Recommended Exposures by Ansel Adams

[DennyCrane]

Let's revisit the early stages of this train wreck.

So you keep saying - yet thus far you seem to offer little proof upfront unless people prompt you for it. Might be an idea to start your own thread on the topic and outline your thoughts and reasonings for why you consider AA to have theories that are not as "correct" (in your view) as others belive them to be.

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

Basically, his zone system requires you to vary film development to adjust to scene contrast. This is absolutely false.

I have a copy of a Kodak professional publication that goes into a great bit of detail about this, and explicitly denies this idea.

Imagine if he weren't so busy!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Let's revisit the early stages of this train wreck.

So you keep saying - yet thus far you seem to offer little proof upfront unless people prompt you for it. Might be an idea to start your own thread on the topic and outline your thoughts and reasonings for why you consider AA to have theories that are not as "correct" (in your view) as others belive them to be.

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

Basically, his zone system requires you to vary film development to adjust to scene contrast. This is absolutely false.

I have a copy of a Kodak professional publication that goes into a great bit of detail about this, and explicitly denies this idea.

Imagine if he weren't so busy!

That's because I already discussed it in another thread.

 

[Gaerek]

I stand by what I said. Adams' zone system is a disaster. Almost everything he says is wrong. The thread was loosely about the zone system. I am permitted to criticize it, am I not?

If you were criticizing it, I would be ok with that. Unfortunately, you have not done that sir. You have said things like "Adams zone system is a disaster" without ANY backup of your claim. Look at this from the perspective of everyone but you for a second (which, I'm sure is difficult for someone who has to talk about how great they are, and how much experience they have every other post). I have never heard anyone criticize the zone system beyond something like, "It worked back in Adams days, but it's mostly irrelevant in the digital age." I'm sure there are critiques out there, but I've never heard of them. From what I gather from this thread, a lot of the people here haven't heard of it either. If experience is such an important thing to you, I'll go ahead and guess that the combined experience of those that disagree with you in this thread is many times greater than your "...46 years of shooting 35mm B&W."

When you make a claim that challenges popular belief, the burden of proof is on you. Please, tell me why the zone system is a disaster as you say. I would actually love to hear it. An honest critique of the system would be nice to read, actually. But bashing without substance is not criticism, it's opinion. You say there's another thread about this. I'm going to take a line from you and say I don't have the time to look it up. Again, burden of proof is not on me.

Now, let me backtrack to show you what I really think your purpose for posting here is.

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

My 12ish years experience in photography tells me that when someone mentions they take photographs "100% manual" it's code for, "I do things the hard way, because even if my work sucks rocks, I'm a better photographer, because it's harder!"

Guess what, the skateboard pictures were out of focus. Oh right, 100% manual, you have an excuse.

Guess what, your rugby pictures are amateurish at best, and really aren't as great as you seem to think they are. Oh right, 100% manual, you have an excuse.

I don't know the first thing about the photography culture back in 1964, but today in 2010, 46 years later (see what I did there?), the only thing that really matters is the final image. Very few people care anymore if you used the latest 10fps, digital machine gun, or a Kodak brownie. If your image sucks, it sucks. The fact that you insist on shooting 100% manual shows that you only care about photographic innovation up to a certain point, because after that, it must be too easy. Your photographic style is barely relevant anymore. Considering what's possible today, your images (at least the ones you've shown) are mediocre at best. Yet, Ansel Adams work (which was completed 20+ years before you started shooting, with equipment less sophisticated than yours) is still considered by most photographers to be timeless, and as a standard to strive for.

You mentioned how Sports Illustrated photographers have it easy because there's a bunch of them, they can focus on one player, and they can shoot 1000's of frames (or something like that, not wading through 9 pages to look for your exact quote). The thing is, that doesn't matter, because when I see one of their published photos, I think, "Wow, that's an amazing shot!" When I see your rugby photos, I think, "How cute, mommy taking a picture of her son playing his game!" There's nothing wrong with that of course, because I think it's great that a mother would want to record her son playing a game he loves. But when it's someone who seems to think he's this absolutely amazing photographer, it's actually quite sad to me. The fact is, I don't care that there's 1000 (probably more like 10,000 or more, actually) deleted photos for every 1 that makes it into Sports Illustrated. All I care is that they published an amazing shot. I would find it hard to believe too many people, besides yourself, disagree with me here. I will gladly eat my hat if this isn't true.

Okay. I'm bored now.:waiting:

Hope this helps.

 

[smokinphoto]

I love this guy and his tips. I have to pick up some of his books.

The History Place - Best of Ansel Adams here is good place to see best of Adam's 25 shots.

 

[Gaerek]

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.

I just had to add one thing, while reading through this again. Go here:

Ansel Adams?s Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar - Collection Highlights (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

Guess what. Adams, the guy you seem to revile, and who can only take pictures of rocks took those. You understand that Adams was one of the people that brought the whole issue of how wrong the Japanese Internment camps were, right? He helped people to understand the historical significance of these camps, and how what we were doing was nearly as bad as what the enemy was doing. You knew that, right?

No human warmth? Not important or involving? Maybe research before you make blanket statements. And please, don't even try to bring up the fact that he couldn't take those with his view camera. That is absolutely irrelevant, unless you want to start adding caveat's to your argument, such as "All of Adams work sucks, oh, except when he was shooting 35mm, and not doing landscapes, and...blah blah blah." These pictures pretty much take care of most of the arguments you have about Adams and his art. I understand you don't like the guy and his work, fine, but I think it's for reasons you don't even fully understand and you haven't researched enough to form an opinion on ALL of his work.

 

[dxqcanada]

"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan

I believe that Ansel Adams used his "Zone System" as a tool he used to understand how his images will behave tonally, and a procedure on how to manipulate it.

I do not think that the Zone System should be considered the bible for Photographers.

I can see that Ansel considered the visual interpretation of the scene the most important aspect of his photographs ... and if this tool (Zone System) assisted him in doing so, then all the power to him (and any others that want to do it).

I do not think Ansel Adams is the greatest photographer that ever lived.

This thread started with a post of very specific exposure settings for each of the Zones ... and a question about adapting it to digital ... then moved on after an "unrelated" comment was made.

It appears that there are two things points that have kept this thread alive:
- the Zone System is not correct
- Landscape photography is bourgeois

... maybe this thread will continue ...

 

[Gaerek]

... maybe this thread will continue ...

We can only hope.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I stand by what I said. Adams' zone system is a disaster. Almost everything he says is wrong. The thread was loosely about the zone system. I am permitted to criticize it, am I not?

If you were criticizing it, I would be ok with that. Unfortunately, you have not done that sir. You have said things like "Adams zone system is a disaster" without ANY backup of your claim. Look at this from the perspective of everyone but you for a second (which, I'm sure is difficult for someone who has to talk about how great they are, and how much experience they have every other post). I have never heard anyone criticize the zone system beyond something like, "It worked back in Adams days, but it's mostly irrelevant in the digital age." I'm sure there are critiques out there, but I've never heard of them. From what I gather from this thread, a lot of the people here haven't heard of it either. If experience is such an important thing to you, I'll go ahead and guess that the combined experience of those that disagree with you in this thread is many times greater than your "...46 years of shooting 35mm B&W."

When you make a claim that challenges popular belief, the burden of proof is on you. Please, tell me why the zone system is a disaster as you say. I would actually love to hear it. An honest critique of the system would be nice to read, actually. But bashing without substance is not criticism, it's opinion. You say there's another thread about this. I'm going to take a line from you and say I don't have the time to look it up. Again, burden of proof is not on me.

Now, let me backtrack to show you what I really think your purpose for posting here is.

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

My 12ish years experience in photography tells me that when someone mentions they take photographs "100% manual" it's code for, "I do things the hard way, because even if my work sucks rocks, I'm a better photographer, because it's harder!"

Guess what, the skateboard pictures were out of focus. Oh right, 100% manual, you have an excuse.

Guess what, your rugby pictures are amateurish at best, and really aren't as great as you seem to think they are. Oh right, 100% manual, you have an excuse.

I don't know the first thing about the photography culture back in 1964, but today in 2010, 46 years later (see what I did there?), the only thing that really matters is the final image. Very few people care anymore if you used the latest 10fps, digital machine gun, or a Kodak brownie. If your image sucks, it sucks. The fact that you insist on shooting 100% manual shows that you only care about photographic innovation up to a certain point, because after that, it must be too easy. Your photographic style is barely relevant anymore. Considering what's possible today, your images (at least the ones you've shown) are mediocre at best. Yet, Ansel Adams work (which was completed 20+ years before you started shooting, with equipment less sophisticated than yours) is still considered by most photographers to be timeless, and as a standard to strive for.

You mentioned how Sports Illustrated photographers have it easy because there's a bunch of them, they can focus on one player, and they can shoot 1000's of frames (or something like that, not wading through 9 pages to look for your exact quote). The thing is, that doesn't matter, because when I see one of their published photos, I think, "Wow, that's an amazing shot!" When I see your rugby photos, I think, "How cute, mommy taking a picture of her son playing his game!" There's nothing wrong with that of course, because I think it's great that a mother would want to record her son playing a game he loves. But when it's someone who seems to think he's this absolutely amazing photographer, it's actually quite sad to me. The fact is, I don't care that there's 1000 (probably more like 10,000 or more, actually) deleted photos for every 1 that makes it into Sports Illustrated. All I care is that they published an amazing shot. I would find it hard to believe too many people, besides yourself, disagree with me here. I will gladly eat my hat if this isn't true.

Okay. I'm bored now.:waiting:

Hope this helps.

1) The zone system is a disaster because it completely ignores the fact that mid-tone gradation is the most important of all. See the thread 'zone system' on this site. I'm not going to repeat it.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/200441-zone-system.html

2) I don't think the rugby shot is 'great'; I'd rate it as a B+. The point is that the SI guys shooting thousands of frames per game are the only ones who can do better on a regular basis. You couldn't, and 99% of the photographers on the planet couldn't. It's that hard to get such a shot. It tales skill, timing, and luck. You fail to perceive the statistical element. Four or five photographers at a Giants-Steelers game each shooting nonstop...on a single position...of course they're going to get some good stuff. By oneself, one is not going to be able to get anywhere near that quantity. You'd be lucky to get one or two good shots. The SI photo looks like an amazing shot, but statistically it's not that hard. You aren't seeing the 99.999% that are not amazing.

Why do you think it doesn't matter? We don't all have the luxury of having such relatively easy pickings. You have to evaluate what is achieved under the circumstances. You cannot compare the results to what they get.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the skateboard photo is out of focus. There may be a problem with the site or the scan. The print is fine. I was shooting with a wide angle lens and the DOF was more than sufficient.

http://www.photographyboard.net/racing.jpg-847.html

Does that one look sharp to you?

I don't think I am some 'amazing photographer'. But I do believe I have some skills that not all possess. And one other thing is that I have no interest in others' opinions of my work, either positive or negative. My photos are made for my own enjoyment and nothing else. I don't 'show' my work or anything like that.

I don't socialize or hang out with photographers. We have little in common.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I have no interest in others' opinions of my work, either positive or negative. My photos are made for my own enjoyment and nothing else. I don't 'show' my work or anything like that.

I don't socialize or hang out with photographers. We have little in common.

Why are you here then? :lmao:

 

[Gaerek]

1) The zone system is a disaster because it completely ignores the fact that mid-tone gradation is the most important of all. See the thread 'zone system' on this site. I'm not going to repeat it.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/200441-zone-system.html

Thank you. It only took me three times asking for you to either support your argument or at least link to this thread. I'll take a look at it. I'm very skeptical, however that someone who took some of the most iconic landscape photos in American history was using this disaster of a system for exposure, but I'll look at your argument with an open mind. I'm guessing, however, that your dislike of the zone system has more to do with your dislike of Adams and of landscape photography in general than an actual 'disaster' of a flaw.

2) I don't think the rugby shot is 'great'; I'd rate it as a B+. The point is that the SI guys shooting thousands of frames per game are the only ones who can do better on a regular basis. You couldn't, and 99% of the photographers on the planet couldn't. It's that hard to get such a shot. It tales skill, timing, and luck. You fail to perceive the statistical element. Four or five photographers at a Giants-Steelers game each shooting nonstop...on a single position...of course they're going to get some good stuff. By oneself, one is not going to be able to get anywhere near that quantity. You'd be lucky to get one or two good shots. The SI photo looks like an amazing shot, but statistically it's not that hard. You aren't seeing the 99.999% that are not amazing.

This proves you didn't even read, or at the very least failed to comprehend my post. I'm well aware of the statistics of getting a good sports shot. No where In this thread have I actually claimed to be a good photographer, so I'm not sure why my skill had to be brought in (and boldfaced and italicized for that matter). I have little interest in sports photography and haven't really done much, but I'm certain I could get shots at least as good as your rugby shots. You keep talking about how hard sports photography is. Bottom line is, I don't care that it's hard. You post a mediocre shot and try to use it to show why you're better than Adams. If you're such a great photographer, to be able to compare your work with Adams why don't you try his style. Taking pictures of rocks, as you say, is hard.

Why do you think it doesn't matter? We don't all have the luxury of having such relatively easy pickings. You have to evaluate what is achieved under the circumstances. You cannot compare the results to what they get.

I do not have to evaluate what is achieved under the circumstances. Where would you ever get a ludicrous idea like that? I evaluate the photo based on what is presented. If you post a blurry picture of a gorilla and tell me it's a great shot because you were hanging upside down in a tree, blindfolded, one hand behind your back in hurricane force winds, I'm going to tell you that you posted a blurry picture of a gorilla and to try again. Difficulty of the shot has nothing to do with how good it is. This isn't competitive gymnastics where you get extra points for a difficult stunt. This is photography where everyone has seen a great shot of a gorilla, and doesn't want to see a blurry one, just because the situation was difficult.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the skateboard photo is out of focus. There may be a problem with the site or the scan. The print is fine. I was shooting with a wide angle lens and the DOF was more than sufficient.

http://www.photographyboard.net/racing.jpg-847.html

Does that one look sharp to you?

Maybe it was the site, maybe your 46+ (no idea your real age) year old eyes are failing you. Its out of focus, from what I can see. Sorry. As for the bike shot here, it's sharp enough. Still not a terribly great shot to me. No emotional impact to me at all, but technically correct.

I don't think I am some 'amazing photographer'. But I do believe I have some skills that not all possess.

Then stop posting photos and talking about how an iconic, 20th century photographer that is widely considered to be one of the greatest ever can't take shots like yours. By doing that, you are saying you are better than Adams. I have yet to see any real skill besides making due with the handicaps you've imposed on yourself. Doing that doesn't somehow make you a real photographer.

And one other thing is that I have no interest in others' opinions of my work, either positive or negative. My photos are made for my own enjoyment and nothing else. I don't 'show' my work or anything like that.

Err, ok, then see above. Stop posting your pics, because now you're contradicting yourself. I'm not sure how you can not show your work, yet you've shown all matter of work samples on this thread.

I don't socialize or hang out with photographers. We have little in common.

Really now? Then how come you've joined a photo forum and have racked up 434 posts in under 3 months? That sounds a lot like socializing with other photographers. Stop lying to save face. Everyone sees through it, and we can all tell who the real hack in this thread is.

Hint: It's not Ansel Adams

 

[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:

 

[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.

 

[DennyCrane]

You're really not very good.

 

[benlonghair]

And people wonder why I was trolling this thread.

 

[sleist]

Hi,

I've been away. Did I miss anything?