What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?

[Marko]

I wonder what would everybody be saying if Ansel processed this image in Photoshop? Would it still be the "extraordinary talent for pre-visualisation" or would it become "blatant manipulation"?

Either way, why or why not?

[rdenney]

Took only few minutes, but he had time to shoot 2, and knew the first shot was a keeper (if nothing happens before development).

He did not have time for two. He tells in an interview that just as he turned the film holder over to make a second shot, the "light went off the crosses". And that, I think, provides insight into what he saw. He saw the light on those crosses, sparkling like jewels against the deep blue sky, made deep blue by the contrast of the wind clouds and the Moon. But the reflections on those crosses were dominant, and he had to print it the way he did to make them so in the print. He described the Moon as two or three days before full, which means it would be well up before sunset. The foreground vegetation was already in shadow, which is why 1.) the crosses were so dominant, and 2.) why he had to intensify that part of the negative with chromium intensifier to make it easier to print.

Rick "who probably would have driven on and then regretted being lazy" Denney

[j.e.simmons]

He also said in an interview that he could not find his exposure meter. He based his exposure on his knowledge of the moon's reflectance - IIRC, 250c/ft2.
juan

[Jerry Bodine]

I felt compelled to take the time to search Ansel’s AUTObiography for his own words on this image, and they should dispel/verify much of the foregoing thoughts and speculations. In an effort to avoid copyright infringement, I’m paraphrasing what I found:

It was a bright autumn afternoon in the Chama Valley and, after struggling with several tough subjects – one of which defied visualization - it seemed to be one of those unproductive days. Everyone agreed to just head back to Santa Fe. Driving south he saw a “fantastic” scene nearing Hernandez. Moon rising in the east, late afternoon sun brilliantly lighting up the white crosses in the church cemetery. There was very little time to get the camera set up, and once composed/focused he could not find his light meter. Sun about to disappear behind clouds, he suddenly remembered the moon’s luminance to be 250 c/sqft, which he placed on Zone VII. A deep yellow filter led to a 1-sec exposure at f/32. No accurate shadow reading in the foreground. Made one exposure, reversed the 8x10 holder for another attempt and the light was gone as the darkslide was pulled and a magical moment was lost forever. He received many letters about this picture and as a result made clear that it most certainly was not a double exposure. Initially printing the negative (exposed in 1941), he allowed some clouds in the upper sky to show, but he had visualized a very deep nearly cloudless sky. Not until the ‘70s did he achieve the print that matched his original visualization, which he still recalled vividly.

[Heroique]

...Initially printing the negative (exposed in 1941), he allowed some clouds in the upper sky to show, but he had visualized a very deep nearly cloudless sky. Not until the 70’s did he achieve the print that matched his original visualization, which he still recalled vividly.

Thanks for sharing your research, Jerry.

It’s interesting he recalls his visualization “vividly,” but doesn’t say whether he recalls the “reality” of his experience as strongly. If it were me, 30 years (and more) would blur the two – in stealthy, imperceptible steps – until they were one! This is why yesterday, I thought twice about “I came across this extraordinary scene…” – and how long ago he’s remembering, and what consequences the book’s single, expressive print might have on the average reader’s understanding.

A matter for psychologists to ponder, while we get the image to enjoy!

[sun of sand]

When I look at photographs I consider to be good I always try to pick out the element/s I
I believe
made the photographer want to take the photo

It could be anything

and I believe that most times there is one specific
thing in a scene
that attracts the person initially
who then checks out the environment of that object for pleasing compositions incorporating it

and I then try to pick out what made the photographer choose that particular composition
the order of the approach


in the darkroom that person continues the investigation into that scene

I don't believe for a second in "previsualization" as a seen final product
i need a red filter to do this and later on I'll tone in whatever and use this technique
lol

more
this has "good bones"
..what do I have to do now that I won't be able to do later

[Brian Ellis]

Technique ... practice .... intution... no doubt about all that. But it also takes a bit
of luck. What Ansel never tells you is how many shots slipped off the hook.

Actually his writings, and the writings by others concerning things he said, contain quite a few examples of mistakes he made of one kind or another. If you haven't read it already try "Ansel Adams - Letters - 1916 - 1984" (ISBN 0-8212-2682-7) edited by Mary Alinder and Andrea Stillman (with a wonderful forward by Wallace Stegner). In fact it's a little surprising, considering his generally meticulous approach to photography, just how often he did screw up.

As far as "Moonlight" is concerned, the only luck involved from what I've read was that he was there at the right time. But once he arrived he had some bad luck too - couldn't find his light meter and wasn't able to get a second photograph before the light changed.

[mandoman7]

Previsualization is something everyone does to a degree, and is hardly a magical technique. Everyone who attempts any kind of artistic project has an idea about how its going to look eventually. The variation might be in the extent to which one adheres to their original vision more than whether it exists or not.

The was a show at the de Young in SF some years ago that actually had 4 or 5 different moonrises printed at different stages of Ansel's career, and the differences were dramatic. In the first images the sky was 2 or 3 stops lighter in the print than in the latter prints. The darkened sky, in other words, was not part of his original visualization if the first 10 years of printing this image is any indication.

Many artists welcome the prospect of variations coming into play during the creation of a piece, giving serendipity and the subliminal a say in the process. The final print is a little like raising children where we might have an idea about how we want things to turn out, but big portions of the outcome are out of our hands.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I always wanted to know what he saw there as well. So I went there and spent quite a bit of time there.

Of course, it doesn't look now what it looked like then. Lots of homes have been built below the highway, and the trees have grown considerably.

I do agree with some of the others that his vision of the place changed over the years. In other words, what he saw when he made the exposure changed over time.

here is what it looks like now.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c87/22wrf/011.jpg

[Leigh]

I would guess his first glance was caught by the sun-bright crosses against a dark background.

Then he started analyzing the whole scene.

Just speculation.

- Leigh