Did Ansel Adams shoot in the RAW mode?
Jan 1, 2021 08:04:36 #
P-J
Loc: UK
10" x 8" large format is the RAW equivalent to today's tiny sensors. Far more information on a 10 x 8 neg than any chip produced today.
So yes, he was shooting RAW!
So yes, he was shooting RAW!
Jan 1, 2021 08:07:59 #
LarryFitz
Loc: Beacon NY
Shooting RAW is equitant to shooting of film and developing in your own photo lab.
Shooting JPEG is equitant to shooting film and bring it to the drug store to be developed.
Therefore, Ansel Adams shot in RAW.
Shooting JPEG is equitant to shooting film and bring it to the drug store to be developed.
Therefore, Ansel Adams shot in RAW.
Jan 1, 2021 08:18:10 #
Jan 1, 2021 08:20:09 #
In the last interview I read that a journalist had had with him, (sorry, can't remember the publication), Ansel saw the age of electronic photography coming and had mentioned his anticipation of all of its possibilities. He most certainly would have been shooting RAW.
Jan 1, 2021 08:21:41 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Probably not in this weather lol!
Jan 1, 2021 08:25:37 #
Jan 1, 2021 08:26:51 #
Longshadow wrote:
Since my main camera is set to save RAW+JPEG, yes.
My other camera (a bridge) only saves JPEG, so yes.
(Successful could be relative.)
My other camera (a bridge) only saves JPEG, so yes.
(Successful could be relative.)
With all due respect, Longshadow, I wouldn't consider a camera that will not shoot raw a "bridge" camera. IMO a bridge camera will provide all the controls of a DSLR, including raw, but with a smaller sensor and a fixed lens.
Jan 1, 2021 08:34:26 #
if I recall he had many books on procedure from light to printing.
Jan 1, 2021 08:34:29 #
Jan 1, 2021 09:16:01 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Using jpg would have for him been the equivalent of allowing someone else to process his images once he took them. Now, if he had an able assistant, that might not have been a big deal, but certainly one of the things that makes Ansel Adams special was the amount of control he had over the process. I personally like the results provided by my able assistant (the Canon Image Processor) and so am usually happy with the jpg results it gives me....
Jan 1, 2021 09:27:19 #
Retina
Loc: Near Charleston,SC
Gene51 wrote:
What I recall from the Zone System is how Mr. Adams saw the whole process as a whole in order to produce the print that he previsualized. He emphasized understanding and controlling every step that affected shadows, highlights, and everything in between. With digital and especially RAW, whatever limits he accepted for previsualization would undoubtedly change. What is special about Adams and all good and great photographers is that they are imaginative artists and master technicians, as Gene51 states.There is no separation. Photographers are technicians, and always have been. To take an image from previsualization to final output requires technical skills.
This reminds me of how we should not draw a simple analogy between post-processing and printing. If an analogy is made between film and digital, post starts as soon as the shutter closes before the recorded data is rendered toward an image. With post you get to develop the exposure over and over, seeing the results real time, whereas with film you get only one pass at development in total darkness (ignoring intensifiers and reducers) well before any printing starts.
Jan 1, 2021 09:34:55 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Ansel had his own system he called the zone system ( I think its been awhile,I took it in college). It was complicated,it started withe the negative using a formula of your own personal technique of development. But you could stretch the exposure and be able to photograph a black cat in snow and both would be properly exposed. You could print that negative with almost no manipulation of the print. It worked but it is too complicated for me to explain here. Did he shoot in raw mode? Nope he used film, quite difernt animal than todays digital.
Jan 1, 2021 09:38:21 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
That was a question?
He shot film negatives obviously, and then "pp" them like crazy in the wet chem darkroom to make prints.
Ansel's Negatives as are most negatives, more like a 32-bit TIFF with more Dynamic Range than you can print, you must decide the placement of tones you want as tone scale.
Note, all but the highest end digital cameras are 14-bit Raw or 8-bit JPEG. A couple Leica and Hassalblad digitals are 16-bit.
Your JPEG is like photographing a print as a starting point and then printing what ever you get.
Jan 1, 2021 09:44:01 #
Picture Taker wrote:
that should star a conversation. It separates the photographers from the technicians
I think he said in his textbooks that the idea is to join (not separate) art and technology; but not all agree with him.
On his side is a long history. Oil paintings were driven by technology--the renaissance found richer new colors, the impressionists found rounded brush heads, etc.
We might say that a great technician has little art, but could we say a great artist has poor technique?
Jan 1, 2021 09:48:09 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Mr. Adams spent more time post processing than 99.99% of the members on this site. So if you're insinuating that RAW means to have to post process, I guess he shot RAW.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.