Opinions on AA.

[f90]

I would love to hear your opinions on what it is about Ansel Adams work that made him the best landscape photographer to date?

Was he simply just the first photographer to realise the importance of science within art?

If you don't think he was the best, then who was/is?

[gary mulder]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/fishing.gif

[Brian Ellis]

Got a term paper coming due?

[Steven Scanner]

Ah, we have them here to? I'm on several forums (absolutely nothing to do with photography) and they have term paper writers to. They usually come in waves.
(if I'm totally wrong about your intentions, I appoligise F90.)

F90? As in Nikon F90? Isn't that 35mm?

[Gary Tarbert]

Ansel was a man before his time , was he the best ?,very subjective ,in his era arguably yes ,But of all time ?MMMM:confused: Possibly not!! The reason i say this is there is so much great work out there That defining the best over a 70year period is nigh impossible Just my two cents worth .Cheers Gary

[Pawlowski6132]

Lame.

[Greg Lockrey]

I'd do a search on this forum.... uncle AA has been discussed at length

[f90]

nah steven scanboss, the f-stop.
A term paper covering aa would be as simple as a quick google search. There seems to be enough info on the net to sink a ship.

Im just confused, i mean doesn't anyone else find it strange that there have been no other photographers that produced landscape work even close to his? Im not just talking about the dynamic range of his images & tonal range of his prints either, seeing as such a thing with modern day materials (& modern day knowledge) is acheiveable by anyone.

American photographers often complain that every good location has been over-photographed...then why is it that i am yet to see a faithful copy of an aa composition?

To me this art of ours seems to be governed by science moreso than any other. Is it possible that we just aren't approaching it the right way?

@ Garold turbo, opinion on a different best of all time?

[E. von Hoegh]

I would love to hear your opinions on what it is about Ansel Adams work that made him the best landscape photographer to date?

Was he simply just the first photographer to realise the importance of science within art?

If you don't think he was the best, then who was/is?

He wasn't.


No.


I don't know, I haven't seen the work of all landscape photographers, living and dead.


I hope this helps.:rolleyes:

[Mark Sampson]

Well, to state the obvious: even in sports, where they keep score, who 'the best' was is a controversial topic. In art and photography, there are no such measurements or any objective standards for comparison. Adams was hard-working, innovative, by any standard a success, long-lived, and hugely influential. Someone/anyone may prefer O'Sullivan, Steiglitz, Strand, Weston, Caponigro, or any number of other photographic artists (insert your favorite here), but Adams must stand among the greatest- and that's as far as anyone can take it.

[Brian C. Miller]

I learned from Adams' instructional books, and I have a book of his photographs.

I really don't know about the appellation, "greatest landscape photographer to date." He was pretty modest and honest about what he did and how he photographed. He was in the right place at the right time, and at least once nabbed the scene just in the nick of time.

He's done a lot for photography, and for the wilderness. He was even in a car commercial.

Another photographer you might want to read about is William Mortensen. He was a Hollywood portrait photographer, and I think he's been ignored. He created his own color printing process, and prints from it have lasted well for decades.

[Vaughn]

He was in the right place at the right time and did the right things. Thus he became one of the most reconized names in photography to the general public. Not the best, just the best known to the general public.

I find the concept of some artist being the "best" to be a fallacy.

His legacy goes beyond the images he has made. His dedication to the art of photography and to teaching (thru books, workshops, the Friends of Photography, etc) has inspired many to further themselves in photography -- many of whom have been able to go beyond the teacher...and many more who have not, but that is normal and to be expected (hence all the "AA look-a-likes").

Sounds like you need to see more original work if you have not seen photographs that have matched, and exceeded, AA's use of composition and tonality.

Vaughn

[BrianShaw]

I think he was very talented and very intelligent and very focused and very well connected and very dedicated, but he was also a master of self-promotion. He remains a master at self-promotion to this very day.

[rdenney]

Adams was a prolific writer and speaker, and he was good at both. As a result, he wrote good grant applications and became well-connected with lots of influential people. That made it possible for his work to attain a wider audience than is usually the case.

He also had an idea, not really his, but he used his writing and speaking abilities to promote it. The idea was that photographs ought to avoid trying to imitate other visual media, such as painting, and should establish what is "true" about photography. For him and his colleagues, this meant sharp images. As I said, he wasn't the first, but he was able to popularize the concept.

He also portrayed scenes largely unknown to people outside those areas, and those scenes had a magnificence that astonished people. This was during the transitional time when a grand landscape became "magnificent" instead of "forbidding", and he rode that wave.

And, finally, he codified a technique, which had not been done before, for achieving a predictable outcome in terms of tonality. The guy who comes up with a way to teach something will be quoted by every subsequent teacher. He deserves fame for that alone.

But all that was not enough to feed him consistently until his books broke out. Before that time, he did lots of plain commercial work to put food on the table.

There are many photographers who have started with Adams's technique and gone beyond it. They have benefitted from better equipment and materials, but they benifitted even more from knowing his work before they started, so that they would take additional steps rather than just retreading his steps. But many of us are still going down the path he went down 75 years ago.

Today, the notion of the grand landscape has undergone an additional transition. It was forbidding during the Victorian era, and became magnificent, and now it has become passe. There are so many images of grand landscapes that it has become difficult to find new things to say about it. That has led many photographers to look for different vocabularies to portray the same scenes, or for different scenes altogether. But many of us are still rooted in the era of magnificence, and for us Adams is an icon. Being an icon is not at all the same thing as being the best, of course.

Art does not keep score, even if the art establishment sometimes does.

Rick "who struggles with the truth that his landscape photographs are passe" Denney

[cyrus]

(This is pretty much a summary of RDenney's post above)

I think his promotion of photography (along with himself) is something quite positive, as is his popularization of the "scientific" approach to things (the Zone system.)

The negative aspect of AA is how everyone with an LF camera seems to think that they have to ape him and go off to Yosemite and copy his style & content. But that's not really his fault.

[BrianShaw]

... But that's not really his fault.

I've always found it interesting when he elevated to sainthood and mimicked but only in the most literal of ways based on a limited viewpoint of his life and works. His work has sufficient breadth that isn't just landscapes. Perhaps that is what he marketed the most, or enjoyed the most, or even what critics feel are his best works... but it isn't really the summation of his lifes work.

Whats more is that I get the impression (I never met him so this is just an impression) that he was a lot more open-minded than most people give him credit for. He was an avid tester, if not an early-adopter, of new gear too.

A friend of mine knocked on his door unannounced on day way back when and told me that he was a nice guy and invited her in for an brief visit. His review of her portfolio netted positive comments and not one negative about her exclusive use of 35mm. Maybe he was a tad senile at that time and was being very polite to her... IDK.

I also find it interesting to re-think is AAs dichotomy between art and paying work. Seems to me that he transformed his art into a fairly lucrative business. I can't see too much of a difference between the two in his case... except that some of the "paying work" is fairly mundane. I have great respect for AA but also tend to view at him as being the Thonmas Kinkade of photography.

None of this is his fault. He seems to have done what he thought was right, and was very successful at it. He remains successful to this day!

[Peter Gomena]

And it's hard to argue with success.

AA's influence is profound and widespread. I put his books on my shelf next to Weston and Carleton Watkins in the "classics" section. I visit all of them once in a while for inspiration.

Peter Gomena

[Kirk Gittings]

I have great respect for AA but also tend to view at him as being the Thonmas Kinkade of photography.

Not a fair comparison IMO. Ansel was a revelation in his medium with a well earned and significant place in the history of photography-irrespective of his financial success. Can the same be said of Kincade? Laughable.

[Jim Jones]

I think he was very talented and very intelligent and very focused and very well connected and very dedicated, but he was also a master of self-promotion. He remains a master at self-promotion to this very day.

Very true. However, unlike countless lesser photographers, he had something to promote, including significant social issues. The prolific Adams not only captured many fine subjects, but made them available to us mere mortals. He was also generous in sharing his knowledge, like many on this site.

I downloaded the large file and printed the iconic Timothy O'Sullivan photo of Canyon de Chelle (taken 30 years before AA was born) from the Library of Congress site. A similar Adams photo is fine, but pleases me less. He may not always have been the best, but he was very good.

[BrianShaw]

Why not, Kirk? Some would say Kinkade has done everything you just credited
Adams with. In fact, it seems like many would say that based on his sales. I don't personally like Kinkade's work... despite having one of the over my lviing room couch... but there seems a real parallel.

[William McEwen]

Have we had a response from the OP, f-90?

I’m curious whether he/she is indeed working on a term paper.

Going onto a photography forum and asking old geysers their opinions is a perfectly legitimate portion of research for such a paper.

However, if these are two essay questions on a test, that’s a different matter.

I’m a bit surprised that the OP seems to think it’s a given that AA was the best landscape photographer of all time.

And that he was the first to realize the importance of science within art.

Wuh? Not sure what that means.

AA had a lot more interesting things going on than to limit a paper to those two points.

I would suggest the OP keep in mind that AA photographed all kinds of subject matter throughout his life. Portraits, still life, everything.

In the 1970s, when Swarkoski took hold, he branded AA a photographer of the pristine landscape and limited the MOMA’s branding to that single subject. It stuck.

[BrianShaw]

Very true. However, unlike countless lesser photographers, he had something to promote, including significant social issues. The prolific Adams not only captured many fine subjects, but made them available to us mere mortals. He was also generous in sharing his knowledge, like many on this site.


Talent at self promotion is not a bad thing unless the self-promoter has nothing real to promote... and then it is a scam. AA was definitely not a scam.

[Kirk Gittings]

Show me one serious history of painting book that mentions Kincade. All the major history of photography books that I am aware of not only mention AA bust have serious coverage of him. Is Kincade's work in all the major museum collections? AAs images are all over the world. There is no serious comparison.

[BrianShaw]

I’m curious whether he/she is indeed working on a term paper.

Going onto a photography forum and asking old geysers their opinions is a perfectly legitimate portion of research for such a paper.

If that is true, i hope the footnotes are accurate. He he he. for the record: my name is spelled "Brian", not "Brain" as often mistakenly cited. He he he.

[BrianShaw]

Show me one serious history of painting book that mentions Kincade. All the major history of photography books that I am aware of not only mention AA bust have serious coverage of him. Is Kincade's work in all the major museum collections? AAs images are. There is no serious comparison.

OK, I can't address these issues -- never done that research and not interested enough to do it. I trust you have (even if it is just informally) and will believe you. I'm not a trained artist, nor an art historian. But opinions change with time and time is not over yet. Maybe Kinkade will be remembered a bit more favorably in his eventual posthumous existance. I was thinking just in terms of unique style, marketing (and marketability) and the "copycat" factor.

[Jim Jones]

[QUOTE=BrianShaw;845283]. . . I have great respect for AA but also tend to view at him as being the Thonmas Kinkade of photography. . . .
QUOTE]

Ouch! I agree with Kirk. He may not have always been the greatest, but he is the most visible of the great. Snobs deride Norman Rockwell for being that, too. Both made fine imagery meaningful to the masses. To paraphrase, "Never in the history of art have so many owed so much to so few."

[BrianShaw]

Gee whiz... sorry guys. I had no intention of being offensive and besmirch AA with that comparison. I'll stop... and never say that again.

[BrianShaw]

p.s. I was about to mention Norm Rockwell... but won't now.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes Brian, I have done the research as my masters thesis was partly about AA and specifically about the history of American landscape photography. Understand that this research was done BEFORE Ansel died. His reputation, influence etc, was well established DURING his lifetime. Beaumont Newhall, who I studied with, spent a whole week on AA in his 20th century history of photography class.

[BrianShaw]

His reputation, influence etc, was well established DURING his lifetime.

Maybe there needs to be a new/different metric of artistic success... because I'll bet that "you know who" is displayed in more living rooms and shopping mall galleries than "the other you know who" is displayed in museums. And "you know who" is still a relatively young and living pup. Just yanking your chain. I don't disagree with you! :D

[BrianShaw]

p.s. I'm totally impressed that you actually knew and worked with some of the greats of photography. In my much more mundane profession I too have met some of the founders and masters... and can't fully describe or quantify the benefits of having met them and worked with some of them.

[Kirk Gittings]

It was largely dumb luck Brian.

[Eric Rose]

I wasn't. By long shot.

[civich]

Going onto a photography forum and asking old geysers their opinions is a perfectly legitimate portion of research for such a paper. - William McEwen

Ha! I like that "geysers" - I'm thinking it wasn't a typo?

[Brian C. Miller]

Rick "who struggles with the truth that his landscape photographs are passe" Denney

That's like saying beautiful women are passé. How much poetry have the Japanese written about cherry blossoms? (A selection of Basho's haiku, link (http://thegreenleaf.co.uk/hp/basho/00bashohaiku.htm)) Or the moon? Or the music of a flute?

Or like saying that a tuba is passé?

Or is Yosemite passé?

A photographer photographs what is in front of the lens. That's the way photography works. Beauty in, beauty out; ugly in, ugly out. Want a clearing winter storm? Find one and photograph it. Just remember that before the storm clears, it's going to be storming!

The World Press Photo 2012 winners (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/world-press-photo-2012-winners/2012/02/10/gIQA1EJ83Q_gallery.html) have been announced. What in them is passé? Suffering? Triumph? Life? Death? Car Problems (http://www.xkcd.com/1014/)? (OK, so that's not a world press photo)


Although it is excruciatingly rich, horrifyingly sunny and more full of wonderfully exciting people than a pomegranate is of pips, it can hardly be insignificant that when a recent edition of Playbeing Magazine headlined an article with the words, 'When you are tired of Ursa Minor Beta you are tired of life', the suicide rate there quadrupled overnight.

Labeling a subject as passé is like revaluing the leaf by burning down all the forests. Then somebody comes along and "rediscovers" the subject, and leaves have grown again.

[Brian Ellis]

I think he was very talented and very intelligent and very focused and very well connected and very dedicated, but he was also a master of self-promotion. He remains a master at self-promotion to this very day.

Adams actually wasn't particularly good at self-promotion. He didn't make any real money from photography until William Turnage took over his business affairs in the early 1970s. Before that most of his income came from working as a commercial photographer.

A few things other things about Adams:

He was one of the founders of Aperture

He was instrumental in causing the Museum of Modern Art to create a photography department

He was one of the founders of Group f/64

He was instrumental in causing the Sierra Club to become the significant force for protection of the environment that it has become.

He was one of the first if not the first photographer to use week-long workshops as a means of photography instruction

For several decades he traveled around the country speaking to various photography groups. Many photographers who later became well-known (e.g. Harry Callahan) credit their attendance at one of these lectures with inspiring them to devote their lives to photography.

He and Fred Archer conceived of the zone system as a method of teaching exposure and development.

And that's not even mentioning the influence his books and the photographs themselves have had on generations of photographers.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that little if anything of significance happened in American photography from roughly the 1930s to the 1960s that wasn't influenced, directly or indirectly, by Ansel Adams.

I don't know a lot about Thomas Kincaid but I'm not aware that he's had anything even close to the influence on his chosen field that Adams has had on his.

[jhogan]

My opinion of AA: Don't do it! Life without a drink in hand is no life at all.

Remember, young person, that quitters never win, and winners never quit.

[BrianShaw]

Adams actually wasn't particularly good at self-promotion. He didn't make any real money from photography until William Turnage took over his business affairs in the early 1970s.

I agree with everything you say, Brian, except the relationship between self-promotion and money. It's not 1:1. Self-promotion is not a bad thing, nor is it necessarily intended for immediate return. It is a part of business acumen that is often mistaken for selfish, self-centered, arrogant, and/or manipulative behavior. Interestingly, some of the best self-promotors are rather shy and don't enjoy doing it... but they are really good at it nonetheless. I suppose for some "self-promotion" might be a blend of true talent combined with the dumb-luck of people recognizing that talent.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Of the landscape photographs I have seen in person, Adam's are by far the best. I do need to see more though. I would love to see exhibits of Morley Baer and one of the Weston family.

[rdenney]

That's like saying beautiful women are passé. How much poetry have the Japanese written about cherry blossoms? (A selection of Basho's haiku, link (http://thegreenleaf.co.uk/hp/basho/00bashohaiku.htm)) Or the moon? Or the music of a flute?

Or like saying that a tuba is passé?

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. No subject, not even one as magnificent as Half Dome, is immune to becoming portrayed by Just Another Picture of Half Dome.

The tuba is definitely passe. How many professional tuba players do you know? How many of those tuba players have ever performed on stage at, say, the Super Bowl Half-Time Show (at last since they stopped using college marching bands about a thousand years ago)? Do you know the name of the tuba player who performed the Mother Ship in Close Encounters of the Third Kind? Do you know who played the iconic tuba solo in Jaws? The movie credits list the second coffee-fetching assistant to the third grip, but not those whose performance became iconic parts of those movies. How relevant can tuba-playing be if some fat, middle-aged weekend warrior like me can be on a first-name basis with a significant percentage of the world's finest tuba players? Of course tubas are passe. Those electric basses are so much easier to amplify (and play).

Rick "not willing to dig for that accented e" Denney

[Peter De Smidt]

Beaumont Newhall, who I studied with, spent a whole week on AA in his 20th century history of photography class.

Did he talk about Mortensen?

[William McEwen]

Ha! I like that "geysers" - I'm thinking it wasn't a typo?


Ha, ha, I wish I could claim otherwise, but it's just a dumb typo.

[Mark Sampson]

...I understand that Mr. Newhall referred to William Mortensen as "the Thomas Kinkade of photography". :rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

Did he talk about Mortensen?

I remember him spending some time talking about pictorialism and f64's reaction to it and AA's reaction in particular as a prelude and foundation to modernism. His classes, two semesters worth, plus special topics classes and individual study were very similarly structured thematically to his book. He spiced up the lectures with personal anecdotes as he knew so many of these people. In addition it was living history. In one semester of the class i took on the twentieth century, Brett Weston, Imogene Cunningham and Ansel Adams all dropped into the class for a visit and Q&A. It was truly amazing.

[Alan Curtis]

Kirk
What a wonderful opportunity to take a class with those influential guest appearances. This is why this forum is excellent, there are photographers like yourself and Merg Ross who interacted with the photographers who continue to influence all of us.
When did you take that course from Beaumont?

[ross]

.....In one semester of the class i took on the twentieth century, Brett Weston, Imogene Cunningham and Ansel Adams all dropped into the class for a visit and Q&A. It was truly amazing.

Wow! What a great experience!

[MDR]

I find the Kinkade comment very funny because I recently had discussion with a fellow photographer who is heavely involved in the art scene and he referred to AA pictures as calendar pictures. I btw like William Mortensen and AA although I have to admit that I prefer William Henry Jackson to AA. Jackson and or his assistant(s) photo might not have the drama but some of his pictures are just beautiful and have a serenity that AA often lacks imho. And there is nothing shameful in self promotion if you don't overdo it.

Kirk I am completely and utterly jealous since I always wanted to meet Cunningham, a vastly underated member of the f64 group.

Dominik

[Brian C. Miller]

Rick "not willing to dig for that accented e" Denney

Press and hold the ALT key, then type 130 on the numeric keypad. If you're really good, you can do "copy con program.com" this way, too, without using debug.exe to translate the assembly mnemonics!


Beautiful women are not passe, but pictures of beautiful women certainly can be.

Clichéd, unimaginative pictures can be passé. I think Andy Warhol did a quite a bit about the concept of repetitive imagery.


The tuba is definitely passe. How many professional tuba players do you know?

I don't know any professional guitar players, either. (OK, I also didn't know the names of any of the guys in the Rolling Stones until they were spoofed in Bloom County.) But ignorance of the esoteric, or even common, does not mean something has become passé, it just indicates ignorance, which of course is remedied with education.

No, something like banjo orchestras are passé, because nobody can stand them anymore!

If one uses ignorance as a measure of something being passé, then engineering is passé! But of course we rely on it more and yet more.


Imagine how much one might lose appreciation for beauty if they spent all day every day looking at pictures of them. No subject, not even one as magnificent as Half Dome, is immune to becoming portrayed by Just Another Picture of Half Dome.

Ah, so here we have it: the loss of appreciation! The loss of appreciation of Campbell's soup cans and movie stars, of the common and ordinary, and even of the rare and extraordinary.

Replaced by ... reality television. And reruns. "Thirteen channels of shit of the TV, and nothing to choose from..."

Kill your TV. You'll feel much better!

-- Brian "whose TV died a natural death after 13 years and was never replaced" Miller

[Merg Ross]

I didn't think I would get suckered into this one, but since the thread has strayed from the original unanswerable question, I will comment on the man.

When thinking of Ansel Adams, I recall the smiling face behind the beard, the quick wit, the twinkling eyes, the laugh and the red suspenders. Add to that the visits to his home, and he to mine while growing up, photographing him receiving his 1968 Honorary Degree at UC, Berkeley and the letter that follwed after he received my prints. If politics were allowed on this forum, I would elaborate on his letter; Ansel had very strong political views! And, forever memorable, hearing him play the piano on our mutual visit to Boston.

Earlier in this thread, Brian Ellis listed a number of Ansel's accomplishments. There were many, and regardless of what one may think of his photography, those reading this forum owe much to Ansel for his enormous contributions to photography.

However, when I think of Ansel, I don't first think of Moonrise or his other iconic images; I think of the man. He was a tremendously talented person, who happened to make photographs.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk
What a wonderful opportunity to take a class with those influential guest appearances. This is why this forum is excellent, there are photographers like yourself and Merg Ross who interacted with the photographers who continue to influence all of us.
When did you take that course from Beaumont?

Off the top of my head I would say in 70 or 71 for the HoP classes (19th and 20th centuries), more likely 71 I think. Then I did a special topics class with him on Modernism and an individual study on Wynn Bullock probably in 72.

[Kirk Gittings]

However, when I think of Ansel, I don't first think of Moonrise or his other iconic images; I think of the man. He was a tremendously talented person, who happened to make photographs.

I had a series of phone conversations with him in 82-83 about an article I was writing. I found him to be a real gentleman and very gracious and patient with a young fart (vs. the old fart I am now).

[Brian Ellis]

Ha, ha, I wish I could claim otherwise, but it's just a dumb typo.

I'm disappointed. I thought you called us "old geysers" because we spouted off so regularly. : - )

[Brian Ellis]

Ha, ha, I wish I could claim otherwise, but it's just a dumb typo.

I'm disappointed. I thought you called us "old geysers" because we spout off so consistently and predictably about certain subjects. : - )

[ROL]

nah steven scanboss, the f-stop.
A term paper covering aa would be as simple as a quick google search. There seems to be enough info on the net to sink a ship.

Im just confused, i mean doesn't anyone else find it strange that there have been no other photographers that produced landscape work even close to his? Im not just talking about the dynamic range of his images & tonal range of his prints either, seeing as such a thing with modern day materials (& modern day knowledge) is acheiveable by anyone.

Really? Frankly, that's an absurdly immature and unverified statement. Google landscape or black and white photography. You haven't seen all that's out there and neither have I. Some of the "best" photographers simply don't make their work easily available. Try visiting a few museums or libraries before baiting forums for a--hole opinions like mine.


American photographers often complain that every good location has been over-photographed...then why is it that i am yet to see a faithful copy of an aa composition?

Geezus, that's your yardstick, copying other people's work?


To me this art of ours seems to be governed by science moreso than any other. Is it possible that we just aren't approaching it the right way?

Is it possible only you are not approaching it the right way?


Ansel Adams did more to advance photography as a fine art than any other photographer. He was an artist, teacher, and promoter (though not necessarily of his own work) nonpareil. He literally wrote the book(s) on classical silver photography. It is because of him that I see work every day as good or better than Adams' on my own walls.

[Thebes]

I think AA is as famous as he is due more to his workshops and books, and the marketing of his work, than any exceptional excellence or skill.

I'm not saying he wasn't a great photographer, just that he was no better than a dozen or more others. He did head up that whole f64 thing, surely that added notoriety, as undoubtedly did his rantings against certain other prominent photographers.

I like Caponigro's Running White Deer more than any print I've seen of AA's, so who's better at landscapes?

[Curt Palm]

nah steven scanboss, the f-stop.

American photographers often complain that every good location has been over-photographed...then why is it that i am yet to see a faithful copy of an aa composition?


if that's what you want take a look at jeff nixon's moon and half dome

http://www.jeffnixonphotography.com/B___W_Gallery.php

[f90]

I am Australian, so please forgive my lack of participation as we are running on opposites here.

I certainly did not expect such a landslide of responses. It makes me happy to see that a forum such as this is alive and kicking.

I agree with what most people have said about the man. His self promotion, lively personality, great speaking and writing abilities, contacts, the fact that the outdoors were becoming 'popular', etc. were all likely factors in his success. It's obvious though that none of it would have been possible without the power of his work backing him.

I also agree that some of his work has been bested by others, especially the non-landscape stuff which he did not specialise in. I was more-so talking about the truly unique landscape compositions that he created, the ones that really stand out.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but i've been studying landscape photography for a few years now and I am still yet to see work as unique as his. I've seen good colour work (david muench seems to have great stuff), but I still haven't seen any better of the poetic b&w.

Despite what some may believe, It appears that science plays a large part in making good images. The process of eliminating visual dissonance is the key to extraordinary images, and is also 100% achievable through critical thinking and scientific process.

I'm not trying cause trouble, I am merely trying to get some intelligent opinions on the matter as I think this is an important subject that is yet to be discussed.

And for those who think that this is term paper research..If only I could be so lucky.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm very peripherally involved in a new AA exhibit that should be quite interesting-an exhibit of his personal photography collection.

[jloen]

If you don't think he was the best, then who was/is?

To paraphrase a great mountaineer, Alex Lowe, who certainly was IMO the best of his generation,

"the best (insert occupation) is the one having the most fun".

using that definition, I think that numerous amateur photographers probably are the best. You all know what "amateur" means, after all.

[f90]

@Curt Plum, Yes that moon and half dome is almost identical! As I thought about copyable compositions, I realised that moon and half dome maybe the easiest to copy (firstly cause it was made by a fixed plane camera and secondly that there are very few overall values in the image), but I also thought no-one would pick up on it :). Even though he did copy the exact values of the AA original, judging from his other work, Jeff Nixor seems to have quite an eye for values and expressing the effect of sunlight.

[rdenney]

I like Caponigro's Running White Deer more than any print I've seen of AA's, so who's better at landscapes?

Hmmm. Here's the question: In 1967, what would Paul Caponigro have chosen to photograph, and how might he have chosen to photograph it, were it not for Ansel Adams? Adams was 30 years older than Caponigro, and was already famous and old when Running White Deer was photographed.

There is a question that pops up from time to time on a tuba player forum: Would Arnold Jacobs (the celebrated Chicago Symphony tuba player and renowned pedagog--sound familiar?) be able to win an orchestra audition today? Folks listen to his recordings with the CSO from the 1950's, and claim, "I could do that well." But they are playing an instrument that is a replica of the instrument Jacobs made famous, they probably learned to play it using teaching techniques he developed (probably delivered by his students), and they define what they consider to be good sound and orchestral technique based on the standard he set. Had they been old enough to be in their prime in the 40's, when Jacobs won his CSO gig and redefined orchestral tuba playing in the U.S., they would not have been playing that instrument using that approach, and they would not have the benefit of that world-renowned pegagogy.

You cannot even compare skills across time--standards of skill change, equipment improves, and training has the benefit of prior progress. You never could compare art across time. You are looking at Caponigro's art from the perspective utterly foreign to and ignorant of the impact that Adams had in his day. For one thing, Caponigro had seen Adams's work in addition to dozens of other of Adams's contemporaries, while Adams had seen Strand's work and the very few of his contemporaries (including Weston, Stieglitz, etc.).

The comparison is meaningless.

Adams's work has been so imitated that the approach he took no longer seems relevant. But it was absolutely relevant and novel when he first took that approach, even if he wasn't the only one doing it. But as it has been said, what makes Adams's work passe now is not what Adams did or did not do, but rather the eyes through which we view his work in 2012. Of course, many people with a discerning eye don't think Adams's work is passe at all. I'm one of them. But I like the music and literature of 75 years ago, too.

Rick "who likes Caponigro's work, too" Denney

[Vaughn]

Nice post, Rick...well stated.

[Heroique]

Of course, many people with a discerning eye don’t think Adams’s work is passe at all. I’m one of them.

Many “discerning eyes” must be reading this thread.

I’d love to hear from them what might make AA’s work become passé in the future.

Or, will particular qualities of his work always protect it from that fate?

[rdenney]

Or, will particular qualities of his work always protect it from that fate?

Who knows?

Maybe it's that he never let his style rule his aesthetics--rather, his aesthetics defined his style.

But it's certainly true that I look at photos of that general approach--sharply realistic landscapes of magnificent subjects--and pass them by with a ho-hum. (Many of those photos are mine.) But others remain compelling to me (not necessarily to others).

Why do they compel? Probably one of two reasons: 1.) The photographer felt something powerfully, and his craft was up to the task of laying that power on me, or 2.) the subject affects me powerfully, and the photographer managed to stay out of the way. With Adams, it's a little of both, perhaps, depending on the photo. With Denney, it's more the second.

Rick "describing something he doesn't understand" Denney

[Thebes]

You are looking at Caponigro's art from the perspective utterly foreign to and ignorant of the impact that Adams had in his day.

Its actually kind of difficult for you to know how I am looking at things, since I didn't say. When have I said AA wasn't very influential? I would say he was almost as influential to the art as Stieglitz.

I was saying that some people might not view him as being "the best landscape photographer to date", as stated by the O.P. Culture does not exist in a vacuum, but importance is different from personal aesthetic perceptions, and actually that is part of the point I was trying to make with the sentence you quoted.

Anyway, thanks for reading in so much more into that than I ever said.... maybe you can go join into the pointless semantic bickering about incident vs reflected readings now... Sigh... why do I even bother? Do you just have cabin fever, or is participating in this forum's discussions always like bashing one's head into a wall?

[rdenney]

Its actually kind of difficult for you to know how I am looking at things, since I didn't say. When have I said AA wasn't very influential? I would say he was almost as influential to the art as Stieglitz.

I was saying that some people might not view him as being "the best landscape photographer to date", as stated by the O.P. Culture does not exist in a vacuum, but importance is different from personal aesthetic perceptions, and actually that is part of the point I was trying to make with the sentence you quoted.

Anyway, thanks for reading in so much more into that than I ever said.... maybe you can go join into the pointless semantic bickering about incident vs reflected readings now... Sigh... why do I even bother? Do you just have cabin fever, or is participating in this forum's discussions always like bashing one's head into a wall?

You're right, culture does not exist in a vacuum. That's why, unless you are 100 years old, the way in which people viewed Adams's photos in the 1930's or 40's would be foreign to you. (As it would be foreign to me.) None of us can view those grand landscapes in the way their original viewers did, because they were novel to them and are familiar to us. Also, his approach was novel then and familiar now. That does not require mind-reading on my part. You could have interpreted my remarks as agreeing with the point you were trying to make, had you chosen to do so.

Please do not resort to insulting me, especially when I said nothing to insult you. When I quote someone, I don't think I'm obligate to agree or disagree with them. I may do both, viewing what I quoted from different directions. And I also don't feel obligated to restrict my post to just what is referenced in the quote. I may use that as a jumping-off point to make a tangential observation. I do not mean that as an insult to you.

I was not involved in the semantic discussion about the difference between reflected and incident light. I offered an observation in that thread that had nothing to do with that semantic discussion, and which was persuasively refuted, and I did not respond further. Please don't blame me for your annoyance with others.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

[Peter Gomena]

Ansel Adams' pictures never made me gag. Kincades always do.

Peter Gomena

[f90]

None of us can view those grand landscapes in the way their original viewers did, because they were novel to them and are familiar to us.




Are these "familiar" landscape images?

http://masters-of-photography.com/images/full/adams/adams_clearing.jpg

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/entertainment/art/2007/05/ART-Ansel-Adams-Celebration-of/uploads/articles/articles-pic-4412-836.jpg

http://www.undergroundvoices.com/AnselAdams.jpg

I dunno about you but I am yet to see images more unique than these. And these are just a few..

[rdenney]

I've seen many landscape photographs as unique as these, and some moreso. That does not diminish these in any way, of course. (The highway picture, though, has been imitated a zillion times. No, make that a gazillion.)

But there is no way I can look at these without looking at them through my Ansel Adams filter. Now, show me a photo of his that is not iconic, maybe even one that I have not seen, and I might be able to objectively compare it to work by someone less familiar. In any cases, it would be really difficult for most of us to evaluate these pictures without that evaluation being affected by the knowledge that Adams made them. And that effect might be either positive or negative depending on the point of view of the evaluator.

Even that does not capture my point, however. When an east-coast art viewer in 1945 or whenever first looked at that photo of what Adams thought was Mt. Williamson, or that photo of Lone Pine, he had never seen either of those two places, and had never seen anyone portray them with such stark realism even if he'd seen a portrayal at all. But now, many of us have been to those places, often in part because these photographs were made there, or have seen pictures of them or places very llike them thousands of times.

Photographers that came after Adams would know these places, and they would know how Adams portrayed them. That would have to affect their own portrayal and the choices they make, even without any fundamental shift in aesthetics. But I think there has been a fundamental shift in objectives. PaulR said not too long ago that maybe these sorts of portrayals are no longer enough. What would have shocked that 1945 viewer would be part of a vast stream of similar stuff today, even if these are superlative examples of that stream.

I'm resisting the comparison you are making. I do not think there is a valid way to compare seminal work from two generations ago with derivative work today. And if that's impossible, then it's even more unlikely to find a valid comparison between seminal work of two generations ago and seminal work of today that might reflect an utterly different aesthetic sensibility. You might as well try to compare Beethoven to Philip Glass. In the early 1800's, Beethoven was "out there", but now he exemplifies what many refer to as the stultifying music of dead white Europeans. How could any of us listen to Beethoven as if he were new?

You have stated that you think such art can be created and classed as "greatest to date" on the basis of scientific formula which you wonder if Adams was the first to apply to photography. I would like to hear more on that, since that seems to be your motive for starting this thread.

Rick "debating, along with most others, the notion of 'best'" Denney

[Thebes]

Please do not resort to insulting me, especially when I said nothing to insult you. When I quote someone, I don't think I'm obligate to agree or disagree with them. I may do both, viewing what I quoted from different directions. And I also don't feel obligated to restrict my post to just what is referenced in the quote. I may use that as a jumping-off point to make a tangential observation. I do not mean that as an insult to you.

I was not involved in the semantic discussion about the difference between reflected and incident light. I offered an observation in that thread that had nothing to do with that semantic discussion, and which was persuasively refuted, and I did not respond further. Please don't blame me for your annoyance with others.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

My reference to that other discussion is because this is twice in a week of rather occasional posts where I felt someone had "jumped down my throat", so to speak. Perhaps, like I said, some people just have "cabin fever". I don't know about you, but many people, if told their "perspective" was ignorant, would find it insulting. Kinda discourages participation.

Of course you have no obligation to agree with my opinions on anything. It would be a mighty boring world if we all agreed on everything.

Considering the matter, a number of people have seemed abrasive to one another in recent threads as well. I suppose many of us are eager for Spring. I'll take your response to as a good indication that no offence was meant.

FWIW, I feel that discussion about who is "best" as an artist is a problematic concept at best, and for many of the reasons that you mentioned.

[gary mulder]

Are these "familiar" landscape images?

http://masters-of-photography.com/images/full/adams/adams_clearing.jpg

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/entertainment/art/2007/05/ART-Ansel-Adams-Celebration-of/uploads/articles/articles-pic-4412-836.jpg

http://www.undergroundvoices.com/AnselAdams.jpg

I dunno about you but I am yet to see images more unique than these. And these are just a few..

Regards winter sunrise and mount williamson one thing is sure, the original viewers did witnessed a very different print then the ones represented here.

[Ken Lee]

If you can readily determine that AA was the single greatest landscape photographer, then have you also determined which is his single greatest landscape photograph?

[Doremus Scudder]

I love Ansel Adams best work. I think it remains relevant and inspiring. It certainly is for me.

I realize that it is "out of fashion" to admit to liking the beautiful anymore, but, I hate fashion anyway, it tends to be "exclusive" in the worst sense of the word, while art tends to be inclusive. I think some confuse the two.

Adams was without doubt one of the most influential photographers of his time. His images and methods set the standard for many. Although I never met him, I studied his work and his techniques and am certainly not ashamed to name him as an influence on my work. His photographs remain among the most loved and viewed, and not just by the "masses" (by which I take to mean the uneducated in things artistic...). This speaks for itself.

It seems that "Ansel-bashing" is in fashion now, for whatever reason. Reactions to older artistic styles, especially negative ones, is nothing new. Bach's sons disparaged the old man for being hopelessly old fashioned, Stravinsky picked on Beethoven (but led the "Back to Bach" movement), the impressionists quibbled about the mundanity of the academie paintings, etc., etc. I think it is great that people want to avoid what has already been done and strike out in new directions, but we don't have to photograph like Adams, or compose like Bach to recognize the greatness. But, maybe the Adams images are still too close to many to cause much but a "I want to do something else" reaction.

By the way, I'm still naive enough to believe that landscape photography is a valid direction in art and a wonderfully expressive way to communicate metaphor. But, on my last trip to Yosemite, I never even unpacked my camera. Too much that had been done too often... Besides, I don't even want to say those things with landscape.... But I sure like the way Ansel Adams said those things.

I enjoy and am moved by Adams photographs the same way I am by Whistler, Beethoven, Whitman, Shakespeare, etc. It is never a question of "best." Add to that the photographers: O'Sullivan, Strand, Weston(s), Camponigro(s), Atger, Sander, Sudek, Cartier-Bresson, Model, Man Ray, Callahan, Evans(s), and countless others. Why do we have threads about Adams and not them.... Maybe precisely because of his popularity and familiarity. Somehow, I don't think that should detract from his work.

Best,

Doremus

[Sevo]

Adams was without doubt one of the most influential photographers of his time.

... in North America at least. In Europe, he did not begin to get widely published until the mid to late seventies, when he already was a phenomenon of a (arguably more glorious) past.

[Doremus Scudder]

Sevo,

Yes, maybe I'm being a little geocentric, but I think my point is still valid. Adams work has a history of admiration on other continents as well, albeit later than in North America. Certainly his techniques have been influential.

Best,

Doremus

[StevenJohn]

I have always been impressed with AA's technique...but that is partially what unsettles me when I look at his images. I see the technique so strongly. When I look at "The Tetons and the Snake River", I can almost hear him saying, "Dodge here -2"..."Burn here +4". Shouldn't I be hearing the sound of the wind or the river? I've found I like his color images and smaller format work much better. Of course he used excellent technique in those, but it doesn't seem as overt to me. This in no way takes away from my respect for what AA accomplished. Everytime I head to the darkroom, I'm thankful of his books.

[f90]

I've seen many landscape photographs as unique as these, and some moreso. That does not diminish these in any way, of course. (The highway picture, though, has been imitated a zillion times. No, make that a gazillion.)

But there is no way I can look at these without looking at them through my Ansel Adams filter. Now, show me a photo of his that is not iconic, maybe even one that I have not seen, and I might be able to objectively compare it to work by someone less familiar. In any cases, it would be really difficult for most of us to evaluate these pictures without that evaluation being affected by the knowledge that Adams made them. And that effect might be either positive or negative depending on the point of view of the evaluator.

Even that does not capture my point, however. When an east-coast art viewer in 1945 or whenever first looked at that photo of what Adams thought was Mt. Williamson, or that photo of Lone Pine, he had never seen either of those two places, and had never seen anyone portray them with such stark realism even if he'd seen a portrayal at all. But now, many of us have been to those places, often in part because these photographs were made there, or have seen pictures of them or places very llike them thousands of times.

Photographers that came after Adams would know these places, and they would know how Adams portrayed them. That would have to affect their own portrayal and the choices they make, even without any fundamental shift in aesthetics. But I think there has been a fundamental shift in objectives. PaulR said not too long ago that maybe these sorts of portrayals are no longer enough. What would have shocked that 1945 viewer would be part of a vast stream of similar stuff today, even if these are superlative examples of that stream.

I'm resisting the comparison you are making. I do not think there is a valid way to compare seminal work from two generations ago with derivative work today. And if that's impossible, then it's even more unlikely to find a valid comparison between seminal work of two generations ago and seminal work of today that might reflect an utterly different aesthetic sensibility. You might as well try to compare Beethoven to Philip Glass. In the early 1800's, Beethoven was "out there", but now he exemplifies what many refer to as the stultifying music of dead white Europeans. How could any of us listen to Beethoven as if he were new?

You have stated that you think such art can be created and classed as "greatest to date" on the basis of scientific formula which you wonder if Adams was the first to apply to photography. I would like to hear more on that, since that seems to be your motive for starting this thread.

Rick "debating, along with most others, the notion of 'best'" Denney

Quite a strong response rdental, I like it.

I very much agree about the 'Ansel Adams Filter' that you speak of. I must admit that when I was younger I would often judge a book by it's cover..such is the human condition. But when I became interested in the arts, I also became more open minded and started relying on what I thought to be 'good' rather than what others thought to be 'good'.

I have been fairly music obsessive for my entire life, though I seem to listen rather differently than my friends and family do. I cannot help doing it, but I instantly begin breaking a song down rather than just hearing it. Once I can see the song as the sum of its parts I can identify which parts please me and which parts do not; and more importantly why they please me. Our brains seem love the stimulation that is music, but for it to be a good stimulation there must be a strong initial idea combined with the correct balance as to not throw the contrast off. There is no genre filter either, good music is good music (though sadly some genres seem to be heading in the wrong direction).

This brings me your Beethoven statement. You believe that it is less effective nowadays because his work is stultified, which I agree is the case for much of society who seem brainwashed by what is popular and what others think. At 23 years old I am still quite heavily subjected to popular culture of the youth, yet when I heard the Moonlight Sonata for the first time a few months back, I instantly knew that it was special. I saw the strong initial idea, the perfect balance of its parts and the delicate contrast between the notes.

It took a while to learn since photography is newer to me and quite a complex subject, but I now see photographs as the sum of there parts. The basic underlying formula that works for good music also appears to work for good photographs. When I look at the majority of Ansels images I know that they are more correct than anything else that I have seen.

So yes, much like almost everything else on this planet, I do believe that science can be applied to photography for maximum effect. Despite the outliers within the population, there is a general consensus for things that correctly stimulate the mind. One of the simpler things I have noticed about landscape photography is that it appears our brains have preference towards images that eliminate visual dissonance. We subconsciously scan an image for inconsistencies and subconsciously judge on this factor accordingly.

A little research into the physics behind the creation of a photograph tells the truth that a camera is not transcribing a 3d into a 2d scene nearly as well as it could be. The lenses aren't efficient in this aspect nor is the surface in which the light is captured.

gtg.need a solid 8.

Please forgive my long post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2dFi4vhRM

[ImSoNegative]

AA was a great photographer no doubt about that, was he the best? I dont know. like others have said there are lots of great work out there, my wife thought he was the best because of all the books of him at the bookstore hmmm. he is highly publisized, but so is thomas kinkaide, does that make him the greatest painter, many people think so. why? he has lots of publicity, i have seen more meaningful paintings than his from no-name artists, just as ive seen images here on LF forum that would rival AA anyday.

[f90]

(The highway picture, though, has been imitated a zillion times. No, make that a gazillion.)


Yes, I've seen the poor attempts at imitating this shot. Even from the same exact position. I bet they used their long lenses like ansel supposedly did and wondered why it looks different, then their wide lenses which made it look even worse. I'm not trying to be a d1ck, just trying to get my point across. I would love to see a perfectly copied version of this shot composition-wise.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

If you can readily determine that AA was the single greatest landscape photographer, then have you also determined which is his single greatest landscape photograph?

Clearing Winter Storm rocks my universe!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jim Jones]

Many “discerning eyes” must be reading this thread.

I’d love to hear from them what might make AA’s work become passé in the future.

Or, will particular qualities of his work always protect it from that fate?

Unfortunately, social and artistic trends can supplant revered artists. I was growing up during the Second World War, and remember how, even in America, art often served the bloody business at hand rather than the joy of nature and humanity. It must have been worse in some strictly governed governments in Europe. America benefitted from artists fleeing persecution. Had they been able to work freely in their native countries, they must have had an influence.

Art begats art. The financial success of Peter Lik, Cindy Sherman, and even Richard Prince might influence some photographers much as the photography of Muybridge, Jackson, Weston, and Adams has inspired me. Perhaps it was the thirst for knowledge of the relatively unexplored American west that made the realism of Muybridge and Jackson significant.until pictorialism became the fad. The return to the realism of Adams may well fall to the potential of Photoshop.

Ultimately, the urge to see the truth in a subject, relatively unmutilated by the artist, may protect Adams in the future.

[MDR]

AA was a great photographer and landscape photographers around the world owe him a lot.

I also honestly believe that there is/was an European and US school of photography that expresses itself quiet differently. I also believe that modern american art photography owes a lot to Hollywood and european immigrants and less to AA.

AA greatness lies in his teachings but outside the realm of B/W photography and to a small extent the vintage photography market he's become pretty irrelevant to the modern art (-ists & market) of photography, unfortunately that is.

AA was also I believe more honest than many of his followers (groupies) in that he gave credit where credit was due he clearly stated that he did not invent the zone system alone and yet we pretty much never hear of Fred Archer.

Dominik

[ROL]

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but i've been studying landscape photography for a few years now and I am still yet to see work as unique as his. I've seen good colour work (david muench seems to have great stuff), but I still haven't seen any better of the poetic b&w.

Yes, it's just you. You offer the most confused and contrary precepts in your posts. You want to see better copies of AA's work, and then say you've yet to see work as unique as his. Either work is unique or it isn't. You just aren't looking if you "haven't seen any better of the poetic b&w".

Obviously, you have touched many nerves of many posters, and I think some of your points are relevant, if not important to a full understanding and appreciation of classical photography. I just wish you would hone your questions to one or more easily definable and discussable points – perhaps like, why does any discussion of Adam's or his photographs suck the air out of any room?

[ROL]

Are these "familiar" landscape images?

I dunno about you but I am yet to see images more unique than these. And these are just a few..

Are all these images you've posted in the public domain?

[BrianShaw]

Kincades always do.

You might be happy that I never mentioned Anne Geddes, the best baby photographer of all times, as another comparison of widespread, overly commercialized, and "popular"... which I almost did. :D

[cowanw]

Popular Photography's 10 Greatest Photographers 1958
Adams
Avedon
Cartie-Bresson
Eisenstaedt
Haas
Halsman
Karsh
Mili
Penn
Smith

Times change
P.S.
Adams was then described as a pictorialist (sic) in the great tradition

[BrianShaw]

When I look at "The Tetons and the Snake River", I can almost hear him saying, "Dodge here -2"..."Burn here +4". Shouldn't I be hearing the sound of the wind or the river?

Funny you should mention that about that particular image. I lived for a while with an AA original of Tetons and Snake River. I heard both narrations too!

[Bill Burk]

I found him to be a real gentleman and very gracious and patient...

I think his being a genuinely nice, generous, caring person goes a long way towards making it OK to like him.

My wife got to meet him at a fund-raising event for an environmental organization and was impressed with his generosity. She's not easily impressed.

[E. von Hoegh]

I think f90 is suffering from excessive diffraction.;)

No one could seriously compare this hack to AA? http://www.thomaskinkadeonline.com/?gclid=CNH3if7Hlq4CFeEDQAod7jfOIg

[Vaughn]

Are all these images you've posted in the public domain?

Educational use...

[rdenney]

I don't know about you, but many people, if told their "perspective" was ignorant, would find it insulting.

Yes, I see that. I did not intend it that way. I meant "ignorant" according to its definition, "unknowing." No offense intended.

Rick "sometimes ignorant of how people interpret words" Denney

[rdenney]

...You believe that it is less effective nowadays because his work is stultified, which I agree is the case for much of society who seem brainwashed by what is popular and what others think....

Please. I said that many think of Beethoven this way. I didn't say I did. But no matter how open-minded I might think I am, I can't listen to Beethoven without the bias created by knowing it's Beethoven. Even so, my mind may be much more open than you think.

Roger Norrington, who recorded what I think are among the most important recordings fo Beethoven symphonies ever done, explained why his orchestra used original instruments and why he so rigorously ignored prevalent German conducting technique of the late Romantic period up through at least the middle 20th century. That tradition had slowed Beethoven down to extract more emotion, apparently. Conductors such as Fricsay and Furtwangler took that to its excessive extreme. Only Toscanini fought that trend. Norrington, some decades later, played Beethoven at his marked tempi, which fairly screams along compared to what most of us grew up hearing. And all those sforzandos have the punch that the Romance had filtered down. And the modern instruments had added such much lushness to the sound that the architecture of the work had become muddled (this has happened with Bach, too.) So, back to Norrington's stated reason for his approach: So that we can hear Beethoven as if he was new again.

This is not a new kind of thinking.

You have created (though not yet described) a model of what constitutes "visual dissonance", and why the lack of it makes pleasing photographs. What have you done to validate that model's applicability to others? What have you done to verify that the model correctly identifies what is visually dissonant? (And, by extension, where are your iconic landscapes made so by applying this model?)

Please write it here, and don't send me to a YouTube. We don't want to leave holes in the archival value of these discussions, and (more to my point) my internet connection is limited and YouTube uses too much of it. If it is as objective as you imply, words should be possible. If it can't be written in plain words, maybe it's not as objective as it seems to you.

Rick "who has spent years and decades trying to understand what makes some photos compelling and others banal" Denney

[Sevo]

Adams was then described as a pictorialist (sic) in the great tradition

That he could be mistaken for one certainly was part of his popular success - but he was slightly the junior of many others on that list that are quite markedly post- or even anti-pictorialist, who influenced him more than the other way around. Even if it does not obviously look like it, his work has a strong abstract side to it, and is not imaginable without his knowledge of Bauhaus, cubism and constructivism...

[E. von Hoegh]

I have always been impressed with AA's technique...but that is partially what unsettles me when I look at his images. I see the technique so strongly. When I look at "The Tetons and the Snake River", I can almost hear him saying, "Dodge here -2"..."Burn here +4". Shouldn't I be hearing the sound of the wind or the river? I've found I like his color images and smaller format work much better. Of course he used excellent technique in those, but it doesn't seem as overt to me. This in no way takes away from my respect for what AA accomplished. Everytime I head to the darkroom, I'm thankful of his books.

There's such a thing as "knowing too much" about something. We, as photographers, know and understand what it takes to produce a fine print, we cannot help but think of the technique that went into it. That changes our perception of the print. The average non photographer will see the print differently, perhaps better for his/her ignorance of the technique (not "science" as the op said).

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?

[paulr]

Szarkowski wrote insightfully about Adams (and he he wrote quite a bit ... some essays are online and easy to find). He agrees with some of the posts here that Ansel rose to his level of prominince in part because he authored the prominent how-to books that every hobyist owned, for many decades. I don't think this was deliberately a Trojan Horse approach, but it was an effective one. Ansel became a household name ... but you had to be something of a afficionado to know about Weston or Strand—both of whom I think are better and more significant landscape artists, by just about every measure.

Which isn't a dig against Ansel. I like a lot of his work, and its cultural and art-historical significance doesn't need defending by the likes of me. I suspect Ansel-bashing is a popular activity as a reaction against his decades-long omnipresence. Even among photographers who grew up worshiping him, there's often a point where they discover more subtle work by, say, Robert Adams, or O'Sullivan, and then make a point of rejecting their former god. This can lead to the pendulum swinging too far the other way (as tends to happen with dethronings).

We should be able to gently offer the throne to someone else without feeling compelled to send the old king to the gallows. I believe Ansel deserves lot of credit, especially for some of the work from his 1940s portfolios, and for making the medium accessible to many people who had previously ignored it. So I'm weary in general of outright dismissals of his work (he is not a Thomas Kinkaide. Yikes). I'm also weary of people trying to deify him. He is not the greatest landscape photographer of all time. He wasn't even the greatest of his own time. This is an opinion he shared, for whatever it's worth. He admitted he was not in the same league as his friend Edward Weston, for example.

Today I think Ansel is interesting historically in a couple of ways. He offers a look at how we looked at landscape in America in the first half of the 20th century, and he stands as one of the main pillars of influence for the next two (at least) generations of photographers who worked with landscape, at least in the U.S.. Even photographers who reacted against him—and there were many—were influenced by him. In a negative but significant way their work is an example of Ansel's reach.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well said Paul.

[BrianShaw]

Well said Paul.

Seconded!

[Merg Ross]

Well said Paul.

I agree, thanks for the insightful comments.

[John Kasaian]

I agree, thanks for the insightful comments.
I agree as well, but for all the insight Szarkowski provides, for me one unexplored phenomenom is Ansel made some incredibly meaningful images---meaningful enough that people cut up old calenders and frame the Adams print-oids or just thumb tack 'em (or posters of Adams prints) to the walls of college dorms, auto repair shops and even the White House. The wilderness he was able to capture is like some kind of hidden stream linking people to the beauty of a wilderness held in some sort of common memory of an ancient past.
To see an Adam's print tron from some magazine and taped above the desk in an X-ray lab deep in the bowels of some linoleumed giant medical center smelling of disinfectant is to feel a carpet of pine needles underfoot and smell the pinyon & cedar in one's memory.

[ImSoNegative]

I do enjoy watching some of the AA video's on youtube

[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]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/fishing.gif

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!

[Jim Andrada]

There was an exhibit a couple of years back in Santa Fe that also hung several AA prints of the same negatives together and you're right on - they were very different indeed.

I had the distinct pleasure of taking St Ansel's Yosemite workshop in the early 70's. What struck me the most was not his photography itself but his energy and interest in photography and people interested in same. Brett Weston also came for a day and much as I like Ansel's work I felt more drawn to Weston's - still have three of his prints hanging in my house, and still like them just as much.

One aside re AA's universal appeal - I was walking down a back street in Tokyo near where I lived at the time and happened to look up at the back of a building and was surprised to see his famous "Fuzzy concept" quote painted there - why it was there I have no idea but it was clearly attributed to him.

[Steven Scanner]

I haven't replied earlier, because I don't know what f90's intentions were. With all due respect, I still don't know. Is he a troll, is he writing a school paper, is he trying to make a point, does he have some new technique?
Does it matter? Not really. I'm fairly new on this forum and I'm trying to find my place here. One way is to "listen" and ask polite questions. Another way is to make a bold statement and wait for reactions. Many ways and variatons are in bitween these two.
12 pages later, I've learned a lot about some peoples personality and their views on art. I must admit, I haven't heared of AA before the start of this thread. Learning more of him is, what I concider, a good thing.
@f90, I've just read your last post and I think I know what you are going for. A 3d representation on a 2d surface is warped. Kind of like a flat map of the world versus a real globe. In a photograph, around the edges, the image is warped. Looking at nature, an eye has got a light sensitive surface that is spherical. A "perfect" camera should mimic that surface. This would mean a spherical film, a new way to go from negative to positive, a spherical photograph. Kind of like one of those painted panorama's. Is that what you are saying, f90?

p.s. on the name calling. I think in English they say:"I'm rubber, your glue"

[Steve Smith]

p.s. on the name calling. I think in English they say:"I'm rubber, your glue"

I have never heard of that one... but if I had, it would be you're, not your.


Steve.

[Steve Smith]

To me this art of ours seems to be governed by science moreso than any other.

Photography is very much science and craft. It is not art in itself but art can be produced using the medium of photography, just as art can be produced using the medium of painting, sculpture, music, etc.


Steve.

[Steven Scanner]

I have never heard of that one... but if I had, it would be you're, not your.


Steve.

"I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
It's a children come back line for insults. And yeah, you're, not your. I'll remember that next time you write something in Dutch and you have to be corrected. ;)

[Steve Smith]

I'll remember that next time you write something in Dutch and you have to be corrected. ;)

If I was writing in Dutch and got it wrong, I would appreciate the correction. All of my friends who have English as a second language (and one with it as a third language) have stated that they appreciate being corrected rather than to continue doing it wrong.


Steve.

[E. von Hoegh]

If I was writing in Dutch and got it wrong, I would appreciate the correction. All of my friends who have English as a second language (and one with it as a third language) have stated that they appreciate being corrected rather than to continue doing it wrong.


Steve.

I have English (well, the American version) as a first language. I still appreciate corrections. :)

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Lenses are incorrect? Not quite. The flaw is in projecting a 3d subject onto a 2d flat surface, it can't be done without introducing distortion. Just look at the various cartographic projections, and if you would like an amusing little excersise, try plotting a great circle route from Adelaide to New York City on any flat map. Long lenses are not better; they merely show less of the inevitable distortion. I'd love to hear about your "working solution".

Which rules were taken from painting? Perspective? Not quite. Our lenses, imperfect as they are, do that automatically. Composition? A pleasing composition does not rely upon the medium.

Knowledge of mind? We have only our minds with which to know our minds, a very flawed situation.

[Steven Scanner]

Hang on, we're not threadjacking this thread are we
Steve Smith and E. von Hoegh? :)

Ah, I see you've brought it back on topic. But what about my theory? Dome shaped film, dome shaped photograph?

A bit more back to topic. Why do most artists use square or rectangular frames? Why not circular or oval frames? That's what we actually see with our eyes.

[Thad Gerheim]

[QUOTE=Steven Scanner;846646]
@f90, I've just read your last post and I think I know what you are going for. A 3d representation on a 2d surface is warped. Kind of like a flat map of the world versus a real globe. In a photograph, around the edges, the image is warped. Looking at nature, an eye has got a light sensitive surface that is spherical. A "perfect" camera should mimic that surface. This would mean a spherical film, a new way to go from negative to positive, a spherical photograph. Kind of like one of those painted panorama's. Is that what you are saying, f90?

I believe, one hundred years ago, some panorama cameras did have a lense that rotated around a cylinder that held the film. I have scanned some of these photos that were 34 inches long and reprinted them up to 60 inches long. I didn't notice any unusual perspective, but was really impressed on the quality and sharpness of the silver print.

[rdenney]

Ah, I see you've brought it back on topic. But what about my theory? Dome shaped film, dome shaped photograph?

It's called a fisheye lens. That provides a spherical projection on flat film. (Spherically curved film being a bit of a mechanical challenge.)

You can get a cylindrical projection using a swing-lens panoramic camera (here, the film is curved, but the lens is rectilinear).

Or, you can use rectilinear projection.

None is more "correct" than the other. Each has their application. Incidentally, all the lenses Adams used were rectilinear.

I have used full-frame fisheye lenses extensively, and I really enjoy how they keep round things round. But if you want something straight kept straight, it has to go through the center of the frame.

Here's the problem when trying to relate this to our spherical retinas, however. We perceive images after they go through post-processing. Even when I close an eye and lose stereoscopic vision (which, by the way, has been done in photography, but not by Adams), straight lines in the periphery of my field of vision still seem straight. The reason they do is that my brain automatically provides a rectilinear projection filter for those items that are rectilinear. But it also provides a spherical filter for those items that are spherical.

We can create tension in an image by making straight lines curved when we would normally perceive them as straight, or round objects distorted when we normally perceive them as round. That tension seems to me to have as much potential artistic validity as seeking to relieve that tension. But one reason I have used fisheye lenses is to prevent the stretched look in the corners that comes with rectilinear lenses, when the items in the corners have organic, non-rectilinear shapes. All of this is highly dependent on the subject, of course. A fisheye lens for a horizontal view of trees would create plenty of that what I would call visual dissonance (which might suit my artistic purposes, or not). But if you point the camera straight up, tall trees still look fine because their lines cross through the center and they therefore stay straight. And on and on.

I'll include one image, linked only because it is small format.

Mt. St. Helens, fisheye lens. (http://www.rickdenney.com/images/st-helens-coldwater-ridge-l.jpg)

Note that it does not look like a fisheye image--all the logs that are straight point through the center of the frame. The barrel distortion actually works with the shape of the mountain.

I could have made many rectilinear images at this location that would have pleased me.

Rick "pretty sure there is no Grand Unified Theory in the topic of which projection relieves 'visual dissonance', whatever that is defined to be" Denney

[goamules]

I don't know if anyone after Ansel Adams shot great landscapes. But some people did before.

1865, Carleton Watkins

http://www-tc.pbs.org/nationalparks/media/photos/01000/S1066-lg.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Carleton_Watkins%2C_Half_Dome%2C_Yosemite_Valley%2C_California%2C_ca._1865.jpg/757px-Carleton_Watkins%2C_Half_Dome%2C_Yosemite_Valley%2C_California%2C_ca._1865.jpg

[SamReeves]

I don't know if anyone after Ansel Adams shot great landscapes. But some people did before.

1865, Carleton Watkins

http://www-tc.pbs.org/nationalparks/media/photos/01000/S1066-lg.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Carleton_Watkins%2C_Half_Dome%2C_Yosemite_Valley%2C_California%2C_ca._1865.jpg/757px-Carleton_Watkins%2C_Half_Dome%2C_Yosemite_Valley%2C_California%2C_ca._1865.jpg

Yup.

I think AJ Russell, O' Sullivan were there too before Ansel??

[Vaughn]

I don't know if anyone after Ansel Adams shot great landscapes. But some people did before.


My old photo instructor introduced me one time as " the Ansel Adams of Humboldt County". It sort of bugged me as I thought I was the Vaughn of Humboldt County. I was glad I had not seen any of AA's work until I had started to form my own way of seeing the landscape.

If any photographer/image influenced me during my pre-photo years, it was Carleton Watkins. I grew up with two of his mammoth plate images on the walls...one being this one:

[tgtaylor]

Just because a photographer visits a location and comes away with images taken with the same perspective/location of an earlier photographer doesn't mean that the later photographer was influenced by the earlier. For example I have made several images that I later found AA made the same images from the same location with the same perspective. Further, in the above images by Watkins and AA note the different photographic syntaxes employed. Both are valid.

Thomas

[paulr]

I don't know if anyone after Ansel Adams shot great landscapes. But some people did before.

Many did, before, after, and during.

If the OP is really asking why no one in the history of the universe was as great as Ansel, then I'd suggest he turn the question around so that it makes sense: ask himself why he happens to like this one artist so much? Because the question is ultimately about taste, and no one else can answer it for him.

We can offer our own tastes (which are, not surprisingly, different from his and from each other's) or a sense of the collected opinions of critics and historians (which likewise differ from his and from each other's).

On the subject of lenses being "imperfect," it would be more accurate to say that perception is imperfect, and that each form of perception (human, insect, photo-mechanical, paint-on-canvas, etc.) is imperfect in its own unique way. Each mediates the incoming data of the world, and does so differently.

To make a perceiving or recording system perfect, we would first have to define "perfect." I can promise this would open up an epistemological and phenomenological can of worms. Which is to say, people would not easily agree on the definition.

[Kevin Crisp]

Sometimes when you troll you can catch a lot of fish.

[E. von Hoegh]

Sometimes when you troll you can catch a lot of fish.
And occasionally a boot.;)

[Brian C. Miller]

Incidentally, all the lenses Adams used were rectilinear.

Actually, there's a photo in The Camera from a Pentax 6x7 35mm lens. Adams seemed to like the lens and its perspective. (The images are probably in the 97% of his unprinted/unpublished work. Makes me wonder what else is in there, as he also liked 35mm.)


Even when I close an eye and lose stereoscopic vision (which, by the way, has been done in photography, but not by Adams), straight lines in the periphery of my field of vision still seem straight.

I'm confused. It seems as though you are saying that Adams didn't close one eye in photography. :confused:

[rdenney]

I'm confused. It seems as though you are saying that Adams didn't close one eye in photography. :confused:

You didn't see that in the FilmAmerica bio? He talked extensively about closing an eye to avoid the distortion caused by stereoscopic vision, as part of his scientific formula for eliminating visual dissonance.:cool:

Okay, so I meant that photography has done the stereoscopic thing, but Adams didn't make any images with a stereo camera. Now, you'll point out an example where he did.:D

Rick "whose perception is imperfect" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Kinda like asking why vanilla ice cream is the best when you've never tasted any other flavor.

[Drew Wiley]

I wasn't implying vanilla is a secondary flavor. Just that one needs exposure to variety to form an opinion - and my opinion is that I like a lot of different flavors,
and in fact prefer to make my own ice cream. "Best" is a pretty silly way to phrase
any of this, however, as is the notion that landscape photography is somehow static
or passe. I did find the comparison to Kincade to be severly underinformed. Kincade is a convicted con artist, but otherwise comparable to a photographer like Peter Lik.
Zero visual talent, tons of marketing savvy. I never knew AA personally. I did share
a public retrospective with a major collection of his work right after his death, and got to spend some quality time with a number of rare prints not seen for many years, specifically the largest collection of very large prints of his ever assembled.
In large scale, they weren't tack sharp like many of us could achieve today. Not the
stereotypical f/64 look. But that just made one appreciate his sheer poetic skill. All
kinds of people can copy his nominal style or technical tricks. Most of us know way
more tricks than he ever did, and have better films and papers. And he no doubt had
his share of bellyflop images, just like all of us. But a calendar photographer he was
not. He felt what he saw, intensely.

[Steven Scanner]

Thank you for the information, rdenney. I must admit I had to Wikipedia a couple of words, but I understand what you were saying.

[cosmicexplosion]

Monet was once radical, now passe,

once his exhibition was shut down by police for having a nude painting in it!

shock

how passe,

the question is, how often do you stand in awe and reverence at the mystery of nature?

will nature ever be passe?

if they pave paradise and put up a parking lot then sure it will,

how many people here have done any thing to help mother nature survive her attackers?

take photos? i dont think so.

i have been jailed for stopping our beautiful old growth forests get turned into toilet paper. so others may enjoy.

are all the elements that make up your life style causing avoidable burden on people or planet?

i like ansell coz he walked his talk.

[Thad Gerheim]

Monet was once radical, now passe,

once his exhibition was shut down by police for having a nude painting in it!

shock

how passe,

the question is, how often do you stand in awe and reverence at the mystery of nature?

will nature ever be passe?

if they pave paradise and put up a parking lot then sure it will,

how many people here have done any thing to help mother nature survive her attackers?

take photos? i dont think so.

i have been jailed for stopping our beautiful old growth forests get turned into toilet paper. so others may enjoy.

are all the elements that make up your life style causing avoidable burden on people or planet?

i like ansell coz he walked his talk.

Good post cosmic!
Ansel accomplished extraordinary feats to serve society and not himself, unlike a few well marketed photographers today.

Why has calendar art become such a derogatory term? I believe some people are ignorant of nature, can't see the forest for the trees, therefore its of no human interest or intelligence since there's nothing manmade in it.

As for making a difference, I did. My photography had nothing to do with it and it may be small scale, but every bit helps. I was a founding member of a ski club that was able to get quite a bit of land set aside, in the Sawtooth Valley in Idaho, for non-motorized recreation and wintering wildlife. http://sawtoothskiclub.com/ Check the history. Not bad for some lowly ski bums.

[Drew Wiley]

I personally despise "calendar" photography because so much of it merely caters to
stereotypes of natural beauty rather than the real thing. Fauxtoshop run amuk with
phony color saturation only makes this problem worse than ever (I have no problem with PS as a tool per se, just with its adolescent abuse). So instead of helping preserve the beauty of the natural world as it really exists, fauxtography serves to substitute a lowest common denominator of make-believe beauty - why preserve
anything if you can just create it on your computer screen at will like a Hollywood
production? AA did not behave like this. He obviously did a fair amount of contrast
control etc to interpret the way he saw natural light, but it was light indeed he saw.
If you ever spent as much time in the Sierra as I have, you can start appreciating his
sensitivity to it. And his work was integral to preserving Kings Canyon as a Natl
Park (perhaps my favorite park of all of them) and several other places. So he has a
significant place in history for more than just esthetic reasons. He was an important
pioneer in this sense. A number of brilliant photographers worked in Yosemite Valley
long before him, and I personally regard Watkins as an artistic superior; but again,
appreciate both flavors, and Muybridge especially too (another historically notable
guy, for a couple other reasons).

[BrianShaw]

I personally despise "calendar" photography because so much of it merely caters to stereotypes of natural beauty rather than the real thing.

I agree... but whether we like it or not that stuff sells like crazy and possibly sells because lots of people actually like it, just like Kincade's art.

[paulr]

I agree... but whether we like it or not that stuff sells like crazy and possibly sells because lots of people actually like it, just like Kincade's art.

I hope we were making a distinction between quality and popularity.

To risk stating what most people here probably already believe, "best" in any subjective endeavor is a dubious and usually reductive judgment, but unless you subscribe to radical populism, it's not going to be measured by popularity.

Some people will indeed use numbers to suggest that Kinkaid is a better / more important painter than Richter, that Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Goddard, that Christina Aguillera is a better musician than ... you get the idea. I just get sad when I hear that kind of argument. I don't like where it points, and I don't like the way the counter-argument makes me feel like a snob. I just wish the really interesting, challenging, mighty stuff could count on the audience it deserves.

[rdenney]

...audience it deserves.

It gets the audience it deserves, perhaps. It just may be a really small audience.

Rick "the more the power is concentrated, the smaller the target it hits" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

You have to sell a helluva lot of calenders to make a serious profit, and far more postcards, esp since not as many folks mail messages as they once did. And although
Kincade still apparently has a fair amt of personal wealth, his business empire has collapsed and left behind some pretty disgrunted people, to put it mildly. Guess he wins
if avoding actual prison time and merely looking at wave after wave of lawsuits for fraud is what you account as success in life. I take and print photographs for personal
pleasure, and hopefully can get some significant supplemental retirement income from it. But I'd rather do honest work at anything else rather than take photographs just
because they might sell to a sufficient number of dingbats. Might as well set up another raunchy roachy pizza parlor chain as do that. Was in an interesting gallery in
Hawaii a few days ago, but they were making plans to relocate because Peter Lik had
bought (not leased) the property right out from under them to expand from next door.
Three salesmen were in there, and real pros who knew how to take a punch. I offered
to take a Lik print if they would refund me the full purchase price plus five thousand
dollars, and allow me to hide it behind a curtain. They took it with really good humor.
Real pros. But the Fautographs were far worse than I remember them even in Vegas.
Backlit transparencies on big lightboxes that looked like very very cheap postcard scenes with Fautoshop absolutely run amuk. But obviously they were doing quite well
as a gallery, so there must be some people out there with far more money than taste.
Disgusting. But it's their money and their right to spend it, so what can I say.

[paulr]

It gets the audience it deserves, perhaps. It just may be a really small audience.

Rick "the more the power is concentrated, the smaller the target it hits" Denney

You picked up on the hopefulness built into that statement about "the audience it deserves."

I suppose I think that in general, people deserve better art than what they've been taught to ask for. But that's a whole other can of worms.

[BrianShaw]

I hope we were making a distinction between quality and popularity.

That is a valid distinction. I'm mostly addressing popularity. I know that isn't the best metric for "best" but I think it is a valid measure for comparison purposes. I'm glad you verbalized that distinction... it is an important distinction but I'm not convinced that those two metrics are truly orthogonal.

[BrianShaw]

Might as well set up another raunchy roachy pizza parlor chain as do that.

You're my kind of guy, Drew... a like-minded individual. I've been thinking of that and would like to have a pipe organ in the pizzaria also. There once were two in the Bay area and I think they both closed. Want to go into business together? :D