Ansel Adams: The Black-and-White Master, in Color

[iamjanco]

Ansel Adams: The Black-and-White Master, in Color (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1932894,00.html?artId=1932894?contType=article?chn=arts)

Thought some of you folks might be interested in this.

Jan C.

[Drew Wiley]

Most interesting, perhaps, were a few images AA made in both color & b&w at the same time, including the autumn tree beside the Merced River in Yos.

[Armin Seeholzer]

About 10 years ago I buyed a book with only AA color images!
So nothing really new!
He worked for Kodak ADS very often in Color!!
He had also to make money sometimes;--)))

Cheers Armin

[srbphoto]

In the original book a number of the shots are the same as famous B&W. Just grabbed a color film back. The new book has some more images and they "fixed up" (for lack of a better term) the images digitally. The couple I saw online, I was disappointed with. I am going to wait and see the actual book though.

His correspondence in the book I find very telling and interesting.

I had just got into 4x5 when the original book came out. Even though I was shooting 99% B&W, I rushed down to my local shop to get some Kodachrome because the reproductions looked so awesome. Kodachrome was always my favorite in 35mm. The bad news: they didn't make it in that size! BOO!

[neil poulsen]

About 10 years ago I buyed a book with only AA color images!
So nothing really new!
He worked for Kodak ADS very often in Color!!
He had also to make money sometimes;--)))

Cheers Armin

I have the same book. It's interesting. Clearly, he was a black and white photographer who saw in black and white. Many of his images in that book have a monotone look to them. (To me.)

[Brian Ellis]

To my eyes Adams' color photographs support my theory that it's harder to make a really exceptional landscape photograph in color than in black and white. Most color landscape photographs to me almost always end up looking like nice postcards no matter how well done they may be (including these by Adams as well as my own unfortunately). I think you have to really have an exceptional vision and work ethic to make an exceptional color landscape photograph (exceptional in this sense meaning one that doesn't look like a postcard). A little luck probably helps too.

[Vick Vickery]

Whie I have seen some of Adams' work in color previously, this is an interesting collection that I enjoyed viewing. Thanks, Jan.

[Heroique]

Most interesting, perhaps, were a few images AA made in both color & b&w at the same time, including the autumn tree beside the Merced River in Yos.


To my eyes Adams' color photographs support my theory that it's harder to make a really exceptional landscape photograph in color than in black and white. Most color landscape photographs to me almost always end up looking like nice postcards no matter how well done they may be (including these by Adams as well as my own unfortunately). [...]

Brian, I think I agree with you. For me, this is usually always the case.

Occasionally, of course, I’ll run into exceptions. Below, AA’s two Jeffrey Pines remind me to make color vs. b&w judgments on a case-by-case basis. The color image hypnotizes me, unlike the B&W image, which is also beautiful. Don’t know why. I’m not enough of a photo critic. Could be the color tree's straining effort to hold-up those stormy-purple clouds on high; or its gesture of worship beneath them. Others may feel an equal and opposite reaction. (I do love how the b&w lower limb cradles the distant mountains, which I miss in the color shot.)

In any case, the Jeffrey Pine invites color photography with the orange bark and blue needles of the California Mountain variety. They're also common in my city (Seattle), but they're darker in all respects.

BTW, I’m not sure if this is the same Jeffrey Pine. Can anyone tell for sure?

If it is, eight years in this hostile spot may have claimed the lower limb.

B&W Photo: “Jeffrey Pine, Sentinel Dome” (1940)
Color Photo: “Jeffrey Pine on Sentinel Dome” (1948)

[Drew Wiley]

I believe that pine is still around and has probably been photographed millions of times.

[Heroique]

The tree is no longer, it died during a drought some time ago and then fell over in the past couple of years.


I believe that pine is still around and has probably been photographed millions of times.

Thanks Drew, I’m personally curious about the tree’s fate because it’s a favorite AA color image of mine. :)

You’ve renewed my hope about its condition, especially in view of Curt’s unhappy report from this related thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=55268).

Of course, the two images may show two different trees – one dead, one alive. I’m sure several Jeffrey Pines grow on top Sentinel Dome, each with a photogenic background.

If they’re the same tree, I hope a hiker didn’t chop-off that lower branch for firewood!

[srbphoto]

No, it's gone. It was in 2003. I think it even was front page news.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/19/MN100744.DTL

[Heroique]

No, it's gone. It was in 2003. I think it even was front page news.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/19/MN100744.DTL

Thanks, Scott. Wow, dead and fallen for six years. :(

The story makes it clear the b&w tree is gone – but is the color tree the same tree? (I presume so.)

Well, at least the story’s following update gave me a chuckle about the culture we live in:

“The tree has now fallen, but park officials will leave it where it is, and visitors can continue to photograph it.”