Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Did Ansel Adams shoot in the RAW mode?
Jan 1, 2021 09:52:52 #
chfrus wrote:
Ansel had his own system he called the zone system... (show quote)
Even before Adams (unlike Adam, he was not first), photographers learned to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights (when using negative b/w film). That is a rule-of-thumb system, and zones merely codified it for greater precision.
Jan 1, 2021 09:56:03 #
To answer your question, yes he did. It was also digital.
--Bob
--Bob
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Jan 1, 2021 09:58:36 #
The photographer Ansel Adams began his career in photography during the film era. He died in 1984, well before the advent of digital photography.
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Jan 1, 2021 10:01:37 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
What an idiotic way to waste bandwidth and the end of 2020. Seems appropriate for the year we've all had.
Jan 1, 2021 10:04:55 #
Jan 1, 2021 10:05:33 #
Actually, that would have been 8 years after the development of digital photography.
--Bob
--Bob
anotherview wrote:
The photographer Ansel Adams began his career in photography during the film era. He died in 1984, well before the advent of digital photography.
Jan 1, 2021 10:14:06 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
Some have said that processing RAW is like converting a strip of exposed film to become a strip of negatives.
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Jan 1, 2021 10:28:59 #
gvarner wrote:
Some have said that processing RAW is like converting a strip of exposed film to become a strip of negatives.
gvarner, that is a realistic analogy. Exposed film, like raw data, is not an image at all--it has to be converted to an image by witchcraft (chemical brew vs. software hocus-pokus).
Like all analogies, it is not an exact duplication. A developed negative is actually an image, while the JPEG conversion itself, if that is what is saved, is not a visible image--it is still just digits.
Surely Adams would want to save the most complete digital record (RAW) for conversion at his leisure, unless the JPEG rendered his vision of the picture perfectly. In many cases, it might, but I suspect he would want to control the conversion to an image. He would need another set of textbooks to develop that process of art and technology.
Jan 1, 2021 10:32:21 #
If you have the money time and nerdiness to shoot raw I say more power to ya ! Not for me tho - too costly for the rewards.
Adams was the consumate nerdy technician - so yes, he would surely be shooting raw and pushing the envelope no matter how small the advantage or the cost - but he did have good vision and artistry also. Rare to see BOTH blended together so well !
.
Adams was the consumate nerdy technician - so yes, he would surely be shooting raw and pushing the envelope no matter how small the advantage or the cost - but he did have good vision and artistry also. Rare to see BOTH blended together so well !
.
Jan 1, 2021 10:32:27 #
MT Shooter wrote:
How much more RAW can it get than shooting negative film????
I the film genre the only "jpg" equivalent would have been Polaroids!
I the film genre the only "jpg" equivalent would have been Polaroids!
Amen to Polaroids. Slide films also resemble JPEGs in some respects.
Jan 1, 2021 10:41:37 #
burkphoto wrote:
Amen to Polaroids. Slide films also resemble JPEGs in some respects.
so whenever I want to shoot JPEG I shoot slide films.
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jan 1, 2021 10:41:46 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Raw is "uncooked", so I would say yes. He would "cook/manipulate" the image to his liking. We do the same in the digital world.
Jan 1, 2021 10:42:50 #
Retina wrote:
What I recall from the Zone System is how Mr. Adam... (show quote)
Retina, that is interesting--digital is like a sort of negative film that can be re-developed many times, in many ways... witchcraft beyond the sorcery of Ansel Adams. For him, developing the negative the first time was the last time--that is why we must decide what we want before doing it. Far from turning in his grave, he would want to rise again and don his pointy hat once more. Before, he could visualize the image before exposing the film; now, he could visualize again, before converting the data, which was more limited with film. In both cases we are limited by science (or unnatural wizardry), but knowing the limits can give us realistic visions to produce.
They were called dark rooms because they were laboratories for the dark arts.
Jan 1, 2021 10:44:31 #
Retina
Loc: Near Charleston,SC
gvarner wrote:
More like cut sheet film since you develop them one at a time.Some have said that processing RAW is like converting a strip of exposed film to become a strip of negatives.
Jan 1, 2021 10:49:23 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.