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

[jeroldharter]

I think everyone pre-visualizes a print whenever he exposes a negative - whether he realizes it or not.

But the post-visualization work in the darkroom is important too, hence the reference to different interpretations of the print over the years.

I think it is very educational to see a straight print of the scene, then a description of metering and development, and then a print map of the final print.

[Mark Sawyer]

But the post-visualization work in the darkroom is important too, hence the reference to different interpretations of the print over the years.

Absolutely. Adams was fond of comparing the negative to a musical score and the print to the performance. How dull it would be for a musician to play a piece the same way every time; no growth, no reconsideration or interpretation...

[Brian Ellis]

At his workshops John Sexton shows a straight print of the Moonlight photograph. And you're certainly right, there's a big difference between the straight print and the manipulated versions we're familiar with. But that doesn't mean the straight print is an accurate representation of the scene. For all we know the manipulated version is closer to what he actually saw (or visualized, take your pick) but couldn't capture on film.

[Bruce Watson]

...do you think his “claim” has the potential to mislead, or be misread?

First, it's not a claim; he's telling you what he experienced.

Second, how could it be misleading? Adams never claimed that he did anything like documentary work; he always maintained his prints were as close as he could get to his artistic vision. He stated on numerous occasions (apparently) that one could go to one of his scenes with one of his prints, hold it up, and directly compare his print to the actual scene and be amazed at how different they were. This guy was all about manipulating the print, and he was always very up front about it -- that he did it, how he did it, and why.

I don't see how any of this can be misleading in any way.

As to misreading, I'll grant you that American schools may not be the best, but I hardly think you can blame Adams for that.

[Heroique]

Re: previsualization, it wasn’t until several years after the negative was made that Adams started darkening the sky in prints...

A fun photo of Ansel w/ his two moons, Mark!

And your important clarification makes one curious, indeed, if AA had any specific “pre-visualization” at shutter snap – or simply captured what he could, when he could, sensing the negative would contain a lot of potential for future expression.

[Heroique]

...how could it be misleading?

Only because he tells the reader “I came across this extraordinary scene,” but shows only his intensely expressive print.

It’s delightfully ambiguous at best, potentially misleading at worst, and I’m sure he meant it to be neither. His wording, I think, adds even more to the print’s mysterious aura.

[Brian Ellis]

Only because he tells the reader “I came upon this extraordinary scene,” but shows only his intensely expressive print.

It’s delightfully ambiguous at best, potentially misleading at worst, and I’m sure he meant it to be neither. His wording, I think, adds even more to the print’s mysterious aura.

Why do you assume that the straight print is an accurate representation of the scene and the version with which we're familiar isn't? Maybe all that manipulation is done to make the print look more like what he actually saw than the straight print did.

[Brian C. Miller]

Heroique, the elements and their lighting is extraordinary and rare, and happen every few decades. And then you have the weather to toss some chance into the game. Adams was passing by, looked over, saw the scene, jammed on his brakes, lept out, and hurridly set up the camera and was able to make one shot. He got lucky. Extraordinarily lucky.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Luck favors the prepared".

In my case, I think I'd have had a better than average chance of completely blowing that shot.

[johnmsanderson]

Which brings me to my question for you – When AA claimed to have “come across this extraordinary scene,” exactly which scene was he referring to? Did he mean the top photo (the only one that appears in The Negative), or the bottom photo? The final print’s scene (in his mind), or the scene of “reality”?

Either way, do you think his “claim” has the potential to mislead, or be misread?

The scene he was referring to was the one before his eyes, the inception of what later became his final print.