Ansel Adams prints WOW!!!!

[ignatiusjk]

I have always been a HUGE fan of Ansel Adams but I just recently was looking at a book with his photos (700 AA photos) and was just blown away at the clarity,sharpness, and his UNBELIEVABLE resolution in his prints. Some of his prints were so sharp you could clearly see minute detail in a mountian a mile away. The grain free print has always seem to escape me, my prints are sharp but I could never seem to get that kind of resolution. I can't imagine his prints could be any sharper using the best scanner around,his prints were that sharp. I was amazed and excited at the same time.

[Maretzo]

I have a smaller version of your book (400 AA photos)
But I agree that even during our digital time, their quality is difficult to beat.

[Bill_1856]

My AA prints aren't all that sharp, considering that they were made in 8x10 and only required 2X blowup to 16x20. Moonrise, in particular, was made with the 19" element of an uncoated Cooke covertible lens, not exactly state-of-the-art even then.

[jasonjoo]

I've always thought the images in his books were wonderful, but when I actually went to see his originally printed work in a museum, my knees began to buckle!

[Deane Johnson]

I've always thought the images in his books were wonderful, but when I actually went to see his originally printed work in a museum, my knees began to buckle!

That describes my reactions exactly.

[redrockcoulee]

In 1998 I stopped at Mono Lake when they were not yet open to the public but was allowed, by I think his grand daughter, to wander the empty restaurant to look at Adam's prints. It was an experience to remember, simply wonderful. Since that have seen several prints of his at Yosemite and Carmel but there is nothing like the first time seeing his images, large and in person. In Carmel last summer a similar experience with Weston's work as well and to a lesser extent Kenna's. There is no replacement to seeing the work of the Masters in person.

[Ed Richards]

I agree that the prints are wonderful in person, but what struck me was that they are not really that sharp, when you get close to them. (I was at a party where the host had several classic AA prints on the walls, so I could really get close and look, since no one else had a clue as to why I liked them better than the host's friend's not very good photos that were also displayed.)

What they do have is brilliant use of contrast and tone, which heightens the illusion of sharpness. One take away lesson was to not be afraid of pure blacks - AA was happy to let areas go black when they were not essential to the image, thus making the adjacent areas look stronger.

I think about these prints every time we have a thread about how a consumer scan of a 4x5 cannot make a good 16x20 print - it can do as well as anything I have seen in that size by AA, what we lack is not resolution and tonality in our image, but vision in taking and printing it.

[Frank Bagbey]

University of Missouri St. Louis once put on a AA show that was comprised of personally owned AA prints from the St. Louis area. The first time I saw hugh enlargements of AAs hanging, I felt weak and giddy and could not believe the quality I was seeing. The tonal qualities were so impressive I was blown away and had to sit down to admire them. Wow is all I can say. The traveling AA shows I have seen have not been nearly as impressive as those large prints hanging at UMSL on that particular day. What was more than unusual, there were no guards, no attendents, nobody around that day. I just located the exhibit and entered the room, admired the hangings, and eventually left. Not a soul was around. Hope none of them walked that day!

[Merg Ross]

I agree with much of what Ed Richards has stated. There is no doubt that Ansel was a masterful printer, and much of his reputation rests on that great skill. His sense of composition is, of course, another important ingredient. However, with the exception of his 8x10 contact prints, a great deal of his work is not what I would consider to be sharp. Impressive yes, sharp no. But does sharpness really matter? If the viewer stands back a few feet from a 20x24, the overall impression is grand.

I was just looking at an 8x10 contact print of "Clearing Storm, 1944" and it is magnificent in its sharpness, tonality and impact. Ansel at his best. Not to be compared to his 4x5 work with the Dallmeyer Adon.

[David Lindquist]

My AA prints aren't all that sharp, considering that they were made in 8x10 and only required 2X blowup to 16x20. Moonrise, in particular, was made with the 19" element of an uncoated Cooke covertible lens, not exactly state-of-the-art even then.

Just curious, what do you consider to have been state of the art then for a 19 inch lens on an 8X10 camera, circa Fall 1941?
David