And The Ansel Adams Tripod Holes Award goes to...

[John Kasaian]

Just found on page E5 of this morning's Fresno Bee, to wit:

Texas State Univerity Astronomers have concluded that Ansel Adams 'Autumn Moon' was taken a 7:03 on Sept 15, 1948, not 1944 as long thought. The lunar event ocurs every 19 years and Yosemite officials expect a gathering of photographers and Adams fans on top of Glacier Point this thursday, Sept 15.

I'm not awake enough to find a link to the newspaper article, but I know our local paper has a website if you care to search for it.

It sounds kind of like fun.

(I've got to get some more coffee!)

Cheers!

[Bill_1856]

I've been enjoying St. Ansel's images for 50 years, and never noticed this one before. He certainly did a pisspot full of "moon in Yosemite" shots, but apparently they all have tended to lump together in my mind. Certainly none holds a candle to "Moonrise, Hernandez." Thank you for bring this one to my attention. I like it (yeah, I know -- Ansel would be thrilled).

[Dean Tomasula]

I had the pleasure of seeing an actual print of "Moonrise" printed by Ansel Adams himself. It blew me away. It was the most awesome photograph I have ever seen (and probably ever will see). The subtle gradations of light and darkness in the print were amazing.

Ansel was well known (and admitted himself) that he was terrible at remembering and writing down dates. A recent auction of his "Thunderstorm Yosemite Valley" found that the print, generally thought to be from 1944, was really from 1938!

[Jeff Conrad]

This event has been all over the net for the last week or so. There are
many links, most of them derivative of the <CITE>Sky and Telescope</CITE>

article (http://skyandtelescope.com/aboutsky/pressreleases/article_1572_1.asp) in which the results were first published. I'm amazed by the
hype this is getting; the approach was somewhat novel when Sean Callahan's
article in the January 1980 <CITE>American Photographer</CITE> described
David Elmore's efforts to date <CITE>Moonrise, Hernandez, New
Mexico</CITE>, but nowadays, it's not that difficult.

I'm not so sure that Ansel was a one-trick pony, but I certainly agree that
<CITE>Autumn Moon, the High Sierra from Glacier Point</CITE> is not in the same
league as <CITE>Moonrise</CITE> (I was not familiar with <CITE>Autumn
Moon</CITE> before reading the S&T article).

The approximate repetition of Moon phases and dates every 19 years is known
as the Metonic cycle, and the operative word is approximate. As
indicated, the Moon will be in the essentially same position as it was in
1948, and the Sun will have approximately the same azimuth; however, the
Sun's altitude will be about 2.2&deg; rather than 0.3&deg;, so the quality
of the light will be somewhat different. The Moon also will appear
approximately 13% larger than it did in Adams's image.

[QT Luong]

but nowadays, it's not that difficult

Jeff was too modest to mention that his newly released
Sun/Moon calculator (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/sunmooncalc) can be
used to verify in two minutes the dating of
Adams's Moon and the High Sierra from Glacier Point.

[Terence McDonagh]

At the risk of heresy . . .

I saw the Adams exhibit at the NY MOMA in Queens last year and saw the Hernandez print in person for the first time. I had always figured there was something about this print that I must be missing by seeing it only in reproduction, but found myself similarly not moved in person. Compared to the Clearing Winter Storm photo and others it really didn't "wow" me. What is it about the photo that so fascinates everyone? Is it the technical ability of the neg and printing (yes, I've read Adams account of the taking of the photo and the printing of it)? Is there an aesthetic draw beyond the technical aspects (which I admit are strong)? Is there a secret lunar photo cult I was previously unaware of?

I'm not trying to start an argument (I won't try to refute comments), I'm just really curious.

I do find the "Autumn Moon" shot much more to my liking.

[QT Luong]

Maybe this was the first time a print was produced that showed the moon, landscape, and sky that way ?

[Brian Ellis]

Adams made many different versions of Hernandez. Maybe the one seen at MOMA wasn't one of the better ones.

I like the photograph quite a lot though it doesn't overwhelm me. What does overwhelm me is how Adams ever was able to envision that print from the negative he had. I've seen a straight print of Hernandez and it's a very mediocre photograph, nothing at all like any final version anyone has ever seen. If it had been me I would have made one proof, looked at it, thrown it away, and moved on to the next negative.

[Brian Ellis]

Adams made many different versions of Hernandez. Maybe the one seen at MOMA wasn't one of the better ones.

I like the photograph quite a lot though it doesn't overwhelm me. What does overwhelm me is how Adams ever was able to envision that print from the negative he had. I've seen a straight print of Hernandez and it's a very boring, mediocre photograph, nothing at all like the versions he ended up making. If it had been me I would have made one proof, looked at it, thrown the proof away, and moved on to the next negative .

[Jeff Conrad]

I think <CITE>Moonrise</CITE> brought together several elements: the Moon,
the bright clouds near the horizon, and probably most important, the
semispecular reflections from the crosses in the cemetery. Adams appears
to have had some fascination with glaring crosses, evidenced by other
images, such as <CITE>Spires of St. Peter and Paul Church, San
Francisco</CITE> (the place that refused to marry Joe DiMaggio and Marilyn
Monroe).

The dramatic sky was created in the darkroom--the photo was taken about 20
minutes before sunset, so the sky actually was quite bright, as a straight
print (I think only one ever was made) shows.

I suspect the story of the making also got embellished a bit over the
years. My calculations indicate that the Sun had set below the hills to
the West when the photo was made, which seems consistent with an account in
U.S. Camera Annual 1943, written a few years after the photo was made, and
quoted in this
thread (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001Wam) on photo.net.

To me, an arresting image, in any event. As always, YMMV.

[David Richhart]

Several years ago, the Dayton Art Institute had an exhibit of Ansel Adams and other photographers of the western United States. The exhibit included 3 of the Hernandez photographs, printed by Adams, hanging on one wall. I think the time span between the first and last print was something over 30 years !!!

The difference in the prints was amazing.

Talk about some expensive wallpaper !!!

[Mark Sawyer]

There is a considerable difference in Moonrise, Hernandez prints of early and later vintage. In the early ones, the print is a little flatter, the sky is much less burned-in, and it seems generally weaker, at least by comparison. Later prints typify what we now think of as the "Ansel Adams" printing style; deep black skies, more dramatic (ie, slightly higher) contrast, physically larger scale.

I've heard it argued that the earlier, "more subtle" prints are superior, but most, including Adams himself, prefer the later prints. I'm not sure which is more in demand auction-price wise, as both "early vintage" and "larger, more dramatic" are qualities collectors value.

BTW, I've also heard, though it's sometimes disputed, that many of Adams' "fine prints," including Moonrise, Hernandez, are made from copy negatives he made from an especially good print.

[robc]

since we're kind of on the topic of astronomy, I have just heard on BBC radio, via someone at NOAA Boulder, Colorado, that there is a mega sun spot which has just (3 hours ago) let rip an extremely large solar flare in the general direction of Earth (thats us). This is very likely to produce aurora borealis ( and the other one ) of unusual brightness/activity in approx 24 hours from now. i.e. 23:00 GMT 14th Sept give or take a few hours.

cameras at the ready if you are in northerly or southerly latitudes...

[Warren Weckesser]

For what it's worth: NPR: Re-Creating an Ansel Adams Masterpiece (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4848982).

[Larry Kalajainen]

Just finished reading Nancy Newhall's classic collection of essays on significant early and mid-20th century photographers. In there, she says Ansel was notorious for not remembering dates and times of many of his photos. He kept meticulous exposure reconds, but was very fuzzy about dates and time of day. So it's not surprising that the astronomers have given us a more accurate dating for "Autumn Moon."

Come to think of it, I'm pretty fuzzy about that sort of thing as well.

[Mark Sampson]

An interesting note is that they were able to locate just where the photo was taken from. IIRC the quote was something like "ten feet in either direction made a noticeable difference" (in the image content). Proof yet again that in landscape work "knowing where to stand" is very important.

[Jeff Conrad]

You actually can get a fairly good idea from just measuring the image and
working with a topo map--I think I got it within about 100 feet, though I
wouldn't have bet money on it. Anything better would require a trip to
Glacier Point.

It looks as though the turnout was reasonable; 300 people is actually quite
manageable for that area.

There's a description, including a few photos, in this
article (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/15/entertainment/e220234D22.DTL) on the SF Chronicle web site. There even was a photographer


"... using an old-fashioned 5x7 view camera, similar to the model used by
Adams."


The Sun was about 2&deg; higher than it was in 1948, so the shadow cast by
the peak near the middle of the image was a bit lower, but this appears to
have made less difference that I had expected.