Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · Ansel Adams Exhibit

  
 
flyfishertoo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Yesterday I visited an Ansel Adams exhibit at the Eiteljorg Museum in Indianapolis. This was the first time I had ever seen a print made by, or overseen by Adams. I have obviously see posters or other reproductions, but not an actual print.

After seeing the photos and thinking about some of the critiques I have read on photography forums, I am convinced that some, maybe even myself, would suggest that they were too dark. I know that if they were my photos, I would be thinking that I had under exposed them. Some areas of the photos had very little detail in them, they were almost completely black.

Has there been a shift in what is an acceptable photo? Has equipment changed that allows for a different looking photo, as far as exposure is concerned? Or do I need to rethink what is an acceptable photo.

I certainly am not questioning Adams, I loved every photo in the exhibit, I just wondered as I was looking, what type of critique I might get if I were able to post one of his photos without anyone knowing that it was an Adams photo.




Jul 14, 2014 at 11:46 AM
dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Hmm, I'm sure we will get some interesting responses to this.

Firstly, while there were others during his time that were very good,
I think Ansel was at the leading edge of film photography. His methodology, scientific approach & his artists eye resulted in some incredible work.On top of all that, he was enthusiastic about sharing that knowledge.

While he did is own "hdr" by using exposure, developing & printing techniques to expand the tonal range, he also appreciated contrast when it served his vision of the scene.

I think we sometimes over critique when dark areas are lacking detail(or for that matter highlights) because we expect every body to expose a certain way & process by blending another. I know I do. It's a combination of what the tools can do AND what is considered the current artistic standards or rules. This changes over time. Remember, photography wasn't readily accepted as art when it first was introduced. After all, it wasn't an artists rendering with brush & paints.

Dan



Jul 14, 2014 at 12:18 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


If you are really interested, Adams wrote quite a deal about his approach and his philosophy and it's an interesting read. One of his key goals was to preserve as much of the dynamic range as possible, i.e. his zones. If there was a true black in what he viewed he certainly tried to capture it.

I've been privileged to see two different exhibitions of his work and all I can do is walk around with my mouth hanging open. He was (is) truly a master of tonality. We do seem to be in a current style/fad/school of over exposed even blown out light (IMO) thus his work would seem "dark" by current standards (to some anyway).

I think it's fair to say that his prints are what he saw/felt/wanted particularly when you learn just how much time, energy, and magic when into the great ones. I suppose my "style" is different than his, but too dark? Don't see that at all.

Robert

Aside from copyright considerations, you'd have to find a fairly obscure Ansel image if you wanted to post it and hope no one recognized it.



Jul 14, 2014 at 04:27 PM
ange
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Dan, good point about contrast. I'm pretty sure I remember reading that AA felt that a proper B&W image should have a solid black point and white point. I assumed he meant pure black, pure white. I wish I could find where I read that. I'd like to go over it again. Maybe his images seem to dark for some people because of this thinking.

I agree regarding our possible over critique of dark areas with no detail. I was on quite a quest for HDR for a time. That is, until I saw an Ansel Adams display in person as well. Like Robert (mouth hanging open) I was blown away. While there was an amazing tonal range in the images I saw, I was definitely able to pick out a pure black point in nearly every image. That caused me to really rethink my use of contrast.

I learned a lot from viewing his prints. If anyone has even a remote chance of getting to one of these displays, it's highly recommended. I went back to the same exhibition 3 times. I was lucky. We have a quaint county museum that housed the rare display (around 60 images) and they only charged 3 bucks to get it. :-)

Andy

Edited on Jul 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM · View previous versions



Jul 14, 2014 at 04:34 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Adams tended to print much flatter earlier in his career. The Adams retrospective that was in circulation about a decade ago had many examples of prints from the same negative, printed decades apart. The later ones were almost always darker, more contrasty and more foreboding. It was the perfect illustration of his - that the negative is the score and the print is the performance. That performance can and did change over time. But even so, Adams did think a lot about how he wanted the print to look at the time he was making the initial exposure. He would talk about wanting that part in Zone 8 or this in Zone 2, so he was thinking about the final effect all the time. The license plates on his cars were variations of that theme - Zone V, Zone VI, etc. I used to see him around town driving a BMW or a Cadillac with those plates.


Jul 14, 2014 at 04:40 PM
flyfishertoo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


OntheRez wrote:
Aside from copyright considerations, you'd have to find a fairly obscure Ansel image if you wanted to post it and hope no one recognized it.


I realize that it is impossible, I was just wondering what the reaction might be if it were possible. I think there would be negative comments.

Don




Jul 14, 2014 at 06:21 PM
flyfishertoo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Peter Figen wrote:
Adams tended to print much flatter earlier in his career. The Adams retrospective that was in circulation about a decade ago had many examples of prints from the same negative, printed decades apart. The later ones were almost always darker, more contrasty and more foreboding. It was the perfect illustration of his - that the negative is the score and the print is the performance. That performance can and did change over time. But even so, Adams did think a lot about how he wanted the print to look at the time he was making the initial exposure. He
...Show more

There was at least one example of this in the exhibit, and as you said, the later printer was darker, more contrasty, than the earlier print.

Don




Jul 14, 2014 at 06:23 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Peter has touched on a key point about AA. It was like the image was never done. I've never had a chance to see a retrospective particularly one featuring iterations of the same image, but I do know he went back to his negative over and over. I don't know if he was searching, experimenting, not satisfied, or maybe just playing.

Also as Peter mentioned he paid immense attention to the light (and dark) of a scene when making the photograph. The story of "Moonrise over Hernandez" gives insight into how long he would wait for THAT light.

Robert



Jul 14, 2014 at 08:14 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Every story I've heard about Moonrise is that it happened very fast in failing light and that Adams had to basically guestimate the exposure based on his experience. It seems he made a quick series of calculations and was only able to get off a few sheets of film before the shot was gone. Quite different from the other stories you hear where he would wait hours for the right light or the right cloud to come to him.


Jul 14, 2014 at 11:31 PM
melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


flyfishertoo wrote:
Some areas of the photos had very little detail in them, they were almost completely black.


The aforementioned Moonrise over Hernandez is an example of where shadow detail exists in the negative but he deliberately printed areas totally black. Presumably he thought the graphically simpler version was stronger.

Has there been a shift in what is an acceptable photo?

There is definitely an attitude about in online forums etc. that one should bend those curves until every possible detail is reproduced. I don't know how prevalent it is in places that really matter - I suspect not very.

Has equipment changed that allows for a different looking photo, as far as exposure is concerned?

Yes, you can lift shadows on some cameras (especially Sony sensors) in a way you could not on transparency film. Back when I shot Velvia, I often had no choice other than to block up the shadows, as blown highlights on that film were ghastly.

Or do I need to rethink what is an acceptable photo. ... I certainly am not questioning Adams, I loved every photo in the exhibit

I think you answered your own question there.

I first saw actual Adams prints in the 1980s, at a time when I had almost given up on photography as a serious medium. In half an hour my mind was changed.

Edited on Jul 15, 2014 at 09:19 PM · View previous versions



Jul 15, 2014 at 05:00 AM
Beni
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


I wonder if the prints were lit sufficiently?


Jul 15, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Beni - That's a very good point. The level of illumination in most museums is very low to minimize the effect of the light on the art. Galleries tend to be brighter though.


Jul 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


A few thoughts on the AA exhibit I visited (several times) a while back. Some of these are on a technical note, others are on a message/philosophical note. These were salient points that I brought to my daughters (art painters) as I was striving to teach them what AA brought to the world.

1) It came to my attention that the tools of the day that AA were using were vastly more crude than we enjoy today. To wit: His D&B had much halo effect, particularly in the areas that had intricate detail.

2) AA had a learning curve that transcended decades

3) He understood what he could sacrifice vs. what he couldn't in order to draw the eye or convey the message (presence) he wanted to deliver

4) He is human. While Moonrise (this will sound blasphemous) is heralded as a marvel because of the spontaneity involved ... anyone who has committed the EV system to memory could have done the same sans metering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

I visited the museum on multiple occasions, often with a different agenda/perspective of approach to his work ... e.g. on one occasion I was focused @ his technical efforts, then on another @ his intended message, @ use of tones, @ use of scale, etc.

This is not to suggest I know that much about AA ... although I did once express to an instructor and later personally relay the story to AA's son ... "He cheats !!!" I don't think Dr. Adams appreciated it quite as endearing as I meant it.

While I was a clueless young gun when I made such a statement ... the salient point @ "He cheats !!!" is that AA took matters into his own hands (at all phases of image creation) when & where he could to deliver what he wanted to convey in his message.

I tried to pick apart each and every one of his prints (about 45) on a technical basis of what he had done to it ... not to denigrate his work, but to learn from it. I also tried to ask what it was that he was trying to say to us in each of those same works. Then I asked to what degree did the technical findings either add to or detract from the message AA was trying to deliver.

It's been nearly 30 years since I exclaimed that "He cheats !!!" ... so I'm a little slow ... but for me, the magnificence of his work isn't in the image itself, but his comprehension of how to communicate/convey a non-verbal message, even when he wasn't using proper "King's English".

To your question @ "acceptable photo" ... one that conveys its intended message. Whether you are using a paintbrush or a camera, you are crafting a non-verbal message. The literary counterpart of verbal messages uses tone, punctuation, words, pace, rhythm, volume, compare/contrast, etc. to craft the message being delivered. We have things like, scale, mass, tones, subject, hue, pattern, contrast, sharpness, blur, etc. to craft ours.

Imo, AA crafted his message, sometimes with the craftsmanship of a technical writer, sometimes a bit more like Shakespeare and often with a blend of each ... but always with a message to be delivered by his crafted imagery.




Jul 15, 2014 at 03:23 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


flyfishertoo wrote:
Yesterday I visited an Ansel Adams exhibit at the Eiteljorg Museum in Indianapolis. This was the first time I had ever seen a print made by, or overseen by Adams. I have obviously see posters or other reproductions, but not an actual print.

After seeing the photos and thinking about some of the critiques I have read on photography forums, I am convinced that some, maybe even myself, would suggest that they were too dark. I know that if they were my photos, I would be thinking that I had under exposed them. Some areas of the photos had very little
...Show more

I have a friend who was one of Ansel's proteges, and my friend has a few Adams prints. One day we were looking at one of them — not likely one that many of you would know about, but it would remind you perhaps of a famous image that features very light aspen trunks against a darker background, though in this one the trees are not aspens.

My friend asked, more or less, "What do you think?" I'm a bit familiar with Adams' prints, and I know that in his best prints he handles shadows beautifully, often retaining "just enough" detail in areas that others might allow to go completely black. In fact, his handling of shadow detail is a model for me. What I was thinking as I looked at this print actually was, "Wow, it looks like the shadows are blocked!" And they were. The dark areas seemed uncharacteristically devoid of any details. However, given my friend's relationship to Adams and his own brilliant photographic eye, I was not about to say, "I think you might have gotten taken on this print." I probably said something suitably ambiguous that could be taken as a compliment, at which point my friend said (more or less), "I don't know what Ansel was thinking on this one. The shadows are blocked!"

Speaking of shifts, there was a definite shift in how Adams interpreted his own negatives over the years. The very earliest prints were done in an older style and with older media that do look quite low contrast and dark by our current standards. Then things began to become more direct and, to my mind, straightforward. Later in his career he interpreted some earlier images with much higher levels of contrast and more dark and light tones. So, not knowing which prints you saw, it is hard to know where they fit in this continuum.

When it comes to looking to historic predecessors for guidance regarding what good prints look like, I think that it is important to remember that each photographer has his or her own unique way of interpreting the print. Some of the Weston family prints are really, really dark, while other photographers make prints that look much, much lighter and less contrasty. I think the best thing is to see a variety of different interpretations and begin to understand how each of those photographers was able to "see" images in different ways, and to then incorporate all of those points of reference as you develop your own way of seeing.

Dan

Edited on Jul 20, 2014 at 05:05 PM · View previous versions



Jul 15, 2014 at 05:31 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


flyfishertoo wrote:
I realize that it is impossible, I was just wondering what the reaction might be if it were possible. I think there would be negative comments.

Don


You can link to images at the Ansel Adams Gallery site via URL, and there are also some images he made with government funding that are, believe it or not, in the public domain.

A few years back there were a couple of Adams exhibits almost at the same time in the San Francisco Bay Area. One was, if I recall correctly, a show at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) that featured his photographs along with Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings. (The paintings made more of an impression, I'm afraid, even though I like Adams a lot.) Many of these photographs were the versions we are most familiar with, many of which were printed a bit later. The other exhibit was a very modest one at the San Jose Museum of Art. This one featured Adam's prints in ways that they are rarely seen — often very small prints, made very early in his career, printed of very different paper. It was a real eye-opener to see work that he had printed in such different ways.

Dan



Jul 15, 2014 at 05:33 PM
Sarsfield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


and there are also some images he made with government funding that are, believe it or not, in the public domain.

Here:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?st=grid&co=manz

And lots of them here that he did for the Parks Service:
http://www.archives.gov/research/ansel-adams/

There are attribution requirements if posting.



Jul 17, 2014 at 10:33 AM
Micky Bill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


Peter Figen wrote:
Beni - That's a very good point. The level of illumination in most museums is very low to minimize the effect of the light on the art. Galleries tend to be brighter though.


The show at the Getty seemed to be lit at a pretty low level IMO..enough that it was a bit annoying.



Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


RustyBug wrote:
It's been nearly 30 years since I exclaimed that "He cheats !!!" ... so I'm a little slow ... but for me, the magnificence of his work isn't in the image itself, but his comprehension of how to communicate/convey a non-verbal message, even when he wasn't using proper "King's English".


"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." - Ansel Adams

He did not "cheat," but he sure interpreted.

Dan



Jul 20, 2014 at 05:05 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


gdanmitchell wrote:
"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." - Ansel Adams

He did not "cheat," but he sure interpreted.


+1 ... my youthful (i.e. lacking wisdom, experience & appreciation) definition of his workflow has long since been refined and embraced with a much greater understanding of how/why AA crafted his message(s) as he did.

Although, to better understand my position at that time, I had spent the last couple years trying to emulate his work/style of imagery while shooting chromes, never really achieving it (go figure).

Yup, compared to my puristic efforts of WYSIWYG of chromes ... then to learn that he was definitely taking some extended liberties that I had not afforded myself, I was a bit put off (for a while).

No wonder I couldn't replicate his style as a(n ignorant) young gun ... I didn't even know what his style truly was.



Jul 20, 2014 at 05:40 PM
wtlloyd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Ansel Adams Exhibit


I can only add this -

"Moonrise over Hernandez" is a photo I was familiar with via books and web. Pretty much "meh!" has been my reaction, while other AA photos have much more impact in those media forms.
Then I saw an actual print of Moonrise in a gallery. "Oh, now I get it".
Some things just need to be seen in actuality for the impact to be felt. No media reproduction does justice to that particular image.
Regardless of technical merits of a particular print, the full emotional impact an image is capable of bringing is only felt when standing in front of an actual print.
Similar to live music vrs recorded.



Jul 21, 2014 at 08:24 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.