Legacy: Think Like Ansel Adams Today

10 Comments

1. G Dan Mitchell makes this comment

   Saturday, 28 March 2009

   Interesting article, as far as it goes. However, it continues some myths about Adams, and to the extent that photographers today try to learn from his work it is not helpful to cherry pick from that work to create a somewhat false notion of what he did. Two photographs of his came to mind for me as I read this article - largely because they contradict or at least "complexify" this simplistic notion of Adams seen here. The whole notion of careful pre-visualization and precise use of the zone system breaks down when you learn who "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941" was shot. The "grandscape" idea is also only part of the story - Adams created some very wonderful portraits, and he also was very interested in "smallscapes" in which he focused on small details - and he said as much about his work. (I'm thinking of a wonderful photograph of some redwood forest vegetation.) G Dan Mitchell

2. Stratocaster makes this comment

   Thursday, 26 March 2009

   "Ansel Adams manipulated his images extensively through the use of push-and-pull processing when he developed his sheets of film and then extensive dodging and burning when he printed." I can't remember exactly what show it was on, but one retrospective of Adams I saw on PBS some years ago documented that he would use a microwave oven as part of his print drying process. He claimed that made the whites brighter without burning them out. So even he was not above using a little "modern technology" when it suited his purpose.

3. Howard Batt makes this comment

   Sunday, 01 March 2009

   Dale says, "Anyone who would make a nonsense statement like this about "guessing until the film comes back from processing" doesn't know crap about photography and shouldn't be allowed to write photo articles for mass consumtion" I admit it, Dale - I guessed a lot with film and don't know crap. To make matters worse, I don't think Ansel Adams was the greatest photographer (landscape, grandscape or otherwise) who ever lived. And to really cap it all - I don't think people who talk like you talk should be allowed to comment in a website like this one. Rather, I think you should go back to your Argus or Kodak film camera, take a pill and then take a hike. It'll clear your mind and make you a calmer, nicer person.

4. Dale Francis Mara makes this comment

   Thursday, 26 February 2009

   Anyone who would make a nonsense statement like this about "guessing until the film comes back from processing" doesn't know crap about photography and shouldn't be allowed to write photo articles for mass consumtion ~~~ especially about the zone system! The intrinsic beauty of the zone system is that the photographer knows exactly what the negative (and print) will look like BEFORE he/she releases the shutter! And, of course, anyone knowledgeably using the zone system would not and could not allow anyone but one's self to process his/her film because processing is the root source of the control the zone system is. "LCDs and histograms give us a precise look at a photograph..." Only to the extent of the digital camera's contrast latitude ability, which still does not come close to film, even color.

5. Jess Merrill makes this comment

   Wednesday, 18 February 2009

   Only slightly relevant to the context of the article is that Adams most often used an 8X10 view camera rather than a 4X5. More germane to the article, the author describes how Adams created the "stand back and admire" feel through the notion of a grandscape using long lenses, but how do we create the more contemporary "immersive" feel of a photograph?

6. wolf makes this comment

   Sunday, 15 February 2009

   Nice article but it is hysterical to read the Camera Comparison part. Any photographer who knows what he/she is doing has no problem capturing what they intend without a re-shoot. Because they mastered their craft. That's how they did for the greater part of photographic history. My grandmother now and then shoots pictures worthy of exhibition with a digital camera too and so does everybody else's grandmother .....and obviously photographers who depend on modern technology to shoot a worthy photo.

7. Mirko makes this comment

   Sunday, 15 February 2009

   Great article i must say, even though i missed some more in-depth text about Adam's work and today's digital shooterrs world. As you say, some photographers still use 4x5 and i believe that that's how things are still going to be for the serious landscape photographer, basically, because of the wild and absurdly huge resolution that a single 4x5 slide can create in comparison with the highest megapixel camera in the market. This magazine is great, but maybe it's been turning a lot into digital, sometimes forgetting all about film, even when a lot of your covers are made that way. Best regards and keep up the fantastic work!

8. Jack Schade makes this comment

   Wednesday, 11 February 2009

   Great article. Good ideas that get us to think on a different level. Why not try to pre-visualize like Ansel Adams. Jack Schade

9. Chris Fernando makes this comment

   Tuesday, 10 February 2009

   >>LCDs and histograms give us a precise look at a photograph while film shooters can only guess until the film is processed and by then it’s too late to reshoot.raphers" were able to afford $850,000 houses and buy a new car every two years. Take a step back folks; oh wait you don't have a choice there anymore, either :-(

10. Franklin O Pratt makes this comment

    Tuesday, 10 February 2009

    I found your article to be encouraging and helpful. First and most important to me is the parallel drawn in the article to film and digital processing. It is often stated by many photographers that they don't process their shots as a statement of their adherence to manipulation-free digital work and a testament to their fidelity with film processing. Second, an attitude of museum and art center folk still leans against digital imagery as less than an artistic piece by categorizing digital photography in terms like "digitally enhanced photograph." I must admit this gets under my skin a bit. If art isn't a representation as the artist/photographer's previsualization, then what is it, regardless of venue? thanks for the illustrations to Mr. Hawkins used in this article and the guidance to work like Mr. Adams.