Ansel Adams - Whats so great?

Hertz van Rental · Dec 21, 2005

zedin said:
To some extent also AA is great because of the shots he got. By this I mean you really didn't see to many photographers of that age lugging a huge view camera through America's wilderness. Some of the shots were considered so great due to the fact he took the time and effort to get to the location with his gear.

He was only following in the footsteps of people like C E Watkins, Edweard Muybridge and T H O'Sullivan who did it all 100 years or so before Adams.
Muybridge was photographing El Capitan in the 1870's.
O'Sullivan travelled right across the US and was shooting on wet plate collodion. That meant carrying more than 1/2 ton of glass plates in a wagon with no roads, as well as coating and processing in situ. Add to that fighting off bandits and native Americans...
Adams had it easy.

JTHphoto · Dec 21, 2005

That meant carrying more than 1/2 ton of glass plates in a wagon with no roads, as well as coating and processing in situ. Add to that fighting off bandits and native Americans...
Adams had it easy.

:shock: and i complain about trekking a few miles back to some falls with a dinky 35mm... I don't know how much i would have risked my life for a photo... i had a run in with a gila monster once, and a rattlesnakes from time to time, but thankfully no bandits!

'Daniel' · Dec 21, 2005

Hertz out of interest is this the still life you refered to?

Hertz van Rental · Dec 21, 2005

Yes. My personal opinion is that it's ghastly and I think Adams made a big mistake selecting it for that folio.
I say this as one who was trained as a still-life photographer.
I'm sure other people hold different opinions, though.

(Just compare that to his portrait of Weston - from the sublime to the awful)

markc · Dec 21, 2005

Hertz van Rental said:
Yes. My personal opinion is that it's ghastly and I think Adams made a big mistake selecting it for that folio.

That's an Adams? Gads. I have to agree with you HvR.

PaulJMcCain · Dec 21, 2005

Ansel Adams used a great dynamic range in every one of his photographs. That, and his amazing composition, are what make him a great photographer. There's no way you should fully judge any photographer based on images on a computer screen. You have to see a print.

Hertz van Rental · Dec 22, 2005

PaulJMcCain said:
Ansel Adams used a great dynamic range in every one of his photographs.

He only used the same 'dynamic range' as all other photographers. Photo paper will only give you black, white and the grays in between.

As for 'great composition' - how much control does a photographer have over Nature? You can only photograph what's there, and that limits your ability to compose severely.
It would be closer to the truth to say 'he was good at finding a great view'.
To see what he was like without a mountain in front of him, just go back and look at his still life. Great composition, huh?

I do wish people would get over this blind obsession with him being the greatest photographer who ever lived. There is more to being a good photographer than mere technical mastery. There have been, and are, a great many who are his equal in terms of imagery. And many who are better.

photoboy15 · Dec 22, 2005

I don't think most photographers think he is the best that ever lived, but he was a very good photographer and the most popular for better or worse. He was a teacher and help a lot people understand the zone system. I have seen some of his still life's and yes there are some that I think OK?. There are also some that are very nice. As for dynamic range, yes we all can get that same film and paper but know how to use them is a different story. I'm not one who says he is the greatest, far from it, but I have respect for his talents.

Hertz van Rental · Dec 22, 2005

photoboy15 said:
I don't think most photographers think he is the best that ever lived, but he was a very good photographer and the most popular for better or worse. He was a teacher and help a lot people understand the zone system. I have seen some of his still life's and yes there are some that I think OK?. There are also some that are very nice. As for dynamic range, yes we all can get that same film and paper but know how to use them is a different story. I'm not one who says he is the greatest, far from it, but I have respect for his talents.

Absolutely.
I was just making the point that far too many people believe him to be the best and so are uncritical of his work. They usually think he is the best because he's the only one they have ever heard of and they find it easy to relate to his pictures.
A lot of his pictures are just eye candy.

Luminosity · Dec 22, 2005

markc said:
That's an Adams? Gads. I have to agree with you HvR.

Ok sorry for the off-topic but......MARK !!! I had to check the date to see if yours was an old post....long time no see buddy !

Back to Ansel now.

dirtnapper · Dec 22, 2005

Well, if you are in the Boston area, his exhibit at the MFA has been extended until Jan. 4, 2006. Go see it.

panzershreck · Dec 22, 2005

Hertz van Rental said:
As for 'great composition' - how much control does a photographer have over Nature? You can only photograph what's there, and that limits your ability to compose severely.
It would be closer to the truth to say 'he was good at finding a great view'.

most of photography is dealing with "getting to the shot" than actually "taking the shot", if that makes you mediocre, then almost everybody is mediocre

AA certainly marketted himself, and his zone system which few understand

you could say he's the steven spielberg of photography - myth more than reality, not doing anything anybody else is or has not already done a billion times better, but still a legend and an idol :meh:

Hertz van Rental · Dec 23, 2005

panzershreck said:
most of photography is dealing with "getting to the shot" than actually "taking the shot", if that makes you mediocre, then almost everybody is mediocre

There is a lot of photography that is more than that - portraiture and product photography for example. In both you construct almost everything in the shot and control the lighting totally.
I used to be an Advertising photographer and everything in my shots was in exactly the place I wanted it - because I put it there. Musing on how much the photographer contributes to a landscape was something I did often because of this.
With landscape it is just a matter of getting to the shot. Once you get your camera set up the rest has been done for you. With the photography I did, getting to the studio was just the start.
I am still in two minds about it and have a sneaky feeling that landscape is 'lower down' in the hierachy of photography.
I think it needs a separate thread to discuss it. I'd be interested to hear other's views.
It is not, however, an indicator of mediocrity. There are good landscape photographers and bad ones, as in all branches of the Arts. I just think that too many people put Adams on a much higher pedestal than he deserves for no better reason than he is the only photographer they have heard of.

e_ · Dec 23, 2005

Members wishing to directly compare the work of Mr Adams alongside that of his peers may find this useful:

http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/monthly/indexof.html

For best viewing results, calibrate your monitor on the site using this link:

http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/monitor_calibration.html

Have fun...

e_

photoboy15 · Dec 23, 2005

Hertz, I like you do a lot of studio work. Controlling lighting and product placement and doing it well are what make a good studio photographer. But shooting outdoors with no control of lighting is what makes it hard. And the ones who are very good at it like Adams, the Westons, etc make a very good images use what is there, with no ability to change the light other than on film and paper. So I don't think that landscape photography is any of a lower form its just a different form. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.