gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
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 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....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
|