Ansel Adams...

kbg32 said:
I have to say, I agree with this. I find Adams, while technically proficient, to be boring, and Adams himself to be a windbag. He and Newhall produced one of the greatest conspiracies in photo history. One that upon learning about, I can never seem to understand their hostility at the time. Newhall was a friend of Adams and one of his greatest proponents. If it wasn't for Newhall, Adams would never be on the pedestal as people would believe.
Click to expand...


You may or may not like Adams work and you may or may not like 99% of all other photographers work that has ever been produced but that doesn't mean that the photographer doesn't have the knowledge and skill to execute technically and creatively superb images. Many potographers work that I see on a regular basis doesn't appeal to me in the least but that doesn't mean they're not excellent and creative photographers. It simply means I don't care for the subjects or style of shooting. I can name many well known photographers that fall into this class.

I probably know more about Adams than most anyone on this forum. I did a resident study program with him and knew him well. Although I'm not a landscape photographer IMO I gained a great deal of knowledge and skill that carried over into my other work and did improve my landscape work a great deal.

Newhall was a great friend to Adams as well as a number of other photographers. No question Newhall helped Adams career but by no means did he make Adams popular. Untill the early 70's adams sold landscapes out of his wifes families gift shop and did commercial photography. He made good money but wasn't a household name and wasn't getting rich. I purchased some of his signed original prints during the 60''s in sizes up to 11x14 and paid from $35 to $275 per print. During my period of study with him he was well known but 16x20's were running $200-250. Hardly big money even in the 70's. Just prior to my meeting Adams he hired a business manager and rep. Over the next couple of years Adams made millions which was 99% due to his rep / manager not Newhall.

I would totally disagree that Adams was a windbag. He knew his art better than anyone else and was more than happy to share it with anyone. He was the knd of guy that would invite you into his home even if he had never met you and spend the day answering any and all questions. I found him to be very honest, extremely skilled in the art, a technical marvel and a very modest and humble man.

As to whether it takes 10 or 10,000 frames to grasp the skills depends on the individual and the standards the person is judged by. Adams talked in terms of a higher level of skill than most people and his thinking was centered around not just snapping 10,000 frames but learning from each frame and applying that knowledge to improve the next. If you knew him you would understand the analytical mind that he had. Each frame was studied and the next was an improvement over the previous. Before studying with Adams I apprenticed in a commercial studio under a master photographer during the early 70's. I worked for a year five and a hald days a week with absolutely no pay. I then worked for another 6 months as a paid employ only after achieving a high standard in my work. My boss said you first learn to process film perfectly and then you become a fine printer then after learning the mistakes of a photographer you learn the right way to shoot. He used to say you haven't learned to print untill you've made your first 100,000 prints. I passed that maek many years ago and pass the 10,000 roll (not frames) mark many years ago too. I feel like I have a very good grasp of the art now and was presented the title of master photographer by the Professional Photographers of America in 1985 at their national convention. Even with the achievements in my career I feel I'm still learning and improving everytime I shoot. I learned a great deal from every person I've worked with. I don't think theres been a photographer that I haven't gained something from. This is one of the great things about the photographic art.

I'll edit in one final thought. Yes it takes great tallent to be a skilled and competent creative photographer. To become great you need friend in the right places. To be great has nothing to do with artistic, skilled or tallented. My opinion only but there are many greats that are poor artists and technically poor.
 
Last edited:
kbg32 said:
I have to say, I agree with this. I find Adams, while technically proficient, to be boring, and Adams himself to be a windbag. He and Newhall produced one of the greatest conspiracies in photo history. One that upon learning about, I can never seem to understand their hostility at the time. Newhall was a friend of Adams and one of his greatest proponents. If it wasn't for Newhall, Adams would never be on the pedestal as people would believe.
Click to expand...
Personal taste is one thing, and I have no problem with people who don't care (aesthetically) for Adams' work. I happen to like it, though some of it is not as inspiring as other pieces, of course. Thus it is so with all artists.

But to state categorically that "Adams & Newhall produced one of the greatest conspiracies in photo history" is amusing.

Oops, I see that Dan & X-Ray have replied, no point to my going on ... I have a story about Adams but X-Ray makes the point much better than my story. Well said, lads.
 
Adams paid his dues in the darkroom, and was a master of his craft. He learned how to visualize the print he wanted at the time he took the shot, and then had the skill to achieve the result he desired. He was not just a landscape photographer, and he did not just work w/ large format negatives. His portraits, for example, are terrific, and he used MF (Hasselblad) and 35mm (Contax) as well. Some may not find Adams' work aesthetically appealing. Fair enough. I disagree. I think much of his work is beautiful and moving; maybe being a westerner and Californian has something to do w/ the appeal of his work (at least, to me). I also think that it helps to understand the artistic context in which Adams worked, and what the f64 group photographers were reacting to and trying to achieve.
 
I would suggest that when or if your read "his" autobiography you see that Adams was self focused. His role early with the Sierra Club installed his work and him self in a complex and questionable duality of self promotion. Many people seem to either not know or forget his involvement with Dr Land and Polaroid. When the Sierra Club marketing it's self for gain....Adams was the major winner in that program. Adams problem like so many artists is that as they gain power and wealth the ego wants to dictate what should or should not be viewed as good art, and if the artist should recieve support from the higherarchy of photo art world.

He was a very skilled technican and enjoyed his goal of trying to create his vision of a great photograph. I met him a couple of times, nice guy, but he did not like anyone who disagreed with his personal vision. A guy who I went to school ended up becoming his assistant for Adams for a short time. People are to busy trying to duplicate Adams style, and lack actual original creative passion.

Adams was not as humble as he pretened to be,,,,,nor was he a wind bag. Just a guy who had a singular focus on his own work. I like some of his work and see many other photographers as more important and better. What I do think he did is make a high water mark for classical B&W images of a romatic landscapes nature.

Many photographers of that period are now somehow enshrined as Saints of Photography. Only because they are Dead. Dead guys are the mainstay of the art world in general. The lives of these people are glamorized for commerical benefit and it is politically incorrect or unfashionalbe to offer blind accpetance of them and the work the left behind.

That is the reality of our world.
 
No one wants to deny Adams a spot on shelf of history....Just not a thrown or crown. I enyoy Brett Weston more...original vision and all at a time when Adams was the heavy weight favorite of the american fine art photography world. Luckly for Adams he does not have any grand kids trying to milk money and fame by pretenditng to be follow in his shadow. Unlike the Weston clan. Adams will fade as the new century and photogrphy move in the digital creative spotlight. That will happen to many of the famous first generation photographers. No Loss or Gain.

I the old wet lab days there was mystic for guys like Adams , Strand , Edward Weston and others. Like the guy behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. And I agree the Adams, and school of F64, looks so Dated and Rigid in composition as to be flat out boring. Almost as if they were photographing a dead object.

That is what happens when you become over focused on the technical aspect of an image and not the emotional effect that is has on your viewer.
 
William Mortensen- As much as Adams was technically proficient, Williiam Mortensen was probably more so. Technically and philosophically, his approach to photography ran opposite to that of Adams and Newhall. Mortensen was held in tremendous contempt by them to the point of being excluded from Newhall's "History of Photography" and vilified in print by Adams. Adams even went so far as to try to have Mortensen's work excluded from the Center for Creative Photography.

The Newhalls - Beaumont and Nancy, were curators at MOMA, and supporters of the f/64 group.

Read "Beyond Recall,"by A.D. Coleman.
"Ansel Adams: A Biography" by Mary Street Alinder
http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/anseladams.html
 
Excellent Example

Excellent Example

kbg32 said:
William Mortensen- As much as Adams was technically proficient, Williiam Mortensen was probably more so. Technically and philosophically, his approach to photography ran opposite to that of Adams and Newhall. Mortensen was held in tremendous contempt by them to the point of being excluded from Newhall's "History of Photography" and vilified in print by Adams. Adams even went so far as to try to have Mortensen's work excluded from the Center for Creative Photography.

The Newhalls - Beaumont and Nancy, were curators at MOMA, and supporters of the f/64 group.

Read "Beyond Recall,"by A.D. Coleman.
"Ansel Adams: A Biography" by Mary Street Alinder
http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/anseladams.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing up this Excellent historic Example....This is again another example of the silent knife in the back mentality that has always existed inside some of these artistic and creative and tolerant...self appionted groups.

This type of behavior still exists today in the fine art world in both photography and art in general.
 
Ah Mortensen! What a fun photographer. I would love to find one of his photo-manipulating kits!

The PAM just ended a show that contrasted Mortensen and the Pictorialists against Group f/64. I think appreciation for Mortensen has just begun.

kbg32 said:
William Mortensen- As much as Adams was technically proficient, Williiam Mortensen was probably more so. Technically and philosophically, his approach to photography ran opposite to that of Adams and Newhall. Mortensen was held in tremendous contempt by them to the point of being excluded from Newhall's "History of Photography" and vilified in print by Adams. Adams even went so far as to try to have Mortensen's work excluded from the Center for Creative Photography.

The Newhalls - Beaumont and Nancy, were curators at MOMA, and supporters of the f/64 group.

Read "Beyond Recall,"by A.D. Coleman.
"Ansel Adams: A Biography" by Mary Street Alinder
http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/anseladams.html
Click to expand...
 
Another Mortensen fan here -- and my wife is still more so. We have most of his books, collected over 30+ years. Certainly a much more entertaining and less long-winded writer than AA.

My own view of AA is that he was trapped by success. The earliest piece I have by him dates from about 1936 and he was a superb photographer even then, long before he restated basic sensitometry at great length in the Zone System. The naming of Zones was a work of genius. The rest...

Then he became more and more idenfified with the Sierra Club pseudo-wilderness movement, which has poisoned large areas of B+W photography for decades: more and more technically perfect and blindingly DULL pictures by AA wannabees.

Also, many of the (admittedly few) original AA prints I've seen were over-enlarged, and don't look as good as the repro in his books. This is especially true of his Hasselblad shots.

Cheers,

R.
 
I saw AA show at the MOMA some years back. For me it was a real eye opener. Yes, he was technically brilliant as he matured and produced quite a few "masterpieces", but I walked away feeling nothing from the man's work. Isn't photography more then that? I don't disregard those who find AA's work emotionally moving, but I always felt that there has to be more.

The world will always be apples to oranges. Romes vs. mcintoshs. I just wanted to point out that Adams is not the "photo diety" many people would like to believe. Art should be about imagination, not imitation. Imitation is always the first step. I'm sure I would have gotten a great many things out of taking a workshop with Adams, but I would have needed to get by the man and who he was first.
 
Last edited:
I think suggesting that Adams implied pressing the shutter for 10000 cycles is outright idiotic. Discrediting his suggestion based on such a "interpretation" of what he said is even more so, and brings into question much more than just photographi wisdom of someone who makes the statement.
My own photographic endevours are far flung from the grand vistas of Adams, yet I have to say that seeing his work in person was one of the biggest thrills of my photographic life. I don't see the sterility, or the lack of life. I also think that Adams was an underrated photographer of people. I think his shots of human subjects sparkle with an understated wit and insight - just as does his writing. I have read over his most seminal works many a time, and frankly, I don't see the long-winded nature, or any signs of him being a pompous blowhard. I find a man trying to explain as clearly as he can matters of some complexity. It is obvious that Adams was very careful to express his ideas in as singular a fashion as possible - perhaps it is that precision that has caused many put those labels on his writing...
But as with anything, there is always tha kid who turns up his nose at your musical tastes because you don't know some obscure b-side from a garage band who may or may not have used the same public washroom as some slightly more famous band - and you are just an unoriginal conformist because you actually admit to liking Led Zeppelin, and worse still, you like the songs that actually get played on the radio... I suppose those kids grow up, get real jobs and buy M8's... Apparently it doesn't help.
 
I think Adams is a good lesson in the difference between art and craftsmanship. I think the only craftsmanship required by the artist is that their craft doesn't get in the way of the art. As much as I admire craftsmanship, I don't think there's any fixed relationship to art in it.

Even though he was writing on the subject of acting for the stage, I like David Mamet's thought on the subject: "It's probably better to subject the audience to an untutored exuberance than a lifeless, baseless confidence."
 
gnashings said:
I think suggesting that Adams implied pressing the shutter for 10000 cycles is outright idiotic. Discrediting his suggestion based on such a "interpretation" of what he said is even more so, and brings into question much more than just photographi wisdom of someone who makes the statement.
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. That 10,000 photographs (or any other arbitrary number) is idiotic was the POINT! Go back and re-read what I said; I think it was a fairly clear implication that for some, 100 will be enough to learn a great deal, while others will learn nothing from 100,000.

Also, the OP asked about digital, and whether it made a difference. I think I addressed that reasonably well, too.

I'd be much obliged if you didn't insult me for no better reason that you didn't understand what I said.

R.
 
Gnashings, you should go back and re-read the posts on this thread. Also I would suggest re-reading AA writings, as well as Newhall. I don't understand why he hated Mortensen as much as he did. Mortensen is not some obscure B-side. He was quite well established before Adams and the Newhalls decided to do all that they could to make sure he was forgotten. Why can those that accept Mortensen, accept Adams, but it is not true for the opposite? No one is turning their nose up at anyone. Adams place in photo history is well secured. There are many others who have a rightful place in that history and they shouldn't be left out due to some misaligned predudice. Adams had a singular direct vision and philosophy. Either you bought into it or not. There was no room for anything else.

And Gnashings, speaking of public washrooms, I think you should learn how to use one before you flush.
 
Though I can't comment on much of the discussion here, I am one of those young-ish "photographers" who never really had an appreciation for Adams, possibly because the stuff is eveywhere. Overall I'm not wild about landscapes in general. Another photographer told me to go see his actual prints, should I ever get the chance. Like many, all I'd ever seen were books and posters.

Right now there is a large Ansel Adams exhibit at the Corcoran museum in D.C. This past Thanksgiving I got the chance to go see it (and an Annie Leibovitz exhibit in the same museum). His prints were outstanding and had some emotional impact on me. It washed away much of my prior negative reaction to his work, regardless of how he is remembered in the end for his later in life work or business practices. The exhibit includes still lifes, portraits, a few "street" type shots, and, of course, many of his landscapes, all printed by him. I recommend that anyone who is nearby and interested in photography make the trek. There's also an "Art of the Snapshot" display at the National gallery that's worth seeing.
 
I admire Ansel Adams as a person who did the best he could for his passion. I also like his photographs, and I envy those who have seen the big prints up close.

His photographs reminded me of paintings from one of my favorite painter, Albert Bierstadt.

Interestingly, Adams apparently was not a big fan of Bierstadt, check out this interesting stuff I found online:

http://www.antiquescollaborative.com/items/711475/item711475store.html

Big ego, perhaps :)
 
How interesting to find that many don't see much in AA's photographs, at least in his landscapes. I feel the same about many of his landscapes. I too have seen them in person. Many were rather ho hum to me. But they may not have been when originally done. But I have to say many were very moving to me too. Just not everything he did. Well, what else would anyone expect?

As to the number, it is obviously rediculously high. Nobody I ever heard of was born with a Leica in their hands. Something must spark an interest in the art, then some time must be spent in learning at least some of the craft to illustrate the art you see and feel. But I believe as Roger Hicks says, for some, less will be needed due to their recognizing how to improve each time, and some innate vision they have that others may lack (at least I think that is what Mr. Hicks meant. If not, sorry sir, please correct me.).
 
oftheherd said:
But I believe as Roger Hicks says, for some, less will be needed due to their recognizing how to improve each time, and some innate vision they have that others may lack (at least I think that is what Mr. Hicks meant. If not, sorry sir, please correct me.).
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I meant.

Cheers,

R.
 
Hello Everyone!

I like Ansel Adams. Yes! Of course you have to shoot alot to improve.
I think "what I don't care for" is just an indication of who you are with your own personal style. History of everything not only photography simply "is."

I think every photographer wether amatuer or proffessional, noticed or unnoticed, contributes something to History, the collective consciousness. Photographs are about what we see and fail to see.

But then again, who am I? I'm just an uneducated scumbag, with a camera addiction. However (",,,Say hello to my little friend...), I did read 'On Photograohy" by Susan Sontag. She points out that it was Arbus who broke us away from the f64 style (Ansel and co.) that opened the door for other visionaries like Winogrand, Frank, etc. (who ever it is you like)

I say, shoot digital and film, shoot alot, study history, keep an open mind, and who knows what you'll end up thinking of next?
Cheers
_Tony Remington
 
Last edited:
xtoid said:
Hello Everyone!

I like Ansel Adams. Yes! Of course you have to shoot alot to improve.
I think "what I don't care for" is just an indication of who you are with your own personal style. History of everything not only photography simply "is."

I think every photographer wether amatuer or proffessional, noticed or unnoticed, contributes something to History, the collective consciousness. Photographs are about what we see and fail to see.

But then again, who am I? I'm just an uneducated scumbag, with a camera addiction. However (",,,Say hello to my little friend...), I did read 'On Photograohy" by Susan Sontag. She points out that it was Arbus who broke us away from the f64 style (Ansel and co.) that opened the door for other visionaries like Winogrand, Frank, etc. (who ever it is you like)

I say, shoot digital and film, shoot alot, study history, keep an open mind, and who knows what you'll end up thinking of next?
Cheers
_Tony Remington
Click to expand...

Dear Tony,

I'd agree pretty much agree, except (a) with your unnecessarily self-deprecating view of yourself and (b) with your view of Sontag. Her take on photography was that of a non-photographer with a rather shaky and highly selective technical and historical perspective. She also seemed to favor American contributions to aesthetic movements rather more than could always be justified.

As I say, I don't disagree with your overall argument; just with the view that Sontag had much idea of what she was talking about.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom