Ansel Adams - Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn

[DREW WILEY]

Ha! My ole sales agent, who had quite a museum background, thought of Smith as his favorite photographer. But he was shocked and changed his mind when he learned that a couple of Smith's most famous images were highly doctored; OK for Uelsmann, but not for a journalistic documentarian, it seems.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ha! My ole sales agent, who had quite a museum background, thought of Smith as his favorite photographer. But he was shocked and changed his mind when he learned that a couple of Smith's most famous images were highly doctored; OK for Uelsmann, but not for a journalistic documentarian, it seems.

Not surprised. I think Smith saw the actual taking of the photograph as just the beginning of the photographic process. He did spend endless time in the darkroom - I think it's the reason he never actually finished the Pittsburgh project.

To me, Smith is no less of a journalistic documentarian, but in the same sense that Ryszard Kapuściński is a journalistic documentarian - that subtle nuance between "this is the world as it appears" and "this is the world as I see it and want to show it".

There's an interesting debate to be had, there.

 

[voceumana]

The very act of taking a photograph--i.e., making a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional situation--is inherently a "manipulation" by choice of what to include or exclude and position from which you take the picture. I think for a photojournalist, the manipulation is only an issue when it is meant to present a false reality.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The very act of taking a photograph--i.e., making a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional situation--is inherently a "manipulation" by choice of what to include or exclude and position from which you take the picture. I think for a photojournalist, the manipulation is only an issue when it is meant to present a false reality.

Haven't you killed your last sentence argument with everything stated before it?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

That's true. And the bigger they are, the better too. Going to museums or galleries and seeing really large photos, even grainy photojournalism shots are far superior to anything you see in a newspaper or on the web. Big gets your attention.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd seen a number of Edward Weston original contact prints when I was young. But even though I had a house close Yosemite, and had seen a few very poorly printed AA images in magazines or postcards, I never saw any actual prints of his until I was slightly over 30. Ironically, the first time was when I finally got to sneak out of my own opening of color prints at a gallery in Carmel, and wandered down the street to Weston Gallery and the two others who held a lot of his work at that time. Eventually I had opportunities to see all kinds of it up close.

But his classic work 8X10 doesn't hold up well above 20X24 inch size. That's why, in his own how-to series, he recommended printing mural sized images softer and warmer. But if it had been something from a precision big aerial camera like Bradford Washburn used during many of the same years, that would be a different story. So AA's oversized prints were farmed out to a much better equipped pro lab and printed under his supervision, and came out more soft and poetic, meant to be viewed from a greater distance simply because they were so fuzzy up close. Some of those old films were very grainy in comparison to the ones we now have. But the specific image under discussion at the moment doesn't hold up big very well at all, maybe 16X20 print size at most. It was one of his earlier shots with less than ideal equipment.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'd seen a number of Edward Weston original contact prints when I was young. But even though I had a house close Yosemite, and had seen a few very poorly printed AA images in magazines or postcards, I never saw any actual prints of his until I was slightly over 30. Ironically, the first time was when I finally got to sneak out of my own opening of color prints at a gallery in Carmel, and wandered down the street to Weston Gallery and the two others who held a lot of his work at that time. Eventually I had opportunities to see all kinds of it up close.

But his classic work 8X10 doesn't hold up well above 20X24 inch size. That's why, in his own how-to series, he recommended printing mural sized images softer and warmer. But if it had been something from a precision big aerial camera like Bradford Washburn used during many of the same years, that would be a different story. So AA's oversized prints were farmed out to a much better equipped pro lab and printed under his supervision, and came out more soft and poetic, meant to be viewed from a greater distance simply because they were so fuzzy up close. Some of those old films were very grainy in comparison to the ones we now have. But the specific image under discussion at the moment doesn't hold up big very well at all, maybe 16X20 print size at most. It was one of his earlier shots with less than ideal equipment.

Are you referring to Adams (or Weston)? Why didn't his work hold up above 20x24?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I usually get flamed for this, but when I finally saw real prints by Adams, Weston etc. I was quite disappointed, having grown up on books like Examples. Not because of sharpness, but tonality. I was warned of this, but I didn’t really believe it until I saw it. And these weren’t even large prints. It was a liberating experience for me.

Why is that? It seems strange that the inventor of the zone system got his tones crappy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael I hate to make a stereotype, but AA really stuck to a certain way of doing things. Yes, he experimented with all kinds of films and cameras over the years. But all along he was kinda a one trick pony in other ways. Since we've engaged in some entertaining paintball wars on this forum a number of times, you might recall the hornet's nest I tried to stir up about my own preferences for dealing with high contrast situations versus classic Zone System dogma reliant upon compensating or minus development, which I likened to stomping on a peanut butter sandwich, flattening all the goop in between. I've also more cautiously hinted that I'm less than thrilled by AA routine use of Dektol and Selectol Soft. These certainly worked proficiently for him. But having walked into certain galleries where there was a big famous AA print smack in front of you, and a little 11X14 Brett Weston print clear across the room, the latter had a lot more gravitational pull, even though smaller and more distant. Ansel prints did get richer later on; but that was during the peak of graded paper selection. And by far his most used paper of that time was Ilfobrom Galerie, which, if I recall correctly, contains no added fluorescent brightening agent like most papers. It's hard to criticize him when we have really exceptional VC papers today, and a longer cumulative learning curve which he helped contribute to.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Different media. Even the discontinuance of a particular printing paper can throw a monkey wrench into someone's style. I pretty much abandoned b&w printing during that interlude when the great graded papers were disappearing, yet the VC papers like MGIV were still rather anemic. Then the extinction event asteroid hit the color world, and dye transfer and Ciba were choking to death on the dust, while lesser chromogenic materials were trying to evolve into something better while they had a chance, before the digital predators themselves got big. So I printed a lot of black and white work during that phase instead, as VC papers dramatically improved. But every transition has its own learning curve. Now original prints can be scanned quite well and turned into something of high-quality pre-press value if there's sufficient budget and interest to do that. During most of AA's tenure, however, he had to make special low-contrast prints suitable for photomechanical reproduction, and then it was up to the skill level of the printers to bring the sparkle back. Some books had it, some didn't.

 

[Vaughn]

One of the attractions of carbon printing for me was losing the dependence on a brand/model of photopaper -- the loss of Portriga Rapid 111 was a signal. I still wanted to work with the qualities of a silver print and found a way for me to take it a little further. Platinum has a very different feel to it and it is still nice to have control of most of the process (good watercolor papers can come and go...or change, also).

I like the image (Merced, Cliffs...). It is nice to stand in the same spot at different times of the year and time-of-day and see how the light works on the cliff and river.

I remember hearing of a discussion about brighteners in Gallerie 30 years ago or so down in Carmel -- the Ilford representative was surprised people were having issues as the brighteners should not wash out of the paper in the 15 or 20 minutes the print was wet. He was corrected on the true length of time photo paper is wet. Second hand old news, but perhaps Ilford found a better way to bind the brighteners to the paper.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've recently reprinted some of my ole Portriga images onto MGWT. If toned correctly, these have a similar feel. Back then I mostly used Seagull G, but supplemented that with Brilliant Bromide, Portriga, and sometimes Ilfobrom Galerie. Each had its own personality. The olive-toned blacks of Portriga seemed unique among projection papers.

 

[Vaughn]

The olive blacks turned a wonderful reddish brown slightly selenium toned (too much it went to a purple). But it was also the surface of the III that was beautiful. The warmth did not work for many of my images -- those went on Gallerie, Selenium toned to get rid of its little bit of warmth and get more neutral in color.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.[/QUOTE]


I find JS completely boring.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sexton prints softer - different personality. Some people's taste gravitates that direction, some tastes don't. Mark Citret printed even softer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - again, I think it would be worth your time to really master some of these newer papers like MG Cooltone or Bergger VC Neutral if you want rich silvery results. When it comes to commercial repro, however, very high quality editions require expensive press gear and technical skill level in another league totally from any kind of inkjet. I know people who do that; but no ordinary photographer could afford it. If you're dead and famous, maybe, maybe not. Depends on what your coffin is worth. King Tut would qualify, but he didn't leave any negatives behind.

 

[images39]

AA's Examples is one of my favorite photography books, and I have a pretty sizeable book collection now. I enjoy his discussion of the experience of making each of the photos, including practical and aesthetic considerations that went into each photo. It's a unique book. Plus the print quality is great.

Dale

 

[Vaughn]

When one is utilizing paper textures, or in my case a raised relief image on glossy paper, as part of the image, images in books can become as hopeless as they appear on computers screens. One just hopes that the image itself can carry the day...but it sort of like having one's color images published in B&W.

But how images appear should be a close partnership between photographer and book designer/editor.

Duotone - printed with two inks.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

As for printing papers, it’s got nothing to do with that. Not even the great Seagull G, Brovira, Portriga, Galerie, Elite, Azo, Convira made the slightest bit of difference. What I’m talking about has entirely to do with the repro process. I’ve seen many, many darkroom prints by all the big names. They are great, and they all look like darkroom prints, not the books.

Duotone/ tritone/ quadtone essentially attempt to get around the single-pass black ink limitations/ tonal limitations of offset (as opposed to gravure that can deliver 100% black in a single hit) by adding a second pass of ink - the usual method is black for shadow values, a grey or similar for highlights - lots of variance from warm to cool etc. Tritone/ Quadtone (or more) add more shades to allow greater subtlety/ split tones etc. No matter what you do, a Duo/Tri/Quadtone will not look absolutely like an original darkroom print - and far too many people get hung up on trying to do this - what you should aim for is what the late, great Richard Benson (who essentially invented modern duotone etc) stated - you aim to make something that looks like it could be a great print (that respects the intention of the work), not an absolute reproduction. Offset/ ink-on-paper is its own beast & people like to forget that much of the reputation of certain photographers as great printers really owes more to the folk who did/ do the separations for their books & their willingness to make the images look better/ more of a piece than the master prints that were the source material. And honestly, if you're going down the ink-on-paper route there's a lot to be said for taking approaches that differ from what you might do in the darkroom - especially if you start to head towards the visual styles of what can be done on uncoated stocks &/ or in the manner of rotogravure etc. Quite a different look, and much more freeing from the ideology of slavish reproduction.

'Laser scanned' essentially meant the print was scanned on a drum scanner & output straight to a laser film writer as separations - without any significant intermediate computer adjustment at the intermediate stage (which is where it differed significantly from only a few years later, let alone today!).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

AA's Examples is one of my favorite photography books, and I have a pretty sizeable book collection now. I enjoy his discussion of the experience of making each of the photos, including practical and aesthetic considerations that went into each photo. It's a unique book. Plus the print quality is great.

Dale

+1

 

[DREW WILEY]

It works both ways. On a nearby thread there are some people who state they don't care much for Meyerowitz. Well, I'm not going to try to change their mind. But I bet very few have seen actual prints and are basing their opinion of small images in rather poorly printed books. Often, the reds often look like they were pasted onto the page after the fact. Ansel knew how to communicate with the technicians.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A few years back, I attended the Association of International Photography Art Dealers, or AIPAD, as it’s more commonly known, held at the Park Avenue Armory, in NYC. There were lots of Ansel Adams B/W prints. Many dealers apparently sell his stuff. I saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez prints. One dealer had his at around $80,000; another at $115,000 and the last at around $140,000.

So I'm standing at the last dealer, the one with the $140,000 edition when inflows this attention-grabbing couple. He, a rather ordinary fifty-something year old dressed to kill, and she, a knock-out blond about half his age with 6" high heels and a tight-fitting mini skirt. So I overhear him telling her, "This is nothing. My Hernandez cost me $180,000." As they drifted away, he had a smile on his face. And she, well, she was giggling and seemed very impressed. I was. But not about the $180,000. Or that he had an Adams' Hernandez. I was impressed by his hot girlfriend. Even the dealer selling his Hernandez seemed impressed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There were around 360 of them made by himself, so it's supply and demand up and down as far as pricing goes. The earlier less dramatic version, before he selenium intensified the sky in the neg, now seems to sell for more because it's a lot scarcer. The size of the print is also a factor. It's certainly not my personal favorite. But at those prices, expect some slick sales tactics. It didn't used to be that way.

 

[images39]

There were around 360 of them made by himself, so it's supply and demand up and down as far as pricing goes. The earlier less dramatic version, before he selenium intensified the sky in the neg, now seems to sell for more because it's a lot scarcer. The size of the print is also a factor. It's certainly not my personal favorite. But at those prices, expect some slick sales tactics. It didn't used to be that way.

I knew that he had selenium intensified the foreground, but did he also use selenium on the sky?

Dale

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh yeah, it was the foreground, and IN-5 intensifier, a silver nitrate product. But it was a number of years afterwards that he altered the neg itself. Since the original neg was water bath developed, the low values would be present but poorly differentiated, contrast-wise. It would be way easier to print today.