gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #20 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not. | |
chez wrote:
The difference between Adams processing and some images posted in this forum is that Adams images never crossed the "realism" boundary. ... he kept it in check. What I see in this forum from time to time is the fluorescent purple sunset or the exaggerated greens, images that push realism over the edge. I understand why people do this as they get the most attention, but at times I feel they are over done, very much like a poor HDR image.
Just my 2 cents worth on the topic.
I rarely read or reply to your messages any more. I'll make an exception in this case since you are simply dead wrong.
1. There is a famous photograph of a horse in a pasture at the foot of the eastern Sierra Nevada range, caught in a momentary beautiful beam of light, and with a very dramatic view of Mount Whitney in the background. If you look closely at the photograph, paying special attention to a hillside on the left side of the frame you can see where Ansel removed the large white letters "LP" from the scene since he didn't like them there. This is a well documented story.
We can debate whether Adams' choice to do this was a good or a bad one or whether or not it was ethical, but when it comes to "keeping it in check" it is important to be honest and to get the facts straight.
2. The contact print of the famous "Moonrise" photograph can be found online. (You can find a link at the bottom of this page discussing the photograph: http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=Adams,_Ansel_/_Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico ) The contact print is is, frankly, a pretty boring image. The sky is sort of neutral gray with many clouds floating around in it. The foreground structures are of very low contrast and barely emerge from the background. If you haven't seen it, go take a look. I'll wait...
As we all know, the beautiful print of this image - which he interpreted in a variety of ways during his lifetime - features a nearly black and virtually cloudless sky, with the exception of the bright (or should I write "brightened?") clouds above the horizon. The magnitude of the divergence from the actual scene or the actual capture in this photograph is striking - certainly placing the level of alteration in post-processing in the upper range of what we might see in this forum.
3. Recently I was fortunate to hear John Sexton give a very thoughtful and heartfelt presentation on Adams, whose protege he is/was and for whom he worked many years ago. John made a specific point of demonstrating how dead wrong the notions are about so-called objective reality and Adams' approach to it. As an illustration he presented lovely pairs of images of a number of Adams' most famous prints - one representing what his camera recorded and the other representing the results of his extensive, careful, imaginative, and compelling darkroom post-processing. For example, the famous "Storm" photo of Yosemite Valley looks almost nothing like what we know and love in the print.
And so no one misunderstands, I am not in the least critical of Adams' often significant creative and expressive use of the post-processing phase to achieve his highly subjective interpretations of his subjects. To the contrary...
I can respond to your "never crossed the 'realism' boundary" notion in several ways:
Given how significantly he did post process and alter what the camera captured - in the three examples I mentioned and in many other photographs - I could imagine that you are actually arguing that very significant amounts of modern post-processing are then just fine since, in objective terms, what most photographers do in these contemporary era photographs is not of greater magnitude than what Adams did.
Or, I could respond by wondering how much you actually know about the photographer whose work you hold up to support a point of view that he did not hold.
Let me end on a more positive note. There is one place where I agree with you, and it has to do with the "overdone" style that we sometimes see and which can garner a lot of attention. I do not enjoy photographs that both seem to want to lay claim to a certain authenticity while presenting things in ways that cannot possibly be. The photographer who wants us to think that he/she has searched out special experiences and places that other cannot find, but who actually takes the very same things that many others find and see and cranks up the saturation as a substitute for having vision does not impress me. And, yes, many viewers lack the sophistication to understand the difference - and some photographers, by taking advantage of this lack of sophistication and by means of some questionable marketing - seem to succeed with that approach.
Fortunately, it is possible for brilliant photographers to follow another path and with patience, persistence, and hard work to get to a place where beautiful and compelling photographs whose value is more lasting can result. Look beyond the flash in the pan stuff and a few of the photographers who work that vein, and you can find some absolutely stunning work by folks who follow a different path.
Take care,
Dan
|
Archive 2013 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.
You'll forgive my slight redirect here, as I thought these pages were more to this thread's point...