Ansel adams moonlight equation

[removed account4]

The story of the Moonrise negative got sexier over time. First there was a meter, and Agfa 12 developer. Later, there was no meter, and eventually dilute D-23/water bath development.

It's a great picture, but the story is quite iffy.

exactly ..
I think it is kind of funny that anyone thinks any of it is true. there story changes every time its told, still. ... and I think it is kind of funny that you are quoting some sort of book, or wiki or manipulated contact print
as if it is the thing to be trusted and believed when the source, AA himself told different stories to different people. as stated previously none of it matters, meter, no meter,
formula no formula screwup no screwup, whatever he did he did, and I am sure if we all held pinkies around a big candle at midnight with a ouji board or had that lady from poltergeist be a medium, I am guessing
he'd tell a different story then too. he's got a captive audience 70 years later. its too bad more people don't follow his lead, use their own judgement and not a meter
they'd eventually become better photographers. it'll never happen though, people are too reliant on their "stuff" so they don't have to deal...

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, the is what I have heard, that he wished he had at least a stop greater exposure. I wonder (f they had been available) if he would have wanted a grad filter to bring density to the graveyard while not frying the moon. So he wound up repeatedly dunking the lower part of the negative in intensifying solution. So much for the f/64 school dogma about not "manipulating" the image.

All that crap about "not manipulating the image" was just that. He was a pictorials just like the others.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just like Ansel had creative license over his images, so too does his recollection of events

 

[removed account4]

Just like Ansel had creative license over his images, so too does his recollection of events

exactly !

 

[BrianShaw]

In this case part of the problem (the bigger part, perhaps) is that his biographers weren’t very good historians. My guess is that the oldest documentation might be the most accurate. But who knows… that could have been shilling for a sponsor - Weston. LOL

 

[Vaughn]

All that crap about "not manipulating the image" was just that. He was a pictorials just like the others.

The f/64 group never embraced a "no manipulation" creed. It is the reason for the manipulation that has always been key.

 

[MattKing]

From where he was, even if AA did use a Weston meter, it would have only given him information about the average exposure.
In order to expose accurately for the moon and the crosses, he would have had to apply his knowledge about the luminance of the moon, and make an educated guess about the luminance of the crosses.
Perhaps he did none of that - just used the (averaged) meter reading.
In which case the later versions of the story would have been simply his remembering doing what he should have done, rather than what he did.
Or perhaps he took the averaged reading, and then modified it using his knowledge and experience - which is how I prefer to approach challenges like this.
It probably doesn't matter - the later story is both more interesting and more useful.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Burning and dodging are not manipulation that is part of printing. Added and deleting major components is manipulation.

 

[faberryman]

exactly ..
its too bad more people don't follow his lead, use their own judgement and not a meter
they'd eventually become better photographers. it'll never happen though, people are too reliant on their "stuff" so they don't have to deal...

Plenty of great photos taken without a meter; plenty of great photos taken with a meter. I'd be hesitant to draw a correlation.

I am not sure how someone would become a better photographer without a meter. He may become better or worse at exposure, but as a photographer?

Perhaps I am not up on the lingo, but what does "so they don't have to deal..." mean?

 

[removed account4]

The f/64 group never embraced a "no manipulation" creed. It is the reason for the manipulation that has always been key.

Whatever works!!

exactly. chemical manipulation image manipulation and public manipulation he hit the trifecta

 

[BrianShaw]

Or perhaps he took the averaged reading, and then modified it using his knowledge and experience

If you, like me, accept his initial story... that's exactly what he did. He used the O and U marking per the Weston instructions and then checked to see if the moon (his knowledge of the moon's candela per square foot output) fit within the O. It didn't so he adjusted the "recommended exposure to make the negative. It was a compromise and he, using his master printer skills, burned and dodged and chemically manipulated a mediocre negative into a masterpiece.

That O and U marking was a fantastic aid when shooting B&W.

 

[DREW WILEY]

How he almost instantly equated all this is well documented in his own words. Read the relevant pages in "Examples". From previous experience, he knew how to expose for the moon. The foreground was a guess, so he planned for water bath development, knowing the foreground was all much less illuminated. An averaged reading would have been totally useless, and would have lost both extremes of tonality. He had already concocted his Zone System to get around that kind of pitfall. But in this instance, he had to think on his feet fast; the light was quickly changing. And an old Weston meter? ... ha, ha, I inherited one of those and it still works. A fun conversation piece, but hardly a spotmeter needed in analogous scenarios to what AA faced at Hernandez.

Printing it would be much easier today in our own predominantly VC paper era. I've seen both the early version, before he intensified the original neg, and the more dramatic iconic later rendering most people are familiar with. Ironically, the earlier ones tend to sell for more to collectors because there are so few of them extant. Many of his best known images involve "problem negatives". A scene which might take me half on hour at most to figure out how to print effectively using modern materials, equipment, and techniques, sometimes took him years. "Moonrise" is one such image.

 

[faberryman]

"Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form [and] The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards."

 

[BrianShaw]

How he almost instantly equated all this is well documented in his own words. Read the relevant pages in "Examples". From previous experience, he knew how to expose for the moon.

That was 1983. 40 years earlier he told a different story. See prior posts in this thread, if you haven't already.

The only additional information I can provide is that in 1980 he was showing signs of dementia... not unexpected at his age.

 

[faberryman]

What I am impressed with is that he was driving along, saw an image, stopped the car, and got out and took a photograph. How many photographers would have driven right on by thinking about where they we going to get gas or dinner? How many great photographs have you driven by today?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm aware of the conflicting accounts. But I'm more likely to believe the later one, which he intended as part of his official legacy. He hardly had dementia, but was known for slips in memory all along, especially in relation to names of mountains and other landmarks. But if you will pardon me saying so, there might have been other factors in play, for example, gaining a few brownie points by endorsing a particular piece of equipment (a Weston meter) back when that could have been advantageous to his career, namely, in relation to potential "freebie" pieces of gear due the perceived value of his personal endorsements. I know how that works.

Or by slipping in the name of "Mt Willamson from Manzanar" - a famous image - knowing full well he was photographing just a rise on a ridge of an unnamned peak fully two thousand feet lower than the real Mt. Willamson, which was plainly visible just six miles to the north, dramatically bigger and higher. That "accidental" misnomer might have been a selling point back in the day, when a number of outdoorsmen were wealthy and AA's prints still cheap. Memory can be quite selective when there is monetary reward involved, or more likely in this case, simply a more dramatic title to the image. What title would you prefer on a print you bought - a minor peak in the background nobody ever heard of, or the second highest in the Sierra well over 14,000 feet tall? It's called marketing. "Saint Ansel" wasn't always a saint.

But besides all that, there is simply the logistical issue itself. Just try using an old Weston meter for something like that Hernandez conundrum - ridiculous!

 

[BrianShaw]

But besides all that, there is simply the logistical issue itself. Just try using an old Weston meter for something like that Hernandez conundrum - ridiculous!

I have and still do. It's not all that ridiculous even though a different meter would be better. Much better to have an old Weston than a Silly Wild Ass Guess. I love my Weston III (both of them) and the O and U markings too!

 

[removed account4]

"Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form [and] The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards."

Kind of weird since all photographs are derivative of other art forms.. people might suggest otherwise but they would not get a free lunch … even without the soft focus adams work is pictorial, portraiture is derived from old painting.. it is laughable anyone would suggest otherwise…. Too many labels and too many pigeons holes. Too bad people have had to and still segregate to be different but essentially the same…. Foto is photo

 

[DREW WILEY]

None of this just "happened". There had to be numerous preliminary experiences. AA took quite a number of scenes with the moon in them. Perhaps in some of them, a Weston Flintstone meter did factor in. But as we all know, after awhile all this can become almost spontaneous, and we work if necessary from memory. For example, I've accidentally dunked my Pentax spotmeter in ice water a couple times in the high country. Yet I came back with even the 4X5 chromes perfectly exposed. I wasn't guessing exposures, and most certainly wasn't relying on film "latitude" (chromes have very little of that), but was recalling from memory many analogous lighting situations with the same films, when actual meter reading were involved.

AA got away with it. But not very well. It looks like a negative from hell. I'd hate to even be responsible for retouching the prints. Maybe that's one of the unspoken reasons he later printed most of the sky pure black - to disguise all the blemishes.
Uneven development was an inherent risk of water-bath treatment.

And I might sound like a heretic to some of you, but I find the print management in this case a bit over the top - a bit too dramatic and theatrical for my personal taste. It's certainly not my favorite image of his.

 

[faberryman]

Kind of weird since all photographs are derivative of other art forms.. people might suggest otherwise but they would not get a free lunch … even without the soft focus adams work is pictorial, portraiture is derived from old painting.. it is laughable anyone would suggest otherwise…. Too many labels and too many pigeons holes. Too bad people have had to and still segregate to be different but essentially the same…. Foto is photo

Everything is derivative of scratchings on a cave wall, so you have to look at the intent of the statement and not be fastidiously literal. I don't mind a little segregation and organization here and there in my life, even in my photography. Others may not.

 

[bluechromis]

The f/64 group never embraced a "no manipulation" creed. It is the reason for the manipulation that has always been key.

As has been said previously, it may get into the semantics of how one defines manipulation. I think there are a number of well-informed people that would say the f/64 school did look down upon manipulation of the image in ways that departed from a literal rendering of the initial scene. One could say they were just interested in the effect of light. But that doesn't say much because almost all photography involves the portrayal of light. The f/64 group members were strident about differentiating themselves from the Pictorialists and the ways that Pictorialist portrayed light and subject matter. They certainly objected to the Pictorialists, drawing on, scratching, hand-coloring, and otherwise altering negatives and prints after image capture. Their admonitions about "pure" and "straight" images were aimed directly at the Pictorials whose images they felt were impure and not a straight and true rendering of the physical world. Pictorialist photographer Max Thoreck in his book "Creative Camera Art" (Fomo Publishing) attempted to rebuff criticism from the f/64 school that he referred to as "purists". Quote: '...there is an enthusiastic cult residing mainly on the West Coast, who in taking themselves too seriously have, are strongly opposed to regulating their negatives or prints to what they called "superficial modifications."' His view was the f/64 school had prohibited a wide range of techniques for controlling the look of an image after it was captured on the negative. Note that even in 1937 when his book was published, the f/64 school was already being described as a cult. One might say this is unfair to refer to an opponent of the f/64 school to characterize the movement. But Thoreck had a whole chapter in his book about this so he was reacting to ideas that were out there in the photographic community otherwise there would be no need to write a chapter about it. https://petapixel.com/2016/09/22/ansel-adams-wrote-pictorialism-photography-history/

 

[reddesert]

Artist's manifestoes are like manufacturer's recommended developing times. They're a guideline and an argument-starter, not a legal requirement. I think the Group f/64's point was to elevate photographs as an art form in themselves, and to resist trying to make a photograph look like an imitation painting. Of course that is not entirely obtainable, because their vocabulary as visual artists at that time included at least six or seven centuries of Western painting. Especially in landscape. Where would Ansel's clouds be without JMW Turner's clouds? But the idea that photography should stand on its own feet was still a little novel and even controversial.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have an old edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica where Edward Weston contributed an article on photography. It is the most rabid unforgiving manifesto of f/64 ideology I ever read, but if consistently followed, would condemn 70% of Weston's own work. Mostly just a lot hot air stirring up dust for sake of an incidental paycheck.

AA would have photographed clouds if Turner never existed. Who ya kiddin? - that's a windbag notion of its own. Panchromatic film had arrived, and AA hung out in the Sierras with thunderclouds. I painted and photographed em before I ever heard of Turner, took an art history class, or ever even saw an actual AA print. The last thing we need is more generic pigeonholing of genre. If some pontificators want toss me into the dumpster as a mere "Rocks n' Trees" stereotype, I could point my own finger right back at em and call them just another photographer of urban weirdos. Nothing is that simple. And there was nothing novel about photography as an art form by the time AA arrived. Yes, he was involved in the NYC MMA's engagement with it. But people like PH Emerson and Steiglitz had already done the heavy lifting, along with numerous others. Even in mountain photography, people like Watkins, Muybridge, and Sella had already done things that not only rivaled the upstart Adams, but in certain ways exceeded it in my opinion.

 

[Vaughn]

Don't know who Max Thoreck is, or why his biased opinion in defense of himself is significant in defining a 'cult'. I find the use of the concept of 'purity' to be over-blown. Don't forget that Mortensen, the arch-enemy of the f/64ers, did not have much good to say about the soft-focus lens using pictorial people either. Using a sharp lens does not make one an AA f/64er, and a soft-focus lens does not make one a Mortensen pictorialist.

 

[removed account4]

The last thing we need is more generic pigeonholing of genre. If some pontificators want toss me into the dumpster as a mere "Rocks n' Trees" stereotype, I could point my own finger right back at em and call them just another photographer of urban weirdos.

what ?????
pretty much everyone pigeonholes photographers in one way or another. Dumpster??
Urban weirdo ?

If anyone called you a rocks and tree person not sure how that is an insult or throwing you in the dumpster.
your work is like 90% of people who use a large format camera .. rocks and trees. (they don't move).
I have no idea what an urban weirdo is, but it makes sense since you usually insult + belittle people n every thread to get your point across. Its too bad
that is your style cause its a real drag, and im sure you have something more interesting to say...

Everything is derivative of scratchings on a cave wall, so you have to look at the intent of the statement and not be fastidiously literal. I

well, some cultist / purist photographers I guess believe/believed that photographing a landscape or a portrait had nothing to do with painting, and there is actually photography that is not derivative. 99% of it is based on painting ( composition texture, light, posing &c &C ) , that's where photographers have always gotten their cues. the other 1% is from science drawings.
its kind of funny to be honest, and hard to believe that anyone thinks photography isn't what it is .. .... I guess ignorance is always bliss. ... and Ecclesiastes 1:9
.. people puff themselves up and claim they are so different.. has been happening on a weekly basis here for a long time, with the holga, pyro, AvD wars, zone, no zone, wash no wash, stop no stop, manipulating no manipulation .. whatever, its really too bad because if people would just stop posturing they might learn that their "enemies" are just like them.