Opinions on AA.

[f90]

F90, what precisely is your point of making this thread? Forgive me if I sense a hidden agenda here. Your referring to members as "Steven Scanner, Garold Turbo, Curt Plum, Rdental," and so on strikes me as odd (to say the least). I am also interested in your statement regarding the rendering of a 3d scene on a 2d surface. Could you describe the inefficiencies, and offer suggestions for improvement?

E. von Hustlesf90forhavingfun. I am sorry I have offended you or anyone else by slightly modifying the display names in a comical way. In my defence, you can't spell Large Fornat Photography Forum without the letters f.u.n!

Onto slightly more serious matters. Is it that far-fetched to believe that good photography (and good art) is merely good knowledge of mind? At the base level there are simple truths to the human brain, once you understand these you essentially have a formula. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you can't be subjective. But if you want your subjectivity to be as effective on the human brain as possible, you must follow some objective rules that are based around knowledge of mind.

The general knowledge base of photography seems only aware of a few rules, and they were the ones taken from painting. This art of ours is enormously more complex than painting, yet we still think we can maximise its potential by following the same science. Photography is at its most effective when our minds do not have to make such a leap when imagining that we are actually viewing the scene. There are many factors that must be applied when attempting to achieve such an image.

As I have said previously, lenses are incorrect. They provide a distorted view of the world at best. Long lenses are the closest to how we see because they provide the lowest viewing angle. A low viewing angle is essential as it ensures that the light rays hitting the flat film plane are as parallel as possible. Our brain and curved retina account for angled rays of light entering our eyes. Very simple light physics tell us that in this situation the longer the lens, the better. But sadly a flattened perspective is not exactly realistic.

This is one of the many problems. And it is one of the problems that I have a working solution for. It is a solution that aa certainly did know about and used extensively throughout his work. I understand that I am leaving much room for skepticism and am open to some good hazing but I am unwilling to post an image until I have it perfected.

rdenney, bummer about your internet connection.

[Nicholas Whitman]

AA matters for the many positive reasons already stated. I don't recall mention that he made the cover of Time and was an honored guest at the White House. He stood as ambassador to the wider world for the art of photography. Landscape photography no less!

AA championed expressive photography and did much with his how to books to make it possible for the rest of us to realize our vision.

But personally I don't find his pallet appealing. The heavy handed use of yellow and red filters result in views which to my eyes are harsh. I can't help but feel he is trying too hard. Now I'll grant that there is wisdom in this approach. If you want to get the man on the streets attention hit 'em between the eyes with a 2x4. Pick your icon, Half Dome, Ol' Faithful, Canyon de Chelley and amp it! For good measure find O'Sullivan's tripod holes and set up there.

Disjointed, cold and calculated are often my reactions to an Adams print.

Nor do I for an instant excuse a body of work because it is being viewed and considered out side of the era it was produced. Stieglitz, E. Weston, Coburn, Bullock, Strand(early), M. White consistently hit the mark ... move me. Adams usually doesn't.

[Vaughn]

Is it that far-fetched to believe that good photography (and good art) is merely good knowledge of mind? (f90)

Art is of the Mind. Knowledge is just of the mind.

The mind can not know the Mind. (an old Zen truth)

The technical side of photography is just that -- just the technical. It has very little to do with the Art of photography.

How our eyes physically work is only a minor consideration compared to the image processing our brains undergo with the info from the eyes. No lens is correct, no lens is incorrect. To stop time and create a single image is not "realistic". It is not how we experience or remember reality. But that does not stop us from creating them!LOL!

That is how I see it. How you see it is up to you. Go ahead and find your solutions, but they will be your solutions not anyone else's.

Vaughn

[rdenney]

E. von Hustlesf90forhavingfun. I am sorry I have offended you or anyone else by slightly modifying the display names in a comical way. In my defence, you can't spell Large Fornat Photography Forum without the letters f.u.n!

Required unavaoidable joke: Some people can't spell Large Fornat at all.

With all due respect, you started a thread based on a premise most of us are unwilling to accept, to demonstrate a principle you say is simple but you won't describe, without regard to the the prior extensive discussions on this forum and in the larger study of art about what art is and what makes it compelling, and then when people challenge you, you say you were just funnin' everyone?

Just because large format is fun doesn't mean people don't take it seriously.

Onto slightly more serious matters. Is it that far-fetched to believe that good photography (and good art) is merely good knowledge of mind? At the base level there are simple truths to the human brain, once you understand these you essentially have a formula...

(Much description of curved retinas, low camera angles, long lenses, distorted lenses, etc.)

...This is one of the many problems. And it is one of the problems that I have a working solution for. It is a solution that aa certainly did know about and used extensively throughout his work. I understand that I am leaving much room for skepticism and am open to some good hazing but I am unwilling to post an image until I have it perfected.

Okay, now I see. Of course, not all of Adams's images fit your description, or use the lenses you seem to think are correct, or use a low camera angle, or whatever. I can think of examples by Adams that contradict each of these descriptions, and some of them are quite as iconic as the three you linked.

Yes, you are leaving much room for skepticism, but not so much on behalf of your ideas, which you have not described carefully enough to be skeptical about, but your motives.

Please, show us your imperfect attempts. We are all on a path, and share our progress and roadblocks with each other.

You do realize, of course, that many of the photos made by Adams can be specifically identified in terms of subject, camera position, lens choice, format, equipment, and even exposure? They are easy to duplicate, for anyone who actually wants to do that.

Here's what your posts sound to me like so far: "You guys are all doing it wrong because you don't understand that photography is not like painting and everything you've been using is wrong. Adams knew how to do it right, and that's why he's the Greatest Landscape Photographer Who Ever Lived. And the formula he followed (insert various half-articulated and often incorrect claptrap about how our eyes see that most good photographers have worked through decades past and a barely articulated, flawed and incomplete model of what "works") is consistent and follows principles that I know and you don't. I'm yet unable to articulate or demonstrate them, but please watch a video on Youtube."

The essence of communication is understanding what people actually hear when you say something. I've given you a sample of what I've heard, just for your edification. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'll warn you: I'm thick and it will require a different approach. You might start with any one of those principles, and ask, "Adams used (insert principle here) to see things the way we see things (insert understanding of how people see here), and I've tried to capture that in (insert photo here), but I'm sure I have not perfected it. Have you guys thought about this principle and how it applies?"

Rick "who has heard a lot of carnival pitches that started this way, speaking of skepticism" Denney

[DrTang]

Beautiful women are not passe, but pictures of beautiful women certainly can be. Imagine how much one might lose appreciation for beauty if they spent all day every day looking at pictures of them.

um...45+ years on...haven't reached the saturation point yet

[paulr]

A few more assorted thoughts on Mr. Adams.

He was the first prominent photographer to photograph the landscape as something temporal and dynamic. As Szarkowski put it, previous landscape photographs concerned geography; Adams' photographs concerned weather. This may have been one of those happy accidents of history, with Adams coming along with the right set of interests at precisely the right time to take advantage of new technology: fast, panchromatic film that would allow relatively short exposures and would give correct exposure to the sky and land simultaneously. No one before him had been able to make such a subject of fast changing clouds and light.

He was the first photographer that I know of who used landscape photographs rhetorically to promote land conservation.

As a teacher, he codified the extremely arcane knowledge of exposure and development. His system allowed a process that had previously belonged borderline alchmists to be taught to anyone.

He was one of many photographers who trumpeted the ideas of modernism, while being completey (probably unconciously) entrenched in romanticism. This kind of confusion often leads to intersting results. Some tension finds it way into the work that might have been eliminated by a less conflicted artist. Stieglitz is an even more obvious example of this phenomenon.

He championed printmaking as a high craft, influencing generations of black and white photographers. And he managed to do this while being (in my humble opinion) a very poor printmaker. Whenever I'm in the 20th century room at the MoMA, I'm startled by how weak Ansel's prints look compared with everone else's. I don't go there to scrutinize technical things, so it takes a lot to get my attention. I've heard a theory that in the 1950s and onward, he listened to encouragement from his gallerists to print for more drama, more contrast, more, more more. This certainly would explain it, although I can't cite a source. I do think some of his prints from the 1930s and 40s are quite beautiful, although only occasionally in the same league as Strand's.

[sgelb]

I tell u what I like about ansel. He valued his time and his work properly. He charged 12,000 for the 16x20 moonrise in the 1970s - 1980s should say it all.

[Greg Miller]

Nailed it in post #2...

[BrianShaw]

I've heard a theory that in the 1950s and onward, he listened to encouragement from his gallerists to print for more drama, more contrast, more, more more. This certainly would explain it, although I can't cite a source. I do think some of his prints from the 1930s and 40s are quite beautiful, although only occasionally in the same league as Strand's.

I wish my memory was better because this is one of the things I find most fascinating about AA and his vision. Many years ago (mid-1980's I think) I saw an exhibit at the FoP gallery in SF where different versions of a few AA prints were exhibited and the message was about how AA reinterpreted over the years. Some interpretations were quite dark and brooding while other interpretations of the same neg were much more "open" and dramatic. I seem to recall the older ones were dark but not sure anymore. All of them had a lot of drama, but I liked the "dark versions" a lot less than the others. It was a fascinating exhibit. I can't remember how they explained the different visions, though.

[BrianShaw]

Nailed it in post #2...

Ha ha... you could be right!