Ansel Adams - Merced River, Cliffs, Autumn

[Alan Edward Klein]

Look at the original contact print. Nothing special.

"It's stunning to see the contact print, before any darkroom manipulation. The contrast is low, it's covered with spots, and at first glance is lifeless, dull and unremarkable. But Adams knew what he saw in his mind's eye, and further knew how to make this vision come to life in the darkroom. "
ARTICLE: https://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2017/9/28/revisiting-hernandez-nm
CONTACT:

 

[DREW WILEY]

Many of his negs were far from ideal. I once stumbled into a back room where some pitiful wretch was tasked with spotting out a perfect mosquito silhouette in the sky above McKinley. It was resting on the 8x10 film when the shutter was tripped. In this Moonrise instance, he opted for water bath dev because the foreground light wouldn't have lasted long enough to meter it. Modern thin-emulsion films don't work well for that. But a degree of open sky blotchiness came with the territory. Printing it down to all black, except for the moon and clouds, would be a smart way to disguise it. The earlier softer printed renditions don't do that as well, and must have been hell of a challenge in that respect.

 

[pbromaghin]

Andrea Stillman gave a real interesting lecture on Adams for B&H. At around 1:11:00 she starts talking about when his prints started getting so overly darkened.

Looking at Ansel Adams: The Photographs and the Man - YouTube

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another example of full black as a disguise was his famous sunrise Lone Pine shot, where he literally erased or abraded away the density of the white dolomite letters, LP, standing for Lone Pine High, on a deep shaded background hill. The father of my college roommate was principal there, but back then the principal was probably Norman Clyde, the famous mountaineer who got fired for shooting at (above) some rowdy students breaking in at night. AA has only one peak in the Sierra named for him; Clyde has three.

 

[voceumana]

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

No. You can use a photograph to tell a lie or to tell the truth.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

No. You can use a photograph to tell a lie or to tell the truth.

Photograph is a silent snap of a moment, it never tells the whole truth.

 

[voceumana]

Photograph is a silent snap of a moment, it never tells the whole truth.

True, but it can tell its selection of truth without lying, and the part that it tells may not be important.

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...". A witness can only tell the whole truth if the lawyers ask all the right questions. It seems a limitation to the US system of jurisprudence.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I'm beginning to read some comments as indications Ansel was much better at printing than photographing. As we age we change how we see, what we shot and liked in the past, we often no longer approve, and vice versa.

As apparently Ansel changed his way of seeing own past work by altering later prints and/or even negatives (surely some will just say he interpreted it differently, except altering negative itself is actually proof of disapproving original one, it's changing a score and setting original on fire), where does Zone System preaching fall on this?

I never questioned usefulness of ZS ideology, but cringed at any suggestions of its totality. Unfortunately Zone System is all too often described as it or else.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."

it is actually an oxymoron and I agree with your assessment, except it is a problem with any justice system with no possible fix. Those in control of justice have sole power to take it in almost any direction they choose. Justice is a noble idea that has no logical mechanism to succeed. Nor can it be meaningfully bettered, except for making those in control more accountable.

 

[MattKing]

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."

That is one oath, and is usually heard at trial.
The oath that one gives in pre-trial discovery is essentially "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth...".
At discovery, you are only required to answer what is asked - you don't have to volunteer anything, even if holding back what wasn't asked for may tend to mislead.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

Simple. Think of Starbucks. A Doppio is two shots, a Quattro is four.

Duotones are the best thing that ever happened to black and white photographic reproduction by lithography.

Instead of a single halftone plate printed in black ink, two plates are made. One printed in black ink and the other printed in gray ink.

Ansel Adams worked with his printers as DREW WILEY said. He printed flat prints that his lithographers were able to expand into the best black and gray plates possible.

Printers would dial in bumps and flash for each plate, and just as Ansel Adams avoided Soot and Chalk, lithographic cameramen avoided Salt and Pepper.

It was his partnership with his printers that made his books (yes and calendars) some of the best examples of black and white that have been produced for public consumption.

His original prints are like yours.

 

[MattKing]

I was once deposed, and in the prep “don’t volunteer” was hammered in over and over.

Most court cases are won or lost at discovery, not at trial.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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”.

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.

And going back to altering negative later on (not right after development) is destroying evidence of how it was actually done. I have no problem making changes to negative, now or much later, I'm poking at ZS as a total fix for everything, which is the widely preached idea.

 

[MattKing]

Testimony is both an art and a science.
Experienced witnesses are a joy to work with when you are counsel.
The good ones are clear, concise, on point and use words that avoid uncertainty.

 

[Vaughn]

My first face-to-face (ca1987) with a AA print was Tenaya Creek, Dogwoods, Rain -- always been my favorite. I had been photographing in the redwoods with LF for about 10 years and AA seemed to be working with the same quality light with this scene in the same manner I was often working...only I coveted the tonality of his rocks in the creek...and in this case a convienent rock cliff in the background. I had been attending a Friends of Photography workshop in Carmel on a scholorship and went into downtown Carmel to check out the galleries. I walked in Weston Gallery and there it was, 16x20, mounted low on the wall...I could sit on the floor and look right at it...which I did for a long time...I was not disappointed.

Since then I have seen many AA prints of all ages...up close, without glass, never disappointed.

 

[images39]

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.

Michael,

Yes, I do have Andrea Stillman's book, which is excellent. Her examination of this negative and the alternate printings of it are a great study in expressive interpretation of a negative.

Dale

 

[DREW WILEY]

Later printings of that image were the most successful because he used Seagull paper for it. The Weston Gallery was just around the corner from the gallery featuring me way back then, with Gallery West nearby too. That's where I first saw actual AA prints.

 

[Vaughn]

And I could be wrong about the gallery name, too.

I am sure AA saw the letters, perhaps cursing under his breath the whole time...

 

[eddie]

Later printings of that image were the most successful because he used Seagull paper for it.

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?

 

[Vaughn]

...And that brings me to a question for everyone. Would that have stopped you at the scene?...

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)

 

[Sirius Glass]

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 would have changed the lens or driven further down the road too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Leaving in the LP would have been been a distracting sore thumb that would have turned the picture from a classic into a joke. The vertical characters don't complement anything else in that very poetic composition; the dark shape of the horse does. There is no way he wouldn't have spotted the letters earlier. He probably scouted the spot before, intelligently timed it, and lucked out. A few minutes before or after, or more than a couple yards either side, no dice. There is simply no way to move down the road and get an analogous shot. I would have erased the distracting elements too. The same meadow is still there, and the same white letters. 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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Eddie - After the original Seagull G Bromide, the next generation of it had similar image tone but was comparatively anemic in terms of punch. The redux Grade 4 was worthless.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Or Walker Evans for that matter. I'm persistently amused at the way that documentary photography has huge problems with the difference between 'truth' and 'truthfulness' that documentary cinema largely got over decades ago.

Of course there's also the big problem of Adams and the 'untouched by humans' landscape idea, which often seems to propagate in seemingly 'wild' places a few decades after the people who scraped a living on that land were conveniently removed from it...

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

36.6027, -118.0875 if you want to see them.

Scaling off the aerial imagery, they're maybe 20 metres tall.