No. You can use a photograph to tell a lie or to tell the truth.Haven't you killed your last sentence argument with everything stated before it?
Photograph is a silent snap of a moment, it never tells the whole truth.No. You can use a photograph to tell a lie or to tell the truth.
True, but it can tell its selection of truth without lying, and the part that it tells may not be important.Photograph is a silent snap of a moment, it never tells the whole truth.
"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."
That is one oath, and is usually heard at trial."I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."
Yeah I never knew much about how those books were/are made. I only know the lingo that was usually used (and still is) in the marketing. “Laser scanned”, “duo tone”. That’s what I remember from the good Adams books. I think later books are “quad tone”. I don’t know what any of that means in a reproduction context.
Most court cases are won or lost at discovery, not at trial.I was once deposed, and in the prep “don’t volunteer” was hammered in over and over.
Reading what Ansel said about Hernandez at exposure time, it seems to me he had a clear idea of he wanted, except negative was not likely what he hoped for. Whether this image was done before or after (which one?) ZS novel idea took hold makes little difference because it is one of the few discussed time and again when ZS is discussed.There are a few separate things here. In rare cases where the negative was altered (eg selective intensification of ‘Hernandez), it wasn’t disapproval of an original visualization, but rather an attempt to correct/improve a technical flaw or error which made it difficult to achieve the visualization in a print. We must remember many of his famous images were made before the Zone System, before spot meters etc. Later negatives were presumably better controlled from an exposure/development perspective.
A separate issue is the evolution of his printing style over his career. Not all images were printed substantially differently later on, but some were, and there was a fairly continuous increase in contrast and “drama” (he described the later printing as more Wagnerian). It was less an overturning of the original visualization and more of an “amplification”.
Incidentally, for Alan and Dale, if you want to see some more of the type of thing Alan just posted, pick up a copy of Looking at Ansel Adams by Andrea Stillman. It goes through several of Adams’s well known images and shows things like contact sheets/proofs, outtakes/alternate compositions, and contrasts earlier vs later printings. A nice book.
I used a lot of the blue box Seagull back in the day. A really nice paper. I don't recall trying the newer paper, although I have a few boxes. How does it compare to the old version?Later printings of that image were the most successful because he used Seagull paper for it.
...And that brings me to a question for everyone. Would that have stopped you at the scene?...
I know he was upset about it but I couldn't remember if it was in retrospect once he saw the negative or if he was pissed off while making the exposure. It's probably in one of the books but I don't recall offhand. Given how observant he was when composing images I think you're likely correct.
And that brings me to a question for everyone. Would that have stopped you at the scene? If it had been me, as soon as I saw the LP on the hills I would have abandoned the shot. One of the things that amazes me about people like Adams is how they are not easily defeated mentally, by imperfections. There are quite a few examples of this in the case of Adams. LP might be the worst because it isn't even as though it was something that went wrong technically (like the sweaty thumbprint on the Manzanar negative for instance). I would have just stood at the scene thinking it could have been a wonderful photograph but simply isn't. I then would have had a really bad day
Generally, with plenty of exceptions, I try to keep the visible hand of man, and people, out of my images. The exceptions tend to be when the image is also about the hand of man, or people. I might have set up my camera in that situation, but it would have been with the idea of leaving the "LP" in since the fences and horses were already in the image...or perhaps framing the image without it. It would all depend on what I was experiencing at the time and how that all relates to making the image. I have certainly traveled up and down Hwy 395 enough to have had similar opportunities, but can't say I have anything to match that along the East Side.
I kinda like this one, but it needs more work (4x10 pt/pd). I did not include any sky in the image, but I'd like to bring out just a touch more hint of the Sierras behind. (taken behind that "LP" on the hill)
I suppose if it were one of the Enviro photographers of the 70' or 80's, they would have brought along a portable outhouse and pile of soda cans to add to the scene, just to make it artsy.
I didn’t know the damn LP is still there. How big are those letters anyway? It’s hard to discern the scale from the picture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?