[SET Man]

Hey!

  Found this on PBS' site. Oldie but still goodie...

http://www.pbs.org/video/2272115449/

  Ansel Adams on photography, I also like the part where he talks about other great photographers. Good watch. 

Take care,
Buddy 

[charmerci]

He used to say that 90% of taking a photograph is  darkroom work.

Does that mean 90% of a great photo today is done on the computer?

[drphoto]

I think 90% of Ansel's work was in his mind. Remember how he talked about 'previusalization'.....seeing the final picture before it's made. He did not record landscapes. He created essentially abstact art. Take the infamous 'Monolith at Half Dome' photo. It doesn't look like that. It's what he wanted it to look like. Darkroom or computer.....it's just an extension of the process.

It's honestly hard to image how hard it must have been to capture those pictures. Lugging 8x10 cameras and film plates up mountains? Plus waiting in the cold for just the right moment? Dude was a rock star. And yeah.....his darkroom work is stuff of legend.

[thunderbrick]

He used to say that 90% of taking a photograph is  darkroom work.

Does that mean 90% of a great photo today is done on the computer?

But he shot it in such a way as to reduce the effort in the darkroom.  That's a skill largely lost in a digital world as people say "I'll fix it in LR or PS".  Yeah, right.  Fix it in camera, tweak it later.

[dB Cooper]

He used to say that 90% of taking a photograph is  darkroom work.

Does that mean 90% of a great photo today is done on the computer?

I have studied Ansel in the past, read all his books, attended a lecture by one of his assistants, and taken a week-long workshop with another of his assistants, and I don't remember reading that in print,  or hearing him quoted as saying that. Not saying he didn't; I could just use some attribution.

Thanks SET Man for the link.

[rockadanny]

Tip for those who've not seen his works in person and are either: not moved by them; or cannot understand the hub-bub surrounding them; or perhaps don't agree that photography should even be considered an art form - you need to see them in person. I thought/felt all of these doubts until I saw an exhibit of the originals in person. OMG. Phenomenal. Do yourself a favor and go see some - the originals, not copies. 

[drphoto]

It's always good to see original prints in person. Even the highest quality litho's can't do justice to a great metal on paper print.

Beside the Adams gallery in SF, another great place to see original photos is "a gallery" in New Orleans. Fantastic place.

Not a lot of museums tend to have photos. Hmmm maybe another thread there???

[mcgsxr]

I have several large format prints of his including Moon and Half Dome, which is one of my fav images.  Ever.

[SET Man]

Tip for those who've not seen his works in person and are either: not moved by them; or cannot understand the hub-bub surrounding them; or perhaps don't agree that photography should even be considered an art form - you need to see them in person. I thought/felt all of these doubts until I saw an exhibit of the originals in person. OMG. Phenomenal. Do yourself a favor and go see some - the originals, not copies.

It's always good to see original prints in person. Even the highest quality litho's can't do justice to a great metal on paper print.

Beside the Adams gallery in SF, another great place to see original photos is "a gallery" in New Orleans. Fantastic place.

Not a lot of museums tend to have photos. Hmmm maybe another thread there???

Hey!

    I live in NYC and there are many museums here. And I'm fortunate that I've seen original Ansel's prints over the years. I think it was about 14-15 years ago MoMA has an exhibition of his works, I remembered that it was amazing. There were some large prints there also. The last time I saw his work was last year at the Whitney Museum of which the "Moonrise" was on display, I think it is still there right now.

    To see the actual prints was quite astounding. No reproduction can come close. The quality, the tonal and the detail of the print is just amazing. Not many can print like him, even today. So, yes I agreed that if anyone who like photography or art should see his original prints if they have a chance to do so.

Take care,
Buddy 

[charmerci]

I have studied Ansel in the past, read all his books, attended a lecture by one of his assistants, and taken a week-long workshop with another of his assistants, and I don't remember reading that in print,  or hearing him quoted as saying that. Not saying he didn't; I could just use some attribution.

Well, maybe I'm wrong.  I do seem to recall him saying that a lot of photography is/was work in the darkroom - maybe another famous old photographer?

Arizona U. in Tucson is associated with a lot of his works. It's probably too late to reserve for this event.

http://www.creativephotography.org/exhibitions-events/events/ansel-adams-birthday-celebration

[fishboat]

Decades ago when I was in a photography-degree program, the AA mantra was "..expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.." 

If someone needs extensive post-exposure work to make a photo viewable, they need to work on their pre-exposure craft. ..unless their 'art' is comprised of manipulation..

[md92468]

The last time I saw his work was last year at the Whitney Museum of which the "Moonrise" was on display

What's amazing about that print is how he managed to get a decent one considering how thin the negative was (apparently he was in a rush and miscalculated the exposure). I took a workshop with his former assistant years back and he showed us the negative and the print recipe...it took a lot of work to get an acceptable print from that image.

FWIW, here's a picture of Ansel's living room circa 1994...part of the workshop was taught here. Note the baby grand at the end of the room - Ansel was also a classical pianist and early in life was good enough to consider turning professional, but chose photography instead...lucky for us...

[drphoto]

I  dunno if this is off topic or not, but as a pro photographer, I've always seen post processing whether darkroom or digital as just an extension of the shooting process.I know what I can do in camera, and then know what I'm gonna do post.

For me it was the same process whether analog or digital. The digital is just
 more precise. And cheaper.

Post is not about 'fixing problems' it part of the solution.

In the end.....who cares? Ansel made stunning pictures. Isn't that what matters? Monolith at Half Dome is a icon no matter what.

Hope that doesn't sound snotty.......not my intent.

[SET Man]

What's amazing about that print is how he managed to get a decent one considering how thin the negative was (apparently he was in a rush and miscalculated the exposure). I took a workshop with his former assistant years back and he showed us the negative and the print recipe...it took a lot of work to get an acceptable print from that image.
...

Hey!

    Man! You got to see the original nagative? Lucky you! I'd love to see that and his note, must be lots of dogging and burning there. I remembered watching a documentary somewhere about that. If I recalled correctly he was driving, saw the moon. He stop his car, the sun was setting and loosing light fast. He exposed for the moon because he couldn't find his meter or didn't have enough time or something like that. I think that explain why the negative is so thin.

    Thin negative or not his prints of this photo is as good as others from him. I was at the Whitney looking at that print of which was about 16X20" just a few inches away from my eyes and to see all those detail and the tonal range was amazing!

Take care,
Buddy 

[charmerci]

    Man! You got to see the original negative? Lucky you! I'd love to see that and his note, must be lots of dogging and burning there. I remembered watching a documentary somewhere about that. If I recalled correctly he was driving, saw the moon. He stop his car, the sun was setting and loosing light fast. He exposed for the moon because he couldn't find his meter or didn't have enough time or something like that. I think that explain why the negative is so thin.

Take care,
Buddy 

I remember that too. (Perhaps dbCooper will confirm this!  )

[twitch54]

Love Ansel Adams work, he along with O. Winston Link are my two favorite B&W photographers of all time.

[dB Cooper]

I remember that too. (Perhaps dbCooper will confirm this!  )

He told this tory in his book 'Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs', and also added that an astronomer later was able to provide the date and time based on the position of the moon.

[md92468]

I'd love to see that and his note, must be lots of dogging and burning there.

All of his prints were extensively "worked"...he kept "recipe cards" for each that detailed exactly what had to be done to make an approved print – dodge times, burn times, paper grade, filtration, developer, dilution...the whole shebang. It was interesting to see.

[gsm18439]

A comparison of his prints made during different periods (often decades apart) gives a sense of how much darkroom manipulation contributed to the final print.

[thunderbrick]

Decades ago when I was in a photography-degree program, the AA mantra was "..expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.." 

If someone needs extensive post-exposure work to make a photo viewable, they need to work on their pre-exposure craft. ..unless their 'art' is comprised of manipulation..

+1!