gb hill
Veteran
I love film. I shoot film, especially B&W. Recently by watching videos of Ansel Adams I have come to appreciate him as a human as well as photographer. I have seen a few comments around the web saying "I bet AA wouldn't stand for digital" Well watch this video, very good I might add. At 4:25 & beyond Mr. Adams lays this to rest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=lgK7rg04KCQ&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=lgK7rg04KCQ&feature=endscreen
xia_ke
Established
I personally think he would have be a proponent of digital. I'm not sure if he would have actually made the jump himself, but from the interviews I have seen and books I have read I always got the vibe that he was all for what ever instrument or medium that allowed you realize your artistic vision.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
Thank you so much for that link. It is the first interview I have seen with Adams.
I get the impression that he would have embraced digital photography or any other technique that would help him better express what he thought and felt about an image. He was an artist rather than a photo purist- note that he dismissed as "chatter" information about film, camera, and development data.
I have always been intrigued about the attitude that digital photography is somehow not "real" photography. It is especially strange when you consider how very much greater a range of creative control can be had with Photoshop vs development, dodging, and burning. Yes, one can turn out banal crap using Photoshop. I know from personal experience that the same thing can be done in the darkroom; it just takes a bit more work.
Cheers,
Dez
I get the impression that he would have embraced digital photography or any other technique that would help him better express what he thought and felt about an image. He was an artist rather than a photo purist- note that he dismissed as "chatter" information about film, camera, and development data.
I have always been intrigued about the attitude that digital photography is somehow not "real" photography. It is especially strange when you consider how very much greater a range of creative control can be had with Photoshop vs development, dodging, and burning. Yes, one can turn out banal crap using Photoshop. I know from personal experience that the same thing can be done in the darkroom; it just takes a bit more work.
Cheers,
Dez
tsiklonaut
Well-known
I don't like the "would've been" speculative talks, but logically...
I'd never considered Adams a true artist but rather an artistic technician. Quality DID matter to him, despite what people say - he didn't do any artificial studio-shootouts with artistic subjects, he shot a lot of natural landscape, architecture and objects. He'd shoot 35mm only if quality didn't matter for him and only the creativity part. But he shot mostly 8x10" and some medium format. His spotmetering + zone system, adjusted development & matched paper grade printing is a sign of a true technical wizard at his time, IMO.
Agreed he'd probably WOULD be a proponent of the digital in the beginning, like most of us, since it's a "new thing" and most of us are fascinated about new trends and technologies to get our dreams going. We all dream of going to Mars as well, despite what awaits us there in the beginning, it's still very fascinating.
BUT when it finally comes, a daily reality after some years with digital, seeing it doesn't match his 8x10" nowhere near quality-wise plus 99.9% of photographers would shoot digital by then and Photoshop/Lightroom the crap out of their images making all this digital manipulations "too common", and tired of choosing from enldless amount of digital photos from one subject Ansel would probably switch back to 8x10" film - just to be different again and back to the medium he knows throughout, one shot per one subject and it's almost always perfectly matched and technically solid. Keep it simple and real - that's where the creativity comes.
Under a very talented jazz artist a high-end Digital Piano never sounds as good as an old-fashioned acoustic Grand Piano despite digital piano has much better technical specifications, digital modulations, digital MIDI capability etc, that supposed to make it very "creative-tool". In fact often it's the "limitations" (or should we redifine them "nuances") that inspire one into creativity.
All IMHO of course.
I'd never considered Adams a true artist but rather an artistic technician. Quality DID matter to him, despite what people say - he didn't do any artificial studio-shootouts with artistic subjects, he shot a lot of natural landscape, architecture and objects. He'd shoot 35mm only if quality didn't matter for him and only the creativity part. But he shot mostly 8x10" and some medium format. His spotmetering + zone system, adjusted development & matched paper grade printing is a sign of a true technical wizard at his time, IMO.
Agreed he'd probably WOULD be a proponent of the digital in the beginning, like most of us, since it's a "new thing" and most of us are fascinated about new trends and technologies to get our dreams going. We all dream of going to Mars as well, despite what awaits us there in the beginning, it's still very fascinating.
BUT when it finally comes, a daily reality after some years with digital, seeing it doesn't match his 8x10" nowhere near quality-wise plus 99.9% of photographers would shoot digital by then and Photoshop/Lightroom the crap out of their images making all this digital manipulations "too common", and tired of choosing from enldless amount of digital photos from one subject Ansel would probably switch back to 8x10" film - just to be different again and back to the medium he knows throughout, one shot per one subject and it's almost always perfectly matched and technically solid. Keep it simple and real - that's where the creativity comes.
Under a very talented jazz artist a high-end Digital Piano never sounds as good as an old-fashioned acoustic Grand Piano despite digital piano has much better technical specifications, digital modulations, digital MIDI capability etc, that supposed to make it very "creative-tool". In fact often it's the "limitations" (or should we redifine them "nuances") that inspire one into creativity.
All IMHO of course.
jschrader
Well-known
he tried things, e.g. color photography. but he did not show the pictures while he was alive, if i am correctly informed.
i guess he might have tried........
i guess he might have tried........
btgc
Veteran
Would AA use MF with digiback?
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I could never understand why anyone would think AA would despise digital photography. He was a master at post processing film through developing and printing. Why would he not embrace a new technology that would allow similar post processing to be done to achieve the final image as he had envisioned it? I believe I have seen prints of his of the same scene printed differently and they have a completely different look and feel from each other.
Bob
Bob
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Because he is no longer with us, all of these are speculations.
He may ditch digital eventually because he just love to work in the darkroom more.
Or
He may love digital because he found out that working with computers beats working in the darkroom.
Who knows?
He may ditch digital eventually because he just love to work in the darkroom more.
Or
He may love digital because he found out that working with computers beats working in the darkroom.
Who knows?
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
It is quite clear from the video that he was looking forward to what digital would bring to the game. That is not speculative at all. What is speculative is if he would have gone solely digital, gone with a mix of digital and film or after having tried digital gave up on it. He certainly appears not appear to humbug the whole idea of digital in the video presentation.
Bob