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.
Regarding your first paragraph, who are the "many people" you refer to, besides perhaps yourself?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.
So how is Alan wrong? I’m really curious.
So how is Alan wrong? I’m really curious.
Yep. Exactly that.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
...
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.
...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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?