Recommended Exposures by Ansel Adams

[Petraio Prime]

...nothing is moving...

Except, of course, for the sun, the clouds, the wind, the water, and the imagination of the photographer ...

I daresay there's a big difference between technical skill and artistry. Adams had both.

You know what I mean. They are not 'running around'. There is a huge difference...

 

[Petraio Prime]

Wedding photographers are the only real photographers.

No landscape photographers are!

No sports photojournalists!

No art photographers!

Nsync is better than the Backstreet Boys!

Ford is better than Chevy!

Canons are better than Nikon!

:banghead:

I'm not sure you entirely grasped my point... that or your just refraining from telling me what you *really* thing because you like talking to me.

OK, here is what I am saying: there is not nearly enough appreciation for the genre in which I work (I don't mean my work itself) and way too much for the style of work of the large-format 'nature' guys. There is no comparison in the level of difficulty. Not saying that hiking over mountains is easy...but the purely photographic skills (fast reflexes, timing, rapid composition, focussing, anticipation, etc.) are not the same. Not even close.

In other words, the photos I posted here are much more difficult to achieve on a purely photographic level. Not everyone can do this sort of work. It requires above-average physical technique.

Bear in mind that I do not use auto-focus, auto-exposure, or a motor drive. My camera is 100% manual.

 

[TheSolicitor]

So your overwhelming problem is not that Adams work is overrated, not that the composition isn't too difficult, not that he kept getting lucky after hauling pounds of gear to locations to shoot landscapes, but your problem is that people appreciate landscape photography more than they do sports photography?

I feel like there is a personal inadequacy to your photography that you are fighting based on your defensiveness, chest-pounding, and inability to articulate WHY Adams is less of a photographer and more of a lucky schmuck.

I'll return to the sidelines and continue soaking logs in gasoline to throw on the fire.

With love,
The Solicitor.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So your overwhelming problem is not that Adams work is overrated, not that the composition isn't too difficult, not that he kept getting lucky after hauling pounds of gear to locations to shoot landscapes, but your problem is that people appreciate landscape photography more than they do sports photography?

I feel like there is a personal inadequacy to your photography that you are fighting based on your defensiveness, chest-pounding, and inability to articulate WHY Adams is less of a photographer and more of a lucky schmuck.

I'll return to the sidelines and continue soaking logs in gasoline to throw on the fire.

With love,
The Solicitor.

Not exactly. I don't do just sports. Those simply happened to be rather strong examples that required precise timing, etc. They were not easy. It took years if not decades of preparation to be able to do that. My skill is in spontaneous composition.

It just irks me that Ansel Adams is better known than Willy Ronis, or Eugene Smith, for instance. Adams is way overrated. But even more, I find fault with his zone system. That's the crux, and the topic of this thread.

It also irks me that even the attempt to criticize Adams, his work, or his 'system' meets with strong, irrational resistance. No-one is beyond criticism. Adams was no god. His zone system is seriously flawed.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm not sure you entirely grasped my point... that or your just refraining from telling me what you *really* thing because you like talking to me.

OK, here is what I am saying: there is not nearly enough appreciation for the genre in which I work (I don't mean my work itself) and way too much for the style of work of the large-format 'nature' guys. There is no comparison in the level of difficulty. Not saying that hiking over mountains is easy...but the purely photographic skills (fast reflexes, timing, rapid composition, focussing, anticipation, etc.) are not the same. Not even close.

In other words, the photos I posted here are much more difficult to achieve on a purely photographic level. Not everyone can do this sort of work. It requires above-average physical technique.

Bear in mind that I do not use auto-focus, auto-exposure, or a motor drive. My camera is 100% manual.

I disagree with that entirely. Just because different techniques are required for different types of photography, does not make one photography more skilled than another.

Any shot that I take of a hyper band in action is going to be 1,000,000,000 times better than any landscape shot... no matter *how* much time I spend on it... because I'm just *not* that good at landscape photography.

Just because you spend all your time snapping shots at a flying baseball doesn't make you a better photographer than someone who shoots Landscapes.

Each type of photography requires something another does not... and each photographer has areas they excel in more than others.

It's one thing to be proud of your work... it's an entirely different thing to claim to be better than someone (a famous and well accomplished someone, whether or not you like his work), because you think your specialized genre is "harder". :er:

So your overwhelming problem is not that Adams work is overrated, not that the composition isn't too difficult, not that he kept getting lucky after hauling pounds of gear to locations to shoot landscapes, but your problem is that people appreciate landscape photography more than they do sports photography?

I feel like there is a personal inadequacy to your photography that you are fighting based on your defensiveness, chest-pounding, and inability to articulate WHY Adams is less of a photographer and more of a lucky schmuck.

I'll return to the sidelines and continue soaking logs in gasoline to throw on the fire.

With love,
The Solicitor.

Want some?

I didn't say that. I didn't say my genre was 'better'. I said that there's not enough appreciation for the skill required to do it and for the results, and too much for the landscape guys. I do recognize there is skill involved in what the landscape guys do, but it's not the same skill. It's not 'photographic' skill. It's something else entirely.

It's like John McEnrose vs a chess master. They are different. But if I'm choosing a tennis partner...LOL...you know I'd prefer McEnroe to Bobby Fisher. I would not send out John Sexton (a disciple of Adams) to cover a rugby match...he'd be hopelessly out of his depth. The physical/mental skill required to take the photos I have shown here is greater, far greater, than the landscape guys.

Again, it's not a matter of 'who's better', it's a matter of the appreciation by the public.

 

[icassell]

It's not 'photographic' skill. It's something else entirely.

Here's where I would totally disagree with you. I believe both are sets of photographic skills. Your's are action-photography skill sets. His were landscape-photography skills.

I think there are many film-photographers out there who would argue that those who don't process film in a darkroom have no photographic skills either. I do have darkroom experience, but I would disagree ... digital processing is yet another skill.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It's not 'photographic' skill. It's something else entirely.

Here's where I would totally disagree with you. I believe both are sets of photographic skills. Your's are action-photography skill sets. His were landscape-photography skills.

I think there are many film-photographers out there who would argue that those who don't process film in a darkroom have no photographic skills either. I do have darkroom experience, but I would disagree ... digital processing is yet another skill.

Well for me, B&W darkroom skills are highly desirable, but surprisingly not all of the best B&W photojournalists have agreed, and many were not confident in their darkroom skills. Some have highly trained assistants, including some of the most famous.

Someone whose work I admire is Sebastião Salgado:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebasti%C3%A3o_Salgado

I would say any of us who work in 'spontaneous photography' have to admire Salgado's work.

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&h...q=1&aqi=g3&aql=&oq=Sebastiao+Salgado&gs_rfai=

I have no admiration for Adams. None.

Do you see the difference? Do you see what makes Sebastião Salgado completely different from Adams?

 

[eagleseyeview7]

what you guys don't get is that a landscape PHOTOGRAPHER isn't really a photographer. He/she is something totally different. ha ha

 

[Petraio Prime]

what you guys don't get is that a landscape PHOTOGRAPHER isn't really a photographer. He/she is something totally different. ha ha

I would actually agree with that. It really isn't the same thing...

 

[Petraio Prime]

So your overwhelming problem is not that Adams work is overrated, not that the composition isn't too difficult, not that he kept getting lucky after hauling pounds of gear to locations to shoot landscapes, but your problem is that people appreciate landscape photography more than they do sports photography?

I feel like there is a personal inadequacy to your photography that you are fighting based on your defensiveness, chest-pounding, and inability to articulate WHY Adams is less of a photographer and more of a lucky schmuck.

I'll return to the sidelines and continue soaking logs in gasoline to throw on the fire.

With love,
The Solicitor.

Not exactly. I don't do just sports. Those simply happened to be rather strong examples that required precise timing, etc. They were not easy. It took years if not decades of preparation to be able to do that. My skill is in spontaneous composition.

It just irks me that Ansel Adams is better known than Willy Ronis, or Eugene Smith, for instance. Adams is way overrated. But even more, I find fault with his zone system. That's the crux, and the topic of this thread.

It also irks me that even the attempt to criticize Adams, his work, or his 'system' meets with strong, irrational resistance. No-one is beyond criticism. Adams was no god. His zone system is seriously flawed.

I disagree with that entirely. Just because different techniques are required for different types of photography, does not make one photography more skilled than another.

Any shot that I take of a hyper band in action is going to be 1,000,000,000 times better than any landscape shot... no matter *how* much time I spend on it... because I'm just *not* that good at landscape photography.

Just because you spend all your time snapping shots at a flying baseball doesn't make you a better photographer than someone who shoots Landscapes.

Each type of photography requires something another does not... and each photographer has areas they excel in more than others.

It's one thing to be proud of your work... it's an entirely different thing to claim to be better than someone (a famous and well accomplished someone, whether or not you like his work), because you think your specialized genre is "harder". :er:


I didn't say that. I didn't say my genre was 'better'. I said that there's not enough appreciation for the skill required to do it and for the results, and too much for the landscape guys. I do recognize there is skill involved in what the landscape guys do, but it's not the same skill. It's not 'photographic' skill. It's something else entirely.

It's like John McEnrose vs a chess master. They are different. But if I'm choosing a tennis partner...LOL...you know I'd prefer McEnroe to Bobby Fisher. I would not send out John Sexton (a disciple of Adams) to cover a rugby match...he'd be hopelessly out of his depth. The physical/mental skill required to take the photos I have shown here is greater, far greater, than the landscape guys.

Again, it's not a matter of 'who's better', it's a matter of the appreciation by the public.

Everything I have highlighted I find either contradictory or just plain ludicrous.

So again, as Solicitor suggested... you're upset because your type of photography isn't as recognized as Ansel Adam's Landscapes... and you've implied that your type of photography requires much more skill...

Yet again, not all sports photographers can do landscape... not all landscape photographers can do portraiture, not all portrait photographers can do photojournalism...

Every type of photography requires a skill set all of it's own... Each is difficult in it's own way... and yet the physics stay the same for all of them...

So saying that landscape photographers aren't producing photography is totally ridiculous.

.
.
.
.

Now someone make a big bag of popcorn and enjoy it for me, because I have to run off to a rehearsal I have no desire to go to. :lmao:

Still think I am being misunderstood.



Look at the work of Willy Ronis or Sebastio Salgado (below). Just to name a couple.

I think their work is more important more involving, than Adams' is. The photographs of Adams are all about 'spectacle'. There's no human warmth in them. He's not a humanist.

 

[icassell]

Does one have to be a humanist to be a photographer? I think not. On the other hand, I would say that there is definite humanism in his internment camp photographs. Frankly, I don't find much human warmth in most sports or fashion photography (although I am not suggesting that they are not photography).

 

[pbelarge]

Petraio Prime

You may think you are a good photographer...just because you spent 46 years at it. The work you have shown is the same that 1000's of others can also perform, which makes you one in a thousand, SO WHAT.


What you are good at is being self centered, egotistical and just plain old boring.

 

[Gaerek]

I don't really have time. Suffice it so say he's wrong.

20 posts later, so you now have the time? You have yet to provide any solid argument about Adam's life work being rubbish except the fact that he supposedly couldn't shoot sports (or fast moving things) as well as you can.

Here's an example of a photo YOU'LL never be able to shoot:

http://jeffbean.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ansel_adams_mountains.jpg

Or how about:

http://www.dailyartfixx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jeffrey-Pine-Sentinel-DomeAnsel-Adams.jpg

Or maybe this:

http://saxtonstudio.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/adams-1.jpg

Here's a thought. Get over yourself. You are not God's gift to photography. The photos you linked from those other photographers are amazing, to be sure. But how many photographic innovations did they come up with? How much of an influence were they on modern photography? Your opinion, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter at all.

You sound like my brother who didn't want to buy an iPhone because it was too popular and that somehow made it bad. Yet I can see the regret in his eyes everytime he finds out yet another feature my phone has that his doesn't. You don't like Adams because you want people to think you are edgy and smart. In reality, it makes you look like an ignorant tool.

Oh, one more thing I'd like to add.

I think their work is more important more involving, than Adams' is.

I've bold faced the operative phrase in your quote. Think about that for a bit.

 

[DennyCrane]

He was able to publish books that became bestsellers. Why would I not believe him. His books should not have sold if he is a quack. He carved a name for himself. Ansel Adams! BIG TIME!! How then do you find his pictures. They're perfect !! Whether he used a 35 mm or a medium format, his pictures don't have even the slightest defect...

L. Ron Hubbard sold a lot of books, too.

 

[DennyCrane]

Still think I am being misunderstood.



Look at the work of Willy Ronis or Sebastio Salgado (below). Just to name a couple.


I think their work is more important more involving, than Adams' is. The photographs of Adams are all about 'spectacle'. There's no human warmth in them. He's not a humanist.

You might want to think about not chopping the body parts off so many people in your pictures. That's a trick the pro sport photags seem to manage.