age did not deteriorate his talent; if anything, his maturity made him even better. It was his innate ability to "see", or as someone else said either here or on another site, to visualize the printed image before he even set up his gear, that made him great.

No argument there.

Thus, in his hands, the improved technology we enjoy today would have made his shots even better today than they were.

No argument there either.

I do not mean to say that the best photographers of today are deficient in any way, just that Adams would be better - because of his superior ability to see.

I would say that he would be able to produce better images today than he could with the technology available to him in his day (much as Juan Manual Fangio would lap a track faster in a modern technology car faster than he could in cars of his generation), but I don't think it holds true to say "his superior vision over his peers in his hey day necessarily means he would enjoy the same advantage over present day photographers"; I think it's most likely that many modern-day photographers have equal if not a superior ability to "see the light".

[zen]

It's not a perfect analogy, but none-the-less, Schumi's physical fitness was still better than most drivers on the grid; he spent around 5 hours a day in the gym. Reaction time has been proven not to change with age (and surprisingly, it's been demonstrated that reaction time for racing car drivers isn't any faster than most people; the difference is in the "muscle memory" ... ie "knowing exactly what to do when a reaction is called for, without having to think about it). And stamina actually improves around that age (look at the age of the top marathon runners).



No argument there.



No argument there either.



I would say that he would be able to produce better images today than he could with the technology available to him in his day (much as Juan Manual Fangio would lap a track faster in a modern technology car faster than he could in cars of his generation), but I don't think it holds true to say "his superior vision over his peers in his hey day necessarily means he would enjoy the same advantage over present day photographers"; I think it's most likely that many modern-day photographers have equal if not a superior ability to "see the light".

Perhaps. But for me, the "proof is in the pudding", or in this case, the viewing. If there were 4 or 5 competing photography shows in town simultaneously, one being Adams, and the others being well known modern photogs, which do you think would draw the largest crowds? For me, there would be no question; I'd make a bee-line to Adams.

Many photographers today are "good", many being occasionally great". But Adams was consistently . . . great!

Well, it's all theoretical anyway [and subjective because it depends on personal taste and opinion!], because he's not here to prove the point one way or another. But there are no images that stick in my mind like those from Adams.

Thanks for the discussion. It's been rewarding.

Zen

[jcuknz]

Somewhere I read that it was his skill in the darkroom that put him ahead? Post processing we call it today
I remember from Photo School back in the fifties we had a student with a shot of a sow and piglets suckling at the local market.
For a period the wash tanks were full of pig and piglets ... first 10x8's then 12x10, next 15x12, and finally and really clogging the system 20x16's, as the guy took his photo to great heights with great care and devotion to detail. Most students used Rolleiflex/cords.