# Ansel Adams - Whats so great?



## SteveEllis

Hi Guys,

I have heard the name Ansel Adams appear on here a bit lately, he seems to be described as the be all and end all of photography.

But to be honest, I have looked at some of his images (Only on the internet admittedly) and dont really see whats so special about them.  Yes there are some great shots, but there seems to be a lot of overly dark shots that in my opinion are terrible, the Nevada Desert Road photo being a prime example.

Am I missing something or does the computer simply not do this man the justice he deserves?

Thanks,
Steve.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

You have to see prints in the original to fully appreciate them. Reproductions in books or on computers loose an awful lot so you can't use them to make judgements.
Ansel Adams was, undoubtedly, a technical master but I think this does cloud a lot of people's thinking about him. There is a lot more to a good photograph than technical perfection.
I have a complete set of reproductions of all his portfolios and I have to admit that there are quite a few pictures in there that just don't make it in terms of subject and composition. Most of his landscapes were set up for him by Nature, anyway.
I have even seen a still life of his that would only get a 'C' for GCSE student.
My personal view of AA was that he was much better at doing portraits than anything else - those portraits of his that I've seen are superb. Particularly the one of Weston.
I think a lot of the myth of Adams came about the same way as Jackson Pollock's status - and at about the same time.
In the 50's and 60's the US felt it needed some great Artists to combat the 'Communist' Modern Art movements in Europe so they promoted selected people. Adams would be an obvious choice as he took pictures celebrating America the Beautiful. Perfect for propaganda purposes.
If you think this is a far-fetched theory I assure you it isn't. The evidence supports the Pollock theory and it is now accepted worldwide. There is also proof that the CIA commissioned the cartoon version of 'Animal Farm', paid for it to be made and paid for it to be promoted and screened at all Schools in the 'free' world. They thought it would help to defeat Communism.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Adams gained some of his stature in the same way. But no-one wants to do research that might tarnish the myth.


----------



## Digital Matt

First of all, you are looking at 72 dpi of pixels on an uncalibrated monitor.  

Secondly, in this day and age of photoshop and digital cameras, what Ansel was able to do with FILM seems very passe, when in fact, it is very difficult, and at the height of the artform.

Thirdly, and lastly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  If you don't like it, you don't like it.  If you have a passion for the outdoors, and the beauty of Yosemite, then I don't think you can deny the beauty of his photography.


----------



## photoboy15

Personally I think you need to work in a darkroom to appreciate AA. I look at a lot of pictures today and yea they look cool. Then I ask is this person a photographer or a photographer thats really good at photoshop guy/girl. AA was that "photoshop guy" of the early 20th century. He was a technical master even if all his picture weren't the best composed or most impressive to look at.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> If you have a passion for the outdoors, and the beauty of Yosemite, then I don't think you can deny the beauty of his photography.


But you can't ascribe artistic skill to someone who is just taking pictures of something that is naturally beautiful, can you? Just recording what is there is easy to do and takes no real skill. Anyone can do it. But this fact is forgotten and so Adams is renowned as a great landscape photographer - whilst the things he did which are worthy of merit are forgotten or largely ignored.
You also need to put his technical achievements into perspective.
He shot on 10x8 and contact printed, and it's easy to get good results that way. And the Zone System was largely developed by Edward Weston, who taught Adams.


----------



## Digital Matt

So there is no artistic skill in landscape nature photography?


----------



## panzershreck

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> But you can't ascribe artistic skill to someone who is just taking pictures of something that is naturally beautiful, can you? Just recording what is there is easy to do and takes no real skill.


 
that's a wholly different debate - who is responsible for great art - the artist, or the subject? painting/drawing is easy, photography not so much... you can have brilliant technical skills, but your photos can suck if the subject sucks... whereas you can have terrible technical skills, but still get good photos if the subject is good...

in AA's case, he was technically excellent


----------



## JC1220

Go see some of his photographs in person, the web is really not a reliable way to view photographs.  

Adams was indeed a great photographer for many reasons, and produced some wonderful work.  Like any great he was not without fault and, like any medium, bound to have people who don't like his work.  

Does he make my list of top 10 photographers? No. I think I said this before in another post, but for someone who did know so much about the technical he did way too much manipulation in the darkroom.  He was really not a visually productive photographer with his truely best work spanning maybe a decade and a half.  Once he moved away from contact printing, and on to large prints, there was a marked degredation in the quality.  It has also been said about Adams, and I agree, that he brought us and helped us to see the natural surface beauty with his vision while other photographers had the ability to connect on a scale of truely deep beauty and universal resonance, i.e. Weston.

Regardless, I do believe he was a great photographer, not only for his work but what he was able to do for the medium.

JC


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> So there is no artistic skill in landscape nature photography?


I didn't say that. What I was saying was that sometimes people are seduced by the subject and though the photographer has very little input he gets praised for being good when it is the subject that does all the work. 
This is something that you have to bear in mind when looking at photographs and judging them critically.

And Adams does deserve a place amongst the greats - it's just that some people rate him far higher than he deserves.


----------



## JTHphoto

I probably shouldn't even be posting in here because I have no darkroom experience and don't know anything about the life of AA or any pro-photog for that matter. I think it's just like Matt said above, it all comes down to personal taste in art/photography. to some, he's the greatest, others may not like his work. All i know is that if someone asked me to name as many professional photogs as i could, his would be the only name i could come up with... maybe that's just because i live in the SW and don't have any formal photography education. 


hertz, i found the propaganda theory about AA's popularity interesting, wouldn't surprise me in the least. it definitely makes sense the way you describe it. never heard that before... is this the kind of stuff you can learn in a photography class? the university wouldn't let you take photo 101 unless you were an art major, and the community college cancelled all darkroom classes and only had "digital" darkroom classes where you bought b&w film which was developed c-41 at a walgreens and then worked with on a computer to make prints. i dropped it after my second class. LAME.


----------



## zedin

To some extent also AA is great because of the shots he got.  By this I mean you really didn't see to many photographers of that age lugging a huge view camera through America's wilderness.  Some of the shots were considered so great due to the fact he took the time and effort to get to the location with his gear.


----------



## Kent Frost

AA set a major milestone in photography during his day. There weren't near as many people into the art of photography/darkroom in his day as there are today. especially if you take into consideration the advent of digital. Now there are millions of people trying to duplicate his style. Standing and looking at his prints today probably has quite a different effect on a lot of people VS. the people of the 1950's. There just weren't that many of those kinds of images floating around. Nonetheless, I do feel that his work has stood the test of time, but as mentioned, computer monitors and reproductions do NOT do his work justice at all.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

It's stuff you pick up reading obscure journals about Art and Photography.
There is actually quite a lot of research that has been done at various times by PhD students and academics. Some of it is pretty dull but just occasionally they pull out something interesting.

As for Art - a lot of people make the mistake of confusing Art with 'what they like'. Just because you like something doesn't make it Art - and not liking something doesn't stop it from being Art.
When you look at a picture (or anything else) you have to try and separate out your subjective and objective views.
As a young man in my 20's I really liked Helmut Newton and thought his work brilliant. But later when I started learning about Photography I began to look at lighting, composition and other things. I then realised that what I liked about Newton was the gorgeous models and slick locations. Once you look beyond those you see that he doesn't have much else going for him.
With regards landscape, the same applies. How much of the picture is just the view, and how much the photographer?
I find a lot of Adams' work sterile and bland. There is so much pursuit of technical excellence that the image becomes more about that than engagement with the subject.
I much prefer the work of John Blakemore, and others like him. Adams' pictures say 'this is what I saw', Blakemore's say 'this is what I _felt_'.


----------



## danalec99

> sometimes people are seduced by the subject and though the photographer has very little input he gets praised for being good when it is the subject that does all the work.


That is so deep!


----------



## KevinR

I would have to tend to believe you need to look at AA from a broader perspective than just his photography. When you look at what he did to promote photography, promote teaching photography, the books he wrote, the activism he stood for, and then his photography and skill of the technical aspects. Then the accolades he receives maybe more justified.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

zedin said:
			
		

> To some extent also AA is great because of the shots he got.  By this I mean you really didn't see to many photographers of that age lugging a huge view camera through America's wilderness.  Some of the shots were considered so great due to the fact he took the time and effort to get to the location with his gear.


He was only following in the footsteps of people like C E Watkins, Edweard Muybridge and T H O'Sullivan who did it all 100 years or so before Adams.
Muybridge was photographing El Capitan in the 1870's. 
O'Sullivan travelled right across the US and was shooting on wet plate collodion. That meant carrying more than 1/2 ton of glass plates in a wagon with no roads, as well as coating and processing _in situ_. Add to that fighting off bandits and native Americans...
Adams had it easy.


----------



## JTHphoto

> That meant carrying more than 1/2 ton of glass plates in a wagon with no roads, as well as coating and processing _in situ_. Add to that fighting off bandits and native Americans...
> Adams had it easy.


 
:shock: and i complain about trekking a few miles back to some falls with a dinky 35mm...  I don't know how much i would have risked my life for a photo...  i had a run in with a gila monster once, and a rattlesnakes from time to time, but thankfully no bandits!


----------



## 'Daniel'

Hertz out of interest is this the still life you refered to?


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Yes. My personal opinion is that it's ghastly and I think Adams made a big mistake selecting it for that folio.
I say this as one who was trained as a still-life photographer.
I'm sure other people hold different opinions, though.


(Just compare that to his portrait of Weston - from the sublime to the awful)


----------



## markc

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Yes. My personal opinion is that it's ghastly and I think Adams made a big mistake selecting it for that folio.


That's an Adams? Gads. I have to agree with you HvR.


----------



## PaulJMcCain

Ansel Adams used a great dynamic range in every one of his photographs. That, and his amazing composition, are what make him a great photographer. There's no way you should fully judge any photographer based on images on a computer screen. You have to see a print.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

PaulJMcCain said:
			
		

> Ansel Adams used a great dynamic range in every one of his photographs.


He only used the same 'dynamic range' as all other photographers. Photo paper will only give you black, white and the grays in between. 

As for 'great composition' - how much control does a photographer have over Nature? You can only photograph what's there, and that limits your ability to compose severely.
It would be closer to the truth to say 'he was good at finding a great view'.
To see what he was like without a mountain in front of him, just go back and look at his still life. Great composition, huh?

I do wish people would get over this blind obsession with him being the greatest photographer who ever lived. There is more to being a good photographer than mere technical mastery. There have been, and are, a great many who are his equal in terms of imagery. And many who are better.


----------



## photoboy15

I don't think most photographers think he is the best that ever lived, but he was a very good photographer and the most popular for better or worse. He was a teacher and help a lot people understand the zone system. I have seen some of his still life's and yes there are some that I think OK?.  There are also some that are very nice. As for dynamic range, yes we all can get that same film and paper but know how to use them is a different story. I'm not one who says he is the greatest, far from it, but I have respect for his talents.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

photoboy15 said:
			
		

> I don't think most photographers think he is the best that ever lived, but he was a very good photographer and the most popular for better or worse. He was a teacher and help a lot people understand the zone system. I have seen some of his still life's and yes there are some that I think OK?.  There are also some that are very nice. As for dynamic range, yes we all can get that same film and paper but know how to use them is a different story. I'm not one who says he is the greatest, far from it, but I have respect for his talents.


Absolutely.
I was just making the point that far too many people believe him to be the best and so are uncritical of his work. They usually think he is the best because he's the only one they have ever heard of and they find it easy to relate to his pictures.
A lot of his pictures are just eye candy.


----------



## Luminosity

markc said:
			
		

> That's an Adams? Gads. I have to agree with you HvR.


 
Ok sorry for the off-topic but......MARK !!! I had to check the date to see if yours was an old post....long time no see buddy ! 

Back to Ansel now.


----------



## dirtnapper

Well, if you are in the Boston area, his exhibit at the MFA has been extended until Jan. 4, 2006. Go see it.


----------



## panzershreck

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> As for 'great composition' - how much control does a photographer have over Nature? You can only photograph what's there, and that limits your ability to compose severely.
> It would be closer to the truth to say 'he was good at finding a great view'.


 
most of photography is dealing with "getting to the shot" than actually "taking the shot", if that makes you mediocre, then almost everybody is mediocre

AA certainly marketted himself, and his zone system which few understand

you could say he's the steven spielberg of photography - myth more than reality, not doing anything anybody else is or has not already done a billion times better, but still a legend and an idol :meh:


----------



## Hertz van Rental

panzershreck said:
			
		

> most of photography is dealing with "getting to the shot" than actually "taking the shot", if that makes you mediocre, then almost everybody is mediocre


There is a lot of photography that is more than that - portraiture and product photography for example. In both you construct almost everything in the shot and control the lighting totally.
I used to be an Advertising photographer and everything in my shots was in exactly the place I wanted it - because I put it there. Musing on how much the photographer contributes  to a landscape was something I did often because of this.
With landscape it is just a matter of getting to the shot. Once you get your camera set up the rest has been done for you. With the photography I did, getting to the studio was just the start.
I am still in two minds about it and have a sneaky feeling that landscape is 'lower down' in the hierachy of photography.
I think it needs a separate thread to discuss it. I'd be interested to hear other's views.
It is not, however, an indicator of mediocrity. There are good landscape photographers and bad ones, as in all branches of the Arts. I just think that too many people put Adams on a much higher pedestal than he deserves for no better reason than he is the only photographer they have heard of.


----------



## e_

Members wishing to directly compare the work of Mr Adams alongside that of his peers may find this useful:

http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/monthly/indexof.html



For best viewing results, calibrate your monitor on the site using this link:

http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/monitor_calibration.html



Have fun...



e_


----------



## photoboy15

Hertz,  I like you do a lot of studio work. Controlling lighting and product placement and doing it well are what make a good studio photographer. But shooting outdoors with no control of lighting is what makes it hard. And the ones who are very good at it like Adams, the Westons, etc make a very good images use what is there, with no ability to change the light other than on film and paper. So I don't think that landscape photography is any of a lower form its just a different form. _Beauty is in the eye of the beholder._


----------



## Hertz van Rental

photoboy15 said:
			
		

> Hertz,  I like you do a lot of studio work. Controlling lighting and product placement and doing it well are what make a good studio photographer. But shooting outdoors with no control of lighting is what makes it hard. And the ones who are very good at it like Adams, the Westons, etc make a very good images use what is there, with no ability to change the light other than on film and paper. So I don't think that landscape photography is any of a lower form its just a different form. _Beauty is in the eye of the beholder._


This is my point entirely, but you seem to be missing it.
Landscape photographers do indeed have no option but to 'use what is there' and don't have control over lighting. So if they produce a great image, exactly how much of that is down to them?
If they have no control over anything then a lot of it is just luck, surely?
They can't change the light so they rely on the vagaries of the weather.
They can't move mountains or plant trees so the only control they have over composition is to move around a bit to get the best view.
(And that raises the question: how much of the viewer's response is purely a response to the subject?)
The only thing they can really do is to take a lot of pictures. Adams surely did that - but if you look at his total published output there are not that many. One then has to wonder at his cropping ratio. How many pictures did he have to take to get a good one?
As he did it for a living then 10 sheets a week would be conservative. Over the year that's some 500. On the evidence of his output he produced maybe 10 good shots a year. 50:1? That's looking less like talent and more like chance.
In the studio it's more like 3:1 - and that's only because you do a couple of extra in case there is a problem with processing.
But I agree that there are (and have been) some amazing landscape photographers. So where does their talent lie?
I believe it is in their vision, their point of view, how they respond and react to the environment they are in.
With Adams, if you forget everything about him and look at his landscapes on their own merit - they come across as bland and emotionless. Like a scientist examining a specimen down a microscope. It is as if he selected his views for the sole purpose of demonstrating his technical expertise, not because he felt anything for them.
Look at the work of Weston, his mentor. His nudes, peppers, portraits, landscapes. There is no doubt he was a genius. Adams doesn't even come close, yet people always say his name with reverence.
Why?
Nobody writing in this thread has yet put forward anything like a reasoned argument to explain why he should be so revered.
It can be summed up as 'Adams was great because he was Adams'.
I think people need to have a _serious_ think about this - and look at the work of some other landscape photographers. He wasn't the only one, you know.



'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - this is a non-argument.
People trot it out when they have no real case, believing it to be deep and profound and an irrefutable argument.
This is not so. It is just a meaningless cliche.
If it is interpreted as 'every person's idea of beauty is different' then that is not true. Our idea of what is beautiful is formed and created by our Society. There is a huge amount of evidence to prove that our ideals of beauty are pretty similar but are Culture dependent.
The only interpretation that works is 'different people _like_ different things'. Which is not the same.
Someone who likes motorbikes will think a picture superb if it is of a 'bike they like, regardless of how good it is photographically. Just look at pornography. The biggest business in the world. Broadly speaking the pictures used are artistically poor - but they do the job and usually the viewer is not interested in the lighting or composition.
In the words of Susan Sontag: to most people a beautiful picture is a picture of something beautiful.
Think about that.


----------



## markc

I've always considered Adams to be more of a technician than an artists. From all accounts, he seems to be a master of the darkroom, but his work usually leaves me cold. As you say, my response is usually, "Great view."

As for landscape photography... I see being able to recognize good lighting to be a skill related to being able to create it. A good landscape photographer may not create the lighting, but still has to recognize what is "good". I see it being similar to available light portraiture or street photography.

Personally, I prefer to work with the dynamic and see what I can make of it. I can do studio work, but don't care for it. Some of it is because I'm not as good at it, but it can be argued that that's because I rarely practice at it. It's just that I find it a sterile environment and the results, even from those really good at it, often don't raise an emotional response to me.

There are good studio photographers that would be completely lost when trying to deal with the dynamics of getting a good shot of a child running around. These are different skill sets, but I don't think one is necessarily harder than the other. It often depends on the persons personality as to what they find themselves a "natural" at.


----------



## alexecho

My problem with studio photography is that it is very dependent on having the right equipment.
In some  photography, the art is getting in the right position and waiting for the right moment. Either the right light or the right expression, then you make sure your framing is right and the focusing still sharp, hit the shutter and you have captured that moment.
In studio photography the skill is almost opposite to that. You visualise what you want, then create it. You can create almost any lightling effect, if you have beought the right lights, and I know you need to know how to use them, but you can spend countless hours 'testing' the effects of different things in different positions, and once you've learnt that it will never change. You can move the lights around for hours, seeing your options, then go back to whatever looks best, exactly when it pleases you. Then you get the thing you want to photograph, inanimate object or model. You position it how you feel it looks best, again you get to move it around to suit yourself and can go back if you feel you have passed the best position.

I think they are both equally skilled in their own ways... AA was just a good technician, he took 'nice' pictures, but you can't say more than that, and 'nice' always suggests they don't make you feel anything, they don't speak to you. I don't think that's a good thing.


----------



## photoboy15

I don't think we get each others points. I'm better talker than a typer. But no mater what type of photographer you are you need to have a good eye and technical prowess to continually produce good work.


----------



## 'Daniel'

I think that Hertz argument does actually apply to alot types of photography including studio work.

If you do still life, unless you design and craft everythnig you have in your shot you have only a few more degrees of control over the objects.  It's pretty much impossible that what you use is qwhat you see in a vision unless your vision included those objects already and already the vision is inhibited by what is possible.  There is more control in still life over landscape but it still has limitations.

Portrait photography is the same thing.  The model is a big part.  You can't design a human so have to go with whats available.  unless you are a very famous photographer its unliekly you can get any model in the world.  so yuo go with the ones that are possible.  No one sees what it would have looked like with a 'better' model only you in your visions eye.  It's still stopping the picture being perfect to your vision.


So I think that Hertz point is true but slightly self attacking as well.  But again, different types of photography are different so you can't apply the ame attributes to define genius or great.

blah.


----------



## e_

*
My definition  of landscape photography is "environmental portraiture"

As a photojournalist and documentary maker I employ both the skill sets used by studio and landscape shooters which, in summary, are 'lighting ratios' (studio) and 'capturing the moment' (landscape) 

Studios are fun but i prefer the dynamic - or, in simple terms, the adventure of location shooting

There's no hierarchy; to see one would be ignorance. Or arrogance

With regards Ansel Adams, I respect his place his history and thank him for the Zone System

Have fun!



e_


----------



## Alexandra

ok, i just went through this whole debate and gotta say it's incredibly interesting and it's nice to see so much people with different and valuable opinions



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Adams' pictures say 'this is what I saw', Blakemore's say 'this is what I _felt_'.


Totally agree here.

Actually, I'd link AA's landscapes to "calendar pics". I mean, it's beautiful and very pleasant to look at, but it's just that. I don't get any feeling from it.
And another point nobody seemed to bring up yet: the photographer's own point of view. Maybe I don't feel anything from AA's landscapes cause I wasn't there and I didn't see it and I didn't hear what he heard on the spot. If such is the case, his pics probably meant a lot to him just because they reminded him of some feelings. And we just don't get it cause we're not him.
I mean, if I shoot a sunrise pic, which i happen to do very often, it might look quite sterile to somebody else and they would just qualify it as a "good capture". But on my side, I walked down to the water, froze my fingers off, heard the silence of the morning and the little waves under the ice and then took the pic and that's what makes me love it.
But then again a good photographer should be able to comunicate thier feelings through the pics...


----------



## Mumfandc

Ansel Adams...THE ZONE SYSTEM.


----------



## SamuelA

I don't really have much of an arguement or anything to prove in this but like someone said above..you really need to see the originals to see what he's all about. Today I went with some friends to the Ansel Adams exhibition in Huntsville, AL and was absolutely blown away at all his photographs. His portraits were very nice but it was more his landscape pictures that interested me the most..and after looking at them for a while I started to look more closely at them and noticed the amazing, minute details in every photo. They were breathtaking. I could just stand and stare at one photo forever. So if you really do want to see why he's so "hyped up" definatley check out his galleries if they ever come near you.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

SamuelA said:
			
		

> you really need to see the originals to see what he's all about.


The same is true of every photographer and artist. Adams is no exception.
But is the production of 'amazing detail' all there is to being a 'good' photographer?
If it is then every surveillance satellite orbiting the Earth is at least as good as Adams


----------



## photoboy15

I'm beginning tho think you have a personal issue with Adams that years of therapy will not even help you to overcome.  Of course I'm just kidding i think the therapy would help. But anyway, art its opinion based and people love or hate his work for a various amount of reasons.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

I don't have a personal issue with Adams at all.
What I do have is an issue with blinkered thinking.
Whenever I ask anyone who reveres Adams' work why they hold it and him in such esteem you basically get one or more of the following answers:
Adams was the greatest because he was Adams.
Adams was great because he produced sharp pictures with a full tonal range.
Adams was great because he invented the Zone System.
Adams was great because he was a good technician.

I've seen the same answers in this thread and no new ones.
The truth is that most people revere Adams either because they have been told he is the greatest or because they don't really know any others.
What I am trying to do is get people to actually _think_ about what makes a good photograph and what makes a good photographer.
Is it just the technical aspect? Or is it something beyond that?


----------



## 'Daniel'

Why these black and white opinions as well?  I neither love or hate him.  I am indifferent. He produced nice pictures, blah not something to write home about in my eye though.


----------



## photoboy15

Hertz I was just kidding and adding some levity to the situation, that didn't translate well to typing on the net. I don't think you have a personal prob with Adams or need therapy for it. I think you need therapy for a who different set of reasons (joke).

On the the more important issue. What makes a good photograph, many different thing. A photo could have Convey great emotion but could lack technical superiority and be a great photo, as the opposite it could lack emotion but be technically superior and be considered a good photograph.  Going back to My days as a musician Louie Louie is a song that everyone new and loved, but it was 3 frickin chords. No technical but invoked emotion, probably alcohol fueled emotion, but never the less emotion. 

So moving on to product photography, which I believe you said you were at one time. If you create the perfect set-up, great lighting scheme and it is exactly what the client wanted, but lacks a emotion response "a connection" is it a good photograph. If it look good and does its job then its a good photograph but many photographers could say I would do this or that etc. I go back to what Ive said in one form or another Its art is subjective and really deepens on who's looking at it.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

photoboy15 said:
			
		

> art is subjective and really deepens on who's looking at it.


Art is not subjective but objective.
What _is_ subjective is whether you like it or not.
The two things are entirely separate and independent - but too many people get them confused.


----------



## LWW

AA was the beta version of PhotoShop.

LWW


----------



## danalec99

Splendid! :lmao:


----------



## santino

Mumfandc said:
			
		

> Ansel Adams...THE ZONE SYSTEM.



Adams didn't invent the zone system at all.


----------



## panzershreck

ok so apart from the lack of artistic accomplishment, and the lack of emotion in his photos (make great calender pictures though), and the overrated reputation... what else is there?

i think this sums up a lot though: 



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Adams was the greatest because he was Adams.


----------



## ksmattfish

Diane Arbus, what's so great?
William Eggleston, what's so great?
Lee Friedlander, what's so great?
Minor White, what's so great?
Jackson Pollack, what's so great?
Picasso, what's so great?

Possibly someone else sees something you don't.  Maybe they just have different taste.  Try putting more effort into understanding Adams, or just move on.  You don't like the same clothes, music, food, etc... than everyone else.  Why would art be any different?  

I never understood the excitement about Eggleston.  It seemed to me that his body of work was interesting, but typical of early explorations in color photography that I see from people getting interested in photography; it's very similar to the color photography I saw in Photo 101 and 102 classes.  Possibly he gets the credit for doing it first, but to me his style never seemed to grow or change or get better or more exciting.  That he is often called the father of color art photography perplexed me enough that I began to study Eggleston.  I'm finding as I learn about the person behind the photos, the photos are becoming more interesting.  I'm not sure I get it yet, but I'm willing to keep looking.


----------



## markc

I feel the same way about Eggleston. His work seems to be just above "snapshots". But there is a sort of consistant style there that makes the images recognizable as Eggleston. Once I started to see that, I liked them more.

One of my theories about why people like certain work deals with familiarity. For most people, familiarity = comfort. People like it when they can look at an image and be able to tell who did it. If someone liked Adams, but was a big fan of Friedlander, they probably wouldn't be so keen if Friedlander did a landscape in the style of Adams, even though they like Adams's images. It's okay if Adams does it, but that's not Friedlander's kind of work. It throws things off.


----------



## JC1220

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Try putting more effort into understanding Adams,


 
I think this is something few people with aspirations to be a fine art photographer or, even a photographer in general, fail to do: understand and learn the history of photography and its masters.  Whether or not you like or dislike a body of work means little if dont take the time to learn about what made that person tick or their processes.  Adams was a wonderful photographer and his early photographs from the 30s and 40s are filled with emotion and feeling.  This also happens to coincide with a period where he mainly contact printed and, in my opinion, after this time and his insistence on enlarging he appears not to grow as a photographer and I believe his work shows just that, there is a lack of emotion felt while viewing some of these later works nor the glow and tonal ranges seen in his prints of the early years.  I believe it is a mistake to dismiss the early masters as it is a mistake to revere them to a point of emulation, there is so much to learn from them and ultimately affect your personal growth as a photographer, neglect the need to grow and you will fail to see.

As to who invented the zone system, it is true the Fred Archer wrote about and formed the basis of what we now know as the zone system prior to Adams.(Not the same Frederick Scott Archer who invented the colloidian process) Adams read his writings and I believe worked with or was in contact with Archer about them and Adams went on to refine it, going through several changes even up to a few years before his death.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Try putting more effort into understanding Adams,


This is working on the basis that there is something there to understand


----------



## ShutteredEye

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> I didn't say that. What I was saying was that sometimes people are seduced by the subject and though the photographer has very little input he gets praised for being good when it is the subject that does all the work.
> This is something that you have to bear in mind when looking at photographs and judging them critically.
> 
> And Adams does deserve a place amongst the greats - it's just that some people rate him far higher than he deserves.



Wouldn't you agree that one of the most difficult things to do as an artist is to get out of the way of the subject?  

To discredit an artist because he took photographs of beautiful subjects is foolish.  You and I know that if we stood in the very footsteps of AA, our renditions fo the same subject matter would still widely differ from each other.

I think a big reason for AA's popularity is his work is easy to look at.   Even the most naive of novices can stand in front of an Ansel Adams and appreciate the print.  Further his style is fairly distinctive, and easy to remember.  If you flash someone a high contrast black and white print of aspen trees and ask who they thought took it, they'll probably come up with his name.

It's like wine.  Beringer white zinfandel is on the lips of every novice out there.  Now, anyone with any nose for wine will tell you that BWZ is an ok wine, but maybe not that great.  But still it enjoys popularity, because it's easy to drink, it has that distinctive pink color, and a name that sounds classy and easy to remember.

AA's prints allow people who don't know photography to feel like they do.

And there's nothing wrong with that.  If anything, we should be studying his marketing strategies....


----------



## Hertz van Rental

ShutteredEye said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you agree that one of the most difficult things to do as an artist is to get out of the way of the subject?


On the contrary - that is the easiest thing in the world to do. And that is just what Adams tended to do - certainly with his landscapes.
If the photographer 'gets out of the way' then you end up with just a photographic record: this is how it looked; this is what was there. This is what you try and do when you do Medical Photography or Forensic Photography. "Just the facts, ma'am".
The skill in this type of Photography is purely technical - total control of the medium. This can be admired but I wouldn't call it Art, or anything near.
To stop arguments along the lines of 'oh yes it is' or even worse 'art is in the eye of the beholder' consider this:
The ultimate in pure technical control is satellite surveillance photography. Everything is accurate to the 'n'th degree. It can produce some amazing, unusual and beautiful images. But they are produced by an automatic machine. Are the images Art? The argument 'art is in the eye of the beholder' would say 'yes'.
A machine can produce Art? Either your definition of Art is flawed or Art is nothing special.
One of the main axioms that defines Art is that the Artist _interprets_ what he is representing. The subject is filtered through the Artist so that the end product is not a straight record but reveals it in a new light, in a new way. It makes us think afresh about the subject - and reveals to us something of the Artist. 
Good Art tends to challenge our preconceived notions and should be an emotional, as well as an intellectual, experience. Like reading a novel or listening to music or seeing a play.
The mark of Great Art is that it changes us in some way, however minor or subtle. Any one who has suddenly come face to face with Michaelangelo's _David_, for example, should know what I am talking about.
Photography should be no different.
It is very easy, especially with modern technology, to produce an image. There is no trick to it - spy satellites do it every day. But it is not so easy to put yourself into a photograph, to see something unusual or strange that gives you an emotional charge and then convey this to a viewer.
It takes effort and hard work on the part of the Photographer. It takes effort and hard work on the part of the viewer. And too many people want the reader's Digest version.
Adams' work (or far too much of it) is the reader's Digest version. A viewer can stand in front of one of his pictures and not have to think. They are easily accessible by everyone because absolutely no effort is involved.
There is nothing wrong with this - but it doesn't make Adams an Artist. It makes him nearer to a spy satellite as his genius was in the darkroom.



			
				ShutteredEye said:
			
		

> To discredit an artist because he took photographs of beautiful subjects is foolish.


Quite right, but you make the mistake of considering a picture of something beautiful to automatically be 'Art'. And that someone who takes pictures of beautiful things is automatically and 'Artist'.
There is a big difference - as I keep repeating only to have people misunderstand - between Art and Beauty. They are not mutually exclusive but you can have the one _without_ the other.


----------



## ShutteredEye

Hmmm, I've read through your argument concerning my "get out of the way of the subject" comment and I agree with what you said.  You thought of it in a manner I wasn't.  I guess I made this comment referring to those people that take an image and destroy the "image" that's within it trying to prove how great of a photographer they are.  Does that make any sense?  Many images I've seen are so overwrought and forced that it's just as tortuous to look at them.  I guess I'm saying that at some point after all the composition and work you have to get out of the way and release the shutter--and it seems that Adams was able to do that rather well--like it or not.


----------



## Rob

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans serif][SIZE=-1]In his lifetime, Ansel Adams became not only the best-known photographic interpreter of Yosemite, the Sierra Nevada and the Southwestern United States, but an environmentalist consulted by presidents and something of a national monument himself. . . . [Spaulding] presents Adams as an important artist who inherited, developed and transmitted significant ideas, in the form of images and political intervention, about the relations between human society and the natural environment."--_Times Literary Supplement

_[/SIZE][/FONT]Is the creation of a majestic landscape image, depicting the beauty of the wilderness and nature really not just conservationism in the style of an artist, rather than "art" with a pretext?

What was behind the man really, an intention to show the world natural beauty in the best and most accurate way? Is that artistically interesting to you?

I'm not particularly keen on "standard beautiful" shots.

Born Free and Equal is much more interesting to me, despite the fact it was completely lost on the US public at the time.

Just thought I'd chuck in an opinion!

Ansel Adams was a great artist as his work in the field of photography led to stunning images of landscapes which were so influential that the subject of the pictures was affected at a national level by the creation of natural parks and preservation orders. Therefore the preservation of the areas is doubly assured, in the real world and in the extremely accurate image by Adams.

Rob


----------



## panzershreck

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with this - but it doesn't make Adams an Artist.


 
oh geez, an argument about what an artist is... far more ambiguous than what a "photograph" is, because an artist is the creator of a work of art, and what is art?

i can convey how gloomy a day is by shooting into fog with a blue bridge and water-soaked wood in the foreground, but how much of that was me? and how much of that was the natural world? maybe if i could control the colors, but i can't... all i can control is the exposure... and same thing goes towards say - drawing, i draw all the time, and there is a big element of "style" that can be controlled, i can draw everything in super-fine detail, or i can draw shapes, or i can just draw a few lines that convey everything... but how much of it is what i draw that makes a picture worth looking at?

there are many people who don't even consider photography a real art at all, because like you said: all you have to do is orient yourself and push a button, point being photographers have very little control over what they photograph, and even in a studio it's 50/50 unless you literally invent the subject from scratch, but it's still a 50/50 relationship with the subject, without it you have no photograph, with it and nothing else you don't have a good photograph

me, i have Adams' photos in a wall calender, which is fitting for his style of work, given the amount of control a photographer has, for what he chose to shoot, i think he did well... aside from all the categorical photography BS, he wasn't that far away from a street photographer which we praise for his wonderful rendition of active human subjects

what is art anyways?


----------



## JC1220

panzershreck said:
			
		

> what is art anyways?


 
Without getting bogged down in huge matters of opinion, in relatively simple terms: "Art is about life, and the producing, doing, or act of Art is a deep expression of an individuals response to Life, contained within a form of some sort."

Is some form of mechanized aerial photography or even computer program generated painting art? I would say no.  There is no interaction between an artist and his life or expression there of.  If all there was to being artist or photographer was to own a camera and the simple act of taking a photograph to be considered an artist, please take my cameras away.  Just because you can point your camera at Half Dome doesnt mean you have just made a photograph as good or better than Adams, as was said earlier there is far more to a photograph than a subject.  It is more often the subtle rhythms within the photograph that make it great or exude deep beauty which really has little to do with the subject matter. Yes nature, or even man, provides us with some amazing opportunities, but the ability to capture the universal and communicate it to a viewer successfully comes with a deliberateness containing growth, technical mastery and mature vision. Not the simple act of clicking a shutter.  

Unlike many other visual arts, there are extremely few young masters of photography.  Why is this?  Because maturity in seeing and vision takes growth which needs time.  This is easy to see in ones own work, do you look back at photographs taken 6 months, a year, 10 years ago and say thats not as good as I thought, or I could have done better.  You have arrived at those feelings as a function of living.


----------



## fightheheathens

my 2 cents,

Mr. Van Rental argues that because in a landscape or nature shot, as opposed to the studio, you cannot control the elements and thus it takes less skill. I feel that is simply not true. The ability to take what you have and make it into a stunning shot via composition is and art all in of itself. maybe im a bad photographer, but there are many times where i have been presented with an absolutely stunning natural landscape yet my pictures of it still fail to convey they take my breath away moment of when i saw it with my own eyes. Granted i havent been a photographer for a long time, but i have seen other landscapes on this sight which despite the beautiful location probably still fail to convey what the photographer really felt when he saw it.

Further more who really has the authority to say, because an artist didnt create it, its not art. what if i feel that nature is art? think back to the painters who strove to immitate nature in their paintings, or the inventor of musical instruments all of who try to emmulate the human voice...the only truely natural instrument? 
im sitting here looking at breaking ways at pebble beach by adams, just a shot of waves i guess. maybe to me it conveys the power of nature, lonelyness what ever the hundreds of feelings i get when i look at or am in nature? even if it only reminds me of those feelings, is the fact that it inspires them enough? 

if not then what must art do to be art?

this is not meant to defent adams, this is a defence of nature as art and photographs of nature as art. 


as a nature freak ive allways been inspired by it and often times i find still lives to really not appear as art to me. does that make still lifes not art?


----------



## Hertz van Rental

fightheheathens said:
			
		

> Mr. Van Rental argues that because in a landscape or nature shot, as opposed to the studio, you cannot control the elements and thus it takes less skill. I feel that is simply not true. The ability to take what you have and make it into a stunning shot via composition is and art all in of itself.


I actually only posited this as something to think about.
If you take 'what is there' and you have no ability to move things other than the camera then you are seriously limited with what you can do, certainly in terms of composition. You can't move a mountain a mile to the left.
You can do it in a painting but not in a photograph - unless you use PS.
I was merely voicing doubts which have concerned me over the years.



			
				fightheheathens said:
			
		

> Further more who really has the authority to say, because an artist didnt create it, its not art.


You don't need 'authority'. By definition Art requires an 'Artist'.
You are using the 19thC argument that 'as God created it then it had a Creator so it is Art because God is an Artist'. Without getting bogged down in Philosophy, that only works as an argument if you're not an atheist - which I am.
You are making the common mistake of confusing Art with Beauty. They are not the same thing at all. Nature is beautiful but it is not Art.


----------



## panzershreck

JC1220 said:
			
		

> Without getting bogged down in huge matters of opinion, in relatively simple terms: "Art is about life, and the producing, doing, or act of Art is a deep expression of an individual&#8217;s response to Life, contained within a form of some sort."


 
good perspective, imo, art is the supernatural, not the literal divine, which i don't think exists, but taking nature and manipulating it beyond what it is into an expression, meaning a shed isn't necessarily art, but a building designed by a post-modern architect is... we manipulate nature everyday - colors, shapes, lines, the tools and the way we use those tools

to me, any photo can be art in one simple basic way: it freezes time, you cannot undo a photo, you can't make it go forward or backward in time, it records for 1/60th of a second and that's it, to me that is such a huge manipulation of nature... but *can* is emphasized, just because you record something doesn't mean it is art, well, let me take that back, it isn't considered _GOOD_ art, Ansel's photos are still art, even if they suck ass and smell like a turd, they're still art

similarly videography does not freeze time, it records a scenario not unlike words, but unlike words, it also records the manipulation and perspective of the artist, and through cinematic technique, can convey all the expressions you desire, videography also tends to be more of an art in practice, because so much of it is done in-studio unlike photography where most of it is done in the field

it is art, but does the amount of control determine what is good art, and lazy art? (adams)

(also, what about words? are words art? i don't think so, but at the same time, if i paint a picture of a sign where the words are the most prominent things, suddenly they are art, because they're bigger? because they're expressing something they become art? visual art with words is really blurring the lines, imo, more than photography)


----------



## Torus34

Is there a confusion of concepts here?

First, are we discussing photography as science [technical competence] or art [composition, message]?  Science has been defined as an attempt to describe outer reality, while art treats of inner reality.  Photography, by its very nature, views outer reality, though it maps a three-dimensional matrix onto one of two dimensions [OK, you Stereo Realist types have a point!]

To continue . . . 

To the extent that the photographer tweaks this admittedly mechanical process, he adds his own 'take' on reality.  'Tweak' includes choice of subject [Adams vs. Arbus, to illustrate the point.]  This, and this alone, relates photography to art.

Now go ahead and shoot while I duck!


----------



## mysteryscribe

Im not a big fan but...
he packed a view camera into a wilderness for most of his famous stuff.  That in itself is noteworthy.  You have to have sense of time to do them justice.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Torus34 said:
			
		

> First, are we discussing photography as science [technical competence] or art [composition, message]?  Science has been defined as an attempt to describe outer reality, while art treats of inner reality.  Photography, by its very nature, views outer reality, though it maps a three-dimensional matrix onto one of two dimensions [OK, you Stereo Realist types have a point!]


Technical Competence and Science are not at all the same thing.
Composition is a technical aspect of Art.
And if Science only deals with the 'real' explain Pure Mathematics (not to mention Psychology).
I think the 'confusion of concepts' only happens when you try to separate Art and Science - the two are inextricably linked. Photography is a perfect example. Without Science it doesn't work. Without Art it's just an interesting chemical reaction


----------



## Torus34

Well said, good Sir!

What I was trying to winkle out of the on-going discussion was a distinction between mastery of the photographic process irrespective of the actual subject photographed and the choice and manipulation of the image.  Of course there are overlaps:  eg, the technique of burning-in does not exist without a choice of where and how to apply it.

Thank you for helping me to clarify my post.


----------



## kemplefan

some people would take extream offense at you remark, i saw i bunch of his prints in palm springs california 
he is amazing, he was in amazing places at great times, also think he was doing all of this in the 1920s, ask letca  to decribe the cameras of that period and you wil understand


----------



## Geronimo

First, I agree with most here about Adams.  I really don't find his photography in and of itself grand.  

Secondly and a bit off topic.  As someone who takes mainly landscapes I realize I will have a bias.  And since Hertz, you are the only one to state they are a still-life photography, I assume you have a bias towards that as well.  I only bring that up so to not take this discussion down any personal paths, but I must disagree with your



> As for 'great composition' - how much control does a photographer have over Nature? You can only photograph what's there, and that limits your ability to compose severely.
> It would be closer to the truth to say 'he was good at finding a great view'.
> To see what he was like without a mountain in front of him, just go back and look at his still life. Great composition, huh?



Shooting just what is presented is not Art, it is a snapshot.  Working with what is in front of the lens is what makes the shot.  Knowing your equipment, settings, how the light will play out is what makes photos art.  The most important thing for me is the story it tells.   Feeling what the photographer was feeling or trying to express, for me is Art.  From what I have read from the previous responses to this thread; that is gist for what most are saying.  I say that because it applies to all styles of photographary; macro, portiat, still-life, landscape etc..  

  Portiat photographers work with what the model is giving them.  If a model does not provide the photographer with what they are looking for, then they can get a different model or change the concept of the session to pull out that thing that will make photo great.  Just like a landscape photographer has the ability to change scenery or elicit something from the scene.  Again, does it emote, tell a story within the frame or just show you what was in front of the lens.  Does one just see a person, flower, close-up of bug or a beautiful scenery or does one see a story, get a feel for a model, or a feel for what the photographer was feeling on that day.  

Maybe for another debate, but what about street photography?  Don't the same agruements for and against landscape photography apply to street photography?  They are capturing what is placed in front of them, are they not?  Seems even though the two styles are similiar in a lot of regards they are 'valued' differently.  

Forgive any typos or misspellings, been a long day.


----------



## ksmattfish

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> This is working on the basis that there is something there to understand



If there is a life, there are many things to be learned.

------------------------

Possibly a better question about Ansel Adams than "Why so great?", would be "Why so popular?".

His photographs were used by the Sierra Club, and other interests to bring the beauty and majesty of the still undeveloped American west to people who had never been there, and they were instrumental in getting many areas declared national parks.  Most of his fame came near the end of his life, and  although there isn't really a photographer's equivalent to "Poet Laureate" in the US, that's sort of what he became.  He often visited Presidents to encourage them to value the wilderness we still have left.  

It's easy for me to understand why some photogs may dismiss Adams, particularly if you are only viewing bad internet copies and cheap published photos.  These days his photos may seem boring and common to those trying to work on the edge, but in his day he was one of the only people taking photos of those areas and getting some publicity.  His style, or whoever came up with it, is still popular among successful landscape photographers today.  Whether you are in California, Maine, or Colorado, pick up any landscape photography calendar, and you'll see Adam's influence.  You can poo-poo those photographers if you like, but consider that they would probably poo-poo your work too.

About.com has a couple of short, but informative articles about Ansel Adams.  Scroll down past the ads...

http://search.about.com/fullsearch.htm?terms=ansel adams


----------



## Hertz van Rental

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> pick up any landscape photography calendar, and you'll see Adam's influence.


And by the same token you can pick up any Ansel Adams photograph and see the influence of Edward Weston, C E Watkins, Eadweard Muybridge, T H O'Sullivan...
As it happens Muybridge photographed El Capitan at Yosemite in the 1870's.
Adams didn't do anything new but merely took an existing tradition with a particular approach and took it to it's ultimate conclusion.
My point has only ever been that Adams' place in Photography, and worth as a photographer, has been distorted out of all proportion by Political and Economic factors. I just think it is time to re-evaluate him and see him in perspective.


----------



## ksmattfish

Distorted by who?  Who are the people that need their perspective changed?  

I don't recall ever discussing Adams' photographs in four years of photography classes.  His photos don't sell for huge amounts of money compared to many of his contemporaries' work.  None of my peers ever bring him up, except to mention his books on BW darkroom techniques.  Occasionally I hear someone talk about some cadre of old guys who worship Adams, but I've yet to actually meet any of these Adams cultists.  There are really only three places Ansel Adams name comes up with any sort of regularity:

1)  Joe Non-photographer walks up to Joe Photographer, and says "Hey Ansel...".  Ansel Adams is a household name.  Possibly the only famous photographer many non-photographers have ever bothered to commit to memory.  You are right that this has mostly to do with political and economic factors, but what well known celebrity/artist/athelete/entertainer... with a household name couldn't you say that about?  Ansel seems popular with the masses, but most of them couldn't pick an Adams photo out of a line-up.       

2)  Someone asks about what books would be good to learn about the BW darkroom or the zone system, and Adam's books The Camera, The Negative, and The Print are mentioned.

3)  Someone who is starting to look into the history of photography confuses Ansel Adams' renoun amongst non-photographers as credit among photographers, and posts a thread like this one.

The only people who are putting him up on a pedestal are the ignorant masses, the occasional fan, and those who want to knock him off.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

You missed out the fourth type of person who puts Adams on a pedestal: the ones who pretend they don't but then get all hot and defensive when it is suggested that maybe we should re-evaluate his contribution to Photography.
These people usually misunderstand what is being said. 
'Re-evaluate' doesn't automatically mean an attempt to 'demote' or 'denigrate'. A re-evaluation can quite often confirm people in their stature.

And I didn't say people need their perspectives changing - I said 'see him [Adams] in perspective' which is something entirely different.


----------



## Jeff Canes

Dear Mr. Hertz

You have made it clear over the past year plus that you believe that landscape photography is nothing but snapshots and likely the lowest form of any photography. Seem to me that you are not open-minded enough or lack the experience in landscape need to comments on Adams and landscape photography in general.

Jeffrey E Jarboe


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Jeff Canes said:
			
		

> Dear Mr. Hertz
> You have made it clear over the past year plus that you believe that landscape photography is nothing but snapshots and likely the lowest form of any photography. Seem to me that you are not open-minded enough or lack the experience in landscape need to comments on Adams and landscape photography in general.


And that comment makes it quite clear to me that you have misunderstood everything I have written in this thread.
All I have done is pose some very pertinent questions and asked people to try thinking.
What makes Ansel Adams so great as a Photographer?
Does he deserve the stature that he enjoys?
If the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, what is the role of the Photographer?
If daring to ask questions that threaten to upset peoples' nice and safe apple-carts is a sign of a closed mind, then I suppose that being happy with things as they are and not daring to question anything is a sign of an open and intelligent one.


----------



## markc

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> If the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, what is the role of the Photographer?


I do think it's good to question. Unfortunately that question assumes that the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, which I don't believe it is. The photographer's choices play a large role in how the landscape is presented in the image. The question might apply to a camera dropped with a parachute, but even then, the choice in lens and film plays a role.


----------



## montresor

Golly, y'all sure woke up on this one!

Not an Ansel Adams fan; but having tried my hand at shooting landscapes in 6x7 format, I acknowledge that there's more than just craft to bringing it all together. I couldn't do it! I sucked at it! To bring order and balance to a chaotic scene is a gift. Admittedly, Adams was a hagiographer of nature. His pictures implied a sort nature-pantheism that makes some (including me) a little uncomfortable. For a different view, try Robert Adams' recent photographs he took tracing the return route of Lewis and Clark. A completely opposite view: nature as banal and devoid of numinosity. It all comes down to taste, I guess, but it seems silly to dismiss Ansel Adams' contribution just because it's on framed posters in suburban family rooms everywhere. "The propinquity of the hoi-polloi," and all...

For me, it's that darned zone system that seems so anal and time-consuming. The fact that he took what he did naturally with his eye and back-constructed it into a painstaking system is where you lose me. But then, large-format view cameras and their big honkin' lenses do have different requirements than the dinky little things most of us use here, so who am I to say?


----------



## markc

See, that's the thing. I don't think anyone is dismissing Adams. I think he's being defended against something that's being misinterpreted.


----------



## panzershreck

markc said:
			
		

> I do think it's good to question. Unfortunately that question assumes that the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, which I don't believe it is. The photographer's choices play a large role in how the landscape is presented in the image. The question might apply to a camera dropped with a parachute, but even then, the choice in lens and film plays a role.


 
totally agree, filters, darkroom techniques, exposure times, film, lens, aperture, place, light, shadows, etc., all manipulating what we see, Adams didn't use a disposable camera after all

i mean, if you're going to complain about a photographer, complain about Richard Prince, the guy who sold a photograph of a photograph for a quarter of a million dollars


----------



## 'Daniel'

markc said:
			
		

> I do think it's good to question. Unfortunately that question assumes that the look of the landscape is under the total control of the weather and geology, which I don't believe it is. The photographer's choices play a large role in how the landscape is presented in the image. The question might apply to a camera dropped with a parachute, but even then, the choice in lens and film plays a role.





> totally agree, filters, darkroom techniques, exposure times, film, lens, aperture, place, light, shadows, etc., all manipulating what we see, Adams didn't use a disposable camera after all
> 
> i mean, if you're going to complain about a photographer, complain about Richard Prince, the guy who sold a photograph of a photograph for a quarter of a million dollars



Erm, does anyone in this thread understand what Hertz is saying?

Also, everyone should keep in mind, questions are not threatening neither do they express someones opinion.


----------



## markc

Daniel said:
			
		

> Erm, does anyone in this thread understand what Hertz is saying?


I think I do as far as Adams goes. As far as that particular question, I'm in the process with some info he sent me via PM.

I think "reevaluate" has gotten mutated a little on some people's heads, as shown by the common usage, "You need you reevaluate your priorities, young man!" That would be better expressed as "I want you to change your mind," since a reevaluation can result in no change. Personally I think it's good to reevaluate things as time goes on. You might make an important decision at one point, but does it still hold up a decade later? Does a decision made at 20 still hold up for your life at 30? Or even 21? Maybe yes. Maybe no.


----------



## ksmattfish

panzershreck said:
			
		

> i mean, if you're going to complain about a photographer, complain about Richard Prince, the guy who sold a photograph of a photograph for a quarter of a million dollars



I'm with you there.


----------



## greasemonkey

I personally really like Ansel Adams work.  I live out on the eastern us coast, but a few years back made a trip out west.  When I look at Adams work, it reminds me of the beauty of the mountains and the area.  And as to the lack of feeling, I don't experance that at all.  I feel more when I look at Adams work, then I do when I look at Westons.  Maybe I'm just weird, maybe I don't have the "eye," I don't know.


----------



## 'Daniel'

Whenever I see anything of Adams' it's always Landscpaes.  He was a skilled portrait photographer I think...


----------



## rocknrollkat

SteveEllis said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have heard the name Ansel Adams appear on here a bit lately, he seems to be described as the be all and end all of photography.
> 
> But to be honest, I have looked at some of his images (Only on the internet admittedly) and dont really see whats so special about them. Yes there are some great shots, but there seems to be a lot of overly dark shots that in my opinion are terrible, the Nevada Desert Road photo being a prime example.
> 
> Am I missing something or does the computer simply not do this man the justice he deserves?
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve.


 
Steve, I agree. It's not the computer. Adams was like Picasso in that they both learned that endless self-promotion and hype was far more important than craft, of which both displayed little. They created a mystique about themselves that lives on to this day and is defended by people who should know better. It's even been said that Adams' retouching was justified because he was an "artist" and that "the rules are different for artists".
Most people believe that Adams spent hours getting the right location, time of day, etc., pure craft. The opposite is the case. Most of the effort was spent in the darkroom creating the illusion that most people think is the real article, brought forth by a visionary. 
Nope, just a lot of darkroom manipulation.
That's not photography, that's editing.
I'd love to see Adams' original negatives, UNRETOUCHED, then we could see what's what !!

Bill P.


----------



## ironsidephoto

He was a true pioneer. That's the catch. He didn't have digital, though there are many debates now as to whether he'd have used it or not. Many think he would. I do. Because the cameras of his time were f*cking heavy. 

He mastered his craft before there were many masters of his craft. He did it solo in the middle of the woods. That's why he's impressive, and why the images he created will live on indefinitely.


----------



## KmH

rocknrollkat said:


> Steve, I agree. It's not the computer. Adams was like Picasso in that they both learned that endless self-promotion and hype was far more important than craft, of which both displayed little. They created a mystique about themselves that lives on to this day and is defended by people who should know better. It's even been said that Adams' retouching was justified because he was an "artist" and that "the rules are different for artists".
> Most people believe that Adams spent hours getting the right location, time of day, etc., pure craft. The opposite is the case. Most of the effort was spent in the darkroom creating the illusion that most people think is the real article, brought forth by a visionary.
> Nope, just a lot of darkroom manipulation.
> That's not photography, that's editing.
> I'd love to see Adams' original negatives, UNRETOUCHED, then we could see what's what !!
> 
> Bill P.


Bill P.,

Steve originally posted those comments nearly 5 years ago, and last was active here at TPF over a year ago, on 08-25-2009, at 06:28 PM, if you check his public profile.

Thanks for reviving a thread that died a natural death over 4 1/2 years ago so you could regurgitate your thoughts. :thumbup:


----------



## Mike_E

Ah, don't sweat it.  We can talk about AA if you want to.  

After all, the guy effectively invented the Program Mode for manual cameras.


----------



## white

I agree with the guy who said the only people putting Ansel Adams on a pedestal are fans with darkroom experience, or, more likely, those who want to knock him off.

Personally? I think his work is ok. I've only ever seen his images online and in slides, but I am still impressed with the wide range of tones in his work.


----------



## prodigy2k7

red filter


----------



## benhasajeep

First of all its art.  To each his own.  Not every one gets it or him.

Another thing you have to realize and it was already mentioned.  Your looking at a copy of a print, scanned with who knows what quality scanner and settings.  Then displayed on a monitor at 72dpi.

Then you have to think and realize that alot of pictures comming out since his death are pictures he rejected!  Declined to not publish them for one reason or another.  For some reason he didn't think they cut the mustard.  But because he was and is a legend.  Any time someone finds a "lost" copy or print.  It becomes this amazing piece.  When in reality, it was something he probably rejected for one reason or another!  So not everything available out there by him, is his "best" work!!!

I happend to like his work and have 3 reproductions hanging in my house.  Not everyone gets it or him.  Just like I don't get Picasso!  I wouldn't pay a $1 for any of his work.  But people drop millions on him as investment or other wise, because of his percieved greatness.

If you don't get Ansel, don't worry.  It's just not your thing.  To each his own.


----------



## Mike_E

It's just not as much fun without Hertz around, is it?  :lmao:


----------



## Photogirl007

I love his work- they may not be as brilliant as photos now but you have to remember his photos were taken a very long time ago. For their time, they were works of art. To me, I still love them and appreciate the beauty in them.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

benhasajeep said:


> Just like I don't get Picasso!  I wouldn't pay a $1 for any of his work.  But people drop millions on him as investment or other wise, because of his percieved greatness.



Clearly you know nothing about the History of Art (and I'm talking painting here).
Picasso was personally responsible for starting at least three distinct and important movements in Art. His unfinished painting _Demoiselles d'Avignon_ is arguably the single most important painting of the last three hundred years - it changed the whole direction of painting.
This is not personal opinion but verifiable fact.
Adams, it could be argued, has done something similar but to a much lesser extent for Landscape Photography. But where Picasso gave the artist more freedom, Adams put the photographer into a straight-jacket - the pursuit of technical perfection at the cost of emotion.
If you care to read my previous posts in this resurrected thread you will see that I advise people to learn the difference between Art and personal opinion - the two things are not the same. Believing something is 'Art' does not make it Art, or even make it good. And by the same token, not understanding something does not stop it from being Art.
But I'm probably just banging my head against a wall.


"It's just not as much fun without Hertz around, is it?"

Thank you, fans. I am still around (far too much a round at the moment) but just not here.
A quick look at the humorous and intellectually stimulating posts in OT should explain why. That place makes me lose the will to live.


----------



## Mike_E

Hi, Hertz!!  Good to see you checking in!

Did you ever get your dictionary on photographic expression done?


----------



## table1349

SteveEllis said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have heard the name Ansel Adams appear on here a bit lately, he seems to be described as the be all and end all of photography.
> 
> But to be honest, I have looked at some of his images (Only on the internet admittedly) and dont really see whats so special about them.  Yes there are some great shots, but there seems to be a lot of overly dark shots that in my opinion are terrible, the Nevada Desert Road photo being a prime example.
> 
> Am I missing something or does the computer simply not do this man the justice he deserves?
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve.



Can you take the equipment he used, processes like he did and get the results he produced?  He was a master at his craft.  Have you mastered the craft
 of photography?

Hertz mentioned Picaso.  Personally, if some one gave me a work by Picaso I would sell it and purchase something I do like.  Why? I'm not a fan of Picaso's style. That still does not mean he is not one of the great masters, it just means personally I don't appreciate his style. Perhaps it is just a mattress of taste or a lack on my part in the appreciation of his art.  Bottom line is he is still a great master who had a profound influence on painting.


----------



## Chamelion 6

Just wondering what Picasso discovered that the average 7 year old with a box of crayons didn't already know instinctively? And does that make them master artists or does that make Picasso a sham? Something to think about...

If I send out 10 people with a camera to shoot a given tree, what are the odds that I'm gonna get 10 of exactly the same shot? Let's try it with a 100 people.

Suggesting any type of photography isn't art because you simply point it and click the shutter at the view in front them and that view is immutable by the photographer inability to control the lighting or the composition is silly.

From the time the photographer is setting up his shot he's making decisions on how to capture the image that the scene in front of them conjured. Subtle things, how much, how little, even how best to use the light available to them. Once that button is clicked, that image is committed to pixels, film, or whatever, it is now a _REPRESENTATION_ of what the photographer saw. That's art. period.

Some art tries to see the world as it is, some how it should be, and other art is a vision unto itself, but all of it is a representation of what the artist saw at the moment the shutter clicked, the brush hit the canvas, the pencil touched paper.

Why try to qualify or disqualify it, like it or don't and move on. Seriously, I think some people over-think this stuff. I just follow the muse. 90% may be crap, but that golden 10% makes it all worth it.

Ansel and Pablo did their thing, had their following, but even if nobody ever hear of either of them, both men were artists.


----------



## Warren Peace

Im with Steve on this.  I dont see the big deal. :er:


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Chamelion 6 said:


> Just wondering what Picasso discovered that the average 7 year old with a box of crayons didn't already know instinctively? And does that make them master artists or does that make Picasso a sham? Something to think about...



Makes me wonder what gallery those 7 y.o. wonders are showing in... :lmao:


And if you want to see what happens when an actually/maybe talented kid comes along, watch "My Kid Could Paint That."  Fascinating documentary.


----------



## Chamelion 6

c.cloudwalker said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering what Picasso discovered that the average 7 year old with a box of crayons didn't already know instinctively? And does that make them master artists or does that make Picasso a sham? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder what gallery those 7 y.o. wonders are showing in... :lmao:
> 
> 
> And if you want to see what happens when an actually/maybe talented kid comes along, watch "My Kid Could Paint That." Fascinating documentary.
Click to expand...

 It was really a question...  Not to take Picasso down, but to get people to really think about what makes something brilliant.  

And I wasn't talking about talented 7 year olds, I'm talking about average 7year olds...  so if you want a fine exhibit of some wonderful art check out almost any refrigerator or elementary artroom bulliten board around you. Shapes, over-simplification, rudamentary and conceptual visual elements.  It's all there....   Ask the artist what it is.  You're gonna find it's not an image of something, it's a story.  There is action there...  It's an idea distilled down into it's most basic and important elements.

Wanna really learn about art?  Talk to a kid.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Chamelion 6 said:


> Not to take Picasso down, but to get people to really think about what makes something brilliant.
> 
> Wanna really learn about art?  Talk to a kid.



Trying to make people think was also my point. Did you see my signature?


----------



## Chamelion 6

c.cloudwalker said:


> Chamelion 6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to take Picasso down, but to get people to really think about what makes something brilliant.
> 
> Wanna really learn about art? Talk to a kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to make people think was also my point. Did you see my signature?
Click to expand...

 

Yep.  I almost commented on it too since it pretty much is where I'm coming from.  I suspected we were dancing around the same point, that's why I put the wink at the end.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

I don't put a wink in mine because, even though I truly believe kids are naturally creative and that tends to be taken away by the way we raise/educate kids, they unfortunately don't have any technique and, personally, I want to see a combination of both.

I have boxes and boxes of my own kids art work. Some of them are very reminiscent of Dali with melting things even though they had no knowledge of Dali then. But I'd rather look at a Dali canvas. Great memories and they were quite talented, but I wouldn't take them to a gallery, lol. Some of them do hang on my walls though.


----------



## Chamelion 6

c.cloudwalker said:


> I don't put a wink in mine because, even though I truly believe kids are naturally creative and that tends to be taken away by the way we raise/educate kids, they unfortunately don't have any technique and, personally, I want to see a combination of both.
> 
> I have boxes and boxes of my own kids art work. Some of them are very reminiscent of Dali with melting things even though they had no knowledge of Dali then. But I'd rather look at a Dali canvas. Great memories and they were quite talented, but I wouldn't take them to a gallery, lol. Some of them do hang on my walls though.


 
I was really responding to the statements that somehow things like landscape photography didn't really rise to the definition of true art because it was just an imitation of what was already there.  That same standard could apply to candid photography, most essays and so on... I think that idea dismisses too much too easily and misses the point.  

Even on the most simplistic level a photographer is making decisions that effect the final outcome and therefore they are creating art.  They are rendering their idea of what they saw...  They attempted to emphasize the elements they saw as most important.  That's even true of a common snapshot.  I completely reject that and image, regardless of complexity, technique, or anything else has to rise to some idealistic lever to be considered "art."

Beyond that we get into things like experience, vision, technique, composition, and so on and begin to try to qualify why some art rises and some doesn't.  Why some art motivates, strikes us, revolts us, and why some is just bland...

Me personally, I find most studio stuff very contrived and plastic...  Fashion photography especially...  It's still art, it just fails to strike any kind of emotional response from me....


----------



## djacobox372

Chamelion 6 said:


> Just wondering what Picasso discovered that the average 7 year old with a box of crayons didn't already know instinctively? And does that make them master artists or does that make Picasso a sham? Something to think about...
> 
> If I send out 10 people with a camera to shoot a given tree, what are the odds that I'm gonna get 10 of exactly the same shot? Let's try it with a 100 people.
> 
> Suggesting any type of photography isn't art because you simply point it and click the shutter at the view in front them and that view is immutable by the photographer inability to control the lighting or the composition is silly.
> 
> From the time the photographer is setting up his shot he's making decisions on how to capture the image that the scene in front of them conjured. Subtle things, how much, how little, even how best to use the light available to them. Once that button is clicked, that image is committed to pixels, film, or whatever, it is now a _REPRESENTATION_ of what the photographer saw. That's art. period.
> 
> Some art tries to see the world as it is, some how it should be, and other art is a vision unto itself, but all of it is a representation of what the artist saw at the moment the shutter clicked, the brush hit the canvas, the pencil touched paper.
> 
> Why try to qualify or disqualify it, like it or don't and move on. Seriously, I think some people over-think this stuff. I just follow the muse. 90% may be crap, but that golden 10% makes it all worth it.
> 
> Ansel and Pablo did their thing, had their following, but even if nobody ever hear of either of them, both men were artists.



An adult with the painting skill and knowledge of picasso being able to adapt the creative mind of a 7 year old is absolute genius. It's next to impossible to achieve the two together in one mind in a pure fashion.  It's a compliment of the highest order to be compared to a child creatively.


----------



## JohnMF

I remember this thread the first time around. It's probably one of the most interesting ones on here. No doubt because Hertz put forward such a solid, well thought out argument, and then defended it brilliantly.

Not sure if Hertz realised how provocative his opinion would be perceived at the time?

It was kind of like calling John Wayne a draft dodger on a cowboy forum or something..


----------



## scovellephoto

SteveEllis said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have heard the name Ansel Adams appear on here a bit lately, he seems to be described as the be all and end all of photography.
> 
> But to be honest, I have looked at some of his images (Only on the internet admittedly) and dont really see whats so special about them.  Yes there are some great shots, but there seems to be a lot of overly dark shots that in my opinion are terrible, the Nevada Desert Road photo being a prime example.
> 
> Am I missing something or does the computer simply not do this man the justice he deserves?
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve.



you rely need to see the photos in prson to rely get a feel for them I have one of his prints witch my dad gave to me(I still have no clue how he got his hands on one of Ansel Adams prints but whatever) 

 and for whats so great about Ansel Adams he helped develup the zone system of larg format photography witch is still used in the dark room he was a master evan if his achuwel shots whernt the best what he did with them in the dark room was how he rely got famus


----------



## white

I dunno, I think his achuwel shots were pretty damn good.

Makes me want to get into larg format photography.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

I just saw his work, its on display at the Florida Museum of Photographic Arts here in Tampa for a short period.

Amazing and I appreciate the opportunity to see such pics.


----------

