Ansel Adams - Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn
-
- Thread starter Sirius Glass
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Aviphot 4x5, Techpan 120, 2x3 2422 films
- Started by MCB18
-
Want to Buy Voigtlander Perkeo w/ Color Skopar
- Started by aconbere
-
Sold Expired Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 - 120
- Started by Adam W
-
For Sale FS: 3x4 Pacemaker Speed Graphic Camera with 4x5 Cambo Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold Black Nikon fm2n
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
His work was the deciding factor which made me want to explore photography more deeply (I come from a traditional art background). I couldn't believe that one could be that expressive with a camera. That opened the door to other creative people, such as Weston, Minor White, Kertesz, Brandt, to name a few.
If you're looking for diversity of opinions, here it comes:
Foliage never looks good in B&W, sorry Ansel. To me this looks like noise. Nothing is separated and it takes a while to notice if you're holding it upside down. This photo is a perfect example of a mediocre work elevated by a personal brand of its maker.
Foliage never looks good in B&W, sorry Ansel. To me this looks like noise. Nothing is separated and it takes a while to notice if you're holding it upside down. This photo is a perfect example of a mediocre work elevated by a personal brand of its maker.
MattKing
Moderator
No disagreement here. The photo you shared is way better. It doesn't feature foliage, it has recognizable shapes and a certain mood associated with them. But pointing a camera into a flat wall of leaves produces nothing but noise, even the presence of water+rock didn't save the original photo.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
Diversity of opinion is great but totally disagree with your remark that foliage never looks good in black and white.
MattKing
Moderator
I have a feeling you aren't as "print" oriented as I am.
In a good print, the referenced Ansel Adams image is much more likely to draw one in - those fine details are subtle nuances that compel, rather than distract.
When I see an image on a screen, I tend to translate it (in my mind's eye) into print form.
I sense that you are more likely to see it as an image on a computer screen.
In a good print, the referenced Ansel Adams image is much more likely to draw one in - those fine details are subtle nuances that compel, rather than distract.
When I see an image on a screen, I tend to translate it (in my mind's eye) into print form.
I sense that you are more likely to see it as an image on a computer screen.
True! Waiting for C19 to be over to stop by Adrian's darkroom...
Deleted member 88956
We're obviously seeing different things. This shot is one of the best images AA ever made, in my opinion of course. Where you see "noise" I see intricate detail.
To add, most images of AA that "everybody knows" have become such an every day laundry, their aesthetic value is no longer what it once was. Like everything else multiplied endless times in all sorts of formats and type of visual delivery, once the glass is full it can then only overflow. Those who are knew to AA's work have a different experience seeing them, because many are indeed striking.
While contribution of AA to development of photography is unquestionable, without doubt the man was patinate, giving, carrying, and gave his life to an important cause. But one really needs to see the album of his 400 photographs. I wish the book was never published. It took away the cherished by most charm of his best known images. When one sees the sameness over and over again, you start to think: was Fred Picker really such a bad photographer? And the latter I'm saying with a heavy heart as FP positively influenced many, especially in the darkroom.
John Sexton is a far better choice to follow, if one is looking of inspiration while still seeking Ansel Adams' link running in the background.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Part of the problem with this image (as we're seeing it here) is that the digital representation is way over-sharpened so it looks crunchy rather than rich in detail. That said, it is a rather dimensionally flat image - almost everything in the scene is at the same depth from the camera, which doesn't help.
The only time I appreciated his effort was in local library by viewing of the book published under regulations of his foundation. It was very high quality book which shows me how good quality of negatives, prints were originally. To me it is unsurpassed by any format, media.
But content never impressed me. Would it be close up, landscapes or portraits.
I like Matt's picture more than in OP.
.
But content never impressed me. Would it be close up, landscapes or portraits.
I like Matt's picture more than in OP.
.- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,014
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Some of you need to look at actual prints instead of web images or so-so book reproductions. There were a great many prints made for commercial assignments, which still aren't worth much. And there were a great many small prints of his most popular scenic images produced by assistants for sake of affordable tourist sales. Nowadays, other means of reproduction are primarily used for that kind of market. But within the scope of his personal work, quite a number of his very finest large format prints have rarely been reproduced or exhibited. If you had a more realistic grasp of the sheer scope of his work, there was nothing routine about any of it. I can think of better printmakers, but he was certainly competent in communicating the look he personally wanted for any particular image.
But what could be said in a negative way about some lack of life in autumn black and white prints of his own, could be equally nonsensical about all kinds of comparable problems involving contrast filters. You need to actual prints. That would change your mind fast. Autumn can be magnificent in black and white.
I'm guilty of the same kinds of preconceptions. I always questioned what the big deal was with Rembrandt as a painter based on what I saw in various art history books, some of them very well printed. But then when I stood smack in front of his original self portrait in the Natl Gallery, I was almost floored. Then I finally got it. The buttons on his shirt weren't yellow - they actually looked like glittering gold. The impasto was so subtle over that entire painting you started thinking genius rather than just one more skilled Dutch painter.
But what could be said in a negative way about some lack of life in autumn black and white prints of his own, could be equally nonsensical about all kinds of comparable problems involving contrast filters. You need to actual prints. That would change your mind fast. Autumn can be magnificent in black and white.
I'm guilty of the same kinds of preconceptions. I always questioned what the big deal was with Rembrandt as a painter based on what I saw in various art history books, some of them very well printed. But then when I stood smack in front of his original self portrait in the Natl Gallery, I was almost floored. Then I finally got it. The buttons on his shirt weren't yellow - they actually looked like glittering gold. The impasto was so subtle over that entire painting you started thinking genius rather than just one more skilled Dutch painter.
Deleted member 88956
Not everyone can see originals and most of the time print quality is only small part of aesthetic evaluation.
A well printed image can sure make a visual splash, which often enough vanishes fast seen multiple times. Seeing originals is also a powerful, but not always best, way of understanding art in general or particularly individual work. I know what I thought of Picasso until I went to see his actuals. Size alone can mess with a mind, yet that size may be a large part of intent.
Some want to think of AA as a saint of all saints, which would have been OK have there been no others who not only could print, but easily challanged AA's visual sense, yet all of these kind of comparisons having more to do with personal aesthetic values and none being objective.
Others have hard time placing AA's work in the upper echelon of photographic achievement. This, like everything related to visual triggers, also being skewed by personal senses and are just little more than a talking point.
Bottom line is Ansel Adam's contribution to development of photography has a far more complex structure than most others, due to technical aspects of his legacy, irrespective of whether one believes in his darkroom skills and manipulations or not.
However, those (and there are many) who place AA above almost everything else live in an isolated, stripped of reality, world.
A well printed image can sure make a visual splash, which often enough vanishes fast seen multiple times. Seeing originals is also a powerful, but not always best, way of understanding art in general or particularly individual work. I know what I thought of Picasso until I went to see his actuals. Size alone can mess with a mind, yet that size may be a large part of intent.
Some want to think of AA as a saint of all saints, which would have been OK have there been no others who not only could print, but easily challanged AA's visual sense, yet all of these kind of comparisons having more to do with personal aesthetic values and none being objective.
Others have hard time placing AA's work in the upper echelon of photographic achievement. This, like everything related to visual triggers, also being skewed by personal senses and are just little more than a talking point.
Bottom line is Ansel Adam's contribution to development of photography has a far more complex structure than most others, due to technical aspects of his legacy, irrespective of whether one believes in his darkroom skills and manipulations or not.
However, those (and there are many) who place AA above almost everything else live in an isolated, stripped of reality, world.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, I know this is off topic, but HOW DO I MAKE A NEW THREAD? I don't see a clear option to make a new post. Only a new conversation.
Deleted member 88956
Go to forum of choice then you will see new thread option in upper right corner.
Thank you!
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,014
- Format
- 8x10 Format
When the print is the intended endpoint, then that's what counts. Period. I don't even consider a print complete until I've personally trimmed and drymounted it, because that itself is integral to the composition. In the case of AA it's more complicated because not only did he allow other people to print his negatives - something I would never allow - but made prints relative to different applications, whether intended to be displayed as prints per se, or printed deliberately a bit flat for sake of offset reproduction. In some cases, large quantities of popular images were involved, with inevitable variations in quality. That just came with the territory. I frankly don't like to make any two prints exactly the same, though that is about my personal quantity limit when I do. I'm more interested in moving on to the next good neg. But when someone gets stuck in the syndrome of 80% all their sales consisting of only eight highly popular images, like what happened to AA in old age, despite many interesting ones seldom seen, that too comes with the territory of perhaps a little more success than ideal for the creative juices.
I think busy or cluttered might be better words than noise. There's no subject so your eye just travels all over the place. This Ansel shouldn't go for more than $5,000.
Here's one of mine that doesn't have a subject, I don't think. But I think the lighting helps it. Maybe it's the tree trunks that make it seem uncluttered.
Stream by Alan Klein, on Flickr
Stream by Alan Klein, on Flickr
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,014
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Have you ever actually seen the print, Alan? Trying to judge something like that based on a web image is like trying to listen to a symphony with a lawn mower running next door.
OP
OP
I think busy or cluttered might be better words than noise. There's no subject so your eye just travels all over the place. This Ansel shouldn't go for more than $5,000.
What is wrong with me? I think it is great; even better seeing the print in front of me. I would buy two.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,014
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Sorry, but $5000 apiece probably wouldn't buy you the bare matboard behind either of them. It's a rather iconic image, and collectors have known that for quite awhile now. Cluttered it is not. But I can understand how that is the impression some might get if they haven't seen all the high-key silvery tones of the original. It's a lot more luminous and open.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,014
- Format
- 8x10 Format
It's quite well printed in my copy of Yosemite and the High Sierra, but that is one of the best editions. In the linked web image everything indeed looks rather heavy and opaque and crowded. But that's the last thing AA would have wanted. He was after a sense of light, air, and breathing room, so to speak, generally with well detailed shadows, yet punctuated by a discrete amount of deep blacks. The linked image isn't even from an original, but copied from a mass-produced edition, quite possibly mechanically printed.
I have never personally cared for his addiction to MQ developers like Dektol that trend a bit greenish; but other than that nitpicky observation, he pretty much got the overall silvery luminescent look he wanted, especially in scenes like the one in question. The golden-cup oak leaves (named for the powderish yellow of the acorn cups themselves) are indeed translucent and backlit-looking. In my copy of Examples, where's it's also decently reproduced, he actually complains he wished he had developed the neg more contrasty. But no image got into that book unless he was personally quite proud of it, at least somewhere along his personal learning curve. Anything in that book is also likely to fetch a hefty price as an actual print just because it's a well-known image.
I have never personally cared for his addiction to MQ developers like Dektol that trend a bit greenish; but other than that nitpicky observation, he pretty much got the overall silvery luminescent look he wanted, especially in scenes like the one in question. The golden-cup oak leaves (named for the powderish yellow of the acorn cups themselves) are indeed translucent and backlit-looking. In my copy of Examples, where's it's also decently reproduced, he actually complains he wished he had developed the neg more contrasty. But no image got into that book unless he was personally quite proud of it, at least somewhere along his personal learning curve. Anything in that book is also likely to fetch a hefty price as an actual print just because it's a well-known image.
Last edited:
This is a very complex scene, which give a complex photograph. Actually takes a lot of courage - photographically speaking - to take it. I don't think I would have dared because I would have known it would have been a hell of a challenge in the darkroom (and life's too short).
I do think people here are right in pointing that with Adams the print is part of the subject. Of course, a great print of a Cartier-Bresson or a Capa will make a difference, but you still "get it" in a book, even a so-so one. I actually get a little bit bored looking and Adams' photographs in books, but have always been floored by them the few times I had the chance to see one on a museum wall.
Only non-nature B&W photographer I can think of in which the print is also so much part of the subject is W. Eugene Smith, but there may be others.
I do think people here are right in pointing that with Adams the print is part of the subject. Of course, a great print of a Cartier-Bresson or a Capa will make a difference, but you still "get it" in a book, even a so-so one. I actually get a little bit bored looking and Adams' photographs in books, but have always been floored by them the few times I had the chance to see one on a museum wall.
Only non-nature B&W photographer I can think of in which the print is also so much part of the subject is W. Eugene Smith, but there may be others.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |