Ansel adams moonlight equation

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Actually not everything is derivative, some is even original. Stretching a definition to twisting around to "prove" anything actually is weasel wording and proves nothing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

Clouds existed before JMW Turner, in fact they are even mentioned in the Old Testament and I think we can all agree that the Old Testament predates JMW Turner.

 

[faberryman]

Actually not everything is derivative, some is even original. Stretching a definition to twisting around to "prove" anything actually is weasel wording and proves nothing.

That sounds remarkably ironic.

Clouds existed before JMW Turner, in fact they are even mentioned in the Old Testament and I think we can all agree that the Old Testament predates JMW Turner.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm surprised that nobody so far has claimed that Moses was influenced by Albert Bierstadt. But it's probably coming. "It's all Romanticism, just Romanticism", blah blah. None of us have eyes or minds of our own, apparently.

 

[removed account4]

None of us have eyes or minds of our own, apparently.

so you are suggesting a "romantic" photograph is not derivative of a another art form because we are duped by a conspiracy that suggests
photography is derivative by nature ? that is kind of funny. tell me how it isn't so, did said photographer never see paintings or drawings 3 d representations
or tv/magazines / media ? seems like photographers don't live in caves and are influenced by what they see... not really sure how your argument makes sense/

 

[DREW WILEY]

When one grows up surrounded by gigantic thunder clouds most summer afternoons, and darkening skies with all kind of magical hues in Winter before a snowstorm, or when one clears, they don't sit around thumbing through art history books tryng to figure out what kind of genre they want to belong to, or be classified under. There are inevitably other influences, yes. But let's weigh things in due proportion. If one is literally surrounded by cliffs and peaks and deep canyons, what do you thing they're going to paint or photograph? Bierstadt or Turner or some art critic in a stuffy room in NYC didn't create any of that. Too much of this pontificating nonsense is just like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the ground syndrome - all it sees is it own little system of stale pigeonholes, upside-down.

 

[Chan Tran]

Yeah AA was a great printer. Given his negative I wouldn't be able to make a print that even worth looking at.

 

[faberryman]

Yeah AA was a great printer. Given his negative I wouldn't be able to make a print that even worth looking at.

Why do you think you could not make a decent print from one of AA's negatives? Ever seen any of his negatives up close?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some of AA's famous neg even survived a studio fire and subsequent water damage. More negatives from hell. I've seen a professional retoucher working on some of the resultant prints - a career from helI. I can sympathize. Prior to recent digital restoration software, I at times made decent side money conventionally copying and restoring miserable old negatives and prints damaged by fire, mold, water, etc. I took it as a fun challenge; but maybe the fact I was paid well factored into that.

Faberryman - I don't know why people think of AA as an apogee of technique. He wasn't, and certainly not if compared to how things are done today. I load my film-holders in an actual cleanroom. He sometimes changed out film in his holders in the bottom of a dusty sleeping bag at night! His darkroom was comparatively primitive even by commercial standards in his own day. His film and lenses were not as consistent as today. Magnify most of his 8X10 film images more than 3X and they look downright mushy - that's why he specified anything bigger than 20X24 be printed relatively soft and warm instead of in his classic bold cold tones. And I personally have seen a lot of those up close.

As far as many of the original negs go, I think I'd just set aside most of those into their own boneyard pile and move on to something less problematic, if those were my own. You have to keep in mind that the mass-produced high-quality press reproductions of his most popular images have been made from digital scans and re-mastered content. Actual silver prints are still being offered by Alan Ross from some of the original negs, and he has his own methodology for dealing with all the idiosyncrasies, which he has practiced on over and over and over again.

None of what I have just stated is an attempt to diminish AA's contribution to either the art or technique of photography. Times were different. We have a lot of advantages he didn't.

 

[Chan Tran]

Why do you think you could not make a decent print from one of AA's negatives? Ever seen any of his negatives up close?

I mean the moonrise negaive. It looks so flat and underexposed.

 

[David Lindquist]

Can't immediately find my source but I have a recollection of Adams once saying that they disbanded Group f/64 after about a year because "...in part we did not want it to become a cult. In this we were not entirely successful."

Caveat: I'm quoting from memory.

David

 

[cliveh]

A photographic print should be judged by its appearance, not by the work or manipulation in it's making.

 

[faberryman]

Faberryman - I don't know why people think of AA as an apogee of technique. He wasn't, and certainly not if compared to how things are done today. I load my film-holders in an actual cleanroom. He sometimes changed out film in his holders in the bottom of a dusty sleeping bag at night! His darkroom was comparatively primitive even by commercial standards in his own day. His film and lenses were not as consistent as today. Magnify most of his 8X10 film images more than 3X and they look downright mushy - that's why he specified anything bigger than 20X24 be printed relatively soft and warm instead of in his classic bold cold tones. And I personally have seen a lot of those up close.

As far as many of the original negs go, I think I'd just set aside most of those into their own boneyard pile and move on to something less problematic, if those were my own. You have to keep in mind that the mass-produced high-quality press reproductions of his most popular images have been made from digital scans and re-mastered content. Actual silver prints are still being offered by Alan Ross from some of the original negs, and he has his own methodology for dealing with all the idiosyncrasies, which he has practiced on over and over and over again.

None of what I have just stated is an attempt to diminish AA's contribution to either the art or technique of photography. Times were different. We have a lot of advantages he didn't.

I am sure that all of us can improve our technique, although I doubt any of us will reach your pinnacle of perfection. Even though AA may have been a slob working in a mediocre darkroom using substandard equipment, he inspired me to work carefully. Probably one of those do as I say not as I do things. I have seen many original AA prints over the decades, and most of them looked pretty good to me technically, but I am just a hack and probably couldn't see their glaring deficiencies if my life depended on it. I like some of AA's work though he is not my favorite photographer. I will be loading my film holders in my bedroom closet this evening. Now I am wondering if it is even worth going out tomorrow.

 

[Vaughn]

When one grows up surrounded by gigantic thunder clouds most summer afternoons, and darkening skies with all kind of magical hues in Winter before a snowstorm, or when one clears, they don't sit around thumbing through art history books tryng to figure out what kind of genre they want to belong to, or be classified under. ...

I came of age photographically and otherwise under the redwoods. One thing I had to fight (and still have occasional skirmishes with) was making everything look like under the redwoods. Working out in the desert helps -- plus it dries out my bellows and my Ries is easier to use.

A photographic print should be judged by its appearance, not by the work or manipulation in it's making.

I agree. What encompasses 'appearance'? Does one also judge a photograph's strength based on it's content? Or perhaps appearance encompasses both the technical 'look' of a print and how well it expresses its content. This is what I was trying to refer to in an earlier post...both Mortensen and Adams stressed content (for example, AA's preference for a fuzzy print of a sharp concept over the opposite).

 

[David Lindquist]

I am sure that all of us can improve our technique, although I doubt any of us will reach your pinnacle of perfection. Even though AA may have been a slob working in a mediocre darkroom using substandard equipment, he inspired me to work carefully. Probably one of those do as I say not as I do things. I have seen many original AA prints over the decades, and most of them look pretty good to me technically, but I am just a hack and probably couldn't see their glaring deficiencies if my life depended on it. I like some of AA's work though he is not my favorite photographer. I will be loading my film holders in my bedroom closet this evening. Now I am wondering if it is even worth going out tomorrow.

You don't have a clean room in which to load your film?
Neither do I.
You are unworthy.
I am unworthy.
We are all unworthy.
Except for Drew.


David

 

[DREW WILEY]

Private clean rooms aren't too hard to make if you know some basics. If you prefer to do things the hard way, that's your right. I personally don't enjoy spotting negs or prints. But maybe one of you will finally get your name in the Guinness book of world records for the longest session ever trying so salvage a dirty negative. Then you'll be a famous, just like AA.

 

[faberryman]

I guess I have been lucky. I haven’t had a problem with dust. I have never had to try to salvage a dirty negative.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I'm sure someone over on the digital side of the forum has discovered some new app that simulates dusty film. Goes nice with their greasy fingerprints on film app, and cobwebs inside the lens app. The "authentic" look.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have a friend who built a little cleanroom closet into his Sprinter "mobile ski resort". Intelligently used, even a changing tent can become a mini-cleanroom. There are a few tricks to it, but they add relatively little extra expense or hassle. In potentially permanent clean room options, just study what tech clean room suppliers offer. For example, when doing fussy sheet film work, I wear a true all-Dacron cleanroom smock, almost completely lintless. They seemingly last forever and cost about $30, or maybe a little more now - less than a designer T-shirt. The walls are static-resistant black enamel paint. All the surfaces are washable via sponging. There's a recirculating true Hepa air filter in the room - a true industrial one I got free via architectural salvage, and a triple-filtered compressed air line coming in. Not a huge investment overall; but it sure makes a difference when needed.

Because that is my smallest darkroom, it's quite easy to heat in winter, so I do other things in there too, like enlarging. But the whole point is, once I transition away from fiber-based papers to nitpicky film applications, it's very easy to clean either the countertop or the whole room itself. That wouldn't be the case if there was a sink with chemical activity too in there, or a drymounting station - all that kind of thing, plus my really big enlargers, are planted somewhere else. Even well-thought-out conventional darkroom spaces should differentiate portions dedicated to different kinds of activities, with potential simple partitions between them, which do not necessarily need to be permanent, just easily cleaned.

 

[jtk]

I don't think we're still talking about Saint Ansel...but I've known two photographers who spotted his prints.