R.G. Loc: Scotland

I think much depends on how you see the foreground buildings and cemetery. If you see them as a source of interest you'll spend time taking them in and you'll see them as a natural part of the scene. On the other hand you may think they make the photo look like a careless snapshot where the shooter wanted a scenery shot but couldn't be bothered to find a view that didn't have those foreground distractions. If that's the case, that's how you'll see the buildings and cemetery - as distractions that shouldn't be there. The sky, moon, clouds, hills and desert don't need any justification since it's obviously a landscape shot, so it all hinges on how you perceive the foreground.

IMO the landscape aspects of the shot work well and have been well rendered. I can force myself to take an interest in the foreground and I don't see the shot as a failure, but I find my opinion of it coming and going, depending on how comfortable I feel about the foreground. If it was mine I'd reduce the amount of sky by cropping off of the top. I wouldn't want to take too much off because the sky adds to the feeling of openness, but as shown it seems a bit excessive, to the point where it could be seen as a compositional error.

AA was a gifted and capable photographer, and the fact that he spent so much time working on this shot suggests to me that we should look beyond any immediate impressions and try to discern what it was that he saw in it and why he thought it was worth repeated effort.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think the question here is just exactly what does the viewer consider this photograph to be. To me, it is not a landscape at all.

If ypu pay attention to what Mr. Adams writes, it started out, essentially, as just another "moon shot." It is not, as suggested a couple of times above, badly underexposed. It is perfectly exposed for the surface of the moon.

But, because of his deep knowledge and quick response, he was able to set up and make an exposure that captured detail in the lunar surface, but also enabled a print that portrayed a beautiful environmental portrait of the community. In fact, if you removed the village, what would be left is really just an unremarkable barren expanse. No village, no photograph, moon notwithstanding. Certainly not a saleable print. Try it...cover Hernandez and see what remains.

As I stated in my first response, this is drastically different from any other well-known Adams print in memory, including every one mentioned in this discussion (Half Dome, Clearing Winter Storm). There is no evidence of humans in any of them, and that was very intentional on his part. That difference is part of what increases the impact of this photograph and probably what disinterests others.

It is helpful to understand that Adams really was not first and foremost a photographer. He adopted outdoor pursuits to try to overcome a sickly childhood. In his heart, he was a conservationist. Photography was his means of communication and his livelihood. The photographs that we know grab us because thry came from his heart.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Badly underexposes is how a photographer who shuns processing would see it. Disastrous, actually, and ready for the circular file.

Adams, as you pointed out, exposed properly for the moon, having done so multiple times in the past there was no calculating involved, and no need for the light meter. His concern was that by doing so, did he get enough shadow information to make it a landscape photo, with foreground sky and his signature full range of tones. He typically custom-processed he negatives, but in this case he absolutely had to nail it - get enough workable detail in the moon, while being able process the faint shadows (very thin areas in a negative) and pray there was enough there above films base and any processing-induced fogging.

I'd say that this was one of his more challenging undertakings, and since he only had the single negative - he did try to take a second shot but the clouds had moved in the couple of seconds it took to change film holders (or reverse the one that he had in the camera if he was using a two sheet holder) and the composition was forever lost.

He had made a number of versions of this, early on the sky was lighter and the foreground darker. The clouds at the horizon also changed in brightness. At one point he made the decision to irrevocably treat the negative to a combination of selenium toner+HCA (hypo clearing agent), to proportionately build up contrast in the foreground. As new tools and techniques appeared, so did his treatment of Moonrise evolve.

The story is not obvious from viewing the print. But having had a foundation in wet chemistry darkroom, I could appreciate the challenge represented by the image, and how difficult it was to get the results he did. Needless to say, trying to evaluate his work on a computer screen is futile. Nothing substitutes for experiencing the majestic mastery of the real thing.

As one reviewer stated - of all the original versions of this image, no two are precisely alike.

In the digital age, sorry to say, this level of dedication is all but gone. There are true masters that will labor and experiment with software to get the results they want, and have the creative muse to know exactly what that looks like and the skills to make it happen. But they are few and far between.

This link shows some of the variants of moonrise:

https://www.google.com/search?q=moonrise+over+hernandez+before+and+after&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS908US908&oq=moonrise+over+hernandez&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0i512l6j69i65.12069j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The version of the print in the MOMA link probably most closely matches his earliest descriptions of what may or may not have been his initial visualization...the stars of the show are the moon and the crosses. But the crosses became less prominent pretty early in the progression of his printing.

Someone in this thread remarked about Adams's marketing and promotion abilities. And that is true. Photography was his jlivelihood to support his conservationism. I do not fault him for it. But his story about this image changed throughout the years...even in successive book titles that he authored.

In truth, I think he had to delicately balance how he treated and talked about one of his most commercially successful prints (he personally printed almost 2,000 of them) against what he really wanted people to see and hear him say. I think his own personal relationship with this image was much more casual than was the public's. He was much more interested in saving the giant sequoias and Yosemite. In fact, a quick look on Google Earth reveals that this view is now completely lost. There is no way to duplicate or even approximate this image today.

To me, it just goes to show that we cannot always control the audience to make sure that they are seeing what we are trying to show.

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

What an oddly outlandish thing, tampering with someone else's photo, particularly an iconic one (love it or hate it). I think I recall seeing you painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

MDI Mainer

Bad form to tamper with someone else's image unbidden, and in this case a copyright violation too!

Mau

Nice picture... Nothing to write home about... Easy for us to reproduce. Doesn't move me inside at all.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

This shows off Ansel's famous darkroom generated image. One of my favorites. Well done Ansel. He stopped his auto and quickly set up for this photo. Lending to the story that he saw the image before exposing. A true artist.

ELNikkor

Always been impressed with the photo, even before I knew who made it. The brilliance of the clouds, and the human touch of the foreground cemetery added interesting elements to the expansive western landscape. After many years of shooting and appreciating all kinds of photography, I still really like this photo, especially after reading the letter posted yesterday when Ansel describes the actual conditions under which he took the photo. I, too, now know how it is to be rushed to get a shot before the lighting or subject changes to a non-interesting situation unworthy of a photo. The western light was strong when he stopped his car, and after one shot, that lighting was lost, so Ansel stopped shooting. I know he spent some time dodging in the darkroom, but he did have plenty of exposure to work with.
Often, just before sunset, when the moon is rising in the east, if you are shooting toward the moon, there is a short-lived balance where the detail on the moon, and the foreground lighting are exactly the same, no photo-manipulation needed. I shot a moonrise over the ocean in Florida one year, perfectly catching a breaking wave, while the full moon above it was surrounded by deep pink clouds; all the moon's detail was clear. There was no chance for manipulation because the film was ISO 100 Ektachrome, 135mm lens held vertical from a 5th floor balcony, Nikon FM, f8, 1/60 sec. I have since remembered that exposure as a reference for those times when I sense similar atmospheric conditions. (The moon's brilliance was subdued from the usual f11/f16 at 1/125 ISO 100 because of its nearness to the horizon.)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Uh, they were all darkroom generated.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Unfortunately your reproduction does not capture the true genius of Ansel Adams. In fact, it is a very BAD reproduction. Also posting this image is highly questionable.

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

Nobody did it better!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Actually, this image is completely unreproducible today. The church is completely surrounded by a community, and the cemetery is largely obscured. I'm sorry that it doesn't "move" you.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

What I read in his letter about the exposure was putting the moon in Zone VII (if I recall) required water bath development in order to bring up the darker parts. Without the moon, mountain snow, and possibly the white clouds, he would have allowed more light. In other words, he had to underexpose the foreground, for lack of a better word, and develop accordingly. In terms of pushing and puling film, water bath pulls the film's suggested rating in the most exposed portions and pushes it in the rest. It's like have ASA 32 and ASA400 film in the same frame. At least that's what I get from his letter and having read his Zone System book.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

In what way is it questionable?
--Bob