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

[Alan Edward Klein]

The "visualization" that Adams wrote about - not "previsualization, that was Minor White - was more about how the print could be made to appear based on the scene, the exposure chosen, the film development controls applied and the printing manipulations available and employed. It is/was all related to knowledge about the capabilities of one's tools, as well as the capabilities of one's vision.
And his knowledge about the luminance of the image of the moon was more than just Sunny 16 - it also factored in the reflectance of the moon.
"Moonrise" is the result of seeing an image that was fleeting in its nature, and quickly applying as much of his experiential knowledge as the moment permitted to a very difficult photographic challenge - followed up by years of darkroom exploration. Most people would have looked at the negative (in its un-intensified original form) and put it into the discard file, as a likely lost cause. But Adams had a vision for it, and the printing chops to do something about that.
I equate the evolution of his prints of "Moonrise" over the years to something similar to the evolution in performance over time that a good musician will bring to a piece of music that they really want to play. A not inappropriate analogy I would think for a photographer trained originally as a musician.

I point I was trying to make is that many people think visualization has to do with the entire picture including composition and not just exposure and how to develop and print to meet the lighting conditions.

Also, I don't buy Moonrise evolved and got better over the years. Film isn't wine. It was a badly exposed photo. Doesn't look anything like his final prints. He just got more adept at darkroom maneuvers. Maybe he was secretly using Photoshop.

 

[DREW WILEY]

His "Photoshop" consisted of selenium intensification of the foreground, and very heavy-handing burning in of the sky portion. The printing task could have been simplified even back then if he had been proficient in masking skills like some of his color printing neighbors. And with today's VC papers it would have been less of an issue, especially given some assistance from Farmer's Reducer. But still, collectors are paying the highest prices for the rarer more vintage ones which don't look so good. At least water bath development somewhat worked in his favor. It helped him in some ways with this image, but hurt him in other ways. It wouldn't have worked at all with today's thinner emulsion films. Anyway, AA apparently wasn't any kind of wino; he preferred hard liquor.

It's also a little unfair to judge him given the fact that film speed quality control wasn't as consistent as it is today. You can only stretch luck so far. And he was at least partially lucky that time. If the negative had turned out smooth sky instead of blotchy, I would have preferred something in between his earlier renderings and that ink black later sky necessary to hide the development flaws. That later classic rendering of the scene is a bit over the top to my taste - overdramatized.

And he had plenty of bad negatives to contend with, not just this one. Some of the hardest to print were due to water staining trying to put out a fire in his Yosemite darkroom. But all of that just seems to add to the lore of it, and gives it more historical perspective, as if he himself were a pioneer of the photography of the West, which he certainly wasn't. But at least he understood the marketing value of a good story to go along with the image.

 

[Mike Lopez]

I point I was trying to make is that many people think visualization has to do with the entire picture including composition and not just exposure and how to develop and print to meet the lighting conditions.

Also, I don't buy Moonrise evolved and got better over the years. Film isn't wine. It was a badly exposed photo. Doesn't look anything like his final prints. He just got more adept at darkroom maneuvers. Maybe he was secretly using Photoshop.

Regarding your first paragraph, who are the "many people" you refer to, besides perhaps yourself?

About your second paragraph, nothing written there holds up to even the slightest scrutiny by those who have at least some knowledge of the history of photography. I'm not an Ansel Adams fan, but it really wouldn't be difficult to bother learning about the evolution of that image over time.

 

[BrianShaw]

So how is Alan wrong? I’m really curious.

 

[MattKing]

So how is Alan wrong? I’m really curious.

He isn't - generally speaking.
But AA's particular contribution to the subject of visualization didn't have much to do with composition - save and except that the techniques he helped people acquired expanded the possibilities.
"Moonrise" is a good example of that. Most people's negatives would have struggled with the subject, no matter how well they were exposed and developed. But Adams helped people marry their tools - including darkroom tools - with their imagination.

 

[BrianShaw]

I understand why you say that. At least I think I do. Adams wrote/spoke more about the technical techniques of Zone System and gear yet said less about the composition aspect of image management. Instead, he simply demonstrated excellent compositional skills and let them speak for themselves. It seems difficult to not do both just as well as the other when making 6-million USD images.

If only Adams was just a bit more like Mortensen…

 

[Mike Lopez]

So how is Alan wrong? I’m really curious.

I suppose I shouldn't have been so harsh, since there's nothing but speculation in Alan's post, but with blanket statements like "It's a badly exposed photo...doesn't look anything like his final prints," he's showing that he doesn't know or care about why the image changed over time. Drew already hit one point up above--Adams worked with the negative, years after its initial development, to bolster the overall contrast. Wine aficionado or not, that demonstrates an evolution of the photograph in its presentation, something Alan specifically says he disbelieves. Further, while I don't have a personal copy handy and I haven't read it in over 20 years, one of Adams' biographers pointed to cataracts as one reason why his later prints are simply darker than others. No darkroom trickery, no sleight-of-hand...but it's an evolution of the image, for better or worse.

And I'm unaware of anyone who thinks or claims that visualization, as codified by Adams, has anything at all to do with composition. That's why I invited Alan to identify who those many people are.

 

[Arthurwg]

Hernandez NM is actually just north of Penasco, NM. The site is somewhat obscured by recent construction but is clearly visible from the street. The locals are very aware of the picture, with a neighboring property named "Moonrise Farm."

 

[reddesert]

First, visualization has to do with understanding how you want the finished image to look, and creating a composition, exposure, etc, that allows this. Photography is not simply representing the light values you "see" onto a print. For a different example, we've all seen high-key photography, (often in fashion photography), where much of the image is very light values. It's very evocative even though if you were looking at the scene in real life, you would never see that pure high-key tonality, because your eyes and brain adjust to the dynamic range of what's in front of you.

Second, Moonrise, Hernandez was clearly a difficult exposure balancing the foreground, the moon, and the sky values. Anyone who has taken a picture of a beautiful sunset scene, back to the sun, yet produced an image with a muddy foreground and blown-out sky should understand this issue. It is almost certain that neither the early or late printed versions of Moonrise literally represent the tonal values that a person standing there at the moment of exposure would have perceived. That's why dismissing visualization and calling it a "badly exposed photo" is demonstrating a sort of ignorance of artistic process - that creating an image involves choices about how you want it to look, not just where to point the camera.

I'm not an Adams worshipper by any means, but his explanations of how he thought about how he wanted images to look before clicking the shutter are useful reading (eg all of Examples, not just Moonrise) - you can just skim over the Zone System bits if you don't care about that.

 

[Mike Lopez]

That's why dismissing visualization and calling it a "badly exposed photo" is demonstrating a sort of ignorance of artistic process - that creating an image involves choices about how you want it to look, not just where to point the camera.

Yep. Exactly that.

I'm not an Adams worshipper by any means, but his explanations of how he thought about how he wanted images to look before clicking the shutter are useful reading (eg all of Examples, not just Moonrise) - you can just skim over the Zone System bits if you don't care about that.

Same here. Not a fan, but in my early years of photography, I did pick up quite a few technical points from those books. His compositions aren't very interesting to me and they get very repetitive, but, speaking as an engineer, I do like to maintain some semblance of technical control over the final print, which is where his writings pay dividends.

 

[Vaughn]

One composes light -- visualization and an understanding of the light (via the Zone System, experience or whatever) is tightly connected to composition.

 

[BrianShaw]

I guess is a really good thing that nobody called Moonrise a happy accident or a lucky snapshot!

 

[DREW WILEY]

No matter how good your technique and even compositional skills, often interesting opportunities suddenly come up which are a little out of control and need some luck. Just to keep my own skills polished, I often deliberately tackle scenes with shifting light, when an intricate composition which looks good one second might fail a few seconds later. If I want a high percent of success, then it makes sense to shoot it using a MF SLR or RF. But it I want to win big, then I need to gamble a sheet of 8x10 film. No, I don't always press that shutter; but sometimes I need to, just so I can compare the actual result once the film is developed. Then when those really special shots suddenly show up, I'm able to tackle them more spontaneously. Even Babe Ruth struck out more times than he hit a home run.

I think AA pretty much had the same attitude at Hernandez. He had to roll the dice quickly, because he knew he wasn't likely to have another opportunity. A lot of that scene was out of his control. We shouldn't judge his methodology and its limitations in comparison to our own gear, films, and papers today. He was making the most with what he had. And quite a bit of his own learning curve for better or worse has become the heritage of many photographers due to his sharing of it.

 

[Mark J]

Taking anything on 8x10 is never a snapshot !

 

[koraks]

Taking anything on 8x10 is never a snapshot !

Oh, but it is. In fact, for me, it is so every time.

You see...I position the camera, and my backbone goes "snap!"
And then it's shot.

 

[BrianShaw]

Oh, but it is. In fact, for me, it is so every time.

You see...I position the camera, and my backbone goes "snap!"
And then it's shot.

... and I can snap 4x faster with 4x5! ha ha ha

 

[chuckroast]

Moon is 256 footcandles, the “exposure formula” tells you to take the square root of your ASA 64 -> 8 as your f/stop.

Then you use the footcandles as your shutter speed.

1/250 at f/8 for starters. Equivalent of 1/15 at f/32

That places the moon on Zone V, did he say he wants it brighter so 1/8 for Zone VI, 1/4 for Zone VII

Get the filter factor in there, is that between one and two stops.. Voila you’re at a second.

What made the image spectacular was the late afternoon sunlight reflecting off shiny things in the graveyard. That’s what caught his eye and was what he was lucky enough to setup and shoot.

Quite a pleasant way to wrap up an afternoon out taking pictures.

This also proves that all subjects worth shooting in LF can be reached by automobile

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, a great amount of effort and money was spent to gain actual snapshots of the surface of the moon, and it can't be reached by automobile. Given the fact they carried an overpriced Hassie might account for some of that budget issue. But at least they were able to finally get a correct light meter reading of the surface!

When I shoot 8x10 I don't want to be anywhere near a road. Too easy to get run over by some careless truck driver, or get dust all over my gear as cars speed by. I've even had rocks thrown at my camera. But if you do need to climb over a fence into a pasture to get a better shot, it's generally wise not to have a red dark cloth unless you also have well-honed matador skills.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I suppose I shouldn't have been so harsh, since there's nothing but speculation in Alan's post, but with blanket statements like "It's a badly exposed photo...doesn't look anything like his final prints," he's showing that he doesn't know or care about why the image changed over time. Drew already hit one point up above--Adams worked with the negative, years after its initial development, to bolster the overall contrast. Wine aficionado or not, that demonstrates an evolution of the photograph in its presentation, something Alan specifically says he disbelieves. Further, while I don't have a personal copy handy and I haven't read it in over 20 years, one of Adams' biographers pointed to cataracts as one reason why his later prints are simply darker than others. No darkroom trickery, no sleight-of-hand...but it's an evolution of the image, for better or worse.

And I'm unaware of anyone who thinks or claims that visualization, as codified by Adams, has anything at all to do with composition. That's why I invited Alan to identify who those many people are.

I don't develop or print, myself, I don't have a darkroom. Never used the zone system. However, it seems to me that many people who have posted about the Zone system have in their words gone beyond exposure issues and included in the Zone system an almost mystical fabrication of the final result of the print in their mind, composition and all. Others have described it more simply as a method to get the exposure right, and then flag what has to be done in the darkroom later to print it well. But the picture itself, could be a dud from other more aesthetic aspects. I believe the latter exposure formula process is the zone system. But I could be wrong and would welcome correction.

Adam's many revisions of the prints of his Moonrise negative confirms to me that just maybe he really didn't have a final result in mind at all, rushed as he was at the time, and adjusted his aesthetics of the prints over time, a perfectly acceptable process to me. Tastes change, even our own.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, a great amount of effort and money was spent to gain actual snapshots of the surface of the moon, and it can't be reached by automobile. Given the fact they carried an overpriced Hassie might account for some of that budget issue. But at least they were able to finally get a correct light meter reading of the surface!

They had good job aids, tools, and training.

https://www.mr-alvandi.com/downloads/camera-and-accessorys-manuals/hasselblad-nasa-astronauts-photography-manual.pdf

One can rightfully assume that they RTFM for their little snapshot trip(s).

 

[BrianShaw]

...

Adam's many revisions of the prints of his Moonrise negative confirms to me that just maybe he really didn't have a final result in mind at all, rushed as he was at the time, and adjusted his aesthetics of the prints over time, a perfectly acceptable process to me. Tastes change, even our own.

Your mild skepticism is both valid and understood by some yet not by others. This always happens when some photogaphers or their images come into discussion. It's not AA bashing at all; it's critical thinking.

It would behoove some to re-read the introduciton to Adam's Book 2: The Negative as it provides a good context of his philosophy on the unified photographic practice of visualization, whic incldes exposing a negative and manipulating that 'information" into an expressive print.. whcih as we know can be plural in nature. It seems that some might not recall that he held this broad unifying philosophy and focus on parts of his process as if that's all there was.

 

[Vaughn]

...But I could be wrong and would welcome correction.
...

AA was an artist and considered photography to be an art form. He developed the Zone System, as an artist/teacher, to better understand the light we work with as artists to help us visualize, or create, our images. He never stated the Zone System was designed to help the artist to create an unchanging image in their head to be reproduced later. The score/performance analogy would affirm that, IMO.

The non-artist can benefit from the Zone System in helping refine their control of the materials and possibly make negatives that are easier for them to print.

 

[MattKing]

Adam's many revisions of the prints of his Moonrise negative confirms to me that just maybe he really didn't have a final result in mind at all, rushed as he was at the time, and adjusted his aesthetics of the prints over time, a perfectly acceptable process to me. Tastes change, even our own.

You could say the same thing about every single Bob Dylan concert performance.
Why bother to go to the concert. Just stream the original recording - it will be just as good

 

[DREW WILEY]

Brian - a former patient of my wife was one of the test pilots chosen by NASA, and was an aeronautical engineer as well, directly involved in both the Mercury and Apollo programs. Although he never went to the moon himself, and remained an alternate astronaut, he was in charge of a lot of the ergonomic designing of equipment, as well as training with it. I've had some fascinating conversations with him. He's still alive and even rented a small plane to fly around a few hours, to celebrate his 96th birthday! But he was never involved with any of the camera gear per se, so couldn't help my curiosity in that respect.

But back to Moonrise per se - I doubt that even the most religious of Zone gurus ever precisely previsualized a print. The whole point is to obtain a versatile enough negative to make life easier. And not until one actually gets to work in the darkroom and spends some time with that specific negative can they start homing in on what it was they might or might not have been thinking about when they took that shot to begin with. It's impossible to instantly freeze-dry the whole mental and practical process. Papers change, personal ways of looking at the same things change. Even the Zone System doesn't preclude an evolution of practical output in print fashion, potentially even within the same work session. I often deliberately print the same negative a bit differently, even on the same day. I might like one version better than the other, or perhaps like both equally well, but for different reasons. That's the difference between a human being in control versus a rote machine. We try to impart our own soul into the print too.

 

[BrianShaw]

Brian - a former patient of my wife was one of the test pilots chosen by NASA, and was an aeronautical engineer as well, directly involved in both the Mercury and Apollo programs. Although he never went to the moon himself, and remained an alternate astronaut, he was in charge of a lot of the ergonomic designing of equipment, as well as training with it. I've had some fascinating conversations with him. He's still alive and even rented a small plane to fly around a few hours, to celebrate his 96th birthday! But he was never involved with any of the camera gear per se, so couldn't help my curiosity in that respect.

I've not known astronauts of that era, but a couple of the Space Shuttle era. They were all fantastic photographers. I'm not sure when in their training photography was addressed or how photography ranked in terms of mission essential. This is somewhat basic article by NASA an interesting retrospective on the topic, although there is at least one typo:

Astronaut Still Photography During Apollo - NASA

At the beginning of the space program hardly anyone thought of photographs from space as anything more than a branch of industrial photography. There were

history.nasa.gov

And regarding old geezers in airplanes... I worked with a guy (father of one of the astronausts I met) who lost his FAA license at about 90 due to medical exam. So he built and flew ultralights for a few more years since no license was required. We worked together and took power walks at lunchtime. We often walked until I was weeping and he still was going. Some old guys have unbelievable stamina. He retired at 89 if I recall correctly.