"... in the end we only need a pinhole camera" (said Ansel Adams)

TheToadMen · May 14, 2016

Ansel Adams was interviewed back in 1981 by John Huszar and asked what kind of cameras he had used. He lists quite some cameras and comments on the heavy equipment and darkroom gear they had to carry around to make wet plate large format images in the field:
"I guess we all did the best as we could. If we had very heavy cameras we simply didn't go so far or take so many pictures."

But at the end he also said:
"Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras."

And i can't agree more ...

(Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_packing.html)

RalphLambrecht · May 16, 2016

TheToadMen said:
Ansel Adams was interviewed back in 1981 by John Huszar and asked what kind of cameras he had used. He lists quite some cameras and comments on the heavy equipment and darkroom gear they had to carry around to make wet plate large format images in the field:
"I guess we all did the best as we could. If we had very heavy cameras we simply didn't go so far or take so many pictures."

But at the end he also said:
"Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras."

And i can't agree more ...

(Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_packing.html)

as always,he was right.I 've seen gorgeous work from 11x14 pinhole cameras on negative and direct positive paper.

DREW WILEY · May 16, 2016

Is there any evidence the aforementioned Photographic Saint ever actually used a pinhole camera? Prognosticating and pontificating is one thing;
being an example for what one truly thinks is another.

removed account4 · May 16, 2016

i don't think it really matters if he used one or didn't.
he basically is saying what a lot of people believe -
that great photographs can be made with most humble of equipment.

Frank53 · May 16, 2016

TheToadMen said:
Ansel Adams was interviewed back in 1981 by John Huszar and asked what kind of cameras he had used. He lists quite some cameras and comments on the heavy equipment and darkroom gear they had to carry around to make wet plate large format images in the field:
"I guess we all did the best as we could. If we had very heavy cameras we simply didn't go so far or take so many pictures."

But at the end he also said:
"Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras."

And i can't agree more ...

(Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_packing.html)

Around the same time he wrote:
"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them"
Frank

Diapositivo · May 16, 2016

Ansel Adams made a living selling photographs (or selling books the fame of which derives from the photographs he took). You can have a great composition but it is debateable whether, taken with a pinhole camera, that leads to great sales.
Quality matters. Ansel Adams brought a lot of equipment with the donkey and certainly would have saved the expense and fuss (never dealt with a mule but they appear to have quite a bit of a personality ) if a pinhole camera had been enough for his purposes.

I certainly agree that the most humble of equipments can allow to make good photographs. But I don't agree with the hypothesis that in the end we only need a pinhole camera. Most of us need quality. Pinhole cameras represent a strong compromise with image quality. Not AA's kind of photography at all.

DREW WILEY · May 16, 2016

If he had been halfway serious about that quip, he wouldn't have been active in a group named f/64, noted for its diametrically opposite look to those they contemptuously termed the Fuzzy Wuzzies. He gave up even on soft focus lenses way way back. But who cares? Do what YOU like.

Sirius Glass · May 16, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
If he had been halfway serious about that quip, he wouldn't have been active in a group named f/64, noted for its diametrically opposite look to those they contemptuously termed the Fuzzy Wuzzies. He gave up even on soft focus lenses way way back. But who cares? Do what YOU like.

When he got older he used Hasselblads, which are hardly pin hole cameras. So that would indicate that the Hasselblad is the minimum acceptable camera for him.

Jim Jones · May 16, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
Is there any evidence the aforementioned Photographic Saint ever actually used a pinhole camera? Prognosticating and pontificating is one thing;
being an example for what one truly thinks is another.

Apparently he did use a pinhole camera. See page 41 of Camera and Lens (Basic Photo One) (1970). The photo was used to illustrate several technical points, not as an example of his commercial or fine art photography.

Allen Friday · May 16, 2016

Did Ansel ever say "in the end we only need a pinhole camera?" (The thread title).

That is quite different from "any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras." (The quote in the OP).

DREW WILEY · May 16, 2016

He was into Hassies for quite awhile, including when he was still young enough to ski to the rim of Yos Valley to bag that famous moon over Half Dome shot. But with the help of assistants he still shot large format too, especially a Sinar Norma, as he got older. He experimented with all kinds of gear. But he gave up on backpacks for extended outings by the time he was 32, and resorted to mules. By our current standards, his big camera negs generally weren't all that sharp. We've got better view cameras, better filmholders, more precise lenses, finer films.

Jim Jones · May 16, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
When he got older he used Hasselblads, which are hardly pin hole cameras. So that would indicate that the Hasselblad is the minimum acceptable camera for him.

A 1957 film shows him loading 8x10, 7x17, 4x5, Hasselblad, Polaroid, and a Contaflex into his ancient Cadillac with the platform on the top. He said, "A fine craftsman employs different tools for different purposes."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am54LMSwz9E

DREW WILEY · May 16, 2016

Don't forget the 2-1/4 X 3-1/4 Jewell.

Ko.Fe. · May 16, 2016

For what he photographed to be known, sure, pinhole does provide enough. As long as it is LF on the back.
Would Dorothea Lange get her Migrant Mother or Garry Winogrand his Central Park Zoo couple with monkey if equipped with pinhole?
Sure. But if on pinhole it has to be treated with Pablo Picasso salt and not as visual documentary.

TheToadMen · May 16, 2016

Allen Friday said:
Did Ansel ever say "in the end we only need a pinhole camera?" (The thread title).

That is quite different from "any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras." (The quote in the OP).

You're quite right. This was my personal interpretation - as a "provocative" title so to say to start the discussion.
But he did say/write: " ... to avoid the common illusion that creativity depends on equipment alone ..." .

(And that is even more true in this day and age of digital camera with more pixels, multiple axes stabilization, mega ISO values, etc.)

summicron1 · May 16, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
Is there any evidence the aforementioned Photographic Saint ever actually used a pinhole camera? Prognosticating and pontificating is one thing;
being an example for what one truly thinks is another.

In one of his books -- Camera & Lens-- is an image he shot using a pinhole camera.

DREW WILEY · May 16, 2016

Maybe not. He could have simulated this by merely removing lens cells and closing an aperture way down, or perhaps by substituting a cardboard lens board with a hole in it. The whole point of publishing that example in a how-to book (which I have read), was to illustrate why decent image-forming lenses are needed! It was hardly an endorsement for the alternative!

TheToadMen · May 16, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
... removing lens cells and closing an aperture way down, or perhaps by substituting a cardboard lens board with a hole in it ....

So, basically, a homemade pinhole camera?

DREW WILEY · May 16, 2016

You get the point. I've seen a heck of a lot of his prints, going way back, and not a single pinhole shot among them. It's like taking a cooking class and being forced to taste something over-salted just to teach you why not to do it. Now I have nothing against people who enjoy pinhole photography;
but trying to use AA as an endorsement is patently absurd. Get your own guru.

Sean Mac · May 16, 2016

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

The subject is far more important than what is used to capture it.

"Sharpness is a Bourgeois concept."

DREW WILEY · May 17, 2016

No wonder there are so many wrecks on the freeway.

removed account4 · May 17, 2016

TheToadMen said:
But he did say/write: " ... to avoid the common illusion that creativity depends on equipment alone ..." .

you mean we always had the power to go back to kansas ?!

Mainecoonmaniac · May 17, 2016

But she needed those ruby slippers! Women have their own from of GAS. They have SAS. Shoe Acquisition Syndrome. So if my wife gets new shoes, I get a new camera.

removed account4 · May 17, 2016

yeah shoes

DREW WILEY · May 17, 2016

Shoes? Collecting them is a primal instinct. Not long ago they did a study using mitochondrial DNA and discovered that every woman on earth is related to a common ancestor named Imelda Marcos.

"... in the end we only need a pinhole camera" (said Ansel Adams)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency