Discussing a Ansel Adams photograph (some photographic "comfort food")

naturephoto1 said:

Yes Don, I have. I have a small book of Adams color images, as I recall from the Mural Project. But, I was taking landscape photos long before seeing much less knowing anything about Adams' color work. So his influence for me was based upon his B&W work. From my understanding, Adams did not print any or little of his color work because at the time, he did not like the color printing processes available. Long after his death, my printer, Bill Nordstrom had the opportunity to print as I recall both a 5" x 7" Adams Kodachrome and an 8" x 10" Weston Kodachrome. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to see Bill's handywork in printing these either off of a Lightjet or Chromira machine.

Rich

Click to expand...

Well I think it is interesting to read Ansel's thoughts about his color work. Long story short is that he didn't like his work partly because of the limitations of color materials (mostly Ektachrome and Kodachrome transparanecies). He was frustrated with color since his ability to stylize the images were so limited even though he had excellent knowledge about the practice and theory of color photography.

His posthumous book, 'Ansel Adams In Color', is definitely worth a close inspection. Some of the images in the book have the look of some contemporary fine art color photographers. These images show how Ansel minimalised his palette and forms yielding a very un-Anselesque look. Specifically the photos on pages 44, 45, 54, 55, 75, 93 are his best examples of this 'technique'.

It is also interesting to note the names of some of the colaborators involved in producing this book. Harry Callahan picked the images to be used. John Szarkowski as well as many other notables contributed their advice producing and editing this neat little book.

I've seen some of Adam's vintage color prints and they have a much different feeling than much of today's over saturated color printing.

Finally, his SX-70 color work has a unique look all their own IMO, It's amazing to see what he did with this positive color material.

tim atherton said:

I'm occasionally tempted to side with Bazin and Kendall Watson and declare that photographs are entirely transparent and the photographic image is the object itself... but I can never quite bring myself to do it. Though the idea of the photograph as a true icon (essentially what has been expressed in some of these threads) is appealing

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the coincidence of subject and object mean they're OPAQUE, and thus purely iconic?

Also - can you redefine what you imply by 'true icon'?

donbga said:

I've seen some of Adam's vintage color prints and they have a much different feeling than much of today's over saturated color printing.

Click to expand...

You don't think that could simply be a byproduct of process do you? Or maybe the images/plates you were viewing were faded..?

Something similar crossed my mind via the Atget thread - that perhaps much of the appeal was due to the characteristics of the process from that age, and/or being documents of a far-bygone era. I think Sontag would have something to say about that.

Sparky said:

You don't think that could simply be a byproduct of process do you? Or maybe the images/plates you were viewing were faded..?

Click to expand...

No that wasn't my impression. They had the look of Harry Callahan's vintage color prints, if you know what I mean.

I can't recall for sure now but the two Adams prints that I saw may have been dye transfers and so perhaps were the Callahan prints.

Jim Chinn said:

.....

While his images are icons to many, I wonder though, does Adams hold any relevance to young photographers today?

Click to expand...

No time to plow through the whole thread - but thought I'd answer this particular query.

For many years Ansel Adams had a close working relationship with the magazine "Arizona Highways" and produced many images for it.

Anyone today who has seed a copy of this spectacular publication will readily know how Adams continues to inform the art of young landscape photographers today.

Sparky said:

Wouldn't the coincidence of subject and object mean they're OPAQUE, and thus purely iconic?

Also - can you redefine what you imply by 'true icon'?

Click to expand...

an icon isn't (or at least isn't only) a representation or depiction of something or merely a symbol for it, but rather a window or "portal" (to use a currently popularised word) - and even those two descriptions are inadequate. The icon actually embodies some of what portrays. In religious terms, this is one of the major differences between eastern icons and western statues. The statue of a saint is generally just a representation of the saint or whatever (however holy it may be). The icon, by contrast, has a direct connection (as it were) with what or who it portrays.. When viewing the icon, you are - in a real if limited sense - actually seeing who is portrayed.

Like all apologies. not a 100% fit, but pretty close to the point being made.

(and don't bother doing a Wiki check on "icons" - the intro to their piece is about as incorrect as you can get - which is why i always approach the Wikipedia with caution. I find at least 1 in 2 of the entries I know something about in detail to have numerous mistakes)

Originally Posted by Jim Chinn
.....

While his images are icons to many, I wonder though, does Adams hold any relevance to young photographers today?

I think he does. I also think his outstanding ability to educate has been overlooked. His three books still are used as reference points though the materials may have changed, people still look to his writings for answers.

df cardwell said:

Listen to Horowitz in Moscow,

Click to expand...

What is your favorite piece on that recording?

My favorite Ansel Adams book is _Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs_ . That taken with Mortensen's _The Command to Look_ and _The Model_, along with _Way Beyond Monochrome_ (to keep things current), form my essential photographic technique library. Ok, let's include Tim Rudman's books as well.

tim atherton said:

an icon isn't (or at least isn't only) a representation or depiction of something or merely a symbol for it, but rather a window or "portal" (to use a currently popularised word) - and even those two descriptions are inadequate. The icon actually embodies some of what portrays. In religious terms, this is one of the major differences between eastern icons and western statues. The statue of a saint is generally just a representation of the saint or whatever (however holy it may be). The icon, by contrast, has a direct connection (as it were) with what or who it portrays.. When viewing the icon, you are - in a real if limited sense - actually seeing who is portrayed.

Like all apologies. not a 100% fit, but pretty close to the point being made.

(and don't bother doing a Wiki check on "icons" - the intro to their piece is about as incorrect as you can get - which is why i always approach the Wikipedia with caution. I find at least 1 in 2 of the entries I know something about in detail to have numerous mistakes)

Click to expand...

It's a pretty interesting subject for me actually. You see - I would generally agree with your description of an 'icon' - and to me this is the merging of subject/object - more specifically - the merging of meaning with representation. It is frequently with religious objects that the two are the same. I did my master's thesis exploring the roots of contemporary museology/art galleries - and found that the 'birth of representation' really happened during the discovery of the new world, before which, you could never really separate the two. New world objects, Pagan objects which had no place in christian culture as such would be placed in the 'curiosity cabinet' so as not to be ideologically problematic for viewers. But this forced a split, supposedly, and suddenly we were confronted with the concept of the object representing something foreign, something 'other'.

Though (and perhaps we're talkin' the same game here) I take something transparent to be an object through which exists a subject - that is - the 'art object' which may be an Adams print, say, with it's own aesthetic qualities common to all Adams' prints - but who also have a subject, on whichever level you may care to interpret the word.

Anyway- just thought I'd throw that in there. Do with it what you will.