Ansel Adams - Whats so great?

[Hertz van Rental]

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.

This is my point entirely, but you seem to be missing it.
Landscape photographers do indeed have no option but to 'use what is there' and don't have control over lighting. So if they produce a great image, exactly how much of that is down to them?
If they have no control over anything then a lot of it is just luck, surely?
They can't change the light so they rely on the vagaries of the weather.
They can't move mountains or plant trees so the only control they have over composition is to move around a bit to get the best view.
(And that raises the question: how much of the viewer's response is purely a response to the subject?)
The only thing they can really do is to take a lot of pictures. Adams surely did that - but if you look at his total published output there are not that many. One then has to wonder at his cropping ratio. How many pictures did he have to take to get a good one?
As he did it for a living then 10 sheets a week would be conservative. Over the year that's some 500. On the evidence of his output he produced maybe 10 good shots a year. 50:1? That's looking less like talent and more like chance.
In the studio it's more like 3:1 - and that's only because you do a couple of extra in case there is a problem with processing.
But I agree that there are (and have been) some amazing landscape photographers. So where does their talent lie?
I believe it is in their vision, their point of view, how they respond and react to the environment they are in.
With Adams, if you forget everything about him and look at his landscapes on their own merit - they come across as bland and emotionless. Like a scientist examining a specimen down a microscope. It is as if he selected his views for the sole purpose of demonstrating his technical expertise, not because he felt anything for them.
Look at the work of Weston, his mentor. His nudes, peppers, portraits, landscapes. There is no doubt he was a genius. Adams doesn't even come close, yet people always say his name with reverence.
Why?
Nobody writing in this thread has yet put forward anything like a reasoned argument to explain why he should be so revered.
It can be summed up as 'Adams was great because he was Adams'.
I think people need to have a serious think about this - and look at the work of some other landscape photographers. He wasn't the only one, you know.



'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - this is a non-argument.
People trot it out when they have no real case, believing it to be deep and profound and an irrefutable argument.
This is not so. It is just a meaningless cliche.
If it is interpreted as 'every person's idea of beauty is different' then that is not true. Our idea of what is beautiful is formed and created by our Society. There is a huge amount of evidence to prove that our ideals of beauty are pretty similar but are Culture dependent.
The only interpretation that works is 'different people like different things'. Which is not the same.
Someone who likes motorbikes will think a picture superb if it is of a 'bike they like, regardless of how good it is photographically. Just look at pornography. The biggest business in the world. Broadly speaking the pictures used are artistically poor - but they do the job and usually the viewer is not interested in the lighting or composition.
In the words of Susan Sontag: to most people a beautiful picture is a picture of something beautiful.
Think about that.

 

[markc]

I've always considered Adams to be more of a technician than an artists. From all accounts, he seems to be a master of the darkroom, but his work usually leaves me cold. As you say, my response is usually, "Great view."

As for landscape photography... I see being able to recognize good lighting to be a skill related to being able to create it. A good landscape photographer may not create the lighting, but still has to recognize what is "good". I see it being similar to available light portraiture or street photography.

Personally, I prefer to work with the dynamic and see what I can make of it. I can do studio work, but don't care for it. Some of it is because I'm not as good at it, but it can be argued that that's because I rarely practice at it. It's just that I find it a sterile environment and the results, even from those really good at it, often don't raise an emotional response to me.

There are good studio photographers that would be completely lost when trying to deal with the dynamics of getting a good shot of a child running around. These are different skill sets, but I don't think one is necessarily harder than the other. It often depends on the persons personality as to what they find themselves a "natural" at.

 

[alexecho]

My problem with studio photography is that it is very dependent on having the right equipment.
In some photography, the art is getting in the right position and waiting for the right moment. Either the right light or the right expression, then you make sure your framing is right and the focusing still sharp, hit the shutter and you have captured that moment.
In studio photography the skill is almost opposite to that. You visualise what you want, then create it. You can create almost any lightling effect, if you have beought the right lights, and I know you need to know how to use them, but you can spend countless hours 'testing' the effects of different things in different positions, and once you've learnt that it will never change. You can move the lights around for hours, seeing your options, then go back to whatever looks best, exactly when it pleases you. Then you get the thing you want to photograph, inanimate object or model. You position it how you feel it looks best, again you get to move it around to suit yourself and can go back if you feel you have passed the best position.

I think they are both equally skilled in their own ways... AA was just a good technician, he took 'nice' pictures, but you can't say more than that, and 'nice' always suggests they don't make you feel anything, they don't speak to you. I don't think that's a good thing.

 

[photoboy15]

I don't think we get each others points. I'm better talker than a typer. But no mater what type of photographer you are you need to have a good eye and technical prowess to continually produce good work.

 

['Daniel']

I think that Hertz argument does actually apply to alot types of photography including studio work.

If you do still life, unless you design and craft everythnig you have in your shot you have only a few more degrees of control over the objects. It's pretty much impossible that what you use is qwhat you see in a vision unless your vision included those objects already and already the vision is inhibited by what is possible. There is more control in still life over landscape but it still has limitations.

Portrait photography is the same thing. The model is a big part. You can't design a human so have to go with whats available. unless you are a very famous photographer its unliekly you can get any model in the world. so yuo go with the ones that are possible. No one sees what it would have looked like with a 'better' model only you in your visions eye. It's still stopping the picture being perfect to your vision.


So I think that Hertz point is true but slightly self attacking as well. But again, different types of photography are different so you can't apply the ame attributes to define genius or great.

blah.

 

[e_]

*
My definition of landscape photography is "environmental portraiture"

As a photojournalist and documentary maker I employ both the skill sets used by studio and landscape shooters which, in summary, are 'lighting ratios' (studio) and 'capturing the moment' (landscape)

Studios are fun but i prefer the dynamic - or, in simple terms, the adventure of location shooting

There's no hierarchy; to see one would be ignorance. Or arrogance

With regards Ansel Adams, I respect his place his history and thank him for the Zone System

Have fun!



e_

 

[Alexandra]

ok, i just went through this whole debate and gotta say it's incredibly interesting and it's nice to see so much people with different and valuable opinions

Adams' pictures say 'this is what I saw', Blakemore's say 'this is what I felt'.

Totally agree here.

Actually, I'd link AA's landscapes to "calendar pics". I mean, it's beautiful and very pleasant to look at, but it's just that. I don't get any feeling from it.
And another point nobody seemed to bring up yet: the photographer's own point of view. Maybe I don't feel anything from AA's landscapes cause I wasn't there and I didn't see it and I didn't hear what he heard on the spot. If such is the case, his pics probably meant a lot to him just because they reminded him of some feelings. And we just don't get it cause we're not him.
I mean, if I shoot a sunrise pic, which i happen to do very often, it might look quite sterile to somebody else and they would just qualify it as a "good capture". But on my side, I walked down to the water, froze my fingers off, heard the silence of the morning and the little waves under the ice and then took the pic and that's what makes me love it.
But then again a good photographer should be able to comunicate thier feelings through the pics...

 

[Mumfandc]

Ansel Adams...THE ZONE SYSTEM.

 

[SamuelA]

I don't really have much of an arguement or anything to prove in this but like someone said above..you really need to see the originals to see what he's all about. Today I went with some friends to the Ansel Adams exhibition in Huntsville, AL and was absolutely blown away at all his photographs. His portraits were very nice but it was more his landscape pictures that interested me the most..and after looking at them for a while I started to look more closely at them and noticed the amazing, minute details in every photo. They were breathtaking. I could just stand and stare at one photo forever. So if you really do want to see why he's so "hyped up" definatley check out his galleries if they ever come near you.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

you really need to see the originals to see what he's all about.

The same is true of every photographer and artist. Adams is no exception.
But is the production of 'amazing detail' all there is to being a 'good' photographer?
If it is then every surveillance satellite orbiting the Earth is at least as good as Adams

 

[photoboy15]

I'm beginning tho think you have a personal issue with Adams that years of therapy will not even help you to overcome. Of course I'm just kidding i think the therapy would help. But anyway, art its opinion based and people love or hate his work for a various amount of reasons.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I don't have a personal issue with Adams at all.
What I do have is an issue with blinkered thinking.
Whenever I ask anyone who reveres Adams' work why they hold it and him in such esteem you basically get one or more of the following answers:
Adams was the greatest because he was Adams.
Adams was great because he produced sharp pictures with a full tonal range.
Adams was great because he invented the Zone System.
Adams was great because he was a good technician.

I've seen the same answers in this thread and no new ones.
The truth is that most people revere Adams either because they have been told he is the greatest or because they don't really know any others.
What I am trying to do is get people to actually think about what makes a good photograph and what makes a good photographer.
Is it just the technical aspect? Or is it something beyond that?

 

['Daniel']

Why these black and white opinions as well? I neither love or hate him. I am indifferent. He produced nice pictures, blah not something to write home about in my eye though.

 

[photoboy15]

Hertz I was just kidding and adding some levity to the situation, that didn't translate well to typing on the net. I don't think you have a personal prob with Adams or need therapy for it. I think you need therapy for a who different set of reasons (joke).

On the the more important issue. What makes a good photograph, many different thing. A photo could have Convey great emotion but could lack technical superiority and be a great photo, as the opposite it could lack emotion but be technically superior and be considered a good photograph. Going back to My days as a musician Louie Louie is a song that everyone new and loved, but it was 3 frickin chords. No technical but invoked emotion, probably alcohol fueled emotion, but never the less emotion.

So moving on to product photography, which I believe you said you were at one time. If you create the perfect set-up, great lighting scheme and it is exactly what the client wanted, but lacks a emotion response "a connection" is it a good photograph. If it look good and does its job then its a good photograph but many photographers could say I would do this or that etc. I go back to what Ive said in one form or another Its art is subjective and really deepens on who's looking at it.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

art is subjective and really deepens on who's looking at it.

Art is not subjective but objective.
What is subjective is whether you like it or not.
The two things are entirely separate and independent - but too many people get them confused.