Ansel Adams - Whats so great?

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

Most reactions

Back
Top