Why I admire Ansel Adams

JBrunner · Dec 4, 2007

"I know that digital photography is the next and logical step up from film photography."

It is very debatable that digital photography, on the average, is a "step up" for anybody but the marketing and retailing establishment.

"get yer magic bullets here!!"

Christopher Walrath · Dec 4, 2007

Sorry, J. I mispoke myself. I was thinking linearly such as photography might be the next step up from painting. Definitely not a plug for digital. Not here, anyway. Thanks for the comments and the reads, all.

Chris

JBrunner · Dec 4, 2007

flash19901 said:
Sorry, J. I mispoke myself. I was thinking linearly such as photography might be the next step up from painting. Definitely not a plug for digital. Not here, anyway. Thanks for the comments and the reads, all.

Chris

Thanks for clarifying that, Chris. For the record, I am an unashamed, unabashed, Ansel Adams fan as well.

copake_ham · Dec 4, 2007

I admire AA for many reasons. But right now, most of all, because on a tiny little corridor in Dad's Diner in Copake (a Diner that is otherwise a monument to 1950's hot rods) - the very corridor that leads to the restrooms there is a framed AA picture of a maple tree in winter.

Given the rest of the Diner's "theme" (including the wallpaper in the Men's Room that features pics of Mustangs*, "bug-eyed" Corvettes, 1957 BellAires) the presence of a framed AA shot suggests that he too has become an American icon!

Gotta love it. I get to see AA and hot rods when I go to take a pee!

* Yes, I know Mustangs are 1964-1/2 or later - but tell that to the wallpaper guy!

blanco_y_negro · Dec 9, 2007

"He was a great photographer and (by most accounts) a nice person too. But there is a distinction between AA and some of his followers, just as there is a distinction between Christ and some Christians (the sort who burned witches, for example)."

Very well said..

Les McLean · Dec 9, 2007

Chris, thank you for your heart felt appreciation and tribute to Ansel, I enjoyed it immensely and personally think that just about every photographer working today owes him some degree of thanks for his influence. Whilst I prefer other photographers work I have AA to thank for his influence in my use of the Zone System even though I apply it in a totally different way to the great man. However, it was reading Ansel's views on pre-visualisation that was the most significant of his influence on my photography for his words made me go out and work to perfect that very important aspect of making photographs.

Christopher Walrath · Dec 10, 2007

I'm glad you all liked the article.

pjferrante · Dec 27, 2007

Amen! Thanks so much for expressing the sentiments of this APUG'er and I suspect many more of us. We all owe Ansel a great debt of gratitude for showing us how to think before we trip the shutter; and for developing the methodology that allows us to create that which is in our mind's eye.

BobNewYork · Jan 1, 2008

Chris: I too learned much of my photography through the work and writings of Ansel Adams - though, I suspect, many years before you. I have always believed that the craft of photography is as important as the art. One without the other is like love and marriage - though we all know it happens but it's not a pretty sight! You don't have to like his subject matter to appreciate him and I almost defy anyone with a soul to look at an original print and not be moved. His robotic disciples are another matter, of course. I'll never forget a visit to Yosemite and the sight of a bunch of photographers jostling to get their tripod legs where they thought Adams had placed his! It's THOSE people who give Adams a bad rep.
Thanks for the thoughtful and well written article. Keep it up!

35mmDelux · Jan 11, 2008

AA is so far and beyond 99% of photographers, having laid down many of its great precepts, that people don't know what to make of it. If anything AA was a perfectionist. He lived the life. People look at his lithographs and its hard to fathom that he was a photographer first. AA set a record that has yet to be matched.

Paul

srbphoto · Jan 11, 2008

It is interesting how people look at Ansel. I was hanging a show at a friends coffee shop and two women were looking at the photos as I hung them. One came up and thought they looked great, "just like Ansel Adams"! I thanked her and as they walked away, her friend whispered something to her. She came back and apologized! I told her it wasn't a problem since Ansel's work is why I bought a camera and to be compared to one of the greatest photographers ever was quite a compliment!

BTW. I saw an exhibit of Ansel's in 1983 and rushed out the next day and bought my first camera, a Minolta X-GM (which I still have). Shot two rolls of B&W, took it to the one hour lab and couldn't figure out why my pictures didn't look as good as his! Thus began a long journey...

Christopher Walrath · Jan 11, 2008

I am currently re-reading Ansel Adams' biography (4th time) and it is such a great read. I love the way Adams words and orders his thoughts. I have always been able to relate to something that Adams was sharing with his contemperaries, as well as his legacy. I'm glad you all liked the article. It was written to get people to look at their own photography, take stock and relate to others around them. I hope that I have, at least to some extent, succeeded in my aim. Thank you all for your affirmations and kind words.

Chris

srbphoto · Jan 12, 2008

Do you have the American Experience DVD on Ansel? I found it to be VERY inspiring. I was fortunate to see the Ansel Adams at 100 exhibit at the SF Museum of Modern Art (bought the book as well!) Really a great show!

Scott

ehparis · Jan 14, 2008

I'm wondering about the arguments used by the digital supporters that Adams would be using Photoshop if he were with us today. Also, isn't it true that, per The Negative, many of the photos he took were not "in camera" but extensively modified in the darkroom.

Rambling thoughts. I troll not. Adams is my personal favorite.

Chuck_P · Jan 14, 2008

ehparis said:
Also, isn't it true that, per The Negative, many of the photos he took were not "in camera" but extensively modified in the darkroom.

I hope you are not a troll and so I'll respond. I believe this is gross misconception. I imagine that AA, like all b&w photographers who do their own processing and printing, had to work some prints over pretty good to achieve his visualization at the time of the exposure. He was not perfect! And, neither are any of us.

However, in his words, "What is important to visualize may be summed up as follows: The basic compositional aspects, -- The basic tonal values and the emotional values of light and darkness, and -- The style (the personal quality of the photographer's "seeing")."

I think it is accepted that the Zone system is meant to bring the visualization full circle i.e., from the mind's eye to the physical print. Again, in his words: "Our problem is one of visualizing the desired print, and then exposing and developing to get a negative which will yield such a print without complex manipulations (reduction of the negative or fussy adjustments in printing)."

So, IMO, there is no escaping tonal adjustments in the printing process. It remains true, I think, that the better the quality of the negative, the easier the printing process will be and that was what Adams strived for, IMO. And honestly, I think that's what we all strive for (using whatever exposure/dev system or no system at all) that do b&w work.

JMO.

ehparis · Jan 15, 2008

JMO

Thank you for your reply. I see so many comments along the lines of those I've outlined and guess I've been looking for a solid way to refute them. They seem to be part of the basic defense used by digital people to "justify" their "craft." They seem to be saying in the same breath that Adams would have been a fan of Photoshop, as inane a comment as I can imagine.

Edited to add: I see most of the comments I mention on the popular Nikonians.org site which of course is dedicated primarily to "digital photography" (something of an oxymoron).

Thanks again.

Jerry

Christopher Walrath · Jan 22, 2008

But see, I am gonna risk the wrath of the Mods on this one, but we all scorn digital photography as not being true photography. Just as photography could not be an art to be compared with painting when it was new in the 19th century. The opinions of people change with time. I WILL ALWAYS PREFER FILM PHOTOGRAPHY. Digital photography doesn't take cool stuff like acid to coax a latent image into being, however to those that dedicate as much of themselves as did the film-using greats, they are true photographers in their own right. They use their own medium, their own canvas, their own method of capture. They use silicon instead of silver. Their process is electronic instead of chemical. It is true that digital photography can be made to be all about instant gratification and putting a quicky camera into every hand in the world, it has been taken to the masses, a perversion of the hallowed realms of film photography. But, after all, isn't that what was said about 35mm when the first Zeiss's and Kodaks and Leicas started popping up on the scene? The large format 'purists' howled then and the ringing continues even today. It is merely aimed in a somewhat different direction.

It is the creative eye behind the viewfinder/groundglass that makes photography an art and a craft, regardless of the mode applied. All an artist can do is to be true to his or her own vision and let history decide if the body of work is important or otherwise.

Just thoughts. Thank you for the kind words and the reads, folks. I truly appreciate it.

Chris

BobNewYork · Jan 23, 2008

I know it's anathema here but I tend to agree with you. In fact, in his book "40 Examples" Adams mentioned that he indicated his excitement for the future "when we shall be capturing images electronically." Digital, (sorry - d@#$*&l) has its uses - particularly in some commercial photography for which it excels - and I use it in those situations. However, for the more evocative work I admire just doesn't match up in digital - particularly in B&W. About a year ago I printed a 16x20 from a 4x5. I then had that neg drum scanned and a 16x20 gyclee print done from it. Matted and framed it like the real one and hung them side by side. EVERYONE (that saw it at least!) preferred the silver image. There was no area in the digital print where I could say I saw more rendered detail but there was a depth and a presence in the silver print that the digital just didn't have.

I have decided that I'll switch to digital the day a film photographer tells me: "See, it's as good as digital!" I suspect the temperature will never drop that low however!

23mjm · Jan 23, 2008

TheFlyingCamera said:
Ansel was a highly talented photographer and a great educator. He is not a god. Calling him a god is to freeze photography in that mid-century modernist moment, a bit like deifying JMW Turner and declaring all landscape painting since is merely derivative.

A definition of "God" from the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:God-a person or thing of supreme value.

As stated before AA is a God to photograph. His value to the past, present, and future of photography is so large that it can't be quantitatively measured. There have been many great great photographers and there will be many many more great photographers to come--but none will have the influence and add to the knowledge base like AA did. IMO

Christopher Walrath · Jan 24, 2008

I agree. He gave so much to all of us that we could never repay him, even given the chance. Thanks for the reads again. Have a great day, all.

amorteguy · Feb 6, 2008

Roger Hicks said:
(T)here is a distinction between AA and some of his followers, just as there is a distinction between Christ and some Christians.

(...)

In other words, if someone appears to put down AA, it's not necessarily the man that irritates them: it's some of his followers. The same applies to faux-wilderness pictures.

Cheers,

Roger

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of his work, but I cannot deny his technical skill and impact on 20th Century photogrpahy. But, I do tire of the endless digital imatators (who come nowhere close to his level) that parade their latest "Ansel Adams'" pic from their summer vacation in Yosemite on various photo UG's.

BobNewYork · Feb 6, 2008

Amen to that!

I happen to like many of AA's photographs - but certainly not not all. I do admire his commitment to technique, however; and there is no doubt that he has inspired many photographers. Adams himself however, points out that his technical approach should be taken as a point of departure for the serious photographer. Dogmatism is a tough to take - any any form. I call these individuals "Photo Phundamentalists"

Bob

Christopher Walrath · Feb 11, 2008

There are some of his images that I don't recall viewing even though I know I did because I have read his books over and over. They just don't strike me. I got 400 Images for Christmas and there is one image in the 40's section of a meadow below Mt Ansel Adams (fitting) that is the most impactful new image (to me) that I have seen from AA's vaults in a long time. Amazing. His work can still move me to building a cabin in the wilderness of my mind just to be there. (You all know what I mean.)

Thanks for the words and the reads everybody.

Chris

Christopher Walrath · Mar 13, 2008

It's been a month since there have been any new comments on the article so I would like to wrap it up a bit.
First, I really appreciate all of the comments and reads. I never dreamed that this article would be read by nearly 20 percent of those who have ever even been a member here at APUG. And even though most didn't take the time to respond, which was by no means compulsary, I would like to think that I have struck a common chord with most of my fellow photographers here at APUG.
Secondly, a great deal has been mentioned of other historically great photographers. For instance, Minor White, John Sexton, Galen Rowell, and others. Consider this a tribute to all of our photographic heroes, the icons that have gone before EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US. Without their pioneering we would all be in a drastically different place creatively.
Thirdly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sean. This forum is the greatest opportunity for we film photographers to air our concerns, bond with fellow craftsmen and display our knowledge to the benefit of they who will follow US.
It has been my privelege and honor to be a part of such a great and grand undertaking, this users group for analog photographers. I have made many new friends here and hope to develop (no pun intended) many more.
Thank you all.
Christopher A. Walrath

Ralph Javins · Jul 10, 2008

Good morning;

(1.) Christopher, thank you for showing us something of your mind and thinking. I also applaud your writing.

(2.) It is interesting and surprising to find Galen Rowell mentioned here also. I did not expect that from the title. I remember my initial reaction of; "Huh?" that slowly developed from shock into disbelief and then a feeling of loss when I heard that Galen and Barbara Rowell had died in a chartered airplane while approaching the Bishop field after a vacation cruise up to Alaska. Ironically, they were passengers; Barbara was not the pilot that night. Climbing had lost a friend who could show the world why we climb.

Ralph Javins

Why I admire Ansel Adams

JBrunner

Moderator

Christopher Walrath

JBrunner

Moderator

copake_ham

blanco_y_negro

Les McLean

Christopher Walrath

pjferrante

BobNewYork

35mmDelux

srbphoto

Christopher Walrath

srbphoto

ehparis

Chuck_P

ehparis

Christopher Walrath

BobNewYork

23mjm

Christopher Walrath

amorteguy

BobNewYork

Christopher Walrath

Christopher Walrath

Ralph Javins

Why I admire Ansel Adams

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency