# Ansel Adams... Famous for a reason



## D-50 (Apr 20, 2008)

I just wanted to hear peoples thoughts on Ansel Adams.  I think his work is beatufil but I see so many people knock his work.  I dont understand where these people are coming from.  If you just hate landscape photography I guess I understand but short of that his photography is well exposed, well composed and captures some of the most breath taking scenery in America, what is to dislike?


----------



## EricBrian (Apr 20, 2008)

I think his work is great. I wish I were that talented.


----------



## JIP (Apr 20, 2008)

You got another fan here.  I think some people just want to be contrary so if they hear all about Adams they figure if they don't like him that will somehow make them different.


----------



## crh428 (Apr 20, 2008)

Personally I think his work is absolutely amazing... I think you have to think about what he was working with, old technology, no digital, no photoshop, no autofocus. His photographs are a lot better than a lot of people can do with all of todays tech.


----------



## AnselAdams (Apr 20, 2008)

:blushing:


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 20, 2008)

Ansel Adams was famous for his incredible darkroom work and his ability to get an enormous amount of tonal range. Read some of his books, you can understand why his work is so beautiful. He puts a serious amount of thought into every little part of a photograph. 

He also became famous because he was working during a turning point for photography. Photography was just starting to get viewed as fine art, and there were relatively few people working in the industry compared to today. He used his initial fame to champion nature conservation which made him even more famous, and helped protect a multitude of todays national parks. The list of his achievements is pretty long, but he was famous for more reasons than just good photography.

I agree that people who knock Ansel Adams work probably don't understand what it took to get those images. Just because any jerk with a d40 and a PC can make an HDR doesn't make them talented. And they will certainly never, ever be remotely as talented as Ansel Adams.


----------



## christopher walrath (Apr 20, 2008)

I wrote this article a while ago and posted it over on APUG.  It's a bit long winded but I think it is a fitting tribute.  Here goes ...


In 1997 I was given my first SLR camera, a Minolta XG-M 35mm with a 50mm lens and a camera bag. At the time, my mother was getting Outdoor Photographer magazine with a subscription and I would pour over the pages when it arrived at our stoop. I was realizing little by little that photography could be an outlet for creative expression and as a result of this I was beginning to develop opinions of professional photographers, based on the emotions I experienced when viewing their work. I have always believed that you could tell a good deal of a person by simply observing that which gives them the greatest pleasure. Private lives aside, the greatest measure of a photographer is the craft over which they labor and toil and so greatly enjoy.

My first mentor of the photographic mind was *Galen Avery Rowell*. As a columnist for OP (the least among his awesome accomplishments which include Everest, K2, Fitz Roy and National Geographic) he was a photographic influence to which I was exposed (no pun intended) early and often. It&#8217;s easy to be impressed by a technically perfect image made by an individual who was precariously perched on a half-inch crack, suspended as if in midair by chalky fingertips, shoe leather and sheer willpower halfway up a 4,000 foot sheer granite face with only a single belay line staving off certain death from a precipitous plunge. A quote comes to mind. &#8216;The best reason to climb a mountain is because it&#8217;s there.&#8217; The only reason to brilliantly capture such fleeting Zen-like moments while in the midst of such arduous pursuits is an appreciation for life and being at one with your surroundings. (However, a smattering of insanity must be accounted for as well.)

As I learned more and my photographic horizons began to expand I came to notice the works of other photographers and some of those came to the foreground of my awareness, including *Edward Weston, Dewitt Jones, Alfred Stieglitz, William Neill *and *Henri Cartier-Bresson*. But I have not been moved, touched or challenged so much by any other as I have been by the legacy of *Ansel Adams*. That master of the Sierra (not Sierras, AA would roll in his grave at that insult), that King of the Yosemite, with his broken nose, cowboy hat and modified Woody wagon. When I first saw a copy of his print &#8216;Winter Storm&#8217; I was knocked over by the detail and emotion that played out before me. But it was not until after delving into Adams&#8217; literature that I realized that the masterpiece before me was more than just placement of the camera and composition before the click of the shutter. It was also his knowledge of his subject, his mastery over light, his meticulous attention to detail in the darkroom, his visionary seeing that brought about his beautiful work of art. I had in my possession an example of true perfection.

After reading his books, his autobiography, his articles and anything I could find that revealed a portion of the mind of this great photographer I find that not only can I learn from him but that as a photographer and as a man I relate to him. Though passed from this world some twenty-three years ago his body of work, both photography and literature, continue to move, challenge and inspire me. I had never had the privilege to meet this legend, but through his legacy to photography I know him: his aspirations, his frustrations, his despair and his joy.

However, through the further expansion of my photographic horizons I get the feeling that the name of *Ansel Adams *is a sort of dirty word among many of the new breed of photographers today. I continually find the need to defend my admiration of Adams and his work. It is as if others have the viewpoint that to admit to being a follower of Adams&#8217; techniques and an admirer of his life&#8217;s labor amounts to no better than dropping a name to impress others with your choice of association. And with the advent of digital technology and the attempt to put an automatic camera into every hand in the world, *the pervading opinion seems to be that Adams is an outmoded, archaic, prehistoric savant who&#8217;s contributions to our craft have passed their time and are now, somehow, unnecessary and superfluous. &#8216;Why take the time to learn what I can now just go out and do anyway?&#8217;* I know that digital photography is the next and logical step up from film photography. It enables the masses to bypass the developing and printing processes of yore in favor of near instant gratification. It&#8217;s what the people crave and I cannot fault them for that. After all, it holds appeal for me as well. *But when people sacrifice knowledge and persistence for convenience and simplicity, something invariably suffers. In my humble opinion this is where photography is right now.* As for me, I cannot turn my back on a thing that I love, that is such a part of me. I find peace in manually calculating exposure with an off-camera meter. I love anticipating the right moment rather than always bracketing and praying for rain. I love getting an exposure right at the camera and making adjustments later rather than making the changes because I could not get it right the first time.

*I am a disciple of Ansel Easton Adams because he challenges me*. Not to mimic his images but to find my own vision. Because he inspires me to be prepared, to not trip the shutter until I have exhausted all of the controls at my command to make the best exposure I can and not to fly be the seat of my pants. *Because in him I find a fellow photographer and intellect, a kindred spirit*, not an idol to be worshipped and imitated. *Bacuase I strive to mirror his hard work and dedication*, not his classic view of the Grand Tetons behind the Snake River. *Because I share his need to pass on any and all knowledge that I may have that can help another fellow photographer to get it and I am willing to try new things and ways that had not previously occurred to me*. Because I share his ethic and diligence. Beacuse I strive to be my own photographer, using him as a springboard and guide, not as an identity to don when it suits me. His legacy is not a goal for what to become, but rather a benchmark of what is possible.

So when I say I like *Ansel Adams *it&#8217;s not hero worship. It is respect and an affirmation of that which the greatest photographer of the twentieth century stands for and means to me in terms of self-education, preparedness and vision in my chosen craft.


*Christopher A. Walrath*
November 9th, 2007


----------



## Samriel (Apr 20, 2008)

I'm quite new to SLR photography and the forum, and I must admit I haven't heard of Ansel Adams before some forum members mentioned his name. After he got mentioned and praised XX times, I decided to check out his legend. 
From my beginner point of view, his photography is techically and artistically well done, especially the tonal range, as Antithesis mentioned, is really good. However, personally I don't like his images THAT much. I'd say they are OK at best when it comes to conforming to my own sense of beauty. One of the reasons (probably the main reason) is because landscape photography in general is not something that appeals to me so much at the moment. 
Of course the images are well done, especially if you consider the tools they were taken with. What I like about his images is that they had a point, and I think the best part of his photography that in the context he sets (wildlife preservation), they are truly amazing pictures that nail their point. Out of the context they do not seem so interesting.
Yet I must admit that sometimes I do feel there is a bit too much Ansel Adams hype going on here, and some people sometimes seem to want to make a "Church of Ansel Adams".


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 20, 2008)

I agree. Ansel Adams was an amazing photography, and benefited for photographing the country in a way that the world had never seen before; especially the amazing shots of the Southwest.


----------



## rob91 (Apr 20, 2008)

For the most part I don't care for his work. Safe, quiet, and boring, I find it too nicely composed, tidy visual geometries that fit all too neatly inside the frame, coming across as inhibited as opposed to expressive. He had loads of talent, too bad he didn't have anything more to say outside of the fact that nature is pretty. 

It's also important to make the distinction between technical proficiency and quality art.


----------



## Samriel (Apr 20, 2008)

rob91 said:


> For the most part I don't care for his work. Safe, quiet, and boring, I find it too nicely composed, tidy visual geometries that fit all too neatly inside the frame, coming across as inhibited as opposed to expressive. He had loads of talent, too bad he didn't have anything more to say outside of the fact that nature is pretty.
> 
> It's also important to make the distinction between technical proficiency and quality art.



+1   :thumbup:

Especially the  "inhibited VS expressive" part.


----------



## craig (Apr 20, 2008)

Pioneer to say the least. If you haven't already be sure to see his prints up close and personal. I do not dislike his work and doubt that anyone does. I agree with rob91 safe quiet and boring.  

Love & Bass


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 20, 2008)

rob91 said:


> For the most part I don't care for his work. Safe, quiet, and boring, I find it too nicely composed, tidy visual geometries that fit all too neatly inside the frame, coming across as inhibited as opposed to expressive. He had loads of talent, too bad he didn't have anything more to say outside of the fact that nature is pretty.
> 
> It's also important to make the distinction between technical proficiency and quality art.



I highly recommend you read the Biography of Ansel Adams by Alinder. You'd find that Adams would probably agree with you. Alfred Stiglitz once told Ansel Adams that his work was "technically perfect", and it pretty much crushed his spirit because he knew he wasn't making true "art". He spent years trying to bridge that gap, but if you deny that his work is art then I think you need to look again. Like Chris said, Clearing Winter Storm contains more drama and emotion than anything I've ever seen before, but that's just my opinion. I recommend you find an enormous version of it and just sit in front of it. Looking at it on a computer screen is a travesty. 

Also, Ansel Adams pretty much wrote the book on photographic compositon (literally). There is an over-tidiness to his work, but that was his style. Technical perfection. Also, considering what some of his work had accomplished, I'd say his work was more than "pretty nature pictures".


----------



## rob91 (Apr 21, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> I highly recommend you read the Biography of Ansel Adams by Alinder. You'd find that Adams would probably agree with you. Alfred Stiglitz once told Ansel Adams that his work was "technically perfect", and it pretty much crushed his spirit because he knew he wasn't making true "art". He spent years trying to bridge that gap, but if you deny that his work is art then I think you need to look again. Like Chris said, Clearing Winter Storm contains more drama and emotion than anything I've ever seen before, but that's just my opinion. I recommend you find an enormous version of it and just sit in front of it. Looking at it on a computer screen is a travesty.
> 
> Also, Ansel Adams pretty much wrote the book on photographic compositon (literally). There is an over-tidiness to his work, but that was his style. Technical perfection. Also, considering what some of his work had accomplished, I'd say his work was more than "pretty nature pictures".



Ansel would agree with me? Ha, that's exactly the opposite response I was expecting. You've put him in a bit of a new light for me, that, plus I wasn't aware of the bit with Stiglitz. Oh, and I'm not saying his work isn't art, it is, I just believe it was a distinction worth bringing up in this case.

"Pretty nature pictures"... I tend to exaggerate sometimes. I  am not overly familiar with his work.  I will try and check out Clearing Winter Storm. I agree that no photo, or painting or drawing for that matter, can be properly viewed on a screen. You must see a print.


----------



## Helen B (Apr 21, 2008)

I've always had the impression that he presents us with vegetables that are way overcooked. They have lost a lot of their flavour, but they are easy to consume and there's no doubt that they have been cooked. 

Best,
Helen


----------



## D-50 (Apr 21, 2008)

> For the most part I don't care for his work. Safe, quiet, and boring, I find it too nicely composed, tidy visual geometries that fit all too neatly inside the frame, coming across as inhibited as opposed to expressive. He had loads of talent, too bad he didn't have anything more to say outside of the fact that nature is pretty.
> 
> It's also important to make the distinction between technical proficiency and quality art.


 
What art school are you currently enrolled in? (not trying to be condecending at all your response just seems to be text book art student)


----------



## rob91 (Apr 21, 2008)

I dropped out of college two years ago in an undecided program not at all related to art. I've been sporadically taking community college courses since, recently a couple photo courses as well as a couple in art history. I was only introduced to Adam's work maybe six months ago, have read close to nothing about him (outside of the comments that are made around here) and those thoughts are wholly my own.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 21, 2008)

craig said:


> Pioneer to say the least. If you haven't already be sure to see his prints up close and personal. I do not dislike his work and doubt that anyone does. I agree with rob91 safe quiet and boring.



There is a large Ansel Adams exhibit that is touring the country.  I saw it at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, DC.  Out the of the 150 pictures, perhaps only ten or so were interesting, the rest were acutely boring.  They were well exposed, well composed, well focussed, well printed but really really boring.

I understand and have used his zone system. I respect what he did but the art has moved beyond just the technical perfection of an image.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 21, 2008)

A model T isn't much of a car, is it?

That really isn't the point.  Try looking at the whole picture (pun intended ).


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 21, 2008)

rob91 said:


> Ansel would agree with me? Ha, that's exactly the opposite response I was expecting. You've put him in a bit of a new light for me, that, plus I wasn't aware of the bit with Stiglitz. Oh, and I'm not saying his work isn't art, it is, I just believe it was a distinction worth bringing up in this case.
> 
> "Pretty nature pictures"... I tend to exaggerate sometimes. I  am not overly familiar with his work.  I will try and check out Clearing Winter Storm. I agree that no photo, or painting or drawing for that matter, can be properly viewed on a screen. You must see a print.



I do have to agree with some other posters, including yourself, that a lot of his work is pretty boring. Technically marvelous, but boring. But he does have some images that are completely spectacular, and I think that's why he became so famous. There is a book of his personal portfolios floating around, his choicest work from his different stages of photography, and they are really, really good. His body of work is so enormous, that it's difficult to judge his value based on just a few prints. There is bound to be something that pleases just about anyone.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 21, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> A model T isn't much of a car, is it?
> 
> That really isn't the point.  Try looking at the whole picture (pun intended ).



Good analogy. We need to take into account that Adams started really working in 1927.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 21, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Good analogy. We need to take into account that Adams started really working in 1927.



I don't think that is the issue.
When we look at the entire body of his work, most of it is boring yet every one is treated as if it was wonderful.  
He made some great pictures, but only some.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 21, 2008)

The Model T wouldn't even be considered a bad car today.  More likely it would be considered a toy.  The fact of the matter is though, is that the Model T changed the world.

The world of photography was not the same after Ansel came along. Anyone who causes a Sea Change in something as large and omnipresent as photography, or at the very least is a major player in such a change, deserves the "Great" tag in my book.

Perhaps there weren't as many _inspired_ photos as some would like but the content of his prints does not come close to filling his body of work.  Yes you should look at him as a photographer, but you should also look at him as a writer and an innovator, as a teacher, and as a spokesman for photography when photography was looked upon as little more than a poor substitute for a painting.

We have such a wonderful view because -as they say-  we are standing on the shoulders of giants.  (try recreating the zone system and  all of the darkroom techniques  by yourself if you don't believe me. )


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 22, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> The world of photography was not the same after Ansel came along. Anyone who causes a Sea Change in something as large and omnipresent as photography, or at the very least is a major player in such a change, deserves the "Great" tag in my book.
> 
> Perhaps there weren't as many _inspired_ photos as some would like but the content of his prints does not come close to filling his body of work.  Yes you should look at him as a photographer, but you should also look at him as a writer and an innovator, as a teacher, and as a spokesman for photography *when photography was looked upon as little more than a poor substitute for a painting.*



OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician and a wonderful public speaker.

There are several other photographers whose times overlap with AA whose work is more meaningful in all senses and who don't have the same adoring crowds, Steichen, Steiglitz, Strand, the Westons - just to work on the end of the alphabet. 

Eliot Porter, a large format nature photographer, is essentially unknown, yet every one of his pictures that I have ever seen is glorious, imaginative and beautiful - _and the issue of how he achieved these works of art never comes up._

The technology of any art should be irrelevant.  You shouldn't care whether your drawing charcoal is pressed by a machine or rolled between the breasts of virgins - as long as it makes the mark you want.

It is the unfortunate fate of photography to be cursed with a virulent, infectious love of  technology - and the  trend to confuse  adherence to rules with art.


----------



## D-50 (Apr 22, 2008)

Listen to Elvis' music, it is simple short nothing to interesting but people consider him an icon for whathe did for the music field.  Much the same critism said about Ansel admas could be said about Elvis or early Beatles for that matter but I think you would be hard pressed to find strong opponents to the talent of either of those artists.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 22, 2008)

OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician, a wonderful public speaker, could wiggle his hips and had an interesting haircut.


----------



## rob91 (Apr 22, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> The Model T wouldn't even be considered a bad car today.  More likely it would be considered a toy.  The fact of the matter is though, is that the Model T changed the world.
> 
> The world of photography was not the same after Ansel came along. Anyone who causes a Sea Change in something as large and omnipresent as photography, or at the very least is a major player in such a change, deserves the "Great" tag in my book.
> 
> ...



You're confusing the issue. Nobody in this thread has debated or even questioned the technical brilliance or influence of Adams, which of course is immense. While those factors make him an important figure in the field of photography they do not make him a great artist.




The_Traveler said:


> OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician and a wonderful public speaker.
> 
> There are several other photographers whose times overlap with AA whose work is more meaningful in all senses and who don't have the same adoring crowds, Steichen, Steiglitz, Strand, the Westons - just to work on the end of the alphabet.
> 
> ...



Damn, I can't tell you how much I agree with that.



D-50 said:


> Listen to Elvis' music, it is simple short nothing to interesting but people consider him an icon for whathe did for the music field. Much the same critism said about Ansel admas could be said about Elvis or early Beatles for that matter but I think you would be hard pressed to find strong opponents to the talent of either of those artists.



Just because you can find instances (though I would disagree with Elvis, agree with Beatles) where great art, influence, and iconography coincide doesn't mean it is always the case.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 22, 2008)

The_Traveler said:


> OK, my stance from now on will be that AA didn't do many great photos but that he was a superb technician and a wonderful public speaker.
> 
> There are several other photographers whose times overlap with AA whose work is more meaningful in all senses and who don't have the same adoring crowds, Steichen, Steiglitz, Strand, the Westons - just to work on the end of the alphabet.
> 
> ...



I think it's a given that some people get famous, and some people don't. Personality, connections, etc. will all contribute to an individuals fame. There are certainly a number of talented individuals who are virtually unknown because they choose not to be, or they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

And technology can be an important part of photography, but as we all know very well, it doesn't make the a good photograph.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 22, 2008)

I tried.


----------



## christopher walrath (Apr 22, 2008)

Edward Weston never used the Zone System.  He gained an intuition through years of exposure after exposure.  Minor White encouraged his students to impose their emotions in their work where Adams believed a photograph should be what it was to each individual viewer.  Ansel Adams was excited about the prospect of digital photography, anticlimatic to some film photographers (self excluded).

This just goes to show that you can approve of all photographers some of the time and of some photographers all of the time but people will sharpen their teeth on Ansel Adams timelessly.

My uncle is friends with Gerry Sharpe, Wyoming born trial lawyer and photographer, and in his book 'Gerry SPence's Wyoming' his first image is of the Grand Teons and the Snake River.  The same reverse 'S' of the Snake River and the tiered slope on the river's far side.  Gerry's clouds are infinitely better than Ansel's but AA nailed the snowy crests where GS's are in shadow and not an impact at all.  I love aspects of both photographer's images and dislike others.


----------



## droyz2000 (Apr 22, 2008)

It is hard for me to comment on this because I sometimes lack the words to say. I think was is important to remember is that even if people are not drawn to Adams' work, they must respect it for the fact that it is art and that Adams did so much for photography in the early years. So many times, because this is a Photography Forum, we only focus on photography, but we must put what Adams did in to perspective as to what else was happening in the art world. Expressionism was in around that time. I guess the question we could be asking ourselves is, is what Adams doing realism or expressionism? Just something to consider.


----------



## Judge Sharpe (Apr 23, 2008)

Up front, I will say that I admire Adams' work. Some find landscape boring. I have made maybe a thousand boring slides of pretty landscapes. I consider any that are "art" pure luck. I did not plan them, I happened to like what I saw at the time and shot it. It is sort of like when you tie a brush to a donkey's tail and if out of a hundred tries it produces one that  someone likes, calling it art. 
Adams planed each shot. He had a good idea of what he wanted to come out with before he pulled the trigger. He used the best equipment he could find, understood what it would do, how to modify the photograph through the use of filters, exposure, printing, paper choice, burn and dodge and development. He "photoshopped" his work before there was a photoshop. He was also a great teacher. He kept meticulous notes on each shot, through printing. He was a professional in the he worked at his avocation. He was an artist because he was able to produce or create his vision. To me his work is not boring, I think because I think I understand his context. To me abstract art is boring, but that is me. To try to appreciate any artist from a brief exposure short changes the artist and the student. 
Bill Clinton asked, "What is the definition of is?" I ask, how do you define art? 
Judge Sharpe


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 23, 2008)

I guess I don't understand 'devotion.' I don't see any difference between this kind of idolizing and being a fanatic fan of some sports figure or arguing about which camera system is better or even vociferously professing some religion.

Perhaps people want to believe in order to belong to some some group, to share in the glory or the reputation? I have no idea what drives people.  

I have long since given up the idea that idolizing anyone or anything would impact me or what I do in any way. 

I look at this kind of discussion much the way I respond when someone rings my doorbell and wants to talk about religion or politics. If I'm not busy, whoopee, some fun. But it sure doesn't mean anything. 

However, I do think it's funny when people act as if they are the possessor of 'received wisdom' because they 'understand.'  
I feel the same kind of amusement when I turn on the TV and see people who have painted themselves with their team's color and are standing out in the cold, cheering for athletes who are unaware of their existence.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 23, 2008)

Sorry T, I don't get where you are standing.  No one in this thread to my reading is Idol worshiping, just giving the man his due for all of his accomplishments the same as you would respect a copyright.  No one has claimed that he was another Monet, just an Ansel Adams.


----------



## christopher walrath (Apr 23, 2008)

No worshipping here.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I would call it admiration.  Admiration of work put in, research done, images made, etc., etc., et al, ad nauseum.  Ansel was a pioneer in photography.  I am my own photographer because I take pictures of rusted metal with peeling paint and shadows and contrast and stuff.  But I am chasing my vision.  And I am able through my knowledge of photography and facility with my gear to chase after that vision with unhindered enthusiasm and creativity.  This is what Ansel Adams has done for me.  Given me an example, not an idol.  Given me a goal, not a role.  Given me inspiration, not duplication.  His story and photographs have caused me to want to be the best photographer I can be and that is my/our gift from Ansel Adams.


----------



## petey (Apr 23, 2008)

I don't like Ansel Adams.  I don't like his pictures. I don't like how people idolize him. I don't like how everything in the world of photography is measured on his work and noone elses. I don't like the stories about his life and how he did this and how he did that and how it all has to mean something to me because I started shooting pictures and liking it. I don't like giant, black and white pictures of halfdome. I don't like seeing his name on everything. If he is that good there'd be no need to publish his name under it all. Take a good look. There is nothing good about it for crying out loud. Anyone could have taken pictures like that if they were right there with a camera. I don't like his books. They are highly technical jibber jabber clearly not written for modern photographers. What audience is he writing to? He is not funny or entertaining. He writes dry and boring like an old man. So he walked miles uphill to take pictures of things noone else did yet. BFD. Why does everyone have to accept the man as some kind of God just because he was in a particular place in time? I read once that he missed the birth of two of his children to take pictures. The author of the article made it sound like it was some kind of daring feat to miss the birth of your children. Some hero, eh? 

*whew*


----------



## Senor Hound (Apr 23, 2008)

I like the grittiness of his photos.  I don't even bother commenting on technical attributes cause at a level such as his, that's pretty much given (especially the old-school).

Personal characteristics set aside (just because someone misses their child being born, doesn't mean they can't take an awesome photo), I LOVE his style, and he makes me like a certain style of photography I otherwise wouldn't.

And its true anyone can go out and copy his style, but the originality of it is what makes it so great.  Anyone can get a plywood, some automotive paint and a coffee can with a hole in it, and make a drip painting.  But when Jackson Pollock did it, it was ORIGINAL and creative, and that's why he's whole collection would probably be worth a billion dollars...  Any musician can compose a piece of music to sound like Robert Johnson, but Robert Johnson will be forever remembered because he was the FIRST to put love and hate and pain and sorrow into his music in that special way we call the blues...

To get artists of the past, its imperative to put yourself in their time.  Otherwise, you'll never get it.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 24, 2008)

One of the (many) things to give AA props for his diligence in location scouting. He would return to a location for years, while considering light angles and all that, to make sure he got a good spot. No hiking up the mountain and hoping to land a good one... it took real work. And he also did a lot of good dark room work... including inserting a better sky if the one that day was no good. I'm not a huge AA fan, not really the kind of images I like to look at, but I respect really hard work when I see it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> Sorry T, I don't get where you are standing.  No one in this thread to my reading is Idol worshiping, just giving the man his due for all of his accomplishments the same as you would respect a copyright.  No one has claimed that he was another Monet, just an Ansel Adams.



Oh yes, I remember all the threads entitled:

"Steiglitz, famous for a reason."
"Weston, famous for a reason."
"Strand, famous for a reason."
"Penn, famous for a reason."
"Muybridge, famous for a reason"
"Brady, famous for a reason."
"Atget, famous for a reason."
"Niepce, famous for a reason."
"Eakins, famous for a reason."

Adams is the choice for popular adulation because he produced a clear 'way' of doing things, in English, step-by-step that people could sign on to and seem to emulate - whatever their own actual results.

His fame is based on his method and not his artistic ability, which has been surpassed by many people before and since. 

Look at 95% of his output and you can see what he is thinking.  "OK, I basically have to reproduce the  content in a reasonable composition but the most important thing is to  control the tonal range from total black to total white.

William Shakespeare," Let's see.  I want this place to be about a young couple who are frustrated in their love.  I need to make certain that the scenes are played in every time of the day so we can change the lighting and the voices need to go from very soft to very loud." The underlying techniques are irrelevant to the artistic output and should be almost 'invisible.' 

In most of Adams' work, the technique is the only important issue. (I believe that I have seen as much or more of it in person and reproduction as anyone on this site.)  His enormous popularity is because anyone can work in the Ansel Adams tradition, it is approachable by anyone, requires only some technical attention and the ability to do multiplication. It can be done without talent because it is the method that seems to count and not the final product. 

Its like signing up for a triathlon, you can wear the t-shirt even if you drop out after the first 100 yards - and no one will ever know.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 24, 2008)

I've learned a lot from Adam's work, and my photography is better for it.  I see no sense in ragging on a dead guy.


----------



## Jon0807 (Apr 25, 2008)

Art is subjective.  What's beautiful and artistic to one person won't always be that to another


----------



## -GDconcepts- (Apr 25, 2008)

Ansel Adam's style of shooting was very premature. He was before his time. His outlook is a little "safe" but his composition is amazing, imo. I've always found his work and his quotes great.


----------



## Early (Apr 29, 2008)

I have to admit, he was a great printer.  It just that I've never seen one of his photos that would stop me in my tracks like some photogs.


----------



## CanadianMe (Apr 29, 2008)

NY Times Interactive Feature on ANSEL ADAMS

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/27/travel/20080427_YOSEMITE_FEATURE.html


----------



## Miaow (Apr 30, 2008)

I really like his work - he has some beautiful shots.


----------



## craig (Apr 30, 2008)

I think he took neat pictures. Did he shoot with a Cannon or a Nikon?

)'(


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 30, 2008)

I believe he used a point and shoot modified to take 10x8.

I've written enough about Adams in this forum though a quick search failed to find the right thread so I will just re-state the salient points.
Adams was a superb technician. The only thing that he was better at was hyping himself.
His main claim to fame rests on two things: he was taught by Edward Weston and he photographed America.
The second was what really put him in the spotlight. If you look at what was going on in the World in the 50's and 60's you will see that the Cold War was coming to a peak. The US was fighting Communism on all fronts - including Art. The CIA funded the cartoon _Animal Farm_, Jackson Pollock/Mark Rothko et al were pushed as America's answer to Modern Art, and Adams was promoted as a photographer.
Adams photographed the American landscape so his images promoted 'America the Beautiful', a good propaganda tool.
This is not to detract from Adams (or others) but just an attempt to give people a Historical anchor - to see him in context.
He continues to serve as an example to aspiring amateurs because his pictures are accessible: what you see is what you get. No knowledge of Art or Photography is needed because his images are largely of Nature so we can respond to them in the same way as we respond to a nice view or a sunset. 
In fact they serve as a yard-stick for judging other pictures. Adams is seen at the top (technical perfection) with all other photographers being measured against him in terms of technical competence.
It is only if you get beyond the obsession with the equation 'technical perfection = good photography' that you can begin to see Adams for what he is.
In terms of inspiring generations of photographers, promoting Photography as Art, and promoting technical perfection he comes into the top five.
In terms of being the most influential photographer of all time, again he is in the top five.
In terms of creativity and originality... Well, you can't win them all.
I don't see this as a bad thing, though, provided you keep a sense of proportion. See Adams for what he is, respect his huge contribution to Photography - then go and look at some more creative, original and _challenging_ photographers.

Personally, I think he missed his calling. The few portraits that he did show a rare talent in this area. If only someone had told him 'stick with people, AA, and forget the trees and rocks' I would not be writing this.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 30, 2008)

CanadianMe said:


> NY Times Interactive Feature on ANSEL ADAMS
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/27/travel/20080427_YOSEMITE_FEATURE.html



Thanks for posting that CM.

If you get it, you get it.  If you don't, I guess you had to be there. If everyone were to be there, it wouldn't be worth it.


----------

