Ansel Adams Print - Analog Epiphany

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Either with ink jet prints, silver gelatin prints or any 2 dimensional media, there are rules to show depth. While in college majoring in photography, some of the most influential classes I took are studio art classes where I learned composition. I don't necessarily think silver gelatin prints inherently have more depth, it still requires the artistry and technical skill of the photographer and printer to create the illusion of depth. Take a look here.
http://www.proko.com/illusion-of-depth-contrast-aerial-perspective-form/

 

[kintatsu]

Anyone attempting to print the finest possible photographs should study originals by Adams and other masters. The rest of us can benefit from quality reproductions.

Well said. I also found it helpful to watch the videos of him, weston, and others, either working with the camera or in the darkroom. Seeing the approach seems to give insight into the process and consideration that went into the print. There's on video of Adams from 1958 where they show him making a contact print that I found revealing. The way he read the negative nad everything else.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think that was wishful thinking on Ansel's part, Jim. Certain very expensive press techniques today can come close to fascimile, but that
certainly was not the case with even the best halftone printing back in his day. I think I can safely say that because I've been nose to nose with more of Ansel's prints than most folks, though I was actually selling prints through a venue almost in his backyard before I had ever even seen anything of his. And actually, there are quite a few of us who can make better prints than he ever did - we've got better cameras, lenses, films, and papers, and know far more tricks (and we can thank him for teaching us a few of em). His own darkroom was relatively primitively equipped even for the era. But of course, none of us will have his historical impact as a pioneer, teacher, or environmentalist. Since I grew up in the Sierra Nevada, I happen to be very acquainted with its quality of light, and recognize just how sensitive Ansel was to
it, within the parameters of high chosen medium. But he's relatively down the list in what I'd consider a great printmaker. Ironcially, the only
major show I ever split was him involved just my color prints from the Sierra. I didn't even shoot black and white yet. It was that encounter
that got me into black and white work myself, even though I have a different style, and frankly, wanted a financial break from the expense
of printing color. But artistically, I was a lot more influenced by the Westons than AA.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I find some of his offset lithography prints are pretty good. They use a 200 line screen with duotones or tritones. Just don't use a loupe. They're beautiful at arms length. Makes it affordable for the masses. For the rich cats, they go to the art gallery for the real deal.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Or you can buy a true silver print from the original neg printed by Alan Ross according to AA's original supervision.

 

[GRHazelton]

Last year the Booth Western Art Museum in Cartersville GA had a wonderful exhibit of Adams' prints, the majority of which he'd pulled, along with a full-sized mockup of his darkroom. Wonderful stuff, and yes, the prints glow and have palpable depth. In another part of the museum there was a display of large inkjet BW prints, probably made with John Cone's estimable inks, of Georgia scenes. They were very well done, but ... my wife commented that it was good that they weren't adjacent to Adam's work. The inkjet prints, while very good, couldn't compare with silver gelatin fiber based prints. Now, whether the fact that most of Adams' prints were from large format vs. the inkjets, probably from APC or full frame at best made a difference I don't know.

 

[Roger Cole]

I saw an AA exhibition in Toronto a few years ago and while the content wasn't my particular cup of tea, the printing was top notch. Someone at the time mentioned that while not the only reason, the the cadmium in the papers helped the image pop.

If you ever get a chance to see Bob Carnies printing skills, you too will be amazed at what he can do with some very difficult negatives.

Just be sure not to catch his reflection in the glass as it can be off putting.

I doubt cadmium had anything to do with it. Cadmium salts were a component of warm tone papers of bygone years and he didn't print warm tone. In fact he says in The Print, in regard to Portriga, that "I do not generally respond to warm print values" (page 51 of my paperback edition) while pointing out that many people made wonderful prints on Portriga.

We have better papers today than he did. It's not the instrument, it's the musician.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's the instrument plus the musician, Roger. I don't think that every cello player in the philharmonic would be happy thumping a gut bucket
string. Ansel used the best papers he could find, just like most of us. And BW's work was so significantly improved when Seagull G came out, he ordered a personalized car license plate with "SEAGULL" on it. But AA's oldest living assistant, still printing in his 90's, certainly bifurcated on the question of warm papers, and threw quite a fit when Portriga was discontinued. I see his son-in-law on almost a daily basis, who lives with him. It was quite awhile till MGWT came out, which seems capable of competently filling that niche, plus more. I never interacted with AA personally - he was already old and sick when I first got into the game.

 

[markbarendt]

Nothing to do with the original capture then?

Sure, taking a shot is important but, unless you are doing reversal, the only thing you get from taking a shot and developing it, is some "raw material" to work with.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Capture" involves a lot more than tripping the shutter, though that is obviously essential. Most of it is cerebral, both consciously and subconsciously. It's a lot like trying to raise butterflies. You go through profound changes between the larva, pupa, and full adult drying its wings in the sun. I don't regard an image as even existing until the print is precisely trimmed and mounted, because even a millimeter or two
difference of final cropping will affect whether I consider it actually my own image or not. The print itself is the subject. No photograph is the
"rea"l world, but a personalized interpretation of some minute portion and chronological instant of it. But to share that it has to be made tangible, and preferably in as articulate manner as is possible ... Otherwise just how much can you really communicate? Just how much of a
symphony can you convey with a kazoo anyway?

 

[Peter Schrager]

I'm sorry to say this but Mr. Clive MAY just here to bait others into controversy...if you don't see the difference in a silver gelatin print there are lots of other places on the internet to hang out. I'll gladly pay anyones admission to a major retrospective at a museum to see the real thing.
have a great day everyone
Best, Peter

 

[Roger Cole]

It's the instrument plus the musician, Roger. I don't think that every cello player in the philharmonic would be happy thumping a gut bucket
string. Ansel used the best papers he could find, just like most of us. And BW's work was so significantly improved when Seagull G came out, he ordered a personalized car license plate with "SEAGULL" on it. But AA's oldest living assistant, still printing in his 90's, certainly bifurcated on the question of warm papers, and threw quite a fit when Portriga was discontinued. I see his son-in-law on almost a daily basis, who lives with him. It was quite awhile till MGWT came out, which seems capable of competently filling that niche, plus more. I never interacted with AA personally - he was already old and sick when I first got into the game.

Granted that a world class musician isn't likely to make, say, a bass out of a washtub, broomstick and piece of rope. But we do have really superb papers now.

 

[Truzi]

I'll gladly pay anyones admission to a major retrospective at a museum to see the real thing.
have a great day everyone
Best, Peter

Does this apply to people who agree with you?

Last night I was organizing some color snapshots from 2008, and found that "depth" again. Just 35mm, wide-angle lens, and Walgreen's processing and printing. I have a wet-print from digital that my Aunt took of me this summer, and it is flat. Sharp and saturated, like a slide, but flat, unlike a slide. It looks like she took a picture of a cardboard cut-out of me.

I'm not saying all digital photos are bad, but there is a difference; and you don't need a professional or a museum to see the difference.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Roger - back when I was pretty young I imported and sold a lot of hand tools. (Nowadays it's mostly expensive German and Japanese power
equipment). That was back when carpenters still used a lot of traditional hand saws. But one particular model was made specifically for musicians. They were rather rare, were beautifully polished and chromed, and you could hypothetically cut lumber with em just like ordinary
saws. But the quality and temper of the steel was all together a different thing. We tool people could tell the difference by how they "twanged" and reverberated. I got good enough at it to make dogs howl for several blocks around. But one day a concert musician showed up with his violin bow, actually in his black tailed coat and white bowtie, played tunes on some of these, then finally purchased one. So somewhere out there, someone is probably making a special gut bucket for the redneck philharmonic too.

 

[ROL]

I'm embarrassed to say that until recently I had never seen a real silver gelatin print, mainly because I haven't been into photography very long. Several months ago I went to the art museum and saw an Ansel Adams print they had (Still Life with Egg Slicer, San Francisco). I had seen it online a million times, but it was breathtaking to see in person. It looked like the print had a third dimension to it (almost holographic). It was almost as if each element in the still life appeared to be "inside" the paper at a slightly different depth. There is obviously no dramatic depth of field in the still life, so how did he get the effect of relative depth in print? Was is a contact print from a large format camera? Is it the extremely sharp detail causing this? Is it something the average darkroom enthusiast can achieve with practice?

I think your talking mainly about fine art GSPs here. There are plenty of "historical" laugh and documentary silver prints around in newspaper offices (do they still exist?), museums, and people's family snapshots. My grandfather was a newspaper and armed services photographer in the early 20th Century in Omaha. His work is available in Lincoln at the Nebraska State Archives (also the Smithsonian).

But, and this may surprise many (OK, none) who perhaps know my work, I absolutely agree with you that AA's still life is among, if not the best of his (or anyone's) fine art silver work. It is my favorite AA print, not because of its subject matter, but because of the luscious rendering of monochrome tone and light. I couldn't say whether you saw a contact print or not – that info should have been with the print, but if it was larger than 8x10, it was almost certainly an enlargement. I recall seeing a glorious 30"x40" print of it hanging above the foyer of the Mono Inn (owned by his daughter) near Lee Vining, CA, many years ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've collected a number of old prints by ordinary people or run-of-the-mill portrait photographers which are quite lovely, even (and especially)
when they've bronzed or differentially faded in some special manner due to being improperly fixed or whatever in the first place. Once my dad
and I stumbled onto some old tintypes of a bunch of naked Indians beside their bark huts and acorn stashed, and by carefully rethinking all the background distortions and landmarks relative to the primitive lens, actually was able to locate the exact spot it was taken, which turned out to be fairly close to our family ranch up on the San Joaquin. Up here in the Bay Area, a major local collector had been specializing in prints by total unknowns for decades, and recently donated the entire collection to the SFMMA, which they were eager to accept. I wonder how many inkjet prints will have that kind of appeal a century hence.

 

[smithdoor]

Ansel Adams had a good eye darkroom. Today we use filters for film Variable Contrast and changing developing time for paper. Digital uses Photo Shop all work great

Dave

I'm embarrassed to say that until recently I had never seen a real silver gelatin print, mainly because I haven't been into photography very long. Several months ago I went to the art museum and saw an Ansel Adams print they had (Still Life with Egg Slicer, San Francisco). I had seen it online a million times, but it was breathtaking to see in person. It looked like the print had a third dimension to it (almost holographic). It was almost as if each element in the still life appeared to be "inside" the paper at a slightly different depth. There is obviously no dramatic depth of field in the still life, so how did he get the effect of relative depth in print? Was is a contact print from a large format camera? Is it the extremely sharp detail causing this? Is it something the average darkroom enthusiast can achieve with practice?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

He went beyond that

Ansel Adams had a good eye darkroom. Today we use filters for film Variable Contrast and changing developing time for paper. Digital uses Photo Shop all work great

Dave

I think most of his prints are on graded paper. I think he used his skills to expose and develop film to create a negative that will print on a particular grade for the most part. As BW printers, we have it easy with multigrade papers. It gives us the luxury to be a little sloppy with our exposure and development with our film. All we have to do is to change grades with filters. Printers today also can also do split grade printing which he wasn't able to do with graded papers. Now digital photographers can do it in the computer. It's a different craft on the computer.