Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

This is an expansion of a post I made on a thread about "manipulation"

While Ansel Adams was a master printer and a photographic and American icon, I grow tired of hearing about Adams and manipulation. It misrepresents his aesthetic and his working philosophy. If you read anything about Group f/64 you will find that the movement promoted "straight photography." This means among many things that photography should stand on its own merits and not try to mimic painting or drawing. A photograph according to this aesthetic philosophy a photograph should be sharp, nearly everything in focus and should represent reality. Dodging and burning change are hardly manipulation, the contents of the scene remain intact but the feeling changes with the changing of some tonal relationships.

Prior to the straight photography movement was the Pictorialist movement. Soft focus and heavy manipulation were key as was narrative. One of the last proponents of pictorialism was William Mortensen. If you haven't heard of him, it is no surprise as Ansel Adams and Beaumant Newhall despised him and his work and essentially wrote him out of history by Newhall omitting from his History of Photography book.

Furthermore, the world of photography and its nearly 192 year history is vast, complex and rich. Dig deeper that Ansel Adams. Other photographers did far more manipulation in the darkroom beyond what he did before and after him. For instance Oscar Gustave Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson and Jerry Uelsmann and Carol Golemboski.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Here are links for the above topics:

Group f/64 Manifesto
http://photographyhistory.blogspot.com/2012/04/group-f64-manifesto-1932.html

Pictorialism
http://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/notes-on-pictorialism

William Mortensen
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/06/william-mortensen-photography-master-macabre

Adams and Mortensen
https://petapixel.com/2016/09/22/ansel-adams-wrote-pictorialism-photography-history/

Jerry Uelsmann
http://www.uelsmann.net/

Oscar Gustave Rejlander
https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/oscar-gustav-rejlander-pioneered-combination-printing/

Carol Golemboski
http://www.carolgolemboski.com/psychometry.html

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

How can you consider dodging and burning to be anything else other than post processing manipulation? I do this in Lightroom with digital images, which is post processing? Why is in darkroom processing considered more “pure?”

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Never said I had a problem with doing in Lightroom. This post deals with manipulation in the philosophy of pictorialism vs straight photography, Group f/64 and Ansel Adams. As the those photographers used the darkroom it is part of the context in relation to them but no purity or superiority has been implied.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Some good examples of pictorialism

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/33.43.40/

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/33.43.39/

http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/artists/1950/gertrude-ksebier-american-1852-1934/

Straight photography

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/33.43.419/

http://www.theartstory.org/movement-straight-photography.htm

wmdooley

Adams used the tools at his disposal to increase the emotional impact of some of his most famous images. He used the zone system of exposure and development to assure that his negatives captured the detail in both highlight and shadow that he wanted. He then used selective exposure and development of his prints to bring out the image he had already built into his negatives. Highlight, shadow, contrast, dynamic range all came into play. His enlarger had an array of switchable bulbs to shape the exposure of his prints to his vision. I don't doubt that he would have embraced today's digital post-processing techniques enthusiastically. It was commonly observed that a simple snapshot of one of his Yosemite scenes was invariably disappointing. It lacked the unseen manipulation of the master that made his work so distinctive.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Darkroom317 - this “education mission” of your is starting to become overly repetitive and annoying. Can’t we just agree to disagree concerning what ‘makes’ a photographer or a photograph and the important role of ‘post processing’? There are worthy UHH members who do not share your point of view - let it drop. Thank you.

charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

So, somewhere here could we have either a definition of "manipulation" as you are using the term, or a list of methods that qualify as "manipulation"?

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I feel very much the same way you do about many of the repetitive equipment posts and discussion. I choose to ignore them or not comment in them, which you are free to. This thread is not about winning an argument or berating those with views different thatn mine. It is about the discussion and debate about photographic history and philosophy. It may not be for everyone and that is ok.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Check the f/64 manifesto. Again this is within the context of that philosophy. The definition of manipulation itself, of course varies from person to person. Given the limitless possibilities of processing and techniques employed by art photographers, I have begun to consider dodging and burning as not exactly manipulation give that the content of the scene has remained unaltered but again that is me. All opinions and views are welcome and should be respected.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Annoying to whom? Some UHH members certainly, but we're all annoying to somebody else, including myself and your good self, Sir.

There is value in the history of photography for many of us and we are not compelled to follow these threads. It isn't as if they are posted multiple times a day ad nauseam.

For those that are interested and have the patience to read there are couple of excellent books by Mary Street Alinder :http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Street-Alinder/e/B001KI1HRQ/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2?qid=1516131305&sr=8-2

Ric Burns' biopic about Adams is also a worthwhile use of time, for those that are interested in the history of photography: http://www.amazon.com/Ansel-Adams-American-Experience/dp/B000BITUFM/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1516131514&sr=8-11&keywords=Ansel+adams

Darkroom317's posts add significant value to many, unlike the drivel from certain other contributors.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Learn more about the work that Adams did to support himself. He was a commercial photographer and did a lot more than just the type of work that you mention.

Here is a link to a fabulous portrait by Adams. It has a very narrow depth of field and exhibits some great bokeh too. This was shot in 1943 almost certainly with a 4x5 Graflex.

http://memory.loc.gov/service/gdc/scd0001/2002/20020123001bf/0061r.jpg

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Thanks, though in his defense there have been multiple threads similar threads in the past few days, "What is Photograph," "Photograph and Reality, " and " Ban on Photo Manipulation." It certainly could be seen as repetitive. I was a bit hesitant about posting this thread for this reason. My main point is to look back at where his work and philosophy came from, what came after and what else is out there in the world of photography.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Were Ansel Adam's photographs manipulated? Absolutely. But that was his art, to take pictures and then manipulate them in the darkroom.