Recommended Exposures by Ansel Adams

[DennyCrane]

Does he have a book on focusing?

BwaaaaHaaaaaHaaaaa...

That little gem was almost lost in this thread.

Quote of the Week.

 

[white]

Adams could not even dream about such shots. He had neither the equipment nor the reflexes. If it wasn't a rock or tree, he was helpless.

This kind of photography is very, very, difficult and requires years of experience, good reflexes and physical skills. If you think it's easy, just try it yourself. The players are way out in the field and you need big lenses. The slightest movement is magnified, and the angle of view is tiny (diagonal, horizontal, vertical - 4.4°, 3.7°, 2.5°) Players move in and out of the field of view and it is difficult, to say the least, to follow them. Composition is therefore very difficult.

The 'level of difficulty' is many times greater than those Adams mountain scenes so many rave about. Those shots are comparatively easy...you have all day...nothing is moving...

Try to make a perfect composition in 1/50 of a second!

Well, nothing is moving except for cloud cover maybe, but the world's largest diffuser constantly moving in front of the largest key light known to mankind isn't such a BIG DEAL, is it?

Nah.

Wasn't it you who said Cartier-Bresson was overrated? Yeah, it was. That is so ironic considering how much you're singing your praises here.

FYI, the people who say their work has perfect composition usually have their head so far up their ass they're incapable of seeing anything with fresh eyes.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

I have seen Adams' work before. It appeals to bourgeois tastes. Not to me.

And as far as 'innovations', the zone system was not even his idea. And it's wrong. See the zone system thread for my discussion of that.

Americans' worship of Adams is just incomprehensible to me.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

What are you talking about?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Adams could not even dream about such shots. He had neither the equipment nor the reflexes. If it wasn't a rock or tree, he was helpless.

This kind of photography is very, very, difficult and requires years of experience, good reflexes and physical skills. If you think it's easy, just try it yourself. The players are way out in the field and you need big lenses. The slightest movement is magnified, and the angle of view is tiny (diagonal, horizontal, vertical - 4.4°, 3.7°, 2.5°) Players move in and out of the field of view and it is difficult, to say the least, to follow them. Composition is therefore very difficult.

The 'level of difficulty' is many times greater than those Adams mountain scenes so many rave about. Those shots are comparatively easy...you have all day...nothing is moving...

Try to make a perfect composition in 1/50 of a second!

Well, nothing is moving except for cloud cover maybe, but the world's largest diffuser constantly moving in front of the largest key light known to mankind isn't such a BIG DEAL, is it?

Nah.

Wasn't it you who said Cartier-Bresson was overrated? Yeah, it was. That is so ironic considering how much you're singing your praises here.

FYI, the people who say their work has perfect composition usually have their head so far up their ass they're incapable of seeing anything with fresh eyes.

Yes, I said HCB was over-rated. But he's not as over-rated as Adams is. Selgado consistently makes the best photographs I have ever seen. Hundreds of them. Adams made 2 or 3 good ones.

If you don't appreciate how much skill goes into making the rugby photos I posted, try it yourself. Which way is the halfback going to turn? Where is the ball going? Do you know?

Waiting for the clouds to drift by? That's what you call difficult?

:lmao:

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

Why? OK, their work IS more important more involving, than Adams' is

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

Aha, you must be a 'photographer'.

And you are quite wrong in what you said. Many pros today use auto-focussing machine guns. I did this with an all-manual camera.

What you also don't realize is that Sports Illustrated will have several photographers at a football game, each of which concentrates on only one player at a time. One will cover only the quarterback, another the receivers, etc. There is no comparison. What they're doing is comparatively easy. They will take hundreds of frames during a game of one player. I use a few rolls. I'm not being paid to do this.

The result is that what you see in SI represents only a very limited selection, the best of thousands of frames.

 

[maris]

These I think are the recommended exposures for different shades of black, gray, and white that comprise the subject. I read them in Ansel Adams' book THE NEGATIVE. I experimented if it can apply to digital as the same way as film. It does...Thank Ansel for the diligence employed in coming up with these recommended exposures. They are still of good use as of today..


ZONE 0 (darkest black)

1/125 at f/22

ZONE 1 (Black)

1/60 at f/22

ZONE 2 (grayish black)

1/30 at f/22

ZONE 3 (dark gray)

1/30 at f/16

ZONE 4 (gray)

1/30 at f/11

ZONE 5 (moderately light gray)



ZONE 6 (light gray)

1/30 at f/5.6

ZONE 7 (grayish white)

1/30 at f/4

ZONE 8 (whitish gray)

1/15 at f/4

ZONE 9 (whitish)

1/8 at f/4

ZONE 10 (invisibly white)

1/4 at f/4

Well, you did leave out the Zone V exposure which would be 1/30 at f/8, to follow your sequence. The exposures you give would be useful for a normal panchromatic film of ISO = 8 (were there such a thing) on an average sunny day. A mid grey subject photographed at 1/30 at f/8 would then yield negative density V which in turn could be re-photographed on gelatin-silver paper to produce print value V. The other exposures in your list would render the mid grey subject much as you describe though it would be odd to place a mid grey thing on Zone II or zone XI for example.

If the film was different, the subject different, or the light different your list would be utterly wrong.

 

[maris]

I agree you need a light reference, but it's not usless at all . Hansel Adams Zone's are difficult, If you want to simplify things I have a plugin for Adobe Photoshop specially designed to work with Hansel Adams Zone's . I've worked with both film (scanned of course , ) and digital with very nice results.

I have been doing B&W 35mm photography for 46 years. I know more about what I need to do than Adams ever dreamed of. His ides are totally wrong. Pay no attention to them.

The first error he makes is to assume that tones are the most important feature of photographs. He's wrong!

If you have only done B&W 35mm photography for only 46 years you haven't done much. I've just started my sixth decade in photography on all formats from 35mm to 8x10. But seniority doesn't count.

I have had the privilege of looking closely (magnifying glass distance) at many of Ansel Adams' original photographs in the National Gallery of Australia and at other galleries. These were actually made by him at his Yosemite darkroom and are not copies or reproductions. I even own ($$$) a small Ansel Adams' photograph; unfortunately not one of his $100 000 national treasures.

It could be that Adams' ideas are totally wrong but in spite of this he has produced an enormous volume of some of the most ravishingly beautiful black and white photographs ever seen. Image what he could have achieved if he had followed the advice of a 46 year 35mm veteran!

 

[pbelarge]

Aha, you must be a 'photographer'.

And you are quite wrong in what you said. Many pros today use auto-focussing machine guns. I did this with an all-manual camera.

What you also don't realize is that Sports Illustrated will have several photographers at a football game, each of which concentrates on only one player at a time. One will cover only the quarterback, another the receivers, etc. There is no comparison. What they're doing is comparatively easy. They will take hundreds of frames during a game of one player. I use a few rolls. I'm not being paid to do this.

The result is that what you see in SI represents only a very limited selection, the best of thousands of frames.

I am curious, what gallery can I go to and view your photos? Since I now gather that you are the worlds foremost photographer, you must have your own gallery...no? Have you not sold thousands, no-millions of you work to your adoring public? Please do tell us where we can go and bow down to the ugh, uh...

 

[DennyCrane]

What are you talking about?

I see subtleties are lost on you.

You're simply not as good as you say you are.

 

[Petraio Prime]

What are you talking about?

I see subtleties are lost on you.

You're simply not as good as you say you are.

The question is straightforward enough. What are you talking about?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Aha, you must be a 'photographer'.

And you are quite wrong in what you said. Many pros today use auto-focussing machine guns. I did this with an all-manual camera.

What you also don't realize is that Sports Illustrated will have several photographers at a football game, each of which concentrates on only one player at a time. One will cover only the quarterback, another the receivers, etc. There is no comparison. What they're doing is comparatively easy. They will take hundreds of frames during a game of one player. I use a few rolls. I'm not being paid to do this.

The result is that what you see in SI represents only a very limited selection, the best of thousands of frames.

I am curious, what gallery can I go to and view your photos? Since I now gather that you are the worlds foremost photographer, you must have your own gallery...no? Have you not sold thousands, no-millions of you work to your adoring public? Please do tell us where we can go and bow down to the ugh, uh...

I am not a 'photographer'.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I agree you need a light reference, but it's not usless at all . Hansel Adams Zone's are difficult, If you want to simplify things I have a plugin for Adobe Photoshop specially designed to work with Hansel Adams Zone's . I've worked with both film (scanned of course , ) and digital with very nice results.

I have been doing B&W 35mm photography for 46 years. I know more about what I need to do than Adams ever dreamed of. His ides are totally wrong. Pay no attention to them.

The first error he makes is to assume that tones are the most important feature of photographs. He's wrong!

If you have only done B&W 35mm photography for only 46 years you haven't done much. I've just started my sixth decade in photography on all formats from 35mm to 8x10. But seniority doesn't count.

I have had the privilege of looking closely (magnifying glass distance) at many of Ansel Adams' original photographs in the National Gallery of Australia and at other galleries. These were actually made by him at his Yosemite darkroom and are not copies or reproductions. I even own ($$$) a small Ansel Adams' photograph; unfortunately not one of his $100 000 national treasures.

It could be that Adams' ideas are totally wrong but in spite of this he has produced an enormous volume of some of the most ravishingly beautiful black and white photographs ever seen. Image what he could have achieved if he had followed the advice of a 46 year 35mm veteran!

Oh really? 46 years isn't much? Learning the ins and outs of a single format isn't a good thing? What is this American obsession with Ansel Adams' work? Is there no-one else whose work merits attention? Who gives a damn about rocks? I'd like to see what he could do at a rugby game! He would be helpless!

I'd like to see what he could do with his view camera at a soccer match. A street festival. Anyplace at all, other than with static subject matter.

What he did was easy. What I do is much harder.

 

[Arch]

What he did was easy. What I do is much harder.

But even if this were true (which it isn't) what difference does it make?
No one... random member of the public or veteran photographer is going to praise you on the difficulty of your image. Photography is a visual art often involving purely aesthetics, this is what matters when your images are viewed. Unless of course they fit a purpose, which yours do, to capture a rugby game, meaning to try and match it against an image which is more concerned with other things is futile.

I don't think you are quite appreciating landscape photography in the same way others do. I would consider it to be my main focus in my photography hobby, therefore when I see (maybe what you don't see) something about a landscape shot I really like, it connects with me.
If this doesn't happen to you, then fine. But you can't go ridiculing someone else's experience, you just have to deal with it.

Also to make a really good landscape shot, it isn't a matter of just going somewhere and taking the shot of non animated objects... its trying to find something that people will connect with, even if its just the way the light falls... it's actually much harder then people think. This is often why photographers get frustrated with landscape photography, as many simply cannot find images that connect with people in any way.

You prefer Culture Club to Eric Clapton?, fine... I for one don't and am more likely to leave the room if someone starts blasting out 'Do you really want to hurt me'.