Alan is quite correct here.Plus most people don't care what's in the shadows. The eye goes to the highlights
Well, everyone is giving their opinion here. Aren't I entitled to mine?Agree. There were lots of statements in Alan's post that perhaps apply to him, but hardly to "most people." I would also take exception to the statements about the eye going to the highlights and how details in the shadows make the photograph boring and with flat contrast. These are all statements of Alan's personal preferences, and should not be taken as facts.
Of course...but one's right to one's opinion does not necessarily make it right. And if one gives their opinion as fact, then it is open to discussion.Well, everyone is giving their opinion here. Aren't I entitled to mine?
As selling Adams' photos became good business, newer compilations of his work started to pile up. And that sadly meant quality "had" to go down.I suspect you've been looking at poor reproductions online. Adams spent quite a bit of time railing against the "chalk and soot" nature of photographs that don't maintain detail, or, at a minimum, texture, in both the highlights and the shadows. If you read his descriptions of how he made many of his photographs, you'll see that he would take pains to put the darkest parts of the image on zone 3 (perhaps zone 2 if he was feeling bold), and then develop for the highlights. It became such a scientific approach for him that one could argue his artistic vision ceased and he became almost purely formulaic. Perhaps you can identify some of the "many" Adams photographs with complete blackness?
I like your version of Adams Snake River with the shadow areas open more. But even on that one, there are plenty of pretty dark areas.yeah -- because it is in the print where AA wanted people to see it, and not the on-line reproduction. Check this out...
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auc...el-adams-the-grand-tetons-and-the-snake-river
Of course...but one's right to one's opinion does not necessarily make it right. And if one gives their opinion as fact, then it is open to discussion.
I was responding to the suggestion that the Zone System was developed within in the context of Western American landscape photography, exclusive of other areas of photography. This seemed to me to exclude the role that the system might be equally spawned in the mind of a Pictorial portrait Photographer. Which is really to say that sensitometry, in all it's various formulations, is applicable to all forms of photography.
...some people become fanatics trying to get every last detail lightened in the shadow areas... They might be better off letting the shadows go a little darker to improve the overall look and impact of the photo.
how he felt the scene on that particular day - what he describes as "the effect I felt emotionally" when looking at a particular scene he wanted to capture.
How exactly does previsualization fit with the "effect that he felt emotionally"? Is previsualization the cause or the effect of the emotional feeling?
I like your version of Adams Snake River with the shadow areas open more. But even on that one, there are plenty of pretty dark areas.
My point was, and maybe it's more of an issue with digital photography, is that some people become fanatics trying to get every last detail lightened in the shadow areas. Just because modern technology in digital allows 13 stops, doesn't mean from an aesthetic point of view, that you want to pull out those details. Many photographers get hung up on the availability of technology. They do it just because it can be done. They might be better off letting the shadows go a little darker to improve the overall look and impact of the photo. That's the point I'm trying to make. That's my opinion, not a fact.
In that print all the detail is there in the dark areas, and there is detail everywhere in the negative. In a scene like the Snake River image (grand landscape) -- there are usually no detail-less, pure black areas in the original scene. If there are any detail-less shadows in the Snake River image, most likely AA purposefully put them there to put more 'power' into the image...to move the viewer. I believe this is basically what you said, but I will still disagree that people do not 'care' about shadow detail. If it affects their viewing on the image, they care about it. whether they reconize the fact or not.I like your version of Adams Snake River with the shadow areas open more. But even on that one, there are plenty of pretty dark areas.
...
Previsualization means Minor White.
Visualization means Ansel Adams.
Previsualization is like irregardless. There ain't no such words.Previsualization is anything that happens before visualization. If you make a photograph, anything that happened before was pre. Waking up, going to the bathroom, the fall of the Roman Empire etc. are previsualization.
You're making my point Vaughn. You don't automatically bring out the shadows because it can be done. The photographer should ask whether it makes sense to do it? Will it improve the shot? Many photographers just do it as just a step in their process, a knee-jerk reaction. There's no thought about it either way except to bring out the details.In that print all the detail is there in the dark areas, and there is detail everywhere in the negative. In a scene like the Snake River image (grand landscape) -- there are usually no detail-less, pure black areas in the original scene. If there are any detail-less shadows in the Snake River image, most likely AA purposefully put them there to put more 'power' into the image...to move the viewer. I believe this is basically what you said, but I will still disagree that people do not 'care' about shadow detail. If it affects their viewing on the image, they care about it. whether they reconize the fact or not.
Well, it ain't right!I agree. However depending on which dictionary you consult, stupid things like irregardless are actually considered words, mostly because they have been in common use for so long. Sometimes the evolution of a language involves the incorporation of technically incorrect or redundant things.
How exactly does previsualization fit with the "effect that he felt emotionally"? Is previsualization the cause or the effect of the emotional feeling?
I've been bracketing my shots: previsualized, visualized, and post-visualized.I'm so glad we got that previsualization and visualization and midvisuazliation and postvisualization all squared up. What ZS would have been without any of it? Just go out, perhaps meter a scene, shoot that damn photo and get another one? I think not.
Previsualization is anything that happens before visualization. If you make a photograph, anything that happened before was pre. Waking up, going to the bathroom, the fall of the Roman Empire etc. are previsualization.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?