Ansel Adams - Moonrise in Santa Fe (actually "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico")

[BrianShaw]

Imagine if he had stayed one minute longer at the stump before packing it in...

imagine if he wasn’t such a good teller of tall tales… we’d have a lot less to repeatedly discuss.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

imagine if he wasn’t such a good teller of tall tales… we’d have a lot less to repeatedly discuss.

Then it's probably a good thing he wasn't a fisherman

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

He tried to take a second shot but the sun disappeared behind a cloud! It's my understanding that he did intensification on the foreground portion of the negative.
Many years ago the Smith Santa Fe gallery had a show of that one image, on the anniversary of its shooting. It included a bunch of older prints, including some straight "work" prints. Based on those I'd say AA had to pull out every trick he knew to make a beautiful print. Today he could cheat-scan it and manipulate it in a computer. Not possible in his day.

And in his later years, he expressed excitement for the possibilities of working digitally. He would not have hesitated to use a scanner if they were available back in '41.

 

[ic-racer]

Happy Birthday to the negative!

computer analysis of the scene and precise position of the moon gave an answer of approximately (!) 4:05 p.m. on October the 31st 1941.

 

[Vaughn]

Generally when you intensify a negative, you go all in and do the entire thing. It's really hard (read: impossible) to partly intensify a negative by chemical means without getting very apparent and very ugly marks and unevenness....

I know -- just selenium toning the top half of this negative made for an ugly carbon print...

PS -- a 4"x10" negative

 

[DREW WILEY]

His trust no doubt remasters certain negs for sake of digital repros like posters. But given today's excellent VC papers, the whole foreground versus background dilemma he faced printing that Moonrise neg could be significantly simplified by selecting differential contrast setting for each, which is easy to do using a colorhead and VC paper. But the enhancement approach also allowed him to increase the DMax of the entire image while still preserving the highlights of not only the white crosses in the foreground, but the clouds and moon above. I'm sure it would have still been quite a dodging and burning ordeal, but the latter prints do succeed in hiding all the development flaws in the sky evident in his earlier renditions, prior to enhancement.

Scanners were employed for his later book productions. But I'm glad he never printed that way himself. It just wouldn't be the same. Now if someone drove past the same scene under the same light, it would just be a selfie of Gus and Susie in front of an old cemetery. Or, if one was seeking fame, a viral UTube video of themselves knocking over a headstone with their tire changing iron, and spraying graffiti paint on the rest. Why undermine history with a technological "what if"? And as far as Ansel perhaps improvising and embellishing a bit of the tale, well, he was in good company, since John Muir, Clarence King, and Samuel Clemens were masters of that game beforehand.

Antique dealers prefer the original finish on a piece of furniture or a gunstock for sake of historic authenticity. So, as far as collectibility is involved, it's no wonder the earlier renditions of Moonrise, made in more limited numbers, fetch the highest auction prices due to being the most vintage, despite the technical flaws being a lot more evident. Ansel Adam, with his cowboy hat and bent nose, leading a mule into the wilderness with a clumsy wooden camera on it, wouldn't even exist as a legend if he was just another one in hundred million digital shooters and manipulators today. Same reason taking a tram to the summit of some peak in the Alps doesn't give you the claim to having climbed it. The sheer effort, plus a little bit of luck, turns the experience itself into something else entirely.

I'm drymounting some prints this afternoon based on hauling on my back 85 or 90 lbs of gear, including a Sinar 4X5, for many days on end at high altitude. Whether or not the relatively large film itself provides some kind of superior quality, it's far more the attitude involved, and going to that kind of effort, and maybe coming back with only one or two significant shots, which spells the real qualitative difference. You simply look at things differently, and more appreciatively. As one individual describes it, "No pain, no gain". One great shot is worth more than fifty thousand machine-gunned OK ones.
I'm not implying that one has to use big gear to acquire that kind of attitude, or even to maintain it; but it sure does help in terms of initial discipline and setting visual priorities.

 

[Vaughn]

...

I'm drymounting some prints this afternoon based on hauling on my back 85 or 90 lbs of gear, including a Sinar 4X5, for many days on end at high altitude. Whether or not the relatively large film itself provides some kind of superior quality, it's far more the attitude involved, and going to that kind of effort, and maybe coming back with only one or two significant shots, which spells the real qualitative difference. You simply look at things differently, and more appreciatively. As one individual describes it, "No pain, no gain". One great shot is worth more than fifty thousand machine-gunned OK ones.
...

I have made several 11-day solo backpack trips through the Grand Canyon. A ninety+ pound pack with the 4x5 (no stove and no fires, so no hot meals). Covered the ground (in pieces) from Desert View in the east to the Bass Trail to the west below the rim a few times and a little time cross-country on the north side of the river. A lot of 'pain' to be sure, tough on the knees hiking down with that weight, and at the end climbing back up to 7000' with a pack weighing what it should going in (for normal people). But no real gain in the form of prints. But it has been several decades since I looked at those negatives, perhaps there is a hidden gem in there somewhere... This was all back in my first decade of photography...all a very important learning experience. That was my gain.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Basically, it was a flawed negative that he whipped into shape!

Many decades ago I saw an exhibit of his prints in different iterations over time. Friends of Photography Gallery near Moscone Center. Both long gone it seems. It really made me wonder which version he actually visualized when he clicked the shutter. LOL

A lot of people take real liberties what they tell others as ego and pretense gets in the way. Adams makes it seem like he previsualizes every photo before shooting. Hogwash. He plays with the effects in the darkroom until he gets the version that looks best, just like most of us. In this case, he took a few years.

 

[Vaughn]

A lot of people take real liberties what they tell others as ego and pretense gets in the way. Adams makes it seem like he previsualizes every photo before shooting. Hogwash. He plays with the effects in the darkroom until he gets the version that looks best, just like most of us. In this case, it took a few years.

Correct. IMO, that is a common mis-understanding of Adams (the 'previsualization) that gets pushed all the time. People seem to confuse it with composing an image. The Zone System was designed to help the photographer (pre)visualize what is possible with the light values in front of the lens and how one can manipulate that light with the chosen film through exposure, filtration, and development. The goal being to create a negative that will allow one to refine that image one has composed on the GG into a print. Knowing the controls one has gives one a larger, more refined choice in imagery.

Generally, a good musical performance needs to have all the right notes on the sheets of music.

 

[pentaxuser]

Imagine if he had stayed one minute longer at the stump before packing it in...

If this one minute might have got him the easier shot then a quick munch on a Colquitlam donut might have been all he needed

pentaxuser

 

[takilmaboxer]

In today's world, a good d*****l camera could be pointed at the Moonrise scene, and the computer inside would quickly make two exposures, one for the foreground and one for the background, then combine them into one image, all in less time than it took the photographer to pop their bubble gum. The shot would then be posted on FB and sent to 100,000 followers. So let's give credit where it's due - AA did the calculations in his head while setting up the camera, and when the resulting neg proved to be thin, he was able to fix it during printing. At what point does technology cheapen the achievement? A human mind making decisions about the exposure under duress - that's part of the mystique, for me at least.

 

[MarkS]

The George Eastman Museum exhibited their print of "Moonrise" about 15 years ago. Alongside it they had a complete explanation of the circumstances on that day, as well as of Adams' efforts to print the negative. And a proof contact print from near the time of the original exposure, next to a mid-sized print from the 1950s. That proof is lighter and flatter than any of the finished prints. Their purpose was to show the changes in Adams' vision of the picture over the years.
Adams printed that image many times, each edition darker and with more contrast. As I recall he partially selenium-toned the negative to increase separation in the foreground. He worked very hard to get a result he was happy with, and it was worth the effort.
Someone mentioned seeing the 30x40 print of "Moonrise" at Andrew Smith's gallery; he's moved to Tucson, and that print is still on display; I saw it last week. It now carries an asking price of $600,000.

 

[Pieter12]

I am not familiar with an Ansel Adams photography titled Moonrise in Santa Fe. Maybe a link?

 

[BrianShaw]

There are no links. That is the most rare and elusive AA image. Hasn’t yet been seen by human eyes. Ask AI…

 

[MattKing]

I am not familiar with an Ansel Adams photography titled Moonrise in Santa Fe. Maybe a link?

Thread title tweaked.

 

[Louis Nargi]

I'll save this post.

 

[ericB&W]

I excuse for the error, the right place is Hernandez , near Santa Fe,
but i see has been rightly corrected .

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, even if I could an authentic AA print (personal work - not from his commercial career), Moonrise sure wouldn't be at the top of my list. For one thing, he priinted over 350 of them, almost like a commodity. Second, there are other images I like a lot more. My very favorite is rarely exhibited, and has appeared in a book only once to my knowledge, and not very well reproduced in that case.
But I have way too many damn prints already - mostly my own; but could put any number of them side by side with AA's work and not feel the least bit ashamed. I once did that very thing.

But the big difference is the sheer historical importance of AA as an individual in his own time and place - a major player in the National Parks movement, in helping bring photography into its own as an accepted fashion of fine art, through his teaching of technique, and yes, through his outdoorsy cowboy hat persona, even though he was relatively late to that game, even in a photographic sense. Who doesn't enjoy reading his biography? I have a special appreciation for his handling of light in the Sierra because the same places were essentially my back yard growing up. I have my own shooting and printing style; but still, I can appreciate what others do well in their own way. Fully accurate or not, his story of Moonrise is now itself part of photographic history, and always will be. But that stroy should also help debunk the myth that he was the epitome of technique. Sometimes he was just lucky, and even more often, worked really really hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear negative.

 

[Mark J]

I wish the desert Southwest ones eg. the Taos church & pueblo pictures were more widely shown. We had an AA exhibition in London at the Maritime Museum, but it was only the mountains, rivers and lakes theme that was shown.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Sometimes he was just lucky, and even more often, worked really really hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear negative.
Hard work. Good Luck. Right place at the right time. That's life! But your need the skills to take advantage.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sometimes he was just lucky, and even more often, worked really really hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear negative.
Hard work. Good Luck. Right place at the right time. That's life! But your need the skills to take advantage.

Indeed.

 

[Bill Burk]

There’s a post on Facebook celebrating its birthday. Dave Frieder wrote that he saw the negative at Ansel Adams’ house.

 

[Bill Burk]

Among a recent collection of exposure meters one of the first Weston’s.

Previous owner scratched filter factors. It’s interesting to see the 3x isn’t two whole stops. I adjusted the dial to fit the discussion of Ansel Adams’ story.

Instead of 64 emulsion speed I set 50 to fit the famous “exposure formula” Ansel used which agrees with ASA speed but not Weston speed. Explanation: Square root of speed as the f/stop (64 -> f/8), shutter speed as the reciprocal of candles per square foot (moon luminance 250 -> 1/250), emulsion speed as needed to fit the formula…after setting the other values the Weston speed shown is 50.

Without the meter in hand, Ansel went (in his mind) from the 250 on the outer scale to 65 to “place” the moon’s luminance on Zone VI

He then opened two stops to adjust for the filter and arrived at one second. But shown here is 3x mark on 65. The recommended exposure is 4/5 second.

I never personally increased exposure one and two-thirds stops for a 3x filter. I always gave two stops. I think Ansel Adams did too.

 

[BrianShaw]

What I really wonder is if his lips moved or he mumbled or if he talked out loud to himself while figuring all that out. Adams was quite a robust and detailed storyteller but I don’t recall ever hearing about that detail.

 

[Bill Burk]

There’s a video on Threads where he tells the story to Dick Cavett. Soft spoken here, but he says he was yelling!

Ansel Adams Photographer, Artist & Activist (@anseladams) on Threads

“Chance favors the prepared mind.” — Louis Pasteur On this day in photography, November 1, 1941, Ansel made his most celebrated picture, “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico”—also known as “the one that almost got away!” 📹: Ansel on the Dick Cavett Show, March 1980.

www.threads.net