Moonrise Hernandez 2007

[walter23]

Walter,

Wasn't that big to do about the moonrise over Half Dome from Glacier Point in Yosemite?

Seems like I remember it being Yosemite and not Hernandez.

I'm pretty sure it was Hernandez. I'd never really paid much attention to Ansel until this made news, and then I wondered why anybody would bother fussing about such a crappy photograph.

I've never seen a real print of it, maybe that makes a difference - but I'm pretty non-plussed by Moonrise to be honest. Sure, it's got striking little white crosses and a burned in black sky, and Ansel probably printed it very well... big deal It just doesn't speak to me.

Now, his trees & branches reflected in that river set against the rocky cliff - whatever that's called - that's one I can appreciate.

[John Brady]

Walter,

I also seem to recall that not to many years ago someone figured out the exact time of day that the Hernandez photograph was made based on the position of the moon in the photograph.

But then I seem to have a clouded memory these days.

In the making of 40 photograph, Ansel explains that this image was a prime example of his "anti date complex". The image has been listed as 1940, 41, 42 and 44. Dr Elmore of a Boulder observatory, used the moons position in the photo and lunar azimuth tables to determine the shot was made at aprox 4:05 October 31, 1941. That is now the official date
____________________
www.timeandlight.com

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks John.

[Mark Sampson]

The story I read last year was about a photograph made in Yosemite, and how someone calculated that the moon's phase and path would be identical on a given date, when seen from the same spot. I'd seen many Adams photographs before that, and was not familiar with that one, although it was called a "famous" photograph in the story. It certainly wasn't the famous "Hernandez" moonrise. Personally, I'm glad that you can't step in the same river twice...

[roteague]

The story I read last year was about a photograph made in Yosemite, and how someone calculated that the moon's phase and path would be identical on a given date, when seen from the same spot.

I think it was done for both places.

[Marko]

I don't doubt that Kirk. Unfortunately, when the talk turns to digital, everyone automatically assumes this means both digital capture and digital printing - two different technologies, related in name only. Whether he would have chosen both mediums is questionable.

No, it's not. Neither unfortunate nor questionable.

There is nothing unfortunate in technology of digital sensor capture, either in the form of scanning or in-camera. It's called progress.

There is also nothing questionable about what Ansel thought about it. He said it himself. Just open The Negative and there it is, loud and clear in the very introduction.

If you don't have that book, since you neither develop nor print your own photos, just go back and re-read this very thread.

[roteague]

There is nothing unfortunate in technology of digital sensor capture, either in the form of scanning or in-camera. It's called progress.

I don't see inferior quality as progress. IMO.

There is also nothing questionable about what Ansel thought about it. He said it himself. Just open The Negative and there it is, loud and clear in the very introduction.

I have the book and have read it. Since Ansel Adams didn't know what current digital technolgy is capable of, he really couldn't comment very accurately - otherwise he would have been able to see into the future.

[Marko]

I don't see inferior quality as progress. IMO.

I have the book and have read it. Since Ansel Adams didn't know what current digital technolgy is capable of, he really couldn't comment very accurately - otherwise he would have been able to see into the future.

This is, of course, nothing more than your well known opinion.

Why do you choose to state yours as fact and at the same time dismiss Ansel's utterly escapes me, but quite frankly, between you and him there's simply no contest.

But I have to give it to you - it does take a lot of gal to come out swinging at Ansel, especially for someone who shoots slides and has them developed and printed by a lab.

[roteague]

This is, of course, nothing more than your well known opinion.

Why do you choose to state yours as fact and at the same time dismiss Ansel's utterly escapes me, but quite frankly, between you and him there's simply no contest.

But I have to give it to you - it does take a lot of gal to come out swinging at Ansel, especially for someone who shoots slides and has them developed and printed by a lab.

As you are entitled to your own as well.

My printing methods are exactly the same as used by Jack Dykinga, Ken Duncan, Joe Cornish, Tom Till .... I'll take their work over Ansel Adams any day.

[walter23]

I don't see inferior quality as progress. IMO.

Different tools. An 8x10 or 11x14 print from a higher end modern DSLR will be sharp and beautiful if the photograph itself stands up.

No doubt DSLRs have made some tasks much easier (like catching exactly the right moment in a sporting event).

I'll stick with my LF gear though. I like the process and the output capabilities.