This is a popular kind question we oftentimes see on the forum. What would any of the iconic photographer of the past do in the digital age? An easy answer could be "God only knows, who knows?, who cares"? or, alternatively, a whole lot of speculation.

So let's be analytical in this case. Put on your historical detective hats, do a little research and make some reasonable deductions and try to reach a conclusion.

Perhaps I have a slight advantage. In that, I read ALL of Ansel Adams books- the older and later editions and did attend ONE of his workshops. I am also aware of his history and with the f/64 Group and his aversion to impressionistic styles of photography. This is not to say I hobnobbed with Mr. Adams, or any other of the iconic or prominent photographer I may have crossed paths with, studied under or attended classes with. In the workshop, however, I did get some first-hand insight in Mr.Adams incredible degree of expertise and craftsmanship and phenomenal teaching abilities and personality. I did not take in the workshop to become a great landscape photographer but actually to learn and apply the Zone System and related darkroom technique to my commercial photography- to gain fill contrast and range control.

So...no let's examine the evidence. Ansel Adams was the grandmaster of precise tonal control so I can speculate that all of the capabilities and potential of digital post-processing would have been right up his alley.

Although Adams was especially noted for his usage of large-format equipment- view and field cameras, he also did also use medium and miniature format cameras in some of his work. I, therefore, deduce that he had no aversion to various improvements, changes and development in the photographic technologies as they presented themselves. There were photographers at the workshop that inquired about use of roll film in the zone system and the only limitation Adams pointed out was no being able to individually expose and process each frame as per the Zone System- the entire roll would have to be treated the same way in processing.

The only aspect of post-processing that Adams would probably discard is the extreme application of special effects- the same as he opposed in film work. Adding textures, creating line-dropouts, simulating cross-processing, etc. Anyone who studied Adam's history knows of his philosophical differences with the likes of William Mortensen- and that's putting it mildly!

My educated guess is that Ansel Adam would completely embrace digital imaging and all current and future technological progressions.

I would add that the medium- film or digital, has very little to do with a photographers artistry, perception of light, aptness for composition, degree of craftsmanship and work ethic. Mr. Adams would have done very well in our current technologies. My guess is the only problem that would cause him to revert to film and refuse to transition into digital photography is if he determined that he would not attain the level of quality that he was accustomed to. Watching him work in his darkroom with an 8x10 enlarger, rolling on tracks and projecting the image on a wall to make photomurals and literally "dancing" in the light path to dodge and burn the image, I can assure you that his mastery of our current technologies would be a "piece of cake" for him!

Of course, it is difficult if not impossible to get into all of our favorite iconic photographer's heads and fully understand what motivated them, or what they would do in any hypothetical situation. Perhaps we "read more into" the work or philosophy of our individual heroes or for that matter. those of the photographers we are not fans of. All I can offer is the history and the evidence and each of us needs to come to our own conclusions.

I was fortunate enough tho have studied photography and start my professional career in New York City. I was able to access lectures, classes, and seminars with a few of the iconic photographers or I made some contact with them at various trade shows and conventions. Again, most of them were no my "buddies" nor did I socialize with any of them to any great extent. I continually studied under a very few. I'll drop a few names; Peter Gowland, Richard Avadon, Milton Green, Phillippe Hallman, Joseph Schneider, David Douglas Duncan, Yosef Karsh, and there was a host of others that are well known in the portrait, commercial and wedding industries. There was a common denominator that seems to apply to all of them. They were straightforward, most were plain talkers, down to earth, informative and inspiring and most adhered to an elegant and surprisingly degree of simplicity in their work and their teachings.