Recommended Exposures by Ansel Adams

[benlonghair]

There's no discussion here. There's only some guy talking out his ass post after post, trolling as hard as he possibly can. Everyone on the forum disagrees with him. Then there's another guy trolling him back.

That's not a discussion. That's a troll.

This is really a stupid thread.

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm a troll. I hate Kesha. I hope she falls off the face of the earth and burns.

I also hate Rhianna and Jason Derulo...

I'd bang Rhianna.

I'm starting to think there isn't a woman you *wouldn't* bang. :lmao:

Excuse me. I do have very high standards (when I'm sober) and I've never (that I remember) slept with a female that wasn't incredibly hot. And Although I can't stand stupid people, I love dumb girls for some odd reason.

I have no interest in doing so. Not worth my time and trouble.

Or you don't have anything worth showing.

Why am I not surprised at your immediate resort to negativity, to putting someone else down? Not everyone has the same interests in photography that you do. I am not interested in showing, OK? Can't you accept that not everyone is? I'm not like you. Is that clear enough?

So you're saying you're not a photographer?

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'd bang Rhianna.

I'm starting to think there isn't a woman you *wouldn't* bang. :lmao:

Excuse me. I do have very high standards (when I'm sober) and I've never (that I remember) slept with a female that wasn't incredibly hot. And Although I can't stand stupid people, I love dumb girls for some odd reason.

Or you don't have anything worth showing.

Why am I not surprised at your immediate resort to negativity, to putting someone else down? Not everyone has the same interests in photography that you do. I am not interested in showing, OK? Can't you accept that not everyone is? I'm not like you. Is that clear enough?

So you're saying you're not a photographer?

In the way you understand the term, that is correct. I'm not a 'photographer'.

I'm beyond that.



'Photographers' as a group tend to have certain attitudes and characteristics, many (if not most) of which I do not share. So, it would be a mistake to include me in that group.

Here is a friend's daughter (#14) scoring a goal in a lacrosse game:

The photo os no great shakes, but at least I got the ball in the air. It wasn't in the air long.
Taken with Leitz 560mm f/6.8 Telyt-R. Scanned color neg film.

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm starting to think there isn't a woman you *wouldn't* bang. :lmao:

Excuse me. I do have very high standards (when I'm sober) and I've never (that I remember) slept with a female that wasn't incredibly hot. And Although I can't stand stupid people, I love dumb girls for some odd reason.

Why am I not surprised at your immediate resort to negativity, to putting someone else down? Not everyone has the same interests in photography that you do. I am not interested in showing, OK? Can't you accept that not everyone is? I'm not like you. Is that clear enough?

So you're saying you're not a photographer?

In the way you understand the term, that is correct. I'm not a 'photographer'.

I'm beyond that.

Some one that uses a camera to photograph a scene? So do you just take "mind pictures" Is that why you don't have anything to actually show us? Because you actually don't take pictures.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Excuse me. I do have very high standards (when I'm sober) and I've never (that I remember) slept with a female that wasn't incredibly hot. And Although I can't stand stupid people, I love dumb girls for some odd reason.



So you're saying you're not a photographer?

In the way you understand the term, that is correct. I'm not a 'photographer'.

I'm beyond that.

Some one that uses a camera to photograph a scene? So do you just take "mind pictures" Is that why you don't have anything to actually show us? Because you actually don't take pictures.

Yes, I do, but not to show to other people and brag about them, like most 'photographers' do.

See post #164 in this thread.

It seems you have a hard time believing that I don't have this tremendous urge to show thousands of photos. I don't.

 

[Village Idiot]

In the way you understand the term, that is correct. I'm not a 'photographer'.

I'm beyond that.

Some one that uses a camera to photograph a scene? So do you just take "mind pictures" Is that why you don't have anything to actually show us? Because you actually don't take pictures.

Yes, I do, but not to show to other people and brag about them, like most 'photographers' do.

See post #164 in this thread.

It seems you have a hard time believing that I don't have this tremendous urge to show thousands of photos. I don't.

I have a hard time believing you have any good photos to show.

 

[Overread]

Wait so 12 pages on and we still don't really have any proof to support claims made about AA's methods being fraudulent?

So far this is rather like the "is photography art" thread and like the discussions I have with some geeks who try to argue that Starwars is not a scifi but a fantasy film!

 

[Village Idiot]

Wait so 12 pages on and we still don't really have any proof to support claims made about AA's methods being fraudulent?

So far this is rather like the "is photography art" thread and like the discussions I have with some geeks who try to argue that Starwars is not a scifi but a fantasy film!

It's an opera.

From space.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Some one that uses a camera to photograph a scene? So do you just take "mind pictures" Is that why you don't have anything to actually show us? Because you actually don't take pictures.

Yes, I do, but not to show to other people and brag about them, like most 'photographers' do.

See post #164 in this thread.

It seems you have a hard time believing that I don't have this tremendous urge to show thousands of photos. I don't.

I have a hard time believing you have any good photos to show.

I don't care what you think. I have no interest in what you believe or don't believe.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes, I do, but not to show to other people and brag about them, like most 'photographers' do.

See post #164 in this thread.

It seems you have a hard time believing that I don't have this tremendous urge to show thousands of photos. I don't.

I have a hard time believing you have any good photos to show.

I don't care what you think. I have no interest in what you believe or don't believe.

I believe the world is flat.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I have a hard time believing you have any good photos to show.

I don't care what you think. I have no interest in what you believe or don't believe.

I believe the world is flat.

Well isn't that nice.

 

[Village Idiot]

I don't care what you think. I have no interest in what you believe or don't believe.

I believe the world is flat.

Well isn't that nice.

too nice

 

[Gaerek]

Ok, I just finished reading the zone system thread and I can say that it is almost as amusing to me as this one! I will admit that my knowledge of the zone system is fairly limited, so I must go off of the arguments provided, and frankly PP, you lost, big time. Let me give a run down of that thread from my perspective. I ask others to compare this thread to what I'm about to post.

1. Someone asks a legitimate question about the zone system.
2. Others post good answers to his question.
3. The thread, having fulfilled it's purpose is left alone.
4. A month and a half later, our pal PP decides to bump the thread with a criticism of the zone system without one iota of substance.
5. Posters call him on it, and he posts a couple more posts, with no substance.
6. He posts a wall of text from the bible, err, I mean the Kodak manual to show that scientists somehow make better artists than artists
7. Finally, he posts his crappy rugby photo and uses it as an example of why the zone system/Ansel Adams sucks.
8. He posts the rugby photo no less than two more times.
9. He goes on to say that his rugby photo is 'very good' and explains the reason is because it's properly exposed and uses a very basic compositional rule of thumb (diagonals!)
10. Other posters make sound arguments that completely destroy PP's arguments.
11. He then compares himself to Henri Cartier-Bresson and says that his rugby photo is better than Behind the Gare St. Lazare

Thank you Petraio Prime for the amusement today. I thought I had all my laughs for the day with this thread, but you've given me even more with your link. :lmao:

Apparently you didn't read and understand the Kodak quote. Try it again.

The zs relies on varying film development based on subject brightness range. Kodak specifically states this should not be done. Why? Because it messes up the gradation of the mid-tones, and maintaining 'normal' mid-tone gradation is most important of all.

I have no interest in your opinion of my work. I don't 'compare' myself to Ansel Adams one way or another. I don't give a damn about photos of rocks and trees.

If you honestly think it is easy to come up with a shot as good as the rugby photo, try it yourself.

The puddle-jumper shot is a piece of crap. I always thought so.

Let me explain this to you in simple terms. You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. When you say that the zone system 'messes up the gradation of the mid-tones' and 'maintaining "normal" mid-tone gradation is most important of all' are you stating a fact, or an opinion? I only ask because every single argument you have so far about the zone system comes down to your own personal aesthetic that it produces. I like the aesthetic it produces. Most people like the aesthetic it produces. If this is your opinion, I'm totally fine with that. But please stop posting opinion as fact. It makes your arrogance and elitist attitude about photography stick out like a sore thumb.

Please give me a good explanation of why mid-tone gradation is so important. While you're working on answering that, make sure not to use the words 'I' or 'me' and make sure you cite your source. The Kodak book tells that you need to not mess with the mid-tones without explaining why. I don't think you'll be able to answer this without your own personal aesthetic getting in the way, but this is my challenge. Remember who has the burden of proof still.

Whether you believe it or not, you continually compare yourself to Adams and HCB. When you post one of your own mediocre photos and then say AA and HCB couldn't take those photos, you are comparing yourself to them. Quit posting your shots, comparing them to others work then saying your aren't comparing your work to theirs.

Lastly, I'm going to take another page from your book. I have no interest in taking pictures of grown men playing games. It's childish and a way for someone with no athletic ability to try to re-create (unsuccessfully) their own youth. I'll say it again, I don't care how hard it is. I'll continue to take pictures of rocks and trees. I enjoy it. I have fun with it. This is my opinion, not fact.

Remember, your opinion and personal aesthetic are not fact. Please keep that in mind next time you post.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Ok, I just finished reading the zone system thread and I can say that it is almost as amusing to me as this one! I will admit that my knowledge of the zone system is fairly limited, so I must go off of the arguments provided, and frankly PP, you lost, big time. Let me give a run down of that thread from my perspective. I ask others to compare this thread to what I'm about to post.

1. Someone asks a legitimate question about the zone system.
2. Others post good answers to his question.
3. The thread, having fulfilled it's purpose is left alone.
4. A month and a half later, our pal PP decides to bump the thread with a criticism of the zone system without one iota of substance.
5. Posters call him on it, and he posts a couple more posts, with no substance.
6. He posts a wall of text from the bible, err, I mean the Kodak manual to show that scientists somehow make better artists than artists
7. Finally, he posts his crappy rugby photo and uses it as an example of why the zone system/Ansel Adams sucks.
8. He posts the rugby photo no less than two more times.
9. He goes on to say that his rugby photo is 'very good' and explains the reason is because it's properly exposed and uses a very basic compositional rule of thumb (diagonals!)
10. Other posters make sound arguments that completely destroy PP's arguments.
11. He then compares himself to Henri Cartier-Bresson and says that his rugby photo is better than Behind the Gare St. Lazare

Thank you Petraio Prime for the amusement today. I thought I had all my laughs for the day with this thread, but you've given me even more with your link. :lmao:

Apparently you didn't read and understand the Kodak quote. Try it again.

The zs relies on varying film development based on subject brightness range. Kodak specifically states this should not be done. Why? Because it messes up the gradation of the mid-tones, and maintaining 'normal' mid-tone gradation is most important of all.

I have no interest in your opinion of my work. I don't 'compare' myself to Ansel Adams one way or another. I don't give a damn about photos of rocks and trees.

If you honestly think it is easy to come up with a shot as good as the rugby photo, try it yourself.

The puddle-jumper shot is a piece of crap. I always thought so.

Let me explain this to you in simple terms. You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. When you say that the zone system 'messes up the gradation of the mid-tones' and 'maintaining "normal" mid-tone gradation is most important of all' are you stating a fact, or an opinion? I only ask because every single argument you have so far about the zone system comes down to your own personal aesthetic that it produces. I like the aesthetic it produces. Most people like the aesthetic it produces. If this is your opinion, I'm totally fine with that. But please stop posting opinion as fact. It makes your arrogance and elitist attitude about photography stick out like a sore thumb.

Please give me a good explanation of why mid-tone gradation is so important. While you're working on answering that, make sure not to use the words 'I' or 'me' and make sure you cite your source. The Kodak book tells that you need to not mess with the mid-tones without explaining why. I don't think you'll be able to answer this without your own personal aesthetic getting in the way, but this is my challenge. Remember who has the burden of proof still.

Whether you believe it or not, you continually compare yourself to Adams and HCB. When you post one of your own mediocre photos and then say AA and HCB couldn't take those photos, you are comparing yourself to them. Quit posting your shots, comparing them to others work then saying your aren't comparing your work to theirs.

Lastly, I'm going to take another page from your book. I have no interest in taking pictures of grown men playing games. It's childish and a way for someone with no athletic ability to try to re-create (unsuccessfully) their own youth. I'll say it again, I don't care how hard it is. I'll continue to take pictures of rocks and trees. I enjoy it. I have fun with it. This is my opinion, not fact.

Remember, your opinion and personal aesthetic are not fact. Please keep that in mind next time you post.

OK, I'll make it simple.

Kodak researchers took thousands of photographs and made all sorts of adjustments in exposure and contrast and showed them to observers. They asked them what looked best. They said, overwhelmingly, that: 'normal mid-tone gradation looked best'. This is a scientific approach, you see, not what Adams did. Adams pulled the zone system out of his ass. If you significantly alter the development of the negative to try to expand or contract the scale to fit the Scene Brightness Range, you end up with a cure that is worse than the disease. Read the quote until this sinks in.

I can always tell when someone has used N+1 or N-1. The photos look awful.

 

[OrionsByte]

Is there any popcorn left, or have we depleted our supply?