Ansel Adams question?????????

[ignatiusjk]

We are all familier with Ansel's "Moonrise" photo and the story that goes along with it but does anybody know what highway Ansel was traveling on? I think it was somewhere in New Mexico but what highway number was it? It would be interesting to see it in person just to see what it looks like or if it's still there.

[Gem Singer]

Been there, done that. Not much to see.

Things in Hernandez, NM have changed over the years. It's just a small village (cross roads) on the main highway heading north out of Santa Fe.

So far, nobody has been able to duplicate Ansel's once-in-a-lifetime shot. I doubt if can ever be duplicated.

However, it was thrilling to explore the area by car, looking for familiar landmarks.

Can't remember the exact highway number, but you can probably get a map of Hernandez, NM on google.

[Ken Lee]

The town is Hernandez, New Mexico, and the highway is 285/84.

It can be found with any online mapping service, such as Google Maps. See http://maps.google.com/ and enter the name.

I visited there in the 1980's when I lived in the state. By then, the place had changed quite a bit.

Over time, some parts of rural America have become... more attractive than others, you might say.

[Kirk Gittings]

Hernandez is about 5 miles northwest of Espanola on U.S. Routes 84/285, as Gem stated. I photographed it a couple of years ago when I was taking a friend on a tour of famous photography sites in Northern New Mexico. I don't think I can find that image to show you. I have been driving that road regularly since 1972 and have never seen anything close to AA image appear, though I have attempted images from that general location many times when I was working on the New Mexico churches project. That view now (which should have been preserved as a national monument) is almost impossible to locate. A county road repair vehicle yard dominates the view with dozens of bright orange trucks and houses crowd the once solitary church. The original image is both an art icon and an invaluable document of a lost cultural landscape.

[Brian Ellis]

The highway that you now drive on to see the site of the photograph isn't the same highway that Adams was on. They've built a new highway since then. IIRC the location of the old highway is just a short distance away but I'm not sure whether you can even tell there was an old highway there (the person I was with knew where it was and pointed it out to me). Sorry I don't remember the number of the new highway. As Ken says, the site doesn't look like it does in the photograph, it's a good bit junkier now.

[Deane Johnson]

Hiway 84/285 just north of Espanola, New Mexico. It's on most all maps.

You'll find it rather disappointing as it's changed a great deal from when Moonrise was shot.

Google Earth has some pretty high resolution photos of the area, but it's impossible to pick out the church unless you knew exactly where it is. Just Google Earth Hernandez, NM for a look at the area.

[al olson]

As Ken says ...

It is an unincorporated village (US84/285) about 5 miles north of Espanola. I drive through there several times a year on my way to Santa Fe or Albuquerque. Always mean to bring a copy of the photo with me to see if I can match up landforms to determine his camera position. But I am always in too much of a hurry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernandez,_New_Mexico

(OK, I see that Kirk as also beat me to the response) The area has changed a lot, it is more cluttered, and I have never been able to determine any recognizable objects from the road while driving. Some day when I have more time I will try to nail it down. Always thought it would be fun to do a color moonrise showing the change. But you would need to get the moon rising at the same azimuth.

[Scott Knowles]

Anyone got a 1940 New Mexico Highway map? So far, all I can find is a 1926 map (http://www.arizonaroads.com/maps/1926-2.jpg) showing it on an unpaved(?) section of highway 2 except Hernandez isn't on the map (north of Santa Cruz). I suspect it was completed and paved by the time Ansel drove it as it was part of the later highway 84/285 out of Sante Fe.

[al olson]

Incidentally, the following link shows the differences in printing styles between 1941 and 1975 for five of his prints.

http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/Arrington_adams/index.html

Cheers,

[focalplane]

How about taking "new" photographs. Let us enjoy what has been done before us and try to do new work so the next generation can appreciate us as much as we appreciate Ansel......OK?

[Keith S. Walklet]

My wife and I spotted it from the highway (and it is a four-lane highway) with most folks seeming to favor in excess of the posted speed limit. I call the attached "Hernandez at 45mph."

Seems to me there is an extensive thread on this from a year or so ago...

[Kuzano]

How about taking "new" photographs. Let us enjoy what has been done before us and try to do new work so the next generation can appreciate us as much as we appreciate Ansel......OK?

Shouldn't the GPS location be listed there? I seem to have read that the next similar juxtaposition of the Sun, Moon and Earth will be in the year 3067, and the cloud cover will be the variable, along with how many of the same buildings will be lit similarly.

[Stephen Willard]

This response is off topic, but I have often wondered who determined which works of Adams were his greatest pieces? Why Hernandez? I believe that he has produced many images that were far more vivid and powerful than Hernandez, yet Hernandez is the one image that is most often used to characterize his life work as an artist. In fact, I think Hernandez is not representative of his body of art work at all. His landscape work mostly excludes any human foot print what so ever, and he was criticized heavily for taking photographs of the land that did depict the social misery of his times.

Any comments...

[Gem Singer]

"Moonrise Over Hernandez" is a one of a kind photograph made under stressful conditions. It has never been duplicated by another photographer.

It may not be as technically perfect as some of Ansel's other work, but it is, by far, one of the most unusual photographs that he created.

[Darin Boville]

This response is off topic, but I have often wondered who determined which works of Adams were his greatest pieces? Why Hernandez? I believe that he has produced many images that were far more vivid and powerful than Hernandez, yet Hernandez is the one image that is most often used to characterize his life work as an artist. In fact, I think Hernandez is not representative of his body of art work at all. His landscape work mostly excludes any human foot print what so ever, and he was criticized heavily for taking photographs of the land that did depict the social misery of his times.

Any comments...

One factor was sales--I believe that he sold more of these than any other image by a large margin--eight or nine hundred of them, if I recall correctly.

--Darin

[Alan Curtis]

There were so many photographers trying to "reproduce" the moonrise photo that residences around the cemetery posted "No Trespassing and No Photography" signs. I'm not sure when this started, I saw them in the early 80's.

[ljsegil]

My wife and I spotted it from the highway (and it is a four-lane highway) with most folks seeming to favor in excess of the posted speed limit. I call the attached "Hernandez at 45mph."

I think we should start running up the sales on "Hernandez at 45 MPH", perhaps also a unique and historically important work, though perhaps not in quite the same way as Ansel's image; it may even help some (just jesting now!) appreciate the difference Ansel could make in a scene (not meaning to disparage Keith's art in any way, I suspect this bit of his may not be representative of the body of his work). After all, I think maybe Keith got there a little too early in the day for the right light, and was working at an unfair disadvantage brought on by better roads, faster cars, and the inability to remember where he left the Cooke XV.
LJS

[Marko]

Shouldn't the GPS location be listed there? I seem to have read that the next similar juxtaposition of the Sun, Moon and Earth will be in the year 3067, and the cloud cover will be the variable, along with how many of the same buildings will be lit similarly.

I don't think any of the current buildings will be there by then... 1058 years ago was only four years after the original Eastern-Western christian church split. Half a century before, an army led by Caliph al-Hakim destroys the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. This desecration will be a rallying point for the Crusades, which would not start for another 40 or so, and the Constantinople would not be sacked for another century and a half.

At this rate of scientific and technological progress, it would be far more interesting to see what type of photography and the equipment they will use in 3067 (1058 years from now) than how Hernandez will have changed or if it will exist at all. At least from the perspective of this board. :)

[Deane Johnson]

There were so many photographers trying to "reproduce" the moonrise photo that residences around the cemetery posted "No Trespassing and No Photography" signs. I'm not sure when this started, I saw them in the early 80's.
Someone a bit more enterprising could put up a sign that said "sheet film developed", "contact sheets made" and "authentic moon added if requested".

[Brian Ellis]

How about taking "new" photographs. Let us enjoy what has been done before us and try to do new work so the next generation can appreciate us as much as we appreciate Ansel......OK?

How about taking the photographs we want to take, without worrying about whether it's "new" or not?

[Stephen Willard]

One factor was sales--I believe that he sold more of these than any other image by a large margin--eight or nine hundred of them, if I recall correctly.

Darin, that does not surprise me at all. I have found that 90% of all of my sales are to women. Women see the world differently then men. In general, they do not like head shots of raw nature. They prefer an image that is more serene and domesticated. They need the presence of humanity represented in some romantic way. I suspect that quaint Hernandez filled the ticket.

[BrianShaw]

I don't think any of the current buildings will be there by then... 1058 years ago was only four years after the original Eastern-Western christian church split.

Who knows for sure. Your points are well taken but look how long the great schism has lasted... all the way until today and probably into the distant future. Maybe someone should set up a camera with a timer set for 3067 just to see what really will happen.

[Kirk Gittings]

Most of the Moonrises were sold to women? I don't get it. What are you responding to in Darin's statement?

[keith english]

I read somewhere that the locals had stopped people from photographing there or tryed to capitalize on it. Guess there's no reason to now.

[Jim Galli]

I think the photographers of the world should imminent domain all that crap that's in the way and bulldoze it. We should restore the scene to 1941 and make a pull-out with bronze tripod sockets. We can photoshop the moon to the right place.


On another note, what I wouldn't do to climb in a time machine, turn the clock back to 1939, board the D&RGW narrow guage at Antonito and fall asleep rattling down the Chile line to Otowi and have dinner at Edith's diner.

It's OK to dream.

[Vaughn]

How about taking the photographs we want to take, without worrying about whether it's "new" or not?

Right arm! (and Farm Out!) Exactomundo! And all that stuff. In other words, I agree. Take any image you want...just put your mind and soul into it and make it yours.

BTW...I got to see a later version of "Moonrise" up close and personal this past weekend -- no frame/glass in the way either. It is a wonderful image. Then I made some prints in Ansel's old darkroom and spent a day and a half photographing around Yosemite Valley. I had a blast! I photographed photographers photographing the last light on Half Dome, I photographed things I have photographed before, I photographed things I am sure AA photographed before, and there is a small chance I may have even photographed things neither one of us ever got around to before.

Vaughn

[Stephen Willard]

Most of the Moonrises were sold to women? I don't get it. What are you responding to in Darin's statement?

In my initial posting, I raised the question why was Hernandez considered to be one of Adam's best photographs and Darin stated it was because of sales. I also noted that I believed that Hernandez was not representative of his work because most of his landscapes lacked any foot print of mankind. I believe Adams made images that were far more vivid and powerful than Hernandez.

In my second response, I speculates why Hernandez sold so well. I believe that it was because women probably buy most of the art in this country, and thus, their artistic sensibilities (which are very different then men's artistic sensibilities) determine what sells well. In AA case, it was women who defined Hernandez as one of his best photographs through their purchases even though it is not typical of his landscape work. Again this is speculation on my part. I really do not know who bought Hernandez.

However, I know the types of images I am producing now are being driven by what women buy because they are by far my biggest customers. I do not believe that AA's customer base was much different than mine or yours Kirk or anyone else on this sight. Women are the ones who own the walls in the home, and thus, they control what is hung from them. Please note that I am making a generalization and their are many exceptions.

[Don7x17]

Incidentally, the following link shows the differences in printing styles between 1941 and 1975 for five of his prints.

http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/Arrington_adams/index.html

Cheers,

John Sexton shows a number (6-7) of variation prints, including 1) a very early one that has a light sky (before selenium intensification) that doesn't look anything like the more modern dark-sky prints, and 2) a waste-basket recovered print (he was Ansel's assistant for a while) he calls Nuclear Hernandez --- lots of chemical stains in the sky on a "Moonrise over Hernandez" print that had been discarded.

I was by there in 1976 and stopped along the (already moved) highway -- it had already changed by then.

[Drew Wiley]

From now on nobody will care about when the moon will arise in a certain location
because they'll just Photoshop it in, along with the clouds. And nobody will notice the
picture is fake because they never bother to look at anything real anyway. And you can just remove all the suburbia surrounding the Church is you have enough time. Why
not just paste in some zebras and elephants grazing around the crosses - even Ansel
couldn't get a shot like that! Sorry to sound sour. I just returned from a business trip to Vegas where I had the misfortune to pass a Peter Lik gallery (barf!).

[Marko]

From now on nobody will care about when the moon will arise in a certain location
because they'll just Photoshop it in, along with the clouds. And nobody will notice the
picture is fake because they never bother to look at anything real anyway. And you can just remove all the suburbia surrounding the Church is you have enough time. Why
not just paste in some zebras and elephants grazing around the crosses - even Ansel
couldn't get a shot like that! Sorry to sound sour. I just returned from a business trip to Vegas where I had the misfortune to pass a Peter Lik gallery (barf!).

But it is still the same sky - or in this case the moon - falling now as it did back when photography was invented, and then the moving pictures and then the sound movies and then the color film... And it is probably going to keep falling in the future, each time something new comes along and the geezer club starts throwing their canes and dentures in disgust.

Granted, the technologies and the geezers are going to be different, but the sky and the moon will remain very much the same.

:D

[Darin Boville]

nobody will notice the
picture is fake because they never bother to look at anything real anyway....Why
not just paste in some zebras and elephants grazing around the crosses - even Ansel
couldn't get a shot like that!

To amplify Marko's post a bit, even Ansel was fake, and I don't just mean shooting in B&W, contrast adjustment, cropping, etc. This very image (the later ones) look very different than what you would have seen if you were standing there. Check out the link for the earlier versions to get a sense of that. Ansel retouched signs of man out of some images, too--Mt Whitney from Lone Pine has been retouched.

But then we are down the rabbit hole of "how much is too much"....I don't have a good answer there.

--Darin

[D. Bryant]

This response is off topic, but I have often wondered who determined which works of Adams were his greatest pieces? Why Hernandez? I believe that he has produced many images that were far more vivid and powerful than Hernandez, yet Hernandez is the one image that is most often used to characterize his life work as an artist. In fact, I think Hernandez is not representative of his body of art work at all. His landscape work mostly excludes any human foot print what so ever, and he was criticized heavily for taking photographs of the land that did depict the social misery of his times.

Any comments...
I think it was one of his more powerful photos, certainly a signature piece. My wife and I rue the day when we didn't purchase a copy for $2K. We both love the image.

I've seen the comparison prints in the Andrew Smith gallery and the side by side printing variations is fascinating. It also underscores to me that there is never a technically correct way to make a photographic print when the heart of the photographer is part of the making.

I just drove up 84 in August with my wife; it was her first trip past the anointed spot and she was quite disillusioned by the current scene. The new 4 lane has finally been completed and for the unprepared it is completely unrecognizable.

As someone said, lets go do our own new work and let Moonrise rest and take it's place in history.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

Ansel retouched signs of man out of some images, too--Mt Whitney from Lone Pine has been retouched.

--Darin

I do the same thing either with bleach and spot (to a minor extent) or much more extensively with PS. I mean who cares really.

Don Bryant

[Nathan Potter]

I have visited the general area frequently, all along the Rio Grande valley, and there are other vistas with relatively isolated churches that can be framed similarly. But duplicating the line of lenticular clouds in such stunning fashion makes such scenes very difficult to catch. These opportunities are rare chance happenings and the only way to "hit it" is to spend hours in the field looking and looking. But such is the opportunistic nature of photography of unusual natural phenomena. Visit Ocate NM. and look for the church; west of the Black Mesa near the Santa Clara Pueblo you'll see a church looking east with a series of crosses to the right (needs afternoon light); just to mention a couple suitable for distant views.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Stephen Willard]

"However, I know the types of images I am producing now are being driven by what women buy because they are by far my biggest customers."

So you are doing semi-commercial photos because you believe they will sell to a specific consumer rather than trying to expand your vision and shoot what you feel? Kind of like a walmart of photos? Or a Thomas Kinkade of prints?

Dakotah, its not what you think. For sure, I do a lot work that I know will not fare well in the market place simply because it was I needed to do as an artist . I also explore what does sell and in that process, I have found whole new avenues of artistic expression.

For me the commercial incentives have not depredated my artist experience as most would think, but rather has had the just the opposite effect. I have come to realize there is something wonderful about the more feminine and expansive serene landscape. Historically, my foot print has been about recording nature in its raw and brutal form, but now I have come to love images that are softer and gentler in nature as well. I believe I have become a better artist thanks to the artistic sensibilities of women who buy my work. It has forced me to try new things and look at the world in ways I have never thought of.

In fact, I contend that if you fail to soil your hands and hawk your artistic wares in the market place, then you as an artist and your art will decline into mediocracy and become nothing more than welfare art. It is no different then the effects of welfare on the individual who is relieved from having to go out into the world and earn a living. It corrupts the human soul. There is nothing more powerful than having to put food on the table derived solely from the fruits of your own labor and creativity.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Am I on Candid Camera?

[VictoriaPerelet]

But it is still the same sky - or in this case the moon - falling now as it did back when photography was invented, and then the moving pictures and then the sound movies and then the color film... And it is probably going to keep falling in the future, each time something new comes along and the geezer club starts throwing their canes and dentures in disgust.

Granted, the technologies and the geezers are going to be different, but the sky and the moon will remain very much the same.

:D

There are few interesting notes in AA Autobiography (ISBN 0-8212-2241-4) on this pic. Pg 231:
"I have received more letters about this picture than any other I have made, and I must repeat that Moonrise is most certainly not a double exposure

And then on Pg 232 there's pretty interesting blurb about using computers to find out exact date & time - 4:00-4:05PM Oct 31, 1941 (While AA himself by mistake dated it 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944)

"Previsualization", luminance of moon of 250 candles, mentioned in standard books, ?double exposure? or other magic - it's great photo.

[Don7x17]

There are few interesting notes in AA Autobiography on this pic. Pg 231:
"I have received more letters about this picture than any other I have made, and I must repeat that Moonrise is most certainly not a double exposure

And then on Pg 232 there's pretty interesting blurb about using computers to find out exact date & time - 4:00-4:05PM Oct 31, 1941 (While AA himself by mistake dated it 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944)

"Previsualization", luminance of moon of 250 candles, mentioned in standard books, ?double exposure? or other magic - it's great photo.

And it turns out that Adams found out that it was actually Nov 1, not Oct 31, a date for which he did not bill the US Government, and he knew this as he had not billed the US Government (he was on a paid trip for them) for this date and for this reason he owned the negative, not the USA....a tale told in an amateur astronomy magazine in the middle 80's - they redid the calculations and verified the date as Nov 1.

[Kirk Gittings]

In fact, I contend that if you fail to soil your hands and hawk your artistic wares in the market place, then you as an artist and your art will decline into mediocracy and become nothing more than welfare art. It is no different then the effects of welfare on the individual who is relieved from having to go out into the world and earn a living. It corrupts the human soul. There is nothing more powerful than having to put food on the table derived solely from the fruits of your own labor and creativity.

So does it follow that the more money one makes, the more creative one is? What about all the people who make art for the shear personal joy of it?

[Matt Magruder]

Am I on Candid Camera?

No... But I do believe Bill Brasky is in here somewhere.

[CP Goerz]

Just go out and make your own 'Moonrise', fifty years from now people will be asking the same question about where you must have gone.


As for the retouching part...why is it that photographers are burdened with being true and pure...or do we do it to ourselves? Do painters ever ask each other if the particular cloud was really Payne's Grey?

[Stephen Willard]

So does it follow that the more money one makes, the more creative one is? What about all the people who make art for the shear personal joy of it?

First, I would like to state that my response is to counter the notion that commercialism is bad for art. Tell that to Shakespear who had to pay the bills, and yet wrote some pretty powerful stuff. He wrote plays that entertained the steerage on the dirt floor, but also had something in it for Qween Elizabeth who was no dumb chick. His plays were far from elitist and had board appeal from the the laymen to the upper class unlike much of the contemporary art of today.

Is generating profit a distraction from creating art? You bet it is. I personally hate it. However, the power in commercialism lays in going public with your work where the public votes not with cheap words of feed back, but with hard earned cash. If they really like your plays then they will pay to see them. If they really like your photographs then they will buy them and hang them on their walls. When the public votes with their dollars then you are getting the most earnest feedback possible. It is that kind of powerful feed back that pushes you in directions that are outside of your comfort zone. It keeps you fresh and challenged with new ideas and new artistic avenues of expression to explore.

If you fail to commercialize your work then it grows to close to you for you to see what you are doing. Only when you bring it to the market place to sell and exhibit in a very public way does your art work move far enough away from you so that you can see it as a stranger may see it. These are strange words for sure, but there is a lot of truth here, at least for me.

Of course if you are arrogant enough to think you are better than the public, and that the public is stupid, and you refuse to listen to their voices buy what they purchase, then I wish you the best of luck.

By the way, even though I engage in commercialism, I still find great personal joy in my work.

[Mark Sampson]

CP Goerz, photographers are "burdened with being true and pure" because our art form is deeply rooted in reality, whereas painting comes from the imagination. And that's as far down the rabbit hole as I'll go this morning.

[Brian Ellis]

To amplify Marko's post a bit, even Ansel was fake, and I don't just mean shooting in B&W, contrast adjustment, cropping, etc. This very image (the later ones) look very different than what you would have seen if you were standing there. Check out the link for the earlier versions to get a sense of that. Ansel retouched signs of man out of some images, too--Mt Whitney from Lone Pine has been retouched.

But then we are down the rabbit hole of "how much is too much"....I don't have a good answer there.

--Darin

Not only does the photograph not look like what you would have seen if you were standing there but I've seen a straight print from the negative and it looks nothing like the print we're familiar with (among other things, the sky is much much lighter and the clouds don't stand out all that well). I've always thought the final print (to the extent there is one) is a real tribute to Adams' artistry. I would probably have made one straight proof, tossed it in the trash, and not pursued a print any further. I doubt that I would ever have seen the possibilities in it that Adams saw.

[Marko]

As for the retouching part...why is it that photographers are burdened with being true and pure...or do we do it to ourselves? Do painters ever ask each other if the particular cloud was really Payne's Grey?

In short, marketing fluff employed by those who believe that will somehow help them sell their images better.

Art is by definition an expression of the artist's vision and the way they experienced the scene before their eyes (or saw it in their mind). At the more mundane and commercial level, it would be the representation of a scene as a buyer would like to remember it.

But there is no such thing as true and pure in art. If you want true and pure, you're talking about forensic, not artistic and not even journalistic photography. And even then that shade of grey will largely depend on the choice of film or sensor as well as processing method.

If I like an image before me, I really could not care less whether the artist had to employ two mules to schlep his one-of-a-kind two hundred years old equipment through the winter storm up to the mountain peak two days before winter solstice so he could catch the glint of a rising sun precisely two minutes into the dawn, for which opportunity he had to freeze semi-solid and then risk his life and limb to climb down OR if he simply stuck his little digital P&S through the window of a speeding car while driving down to the village inn for a late breakfast. ;)

Come to think of it, I think I would appreciate the latter even more for being able to create an image that really speaks to the viewer using such mundane and limited means but not missing the moment and actually seeing the scene.

But that's just me, I don't sell what I shoot and I am not overly concerned if anybody likes it or not - I do my photography for my own pleasure and relaxation. When I look at other people's work, I look for a story and/or emotion in the image, not sweat. Perfection is nice but only as a byproduct.

[Drew Wiley]

For some reason I've never been turned on by "Moonrise". The inky sky just looks to
contrived to me, but it's also what many people apparently find exciting. I think if the
original version was printed on a better modern paper it might be more appealing to me
personally. I've seen several prints made before the negative was selenium enhanced:
Kinda dull, but not the greatest paper either for that type of image. But the image is not annoying to me the way a lot of the digitally souped-up color landscapes are. It's
not just a matter of degree, but of intuition. Some illusionists are better than others.

[Steve M Hostetter]

signs signs everywhere signs foggin up the scenery breakin my mind

do this don't do that can't you read the signs

[Ken Lee]

Back in 2001, Professor Philip T. Ganderton, of University of New Mexico, wrote an article entitled Return To Hernandez (http://gandini.unm.edu/pgpages/Photography/PhotoTech/Moonrise/Remaking%20Moonrise.htm).

"There are many copies of the original available to view on the internet for comparison. But here's what it looks like 60 years after, to the minute, hour, and day"

[Colin Graham]

No... But I do believe Bill Brasky is in here somewhere.

Careful...I once saw Brasky scissor kick Angela Lansbury!

[Steve M Hostetter]

Back in 2001, Professor Philip T. Ganderton, of University of New Mexico, wrote an article entitled Return To Hernandez (http://gandini.unm.edu/pgpages/Photography/PhotoTech/Moonrise/Remaking%20Moonrise.htm).

"There are many copies of the original available to view on the internet for comparison. But here's what it looks like 60 years after, to the minute, hour, and day"

I gotta ask,,, ok, this town named "Herandez" in the middle of the desert I mean how could you miss it,,, ? so theres a few more bushes ???? and the polebarn structure is a dead give away
I mean does it really take a professor to super impose the original over the existing landscape?

[Ken Lee]

It does take a bunch of LF photographers to... care. :rolleyes:

[Alan Curtis]

I've been to Hernandez many times but, never had a copy of the photo with me to line up the position. It's interesting to see.
I was talking to one of the locals once about the famous photo. I asked if he had seen it, he replied "yes" but, he didn't think much of it because it was in B&W.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I heard Ansel used a Hasselblad on this particular shot originally

[D. Bryant]

I heard Ansel used a Hasselblad on this particular shot originally
You mean on that day or that scene?

On another note the Hasselblad 1000 wasn't introduced to the US until 1951-52.


Don Bryant

[Steve M Hostetter]

You mean on that day or that scene?

On another note the Hasselblad 1000 wasn't introduced to the US until 1951-52.


Don Bryant

first Hasselblad camera introduced in NY in 1948 was the single lens reflex 1600F

you are correct about timing though it couldn't have been a blad. thank you for the correction :)

[Mark Sampson]

Life is a lot easier if you check the story, and learn the facts before offering an opinion.
This story is well known, and has been verified and corrected many times. The OP posed a question; it took many posts and opinions before someone here found the story of someone who did stand on the spot, took a photo, and reported his result. Apparently it *did* take a professor to do that, and to what result? Snide sniping. Maybe I'll spread a rumor that AA used 35mm Velvia for that shot and desaturated it in Photoshop. (Foghorn Leghorn voice)"heh heh it's a joke, son! a joke!''