Ansel Adams and other great printers

[Bill Burk]

Well, Hendrix did often play a Flying V with humbuckers, especially later in his career. So we know about that. Jimi also endorsed the Sunn Orion, which was a solid state amp. So we know about that as well. I'm betting that with his love for effects, unique tones, and technology, he probably would have embraced digital amps and effects as well.

Most professional artists don't really care as much about the tools as the product. Amateurs are the ones who obsess over gear. Pros tend to focus more on the quality of their output, however it's accomplished. In fact, I know several professional musicians, and they all pretty much play whatever gear they're paid to play (endorsement deals). Sure, they have personal preferences, but they're no where near as hung up on gear as most hobbyists.

But I hope Jimi Hendrix would have had the good sense to skip drum machines.

 

[Rlibersky]

William Mortensen would have loved digital. Since he was willing to do whatever it takes to get the final result, including scratching his negatives with a razor.

 

[Vaughn]

William Mortensen would have loved digital. Since he was willing to do whatever it takes to get the final result, including scratching his negatives with a razor.

Ahhh...if he was born later we'd have a PhotoShop Mortensen Pubic Hair Removal Tool!

 

[CMoore]

Ahhh...if he was born later we'd have a PhotoShop Mortensen Pubic Hair Removal Tool!

I REALLY appreciate the Knowledge/Experience that many of our members seem to have.

I am not young, i am 60, but i am just getting into photography. I simply do not have the time to gain the Wisdom/Humor that you Guys/Gals have.
Thank You

 

[Vaughn]

I think his motto was, "No pubes, no porn."

Which is funny -- I did a few nudes in the mid-80s (as in a 5 or 6), and as far as my father (born 1922) was concerned, as long as there were no pubes showing he was fine with them.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Do you think they would have preferred Light room over darkroom?

I think I prefer the slower and meditative approach of the Darkroom. I once spent an evening with Brett Weston, and he said that he really looked forward to the time spent in the darkroom. It gives you time to think, contemplate the Final print.

 

[CMoore]

I think I prefer the slower and meditative approach of the Darkroom. I once spent an evening with Brett Weston, and he said that he really looked forward to the time spent in the darkroom. It gives you time to think, contemplate the Final print.

For me, the Darkroom is like Narcotics.
It puts you in a special, quiet, Dark Place.
There is NO other drug that can take you there.

Meditative.?
I would say Mr Weston drove that nail squarely from the head.

 

[Russ - SVP]

For me, the Darkroom is like Narcotics.
It puts you in a special, quiet, Dark Place.
There is NO other drug that can take you there.

Meditative.?
I would say Mr Weston drove that nail squarely from the head.

Had a great evening with Brett. He also enjoyed the Guinness that I brought along.

 

[CMoore]

Had a great evening with Brett. He also enjoyed the Guinness that I brought along.

Do you know Will Agar.?

 

[Bill Burk]

Had a great evening with Brett. He also enjoyed the Guinness that I brought along.

Cara couldn’t stop talking about grandkids. I was charmed for the chance to meet and talk, but we didn’t talk shop.

 

[cowanw]

The answer is obvious to anyone who has actually read his comments:
1. "I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them" (as above) He would use the technology he felt would be appropriate to his vision.
2. He would be able to more easily print his pictures. He often regretted time in the darkroom as opposed to being out making photographs, but not entirely as the "print is the performance". Also, he did a major amount of his printing when health problems would not permit much else (he was spending at least half-days in the darkroom less than two weeks after his pacemaker implantation. That's not a minor thing.)
3. He would not pump out reams of prints. He was completely aware of the idea of limiting volume to increase unit price. If DR prints sold for more, he'd probably do that. And remember also, he did catalog shoots till he could sell the "art" for enough, and had the kids out of school...

He also was quoted as saying "Digital prints had no soul." Although that was early on and not often requoted.

 

[jtk]

He also was quoted as saying "Digital prints had no soul." Although that was early on and not often requoted.

Where was that quoted, and by whom?

Do you suppose the beautiful digitally scanned reproductions of Ansel's work in books he approved "had no soul?" That's all most have seen of his work, after all.

 

[Vaughn]

That is one of the qualities of inkjet prints -- copies are or can be so close to identical -- and what is in the book is damn close to what is on the wall. That can be good and bad.

Images/prints have no soul...the question is can they transmit the quality of the artist's soul? That is up to the quality of the artist...not the medium.

 

[MattKing]

Images/prints have no soul

I don't know Vaughn, even if they don't have a "soul", I swear that I have struggled with some difficult ones that must be possessed!

 

[cowanw]

Where was that quoted, and by whom?

Do you suppose the beautiful digitally scanned reproductions of Ansel's work in books he approved "had no soul?" That's all most have seen of his work, after all.

In Popular Photography I believe. And No I don't suppose anything, although I am not sure that "the beautiful digitally scanned reproductions of Ansel's work in books" were pre 1984. My pre 1984 books are a bit dated looking by today's standards.

 

[Vaughn]

I don't know Vaughn, even if they don't have a "soul", I swear that I have struggled with some difficult ones that must be possessed!

Soul-less assholes...I have met many. I can tell which ones they are -- their paper envelopes are turning brown from the fires of hell...

 

[jtk]

That is one of the qualities of inkjet prints -- copies are or can be so close to identical -- and what is in the book is damn close to what is on the wall. That can be good and bad.

Images/prints have no soul...the question is can they transmit the quality of the artist's soul? That is up to the quality of the artist...not the medium.

Yes, of course.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Reproductions in books of Adams' work is what inspired me to put down my pencils and brushes, and pick up a camera.. I never saw an original print (Clearing Winter Storm) until a couple of decades after I got into photography.

 

[Vaughn]

Reproductions in books of Adams' work is what inspired me to put down my pencils and brushes, and pick up a camera.. I never saw an original print (Clearing Winter Storm) until a couple of decades after I got into photography.

I could not afford the books and it was a long while before I found myself in a Carmel gallery staring at a print of AA's Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain.

It is curious...being in front of an original piece of art seems to carry some weight in the experience. If the image is strong enough it will certainly carry through in the copies. A perfectly recorded and playback of a music performance will carry the strength of the original music and performance, but is quite different than experiencing the live performance. But what happens when the copies are identical to the piece of art in construction and process in which it was made (inkjet, 3-D printing, etc)? Photography has always had this question asked of it, though I have to admit I am not too worried about the answer.

But a book of someones work can be and should be a work of art itself -- I have two close friends who publish and edit books and have won gold medals, etc. A case where the reproduction of someone's art becomes its own piece of art...not to distract from the original work, but to take it to another level.

 

[jtk]

I am glad you converse directly with Ansel on a daily basis. He did use Polaroid for testing and color film. He expressed in his books on his color work that he did not like that color was less tolerant of manipulation and could "go out" easily. Therefore he still preferred black & white. Since you talk to him on a regular basis, please capture your conversations on your smart phone and post them here. We look forward to those conversations.

Sirius, responding to your Presidential "humor ": I 've spoken exactly twice with Ansel, once by phone (he was placing an order) and once while I helped him load big bags of hypo into his International Harvester "Travel All."

He paid for my labor by autographing his very best book "Artificial Light Photography". The only AA book I own...I think I stole it. A few years earlier I spent an hour or two with my girlfriend and stacks of his prints at Sierra Club HQ in San Francisco ...a week later, I saw a bunch of Edward Weston prints at what was then San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art. Ansel's enlargements were of course lovely, but no match for Weston's contacts.

 

[138S]

That is one of the qualities of inkjet prints -- copies are or can be so close to identical -- and what is in the book is damn close to what is on the wall. That can be good and bad.

Images/prints have no soul...the question is can they transmit the quality of the artist's soul? That is up to the quality of the artist...not the medium.

Vaughn, let me cast a vote for the traditional printing: AA made some 1300 Moonrises, in each we see the artisit's hand, also the crafting of that print evolved for decades... Sure that we may agree that this is an strong point favouring hand crafting.



Well, a hand made Monrise is not exactly cheap while an inkjet of it has the same value than paper and ink cost, reprography is also nice if one sells many without much effort.

Anyway darkroom prints can also be made close to identical, if image most of manipulation is done with masking... ok, not the regular case.

Of course we also have a 3rd way, printing with a Lambda/Lightjet, this can also be done on FB, still not common in FB because not every lab knows how to do it...

Hmmm... that carbon book Jim made... this is what it has true value... pure authenticity

now we have "digital carbon" and "optic carbon" !

 

[Vaughn]

My main point was that with inkjet printing the 'reproductions' are exactly the same thing as the 'original', unless the person decides to go with a different (cheaper) paper and ink set with to print the 'reproductions'.

Jim's book is quite the labor of love!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Anyway darkroom prints can also be made close to identical, if image most of manipulation is done with masking... ok, not the regular case.

I think you'd be shocked at how consistent a reasonably competent printer using conventional methods would be.

Of course we also have a 3rd way, printing with a Lambda/Lightjet, this can also be done on FB, still not common in FB because not every lab knows how to do it...

And how is this different from inkjet in terms of automatic reproduction? BTDT and seen the differences with optical prints. A Rodagon G is better still.

'Authenticity' is overvalued, especially when the composer was not a great/ emotionally monotone performer of their own work.

 

[138S]

'Authenticity' is overvalued, especially when the composer was not a great/ emotionally monotone performer of their own work.

Well, authenticity ca be both overvalued or overlooked. It won't make an art better, but when authenticity is combined with a great work then it shines. I have a thought, Sally Mann.

And how is this different from inkjet in terms of automatic reproduction? BTDT and seen the differences with optical prints. A Rodagon G is better still.

Me also BTDT, yes, it's also a kind or reprography. A Rodagon G is better but also a "no letter" Rodagon is also better. Probably a Rodagon G is better than regular in wide open situation. A friend (really skilled and experimented) has a G 300 and he says that he finds notdifference in murals when lenses stopped as usually, . Me, what I checked is that the no "letter" 210 outresolves the information in the negative by a wide margin.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Well, authenticity ca be both overvalued or overlooked. It won't make an art better, but when authenticity is combined with a great work then it shines. I have a thought, Sally Mann.

I was talking about the fetishism that often surrounds prints made by an artist themselves, especially if they are not necessarily the most expressive of the artist's original intent.

Me also BTDT, yes, it's also a kind or reprography. A Rodagon G is better but also a "no letter" Rodagon is also better. Probably a Rodagon G is better than regular in wide open situation. A friend (really skilled and experimented) has a G 300 and he says that he finds notdifference in murals when lenses stopped as usually, . Me, what I checked is that the no "letter" 210 outresolves the information in the negative by a wide margin.

You're not going to see a difference with a 210 or a 300 Rodagon-G unless you are doing huge multi-strip enlargements - ie 8x or greater off 5x7 or 8x10. Even in the past that was incredibly rare in a fine art context - it was far more often done in a graphic arts situation for commercial or advertising purposes. You will see a difference with a 105 or 50 from 120 or 135 if you make big enlargements - in 4x5, there are regular lenses that go to 15x which are more readily available, if not necessarily cheaper than the Rodagon-G 150mm. Resolution of high contrast 'information' is one thing, contrast transfer and the perceived sharpness of the grain etc matter much more so - especially once you go to 20x and more - and you won't be able to see that until you print, unless you have a proper optical test bench.