Moonrise Hernandez

[PKM-25]

Would you all like it as much if Adams had done all the dodging and burning manipulation using Photoshop?

Using Photoshop would have required the exactly same artistic interpretation on the image he had originally captured.

No, I would not have liked it, because it would not have been hand made, now days, there is computer made and then there is everything that is not computer made, big, big difference in the required talent and persistence.

And I disagree with you in terms of what the artistic interpretation of the image would have been if photoshop were around. It simply was not and there is no going back from that....thank god.

Personally, I have never been one to manipulate images to the degree that Adams did and *certainly* not to the point of the worthless garbage I see from people using photoshop. But I did have a "Hernandez" moment this year and I am still quite taken aback that I pulled it off, all in the way I saw it, shot it, souped it and printed it, requiring every ounce of technique and talent I could pull together. It took a ton of work and the result is not something you can get from a computer photo....

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Perhaps one's appreciation is also dependent to a certain degree on one's willingness to participate in the viewing experience.

In today's culture many have come to expect to be passively entertained, or engaged, or moved, or informed, or whatever, without ever realizing that they must also actively contribute to that process in order to fully experience it.

If you stand in front of a photograph and simply wait for it to speak to you, you could be in for a long wait. The viewing needs to be participatory. Same with a book. You can stare at it on the table until the cows come home, but until you make the effort to actually open and read it, not much literary appreciation is going to happen.

Ken

 

[Leigh B]

I want to wring their neck and say, "Then don't take the bloody picture -- or at least don't print the dang thing!" But I don't because I actually know what they are trying to say and we all have to make these errors and hopefully learn from them.

And what if the original photographer says: "I like it that way. That's why I took the photo."

Who are you to decide that the pic contains an "error"? Are you the final arbiter of artistic vision on this planet?

- Leigh

 

[Vaughn]

All depend, Leigh. If they considered all the aspects of the image and liked it that way, fine -- I don't have to like it for it to be a good image to them. But if they just, for example, looked at the subject without considering the entire image, and the rest of the image detracts from their subject, then they have failed to make the best image they are capable of. But some people feel like 'okay' is good enough...and usually they say in their defense, "I like it that way. That's why I took the photo."

I broke one of my own rules and critiqued a baby picture -- a dumb thing to do. Rarely can a parent see past the baby.

Another classic is the tree or post growing out of someone's head. The photographer might still like the photo because of their relationship to the subject. But it still a fail as a photograph. Unless, of course the photographer wanted the tree growing out their subject's head for some odd or even logical reason.

Rules of composition are meant to be broken, but it helps to know the rules first...but sometimes one can get lucky.

 

[Leigh B]

Vaughn,

The problem that I had with your comment is you have no idea what the shooter was thinking of when he tripped the shutter.

You're basing your statements on total speculation.

- Leigh

 

[DREW WILEY]

The logistical problem was simple: just getting the contrast range on the film before the light changed. So there's the story of how he calculated that since he couldn't locate his light meter.
But the darkroom trick in that era was water bath development. So he ended up with a highly compensated neg which produced a much softer more luminous print than what all this chatter is
about. Nowadays, some of those earlier renditions of Moonrise actually sell for more because they
are rare and allegedly even more "vintage". Then for some marketing, esthetic, or maybe personality
reason he wanted something more dramatic and contrasty and differentially enhanced the negative.
I thought it was overdone; but that more theatrical mode is what defines several of AA's most famous landscapes - inky black skies, high contrast. He certainly could make a poetic image at times,
but I never would consider him as the best printer of the era. And thank goodness, he didn't have
Fauxtoshop. Too many options just lead nowhere.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

And thank goodness, he didn't have Fauxtoshop. Too many options just lead nowhere.

Photoshop is simply another tool - and like all tools, can be used for good or bad.

Someplace I saw an article where someone created a set of layers in Photoshop that implemented all of Adam's printing instructions.

IMO, manipulation in any form is manipulation.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Someplace I saw an article where someone created a set of layers in Photoshop that implemented all of Adam's printing instructions.

Oh dear...



Ken

 

[ROL]

Photoshop is simply another tool - and like all tools, can be used for good or bad.

Someplace I saw an article where someone created a set of layers in Photoshop that implemented all of Adam's printing instructions.

IMO, manipulation in any form is manipulation.

Hmmm... Prof_Pixel, another tool?

 

[Hatchetman]

It is a good photograph because it is interesting to the eye and mind, and it tells a story if you allow it to. The vastness of space, the wind whipped human outpost on a barren rocky plain. Even the mountains are dwarfed by vast space. tiny crosses imply the hopeless vulnerability of humanity.

Really, I cannot imagine how someone could conclude "that is not a good print."

But to each his own...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, PS is just another tool kit, rather than a single tool, and can be used by either a genius or a fool. Good for mimicking this or that; but how things evolved in the first place often gives them their
historical importance. I was saw a remark in NG mag that when Timothy O Sullivan first saw a 35mm
camera in old age he wished he'd had one when he went down the Colorado River in a wooden dory.
Thank goodness, he didn't - or else instead of the iconic epic shots of his we now have, it would have been something more journalistic and Geographicky. Sometimes less is more. And for that reason, just about everyone I know who used PS responsibly is also someone who learned what they
want in a darkroom first! Turn a kid loose in a candy shop with no supervision, and he'll eat enough
to barf. And that's just about what most Fauxtoshop prints look like to me! Not the fault of the
technology, but of having way too much horsepower in an automobile with a kid behind the wheel
who probably couldn't steer a lawnmower. Slow down, folks, maybe you'll actually see something!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It is a good photograph because it is interesting to the eye and mind, and it tells a story if you allow it to. The vastness of space, the wind whipped human outpost on a barren rocky plain. Even the mountains are dwarfed by vast space. tiny crosses imply the hopeless vulnerability of humanity.

"...and it tells a story if you allow it to."

This is exactly what I meant when I said "The viewing needs to be participatory."

Ken

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Turn a kid loose in a candy shop with no supervision, and he'll eat enough
to barf. And that's just about what most Fauxtoshop prints look like to me! Not the fault of the
technology, but of having way too much horsepower in an automobile with a kid behind the wheel
who probably couldn't steer a lawnmower.

You know, I've seen some pretty horrific prints come out of darkrooms as well.


Anyway, the point of my earlier posting was to question if if is the tools used to make a great image or the artistic vision of the photographer that is important. My money is with the artistic vision of the photographer.

 

[c6h6o3]

Photoshop is simply another tool - and like all tools, can be used for good or bad.

Someplace I saw an article where someone created a set of layers in Photoshop that implemented all of Adam's printing instructions.

IMO, manipulation in any form is manipulation.

http://mosaicdesignservices.com/webgraphics/tutorials/ps/AnselAdamsEffectPSCS2.pdf

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Jim,

That's one I hadn't seen.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

http://mosaicdesignservices.com/webgraphics/tutorials/ps/AnselAdamsEffectPSCS2.pdf

God help us all...

:eek:

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

Despite AA's open-mindedness to the dawn of dramatically newer technology, his own darkroom was
hardly state of the art even back then. Then when we reivew those moments of ephiphany in his
personal history, like when he discovered how a simple red filter used for "Monolith", the face of Half
Dome, would forever change his own way of looking at things, it puts things in better perspective.
He learned to look and (correctly termed or not) "previsualize". Many so-called photographers today
don't even known how to look. How one interprets the shot is a related by distinct subject. Ansel was really attuned to the quality of light and how it defined real scenes. ALL photographs are some
kind of manipulation - just pointing the camera a certain direction means you are taking something
and turning it into something else, within a new context. But some illusionists are quite skilled at it,
and making it convincing, and then there's a considerable number of wannabees who show their clumsy hand.

 

[PKM-25]

And my point is a great print that comes out of the darkroom is hand made, photoshop is not. I have been using it professionally since 1991, photoshop is computer aided photography, not the darkroom by any stretch.

You know, I've seen some pretty horrific prints come out of darkrooms as well.


Anyway, the point of my earlier posting was to question if if is the tools used to make a great image or the artistic vision of the photographer that is important. My money is with the artistic vision of the photographer.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

So you are saying the tools used are more important than artistic vision?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Perhaps the tools used alter the artistic vision?

Ken

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn,

The problem that I had with your comment is you have no idea what the shooter was thinking of when he tripped the shutter.

You're basing your statements on total speculation.

- Leigh

No, actually, I just ask them...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mr. Pixel - anything tangible evidence of "vision" has to be some kind of marriage with a specific medium. A potter requires clay. A fresco painter requires plaster. The two grow together. And having
some kind of restraint actually greases the wheels, so to speak, because it gives one a direction.
In the hypotethical argument, What would Ansel do today - maybe he would shoot and print digitally.
But then his legacy would be something completely different, and possibly even a bellyflop. It's one
thing to reproduce things digitally - either prepress or by inkjet etc. But the learning curve itself,
and how one get to a vision in the first place, is just as important. For me, the hunt is just as important as the kill. And the darkroom is a real nice place to finish the chase. If someone prefers
other methods, fine. No problem. And maybe they can mimic what I do. Good luck. It ain't that easy! But better to let each media do what it does best.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I can imagine the same sort of comments from portrait oil painters as daguerreotype portraits became popular.


"It's only real if it's done in oil." ;-)

 

[lxdude]

Ah, yes, Moonrise Hernandez... her parents were hippies, you know.

 

[cliveh]

I can imagine that the printer’s skill is very akin to a painter who is working from a sketch. The sketch in this case being the negative.