If Ansel Adams posted images incognito..

[HaseebM]

and written C&C welcome, would there be? I bet there will.

[ajohnw]

You bet there would be, thirds, framing, maybe even clutter. Then there is F64 !

John
-

[HaseebM]

Interesting to read up on the f64 group, that was new.

[ajohnw]

There is another method of gauging DOF based purely on aperture and focal length against resolution needed at various distances. I'd guess that has something to do with the F64 aspect.

John
-

[Mark von Kanel]

And of course dont forget all those purist who would be saying it isnt photography because its over processed and not SOOC!

[Manfred M]

It's not just Ansel Adams. I remember looking at some of Cartier-Bresson's, Karsh's, Robert Capa's and Dorothea Lange's works recently. I spent some time looking at some of Edward Burtynsky's work at the National Gallery of Canada last week (and I'm not a fan of his style), but who am I to argue with success?

Every one would get thoroughly trashed here at CiC. It seems to me that they knew when to break the rules, yet often we are really quite rule driven in our analysis here. Somehow the advent of the digital camera means every image has to be 100% technically perfect (whatever that means).

Part of the reason for my interest in this subject is that I study the masters breaking of the rules is to improve my own work.

[mknittle]

It's not just Ansel Adams. I remember looking at some of Cartier-Bresson's, Karsh's, Robert Capa's and Dorothea Lange's works recently. I spent some time looking at some of Edward Burtynsky's work at the National Gallery of Canada last week (and I'm not a fan of his style), but who am I to argue with success?

Every one would get thoroughly trashed here at CiC. It seems to me that they knew when to break the rules, yet often we are really quite rule driven in our analysis here. Somehow the advent of the digital camera means every image has to be 100% technically perfect (whatever that means).

Part of the reason for my interest in this subject is that I study the masters breaking of the rules is to improve my own work.

I agree 100%. Wouldn't it be sort of boring if all images were "perfect" and by the rules? We get that a lot in Bonsai. after a while everything starts to look alike.JMHO

[Mark von Kanel]

Its a strange thing really, i went to see the Ansel Adams exhibition in Greenwich London. There was a video interview of Ansel, he was talking about digital and was quite negative if not scathing of computerised post processing which was a bit of a surprise considering what a pioneer in dark room post he was...

[Manfred M]

I still remember first looking at Adam's work "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" and thinking it was not one of his better works; regardless of what the critics said. I always figured that it had lost something in reproduction, but would be a lot better in the original.

I then saw one of the originals at an exhibit in 2013; I haven't changed my mind about it. I still think he got the crop wrong and there is too much black sky. But what do I know?

[rpcrowe]

Mark here's my take regarding digital vs, film... Sure Good Old Ansel was against digital photography. Why? IMO because it leveled the playing field somewhat. In darkroom processing, you had to be technically adept as well as artistically good in order to get a print. Most folks had neither the equipment, nor the time and money (I have not even mentioned the technical skills and artistic ability) to produce "Ansel Quality Work".

However, in the digital darkroom, we have the advantage of not needing the darkroom, not needing to purchase paper or chemicals, and the advantage of redoing any mistakes quickly and easily...

IMO, Ansel also disliked digital because he had to "technically" start again and compete against folks who probably were more advanced in digital processing. IMO, this is the reason that many community college photo courses require film. That is the only way that many instructors can start ahead of the student's level of expertise

Talk to most low to mid end wedding photographers who used film and they disliked digital because it increased the competition. Customers think, "Uncle Bill and Aunt Judy surely can shoot my wedding. After all, they have that wonderful Canon Rebel camera and great lens"

BTW: While Ansel was a great static and semi-static photographer, I consider his images of people as simply mediocre to pretty good. Certainly nothing special except that they have the Adam's name attached to them which makes them instant classics

[Andrew1]

Growing up I never had anything really earth shattering to take pictures of with the school or borrowed cameras. In fact, taking the pictures was just a necessary step in enjoying my hobbyist efforts. It's the darkroom where I spent the many many hours enjoying what I did. I won't get into paragraphs of details here but many would be surprised with what and how we experimented. The various processes involving chemicals, papers, temperatures, timings, dodging, burning, etc, etc after hours for three years is what I got hooked on. Watching a photo materialize was magic. My own darkroom many years later gave me the same excitement and to this day I can still recall the smell. And that whole process for me was all in black and white. I never did get "unchallenged enough" to move on to colour. (don't even get me started on what some people think is SOOC whether it be film or digital)

The thing is, I never had rules. Everything worked, just some not as well as others. Things I learned about photography basics came mostly from what I liked looking at over the years and applying some of those aspects. It wasn't until years later when I got my own camera and a couple of Kodak How-To books that I began to see some of the explanations regarding what I was already doing.

Yes, as a populace in general there are things that we find pleasing to look at and many aspects can by cubby holed into one of the many "rules" book authors try to sell us. Trying to justify then worry about setting a subject directly on an apex of the rule of thirds or the golden ratio seems silly. Approximations, maybe, but adhering to them as "rules" rather than suggestions would have stifled any creative effort I might have had (I still don't think I have much) and I know would have taken away all of the enjoyment of just experimenting.

Try what you might and learn through experimentation and playing. Don't look for a prepackaged systemic processes on how to complete a specific function or appearance. It's fine to look for examples but do it yourself, try it, play with it. In the end you'll have a better understanding of what you did. Most of all, don't like something simply because someone else has said it's good.

Hope this makes sense.

[jcuknz]

Back in 1996 I visited the Ansell Adam's 'house' or whatever it is in San Francisco and was extremely disappointed in what I saw of AA's work but on adjacent walls was some fantastic stuff by a Japanese photographer ....individual tastes

It is likely I would skip over his work here as I do with similar work. Funny his comment about digital editing ... perhaps he was a masochist too?

[cuilin]

this is a few years old, but still pretty relevant to the conversation. i remember seeing something similar on the dpreview forums a while back too. those critiques were hilarious until someone ruined the joke..
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspo...-internet.html

[NorthernFocus]

When Ansel Adams was pioneering lab techniques he was pretty young. By the time digital imagery came along he was well on in years. Keep in mind he died in 1984 at the age of 82. That's 20 years before consumer priced DSLRs came out. It is a very rare few people who readily accept change in their senior years. Particularly if something has been one's bread and butter. So it's no real surprise that he was critical of digital.

Regarding the C/C, I regularly see imagery here on CIC and elsewhere that is superior to the work of many well known pros. There's a lot more to financial success than quality.

[HaseebM]

Part of the reason for my interest in this subject is that I study the masters breaking of the rules is to improve my own work.

That's very positive.

[Mark von Kanel]

A lot of well put thoughts on this thread, very inspiring, well done all.

[kintatsu]

Actually, Ansel Adams wasn't opposed to digital. In the book Conversations with Ansel Adams, he says “I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.” He was concerned about the loss of the creative approach and expression in photography that was already happening. Given that the first commercially available digital camera was in 1990, I can't see how he was critical of it.

The concern is that people no longer strive for good images, they just shoot until they get one that works. HCB said that your first 10000 are your worst, in the digital age, I expect that to be more like 1000000. Don't forget Steiglitz who said we should never be ashamed to have our photograph look like photographs. Today, all to often people are. They want their work to look like everyone else.

As for AA's images, today people no longer appreciate the craftsmanship of the photo, and they seem less interested in the grandeur of creation. They seem more obsessed with the minutiae of the great "I, ME, MINE."

Of course, that's just my 2 cents!

[kintatsu]

By the way, Edward Weston said thet he didn't consult the rules of composition when making a photo any more than he consulted the laws of gravity when going for a walk!

[ajohnw]

It's not just Ansel Adams. I remember looking at some of Cartier-Bresson's, Karsh's, Robert Capa's and Dorothea Lange's works recently. I spent some time looking at some of Edward Burtynsky's work at the National Gallery of Canada last week (and I'm not a fan of his style), but who am I to argue with success?

Every one would get thoroughly trashed here at CiC. It seems to me that they knew when to break the rules, yet often we are really quite rule driven in our analysis here. Somehow the advent of the digital camera means every image has to be 100% technically perfect (whatever that means).

Part of the reason for my interest in this subject is that I study the masters breaking of the rules is to improve my own work.

The problem is that people have been told what is "good" more over they want to be told so that they will produce wonderful images. For many people it seems to dig into their brains and influence their opinions and they can't view an image any other way. In essence they are trying to look at art technically and based on a few very simple rules. This looses people's ability to just look at an image and decide immediately even subconsciously that they like it and it conveys something to them even if it's just that they find it attractive. in some ways it's like going out and buying a painting because the colours match the room and the style is currently in vogue. Some people get wrapped up in art in a similar way - what wonderful brush strokes etc. The time to look at technicalities is after an initial impression has been formed not immediately something is viewed. It's probably best to look at that in a positive fashion - why - rather than oh it will be better if this and that is done to it.

If i'm buying a painting I only look at it in this fashion to decide if it's worth what's been asked for it time spent wise and to judge the artists draughtsmanship as I know that if I don't look at that I may notice later. Perhaps the equivalent of that is PP. Similarly I have no interest in paintings and images that might suit a minimalist - it's just a done to death fashion - the same thing happens in PP and in subjects some times. It's technical rather than true appreciation.

John
-

[kintatsu]

On another note, though, AA would have most likely used PS and been likely to use Dodge, Burn, Unsharp Mask, Levels, and Curves, leaving the rest alone. Curves would most likely been used extensively, as would have dodge and burn. Expansion and contraction in the ZS can reasonably achieved and that was how he approached things. N, N-, and N+ without the chemicals would likely appeal to him, as he was into getting it right in the print, where it counts.