What makes Ansel Adams so special?

[Roger Hicks]

...I'll assure you that the real prints were far superior to the reproductions in the books...

... Besides, in the 70s his five little volumes were about the only guidance available for serious photographers who lived away from the major cities...

Dear Juan,

For some of his pictures -- probably the majority, you have seen far more than I -- I'll agree. But not always. In particular I was shocked at the over-enlargement and poor tonality of one of his Hasselblad Half Dome pictures. As I say, I have seen nothing like as many as you have, but I have seldom found them to be as inspiring as I expected, and I also fouind his later work increasingly formulaic.

As for the second part, I'd again suggest Mortensen, or even a decent camera club. I first came to AA's books in the 70s, and found them (then as now) jargon-ridden, intimidating, turgid, and apart from the sheer genius of the naming of Zones, inferior from a technical viewpoint to almost any standard work that covers sensitometry (Clerk, Glafkides, Haist and others) or even to a well-written Ilford or Kodak data sheet.

Their enormous strength is that they are well illustrated, with excellent production values; any other route requires the reader to get his theory from one place, his practice from another, and his inspiration from a third.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jstraw]

I've seen a good number of Adams prints in person - probably in the range of 1000 by now. At one exhibit about 20-years ago, I carried along my copy of "Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs." I'll assure you that the real prints were far superior to the reproductions in the books.

I once read Adams' prints described, correctly IMHO, as Wagnerian (Richard Wagner, the composer principally known for his dramatic operas), and I think that, along with good timing and marketing, is the key to his success. The drama of the American west and the way his printing evolved evokes emotion in the general public. Folks are able to see the world as they want to see it.

I think for photographers, Adams brought a systematic approach from music that was lacking in the work of many. Yes, I know other great photographers were systematic in their methods, but the average photographer was not until Adams began to lead the way. Besides, in the 70s his five little volumes were about the only guidance available for serious photographers who lived away from the major cities.

I had the opportunity to see a collection of Adams prints from a rarely shown private collection. The collector had sought out prints made near the time that the negatives were made. I could see how Adams interpretation of his negatives changed drastically over the years - it was not just paper contrast, but print size and color, too. Some of his famous huge images began as warm-toned prints smaller than 8x10. But it was his later, huge and dramatic prints that the public fell in love with. Adams had begun to make them at just the right time for marketing.
juan

I once saw a one-off artists proof of "Hernandez" at Douglas Kenyon's home that was much smaller than the image is normally seen. It was one of the most beautiful pprints I've ever seen. I was a teenager at the time and it made quite an impression.

 

[juan]

Dear Roger,
I suspect you are correct in your comments about Adams over-enlargements of some of his Hasselblad negatives. I think most I've seen have been enlargements from his larger formats. I can see how over-enlargement would degrade the images. Yours is much like my opinion of some of Clyde Butcher's huge prints.

And to clear up the second point, I'd agree with you that now there are many different sources for technical information. In the 70s, however, for those of us in more out-of-the-way places, the works you cite simply weren't available. All I knew of Mortensen, for instance, was that Adams disliked him. And camera clubs then were as equipment crazy about 35mm as current clubs are about digital. Solutions were to be found in the latest gizmo, not the hard work Adams advocated.

Are Adams' books hard to read? Yes, but at the time I was undergoing law school, so I was used to torture. I tried to read the early version of The Negative a couple of years ago and gave up after a few pages. I don't need such torment at this point in my life.

Adams has his place in photography. He was, IMHO, very important at the time - less so now.

Jstraw- I've also seen an early version of Moonrise, Hernandez. It's almost not the same photograph.
juan

 

[juan]

Their enormous strength is that they are well illustrated, with excellent production values; any other route requires the reader to get his theory from one place, his practice from another, and his inspiration from a third.

Looking over your post again, I think this quote sums up Adams and his books very well.
juan

 

[Jim Chinn]

The reason that AA is well known to the general public isn't because of he photography, but because of his decades long conservation work. His public fighting with James Watt brought him to the attention of the ecology movement, just about the time that print prices were going from $25 to $25,000. Basically, his new manager successfully marketed what he'd already been doing for years.
For photographers, his status came because he set the highest standards for craftmanship, and shared his techniques and philosophy with everyone.
Personally, I think he was a great landscape artist, but that view is not universally shared.

I think Bill hits it on the head with regards to why his name might come to the mind of most non-photographers. He did a lot of work for the Sierra Club and lectured quite a bit on conservation in the 60s and 70s. I imagine a great numbber of the members of the Sierra Club bought or owned prints and these were pretty influential people at the time. I remember seeing a CBS Sunday Morning program that featured Adams back in the early 70s and IIRC he made the cover of Time magazine once.

As to why he is so influential among photographers I think has to do with his personal teaching and workshops and tradition of LF craft he passed on. It always amazes me how many times you read a bio about a LF photographer and he either took a workshop with Adams or had worked with him at one time.

As far as zone system goes, it was Ansel Adams and Fred Archer who took principles of exposure that had been known since the 19th century and figured out a systematic way to apply them to get predictable results.

 

[noblebeast]

What makes Ansel Adams so special? He could place a whole cherry, stem and all, into his mouth and a few seconds later pull it out with the stem tied in several knots. Show me another photographer who can do that!

 

[naturephoto1]

snip

So why is he so popular? Because he was, indeed, a technically skilled photographer, often with a brilliant eye for composition, who showed people what they wanted to see in a very palatable manner. Those who met him (alas I missed my only opportunity in the late 1980s) add that he was a very nice guy, too, and far less doctrinaire than some of his followers...

snip

Cheers,

Roger

I have to agree with what many others have said in regards to Ansel and in particular to what Roger has mentioned. He was without doubt a master of what he did and had a great eye for composition. He was a great leader and influential in the environmental movement, the Sierra Club, making Yosemite better known. He set the ground work for what was to become the standard and raised the standard for quality and the modern landscape photograph. He was a great instructor and teacher both in the written form (his books), his workshops, and his students.

Adams begot many great students many of which have gone on to greatness themselves including Chris Rainier and John Sexton. He has influenced several generations of Black and White and Color Landscape photographers that have followed. Just as in science and all other art forms, we all build on the greats that have come before.

I have to however disagree with Juan in his opinion that he was only of great importance in his day. His influence is seen in an ongoing sense even today in those of us that shoot in B&W and Color Landscapes. For, he has influenced our work, whether we liked or were directly influenced by his work or not.

Rich

 

[Roger Hicks]

...Ansel Adams and Fred Archer who took principles of exposure that had been known since the 19th century and figured out a systematic way to apply them to get predictable results.

Hold on a minute, Jim. Science is about getting predictable results. What AA and FA did was a (very good) job of popularization. But it was a matter of explanation (which, as I have said of AA, was overly jargon-ridden), not of original research or 'figuring out how to apply' these known principles.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Are Adams' books hard to read? Yes, but at the time I was undergoing law school, so I was used to torture. I tried to read the early version of The Negative a couple of years ago and gave up after a few pages. I don't need such torment at this point in my life.

Dear Juan,

Ah, there is the difference between us. I already had my LL.B. by the time I came to Adams. Even so, if I recall correctly, Winfield on Tort and Salmond on Torts were almost racy next to AA's prose style. Being a traditionalist and historian I always leaned towards torts rather than tort. Though I may have transposed Winfield and Salmond: it's a (mercifully) long time now.

Your point about camera clubs in well taken, but I have been hanging around used book shops since the mid-60s so had a lot more old stuff at an earlier age.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Curt]

What was the question? What makes Ansel Adams so special? I just returned from LV where I went to see the AA 100 years showing. With a critical eye for quality I was surprised by what I found. I can only say that the Primacy Recency Effect is in full force. The first photographs I ever saw from a "professional" photographer were Ansel Adams. They were selling for around $25 each. Not having anything to compare them with at the time they became my gold standard. Many decades later I see them in another light. The content is still there but my education on quality has changed. I think Ansel Adams was cutting edge for the time period he work in, at least for the visualization he was trying to obtain. I believe that one much carefully evaluate how much legend status is given to any one person, living or dead.

 

[jimgalli]

Tell your friend that any time HIS name comes up in any of these photo forums you can be guaranteed of 100 posts re-hashing the same is-he-is or is-he-aint discussion year in year out, over and over, ad-infinitum ad-nauseum. Talk about Imogen or Dorothea and see how many hits you get.

 

[vet173]

Primacy Recency Effect is in full force.

Whuuut?

 

[sbelyaev]

I could not understand it until I saw his original photos.....

 

[WarEaglemtn]

He had his nose broken in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

He owned a Woodie that had a roof platform on it so he could get higher than the ground to look at the world.

He knew Edward Weston.

He lived in Yosemite Valley.

He was a Californian who didn't surf.

 

[copake_ham]

"What makes Ansel Adams so special?"

This question was posed to me by someone who self admittedly knows little about photography.

Try as I could, I don't believe was able to come up with a satisfactory answer for this person. I explained that as far as the average Joe was concerned, Adams was the first photographer to successfully market his prints and derivatives to a mass market, was a prolific teacher, wrote many books, and had immense talent and technical skill, and that the reason he was the only photographer that many people could name, was a combination of all these things.

I also told him that there were many other photographers whose work was on a par with Adams, who never succeeded in broad scale public recognition, but whos work commanded higher prices, and was more sought after. He said he still didn't get it. Did I miss something? Is my explanation thick, or is he? (my friend)

JB,

I do not need to read the entire thread - just your OP to know the answer to this query.

AA's greatness lies in the fact that he never posted a "dirty pic" on APUG and so was never excoriated by the "righteous".

Although, come to think of it, some of those mountains kind of look like female breasts and some of the hoodoos do resemble male genitalia!

 

[JBrunner]

 

[John Koehrer]

He owned a Woodie that had a roof platform on it so he could get higher than the ground to look at the world.

I guess that's better than him having a woody & offending someone.

 

[raucousimages]

I think his greatest contribution was his willingness to teach when other photographers wanted to keep their secrets.

 

[ragc]

Every artistic field has heroic figures that get to be part of the general public's awareness. Not knowing that much about Mr. Adams (I'm still reading his eminently boring trilogy) I will refer to the Titan of my profession, Frank Lloyd Wright.

There is no doubt in my mind that Wright was a genius of Architecture. His extensive body of work is superb and is still alive. His buildings are still being analyzed and copied and re-created by the profession. His influence is for the ages.

Wright created a style that, while not revolutionary, was in direct opposition to the styles popular in his times. He was confrontational, and not shy. His conviction was that his way was the only way for American (U.S.) architects to design American buildings. He did not care what was happening in Europe or the rest of the World, unless it was to copy some features he wanted to "Americanize", as he did with Japanese and with Mayan design. He spoke BIG and was a very public critic. He was not an easy man to get along with. His books are incredibly boring. He left a foundation, Taliesin, which to this day trains Architects in his way of thought and design, and which are the monastic-warrior order that preserves his legacy. His teachings are their dogma. They are, all-in-all, fantastic designers. Many are well known inside the profession for their talent, but none can equal the Master, not because they aren't good enough, but because they are his followers.

In other words: Leadership! It's not enough to be good. It's not necessary to be liked. Lead, and others will follow, but lead well. Leave a temple guard to preserve and protect your legacy. Teach your followers in your way, the only way. The rest of the world will know you then.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

He took pretty pictures, same as all the other great photographers. He also set out to standardize some aspects of photography and his work is the basis of a lot of photographic theory. So, people use him to argue points of photographic technique and he is well known as setting a standard in his work, I suppose. Just my take on it, I like his photos but haven't read his books - I respect a great photographer, but I always liked Alfred Eisenstaedt's work more.

 

[reellis67]

Whuuut?

People tend to remember the first and/or last things in any given list, or in this case the beginning of a movement...

- Randy

 

[Ole]

I could not understand it until I saw his original photos.....

That's funny - I thought I did understand it, and then I saw an original print...

Now I don't understand it at all.

 

[vet173]

People tend to remember the first and/or last things in any given list, or in this case the beginning of a movement...

- Randy

Thanks, I was thinkin I might have to go get shots or sumtin.

 

[Chuck_P]

All I know is that, being a self taught ZS enthusiast for the last two years, my negatives have improved in ways that I never thought possible. There are many frames that are objectionable now because of poor composition, perspective, and subject matter, but very few now due to poor exposure and development.

My undertanding is leagues above what it used to be and I'm still learning. I don't find his writing to be difficult to follow and having learned the ZS I find decision making while in the field to be more fluid. I now find myself examining composition, perspective, and subject matter much more closely i.e., those really difficult things that are involved in making a photograph! And the "craft" of exposure and development itself, while still immensely important, is now more like a necessary evil to make sure information is obtained on the negative so it can be expressed in the print---whereas before, it dominated my whole experience. I photograph to make lasting prints that make me happy and maybe someone else---it's just too bad that there is a certain amount of craft knowhow that needs to be mastered first.

I am sure others have probably come to these same realizations through other great photographers, but his is how it has worked for me.

Regards
Chuck

 

[André E.C.]

Special? In what?
A great Crafstman/Photographer, but surelly not special at all.

Cheers

André