What book by Ansel Adams had done to me

[btgc]

After going through book with Ansel Adams 400 pictures I were stunned by his dedication to subject (subjects, in fact, and themes) yet revelation 35mm film is such a compromise. Well, i realize I would never carry around gear he used (without car it's not doable) and I still can enjoy pictures he made even not making such myself. Yet I realize he had spent tons of time and efforts waiting for the moment, of being there. climbing, observing and later processing, printing and finishing. That's huge work, enormous.

To be fair also before I have toyed with idea of adding midformat camera to step up from 135 format (no, I don't pretend of being Adams or even landscape photographer, just to have some idea of larger negative than 135). But then I also think if I really want this without optical printing....my 135 route is 95% hybrid workflow. Probably I'll concentrate more on what I have, shoot more, select, make proofs, edit, select and make prints of keepers.

What a great book it is, though!

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Yeah. This is what set me on a course to become "full fledged camera nut." I have wound up with cameras in several niches and usually chose the largest negative I could get away with. I say "chose" rather than "choose" because my 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 cameras are sitting behind me on the shelf as I type this, looking at me with baleful reproach -- I haven't put a piece of film through any of them in the past five years. Ugh.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Adams did not do his own printing he had an assistant. Often he/did not follow the rules set down in his books which no photographer I ever read about ever noted following. Also, Adams photographed a world that did not exist. Many of his images are composite images. He photographed clouds and added them to other photographs. Adams is the Kodak photographer. Compare him to his contemporaries who were photographing for the WPA in America and the WWII photographers or the Europeans in the 1930's. Sorry if I may have burst a bubble.

 

[mfogiel]

You could try a Monochrom and see if the results rock your boat. The resolution certainly is very good. I always prefer my Hasselblad, and so did Ansel in his later years.

 

[charjohncarter]

When I read 'The Negative' 45 years ago, I was stunned at how little I knew about negatives. I've been to some Adams' classic shoots, and even carrying a SLR with a couple of lenses was difficult. But I was 35mm for about 7 years after that, then I bought a well used Rolleiflex. It really made the negatives that I had been working on in 35mm look like they were from a toy camera. Give MF a try.

 

[Takkun]

Adams did not do his own printing he had an assistant. Often he/did not follow the rules set down in his books which no photographer I ever read about ever noted following. Also, Adams photographed a world that did not exist. Many of his images are composite images. He photographed clouds and added them to other photographs. Adams is the Kodak photographer. Compare him to his contemporaries who were photographing for the WPA in America and the WWII photographers or the Europeans in the 1930's. Sorry if I may have burst a bubble.

Well, that's all news to me. 🙄 I'm hesitant to respond to this, lest I be the one to derail this thread.

But I'll go for it.
1. Who cares if he had an assistant print? That's not uncommon for a lot of artists. Are we going to beat the decomposing equine of whether "real" artists print their work or not? Even so, he published a lot of material on the subject and it's probably safe to say he knew something about the darkroom.
2. Often he/did not follow the rules set down in his books which no photographer I ever read about ever noted following.
I can't really make heads or tails of this. Much of the work in The Camera, The Negative, and The Print is a comprehensive means of teaching the craft and science of photography in an useful way--it's more observation and fact than arbitrary "rules". Are you trying to say it's all made up?
3. I find it hard to believe that a photographer who wrote so much about sacrifice, patience, and timing with respect to finding extraordinary light would essentially "Photoshop" weather onto images. In "The Negative" he goes into great detail about how "Moonrise, Hernandez" was captured. Somehow it seems a little unbelievable that he'd go through the trouble to concoct a scientifically-plausible story in order to pull the wool over his readers. His landscapes look a little unreal because they were taken in unreal lighting (we've all seen it before) and had the technical knowledge to reproduce that effect. Unless, of course, you consider contracted development and a red filter "composite".
4. I've seen his portrait work. His contemporaries shooting for the WPA were better. 😉


Anyway. I'm actually ambivalent toward Adam's work; I think I was a little over-saturated with it when I was younger. But his books are incredibly useful reference materials and his pedagogy of teaching the craft lets everyone get something out of it. Like someone else mentioned, The Negative completely changed how I viewed the shooting and developing process.
His work really shows you the creative potential of LF, especially in landscape work. The clarity and tonal gradation is just unreal, and suddenly makes all those Leica vs Zeiss resolution tests moot. I got bitten by the bug too and spent the last few months working on an architectural documentation with a borrowed Wista. Only problem is, I don't have a car, and all that stuff gets really heavy, really fast.

If anything, looking at his work just makes me want to get out and hike.

 

[kbg32]

"All art is a vision penetrating the illusions of reality, and photography is one form of this vision and revelation. . . . My approach to photography is based upon my belief in the vigor and values of the world of nature, in aspects of grandeur and minutiae all about us."

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."

http://www.great-quotes.com/quotes/author/Ansel/Adams


I find Adams to be too grandiose, and many of his quotes contradict each each other.

 

[Pioneer]

Me thinks there is a lot of hot air floating around.

Adams was a great landscape photographer, an even better printer as well as teacher. I have spoken with a couple of his assistants and read articles written by others. They were given a lot of instruction by Adams on how to print his negatives and they followed those instructions. Adams himself would spend hours in the darkroom.

He also lived in Yosemite and worked with the Sierra Club, so he had a lot of opportunities to capture his images.

He is no saint but he certainly knew his craft.

 

[Zonan]

AFIK, and I have read a lot by/about him and his assistants, Adams printed his own prints. That's what distinguishes those currently printed by one of his former assistants from a select few negatives, all clearly labeled as such. He always had assistant(s), and they helped in the darkroom, but they did not do the printing.

 

[Pioneer]

As the OP has discovered, large format provides far more information to work with in a negative. I am slowly beginning to get my feet wet in large format but I am learning that it is different than 135 or 120. Even 4x5 provides a lot of negative to work with.

It is a new and wonderful world but it is not particularly fast. Nor is it particularly cheap. Sheet film is getting more and more expensive. If you are not patient enough to spend the time, or your subjects won't stick around for very long, then large format may not work out too well for you. I am not even sure yet that it is really for me.

 

[btgc]

I haven't read much more on Adams than some short short info in the book (which also mentions he had superb darkroom where he spent lots of time, especially during his late period, printing more than ever). Even if he were crook combining clouds into other pictures I would admit he did it top notch way as not many can do. In fact it doesn't matter what and how, but there's body of work and one either accepts or or not. I am clearly not a landscape person but I'd shortsighted not seeing what that stuff means. Probably I'll spare for some other book too - not because I want to imitate him or find a view of places I haven't seen so far - I saw a book with text, commenting on some aspects of his work, how he reprinted same negative several times, explaining his vision and such. I think it's interesting to understand someones strategy, methods and intentions. Probably I'm certain type but I also like to listen to real photographers I rarely meet, they all have their own stories and sometimes I find proofs for my own theories and most often I hear something new to me. Just like finding something interesting here on RFF or flickr.

As for suggestion stepping up in format - I don't have real projects so this would be only technical journey. I'm just fumbling with gear, with trying, keeping myself busy - that said, I don't see point in buying into sheet format for fun. Self-made camera would be another, that would have additional pleasure. Medium format, while step-up from 35mm, I'm not sure in practical use if not printing optically, yet there are Foveons - different from film, but also sharing some image qualities and certainly enforcing slow, thoughtful approach with technical limitations of cameras. But then anyone is free to work same way with any digital, just making point I don't think Sigma cameras are mandatory attribute of careful approach. I think I have to make some larger prints from my original DP1 (which I haven't done so far) to see how prints from it look like. Screens are screens and at 600x400 size cameras don't really matter.

 

[x-ray]

Adams did not do his own printing he had an assistant. Often he/did not follow the rules set down in his books which no photographer I ever read about ever noted following. Also, Adams photographed a world that did not exist. Many of his images are composite images. He photographed clouds and added them to other photographs. Adams is the Kodak photographer. Compare him to his contemporaries who were photographing for the WPA in America and the WWII photographers or the Europeans in the 1930's. Sorry if I may have burst a bubble.

Very wrong. I knew Adams personally and spent time with him in the darkroom.

Adams did all of his own printing with the exception of the special edition prints.

Adams did not photograph clouds and add them to the prints. I've seen the negatives in person and they are what they are. He often printed them down.

Adams was anything but a Kodak photographer.

 

[Takkun]

As Pioneer said, the film ain't cheap. Nor are film holders. In my school's photo department we had probably 50-75, but of course that's shared between five people working on their own projects.
Aside from that, a LF setup can be bought for a reasonable amount, at least compared to building up a DSLR kit. Calumet had some inexpensive bodies, and there is a DIY kit, too!
http://www.bulldogcameras.com

Probably the biggest thing about sheet film, in addition to the resolution, is the ability to develop each shot individually, and/or bracket development time. Some say that it's not really necessary with VC papers or scanning, but it sure does make a difference in post-processing.

 

[Landshark]

Adams did not do his own printing he had an assistant. Often he/did not follow the rules set down in his books which no photographer I ever read about ever noted following. Also, Adams photographed a world that did not exist. Many of his images are composite images. He photographed clouds and added them to other photographs. Adams is the Kodak photographer. Compare him to his contemporaries who were photographing for the WPA in America and the WWII photographers or the Europeans in the 1930's. Sorry if I may have burst a bubble.

I've read quite a bit of AA's bios and have never seen references to something like this.

And are there references you can provide to this alternative history?

 

[CameraQuest]

Very wrong. I knew Adams personally and spent time with him in the darkroom.

Adams did all of his own printing with the exception of the special edition prints.

Adams did not photograph clouds and add them to the prints. I've seen the negatives in person and they are what they are. He often printed them down.

Adams was anything but a Kodak photographer.

How much printing Adams personally did depends upon which parts of his career you are talking about. By the time he was famous he had many assistants over the years printing for him. I knew one of them who did most of AA's printing while working for him, but that did not mean AA did not sometimes print himself. One of his better known assistants is John Sexton who is now a well known photog in his own right. http://johnsexton.com/

Stephen

 

[Pioneer]

Bulldog Cameras does not appear to be able to provide DIY camera kits at this time.

 

[farlymac]

I used to want to be able to emulate Ansel in even a small way. Life's way of getting in the way took care of that dream. I still have many of his books, and those of other masters too. It doesn't matter that his photos were highly manipulated in the darkroom, because anyone who has done their own developing of prints should know all the tricks that can be done to bring out what your vision of the scene should look like.

The man was a master of presenting the perfect photo, and getting there to take it, with the equipment necessary to produce a working negative. Trying to be like that, btgc, cannot be the worst thing you can think of. Go for it!

PF

 

[jchabalk]

you could always get yourself one of these:

 

[thegman]

I suppose 35mm is only a compromise if you value technical quality, i.e. resolution and tonality. Most people on this forum seem to like the work of HCB, where resolution of most photos, due to shake, blur, film type etc. is lower than any of us would tolerate.

Personally I do value the resolution, and don't use 35mm film any more. I've dabbled with 4x5 and for me, the effort involved is not worth the quality improvement over 6x12 medium format. I think for those of us shooting film, unless you like having 36 shots a roll, or maybe ultra fast lenses, then medium format, say 6x6, offer a great deal more quality in cameras small than most Leica kits.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Where I studied photography Adams was not a reference. The photographers that I studied with were street photographers and more influenced by the WPA/WWII photographers. As you can see I am not a big Adams fan. I do not find his landscapes fascinating. They were done before in the 19th Century by others. The landscapes he photographed in the 1930's did not exist for 99% of America. During that time America was in Depression and the cities were falling apart as well as the countryside. The purpose of the WPA was to document the decaying and changing landscape. It is interesting to place Adam's work alongside that of Walker Evans, for instance, or Dorthea Lange and view America. Evans and Lange showed us how America existed at the time. Adams created a fantasy world, much like Wallace Nutting, who precedes him by a few years. For me he created the ultimate coffee table books (I have quite a few) but I choose not to emulate his work. What I find distracting is how many "photographers" I meet that say that they want to take pictures like Ansel Adams. But, when I inquire about other photographers they have not heard of any. Lenswork magazine is a good example of would photographers who are capable but have no real eye of their own. 2/3 say that they want to take photos like Ansel Adams and he is their major influence. (Another photographer commenting on Adams asked would Adams be taking the photographs he is famous for today and in the same manner with the same equipment or would he have updated his style?)
The book I find to be the best on Adams in so far as it demonstrates a fuller range but with lesser noted images (as noted above) is "Ansel Adams" edited by Liliane De Cock with a forward by Minor White published by NY Graphic Society 1972.
Again, although the book is very good one must look at the dates of the images, especially the ones taken during WWII and compare them to the photographs of Miller, Capra, & the Life photographers, etc. who risked their lives to bring images home.
Adams isolated himself from the world and events. Adams' photographs make wonderful posters and coffee table books as they are inoffensive and pleasing to the eye.
(I am sorry I can not relate which books I read about Adams and how he worked.) (I recall when one student asked about the Zone System the instructor, a WWII combat photographer, just shook his head and laughed.)
Personally, I like the photographs posted on this sight better, or at least, many of them.