Ansel's Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico
Apr 28, 2022 12:06:47 #
larryepage wrote:
From most accounts, the exposure was one second or so. I think they are cirrostratus clouds that probably looked pretty much as portrayed. Remember...it was just at sunset.
We have no image of the low sun behind us. Is it slightly softened and broadened by a cloud ? The shadows cast on that adobe (?) structure (look on the lower left) are not harsh. If the sun is "peeking through" some clouds, you may have a mix of hard and soft light that is shaping our view of the clouds that we can see. Its clearly at that tricky hour of the day.
Apr 28, 2022 12:32:00 #
Timmers
Loc: San Antonio Texas.
larryepage wrote:
From most accounts, the exposure was one second or so. I think they are cirrostratus clouds that probably looked pretty much as portrayed. Remember...it was just at sunset.
Erroneous reports, Ansel was acutely aware that any exposure below 1/10 second would produce motion blurring of the moon due to the motion of the earth to the moon. He so states this in the literature he published under his name.
Apr 28, 2022 13:20:33 #
Apr 28, 2022 15:31:26 #
R.G. wrote:
In a previous thread about aesthetics it came out that there is a school of thought which suggests that beauty is absolute and therefore independent of opinion. Beauty, it is said, exists whether there is anyone there to observe it, appreciate it or label it as beauty. I prefer a definition that accommodates the possibility of different tastes, preferences and interpretations.
Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder. What one finds beautiful may not be beautiful to someone else.
will
Apr 28, 2022 16:06:45 #
Timmers wrote:
Erroneous reports, Ansel was acutely aware that any exposure below 1/10 second would produce motion blurring of the moon due to the motion of the earth to the moon. He so states this in the literature he published under his name.
He always did have some weird ideas.
Apr 28, 2022 16:11:12 #
Apr 28, 2022 16:24:44 #
Soul Dr. wrote:
Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder. What one finds beautiful may not be beautiful to someone else.
will
will
Beauty is; Beauty is not....
Apr 28, 2022 16:51:44 #
srt101fan wrote:
Beauty is; Beauty is not....
People's ideas of Beauty can be far-ranging.......
will
Apr 28, 2022 17:05:23 #
Apr 28, 2022 17:18:44 #
R.G. wrote:
In a previous thread about aesthetics it came out that there is a school of thought which suggests that beauty is absolute and therefore independent of opinion. Beauty, it is said, exists whether there is anyone there to observe it, appreciate it or label it as beauty. I prefer a definition that accommodates the possibility of different tastes, preferences and interpretations.
I'd like to know more about the school of thought which suggests that Beauty is an absolute like the speed of light.
Apr 28, 2022 17:53:46 #
Fotoartist wrote:
I'd like to know more about the school of thought which suggests that Beauty is an absolute like the speed of light.
The speed of light is only an absolute in a vacuum. The same may apply to treating beauty as an absolute.
Then we get to the wave versus particle debate. Are you really sure want to know more about beauty ?
Apr 28, 2022 18:55:57 #
I heard about his taking this shot from the Man Himself at an Adams Yosemite Winter Seminar in 1970. Yes, he left his exposure meter in the truck but realized that the light was fleeting. He looked at the moon and used it to compute his exposure: the moon luminosity is 250 candles/sq Foot and his film speed was ASA 64. By the formula, the exposure would be 1/250 Second at f 8 (The exposure formula is Reciprocal of the luminosity, the f stop is the square root of the film speed). Since he wanted to place the moon at Zone VI he moved the exposure to 1/125 @f8. He ran back to the truck for his meter but the light had faded by the time he got back.
Apr 28, 2022 20:40:22 #
Cany143
Loc: SE Utah
I saw a similar (but altogether different) 'scene' shortly after crossing the San Juan River, late in the day, south of the town of Shiprock, NM, many years ago. I'd have had a 5"x7" field view with me, maybe a 6x7 Pentax, and likely a 35mm Nikon system with sufficient lenses/films/etc. for each of those systems that I could've/would've/should've done the 'scene' I saw (a simple graveyard, its backlit crosses, the rise of the southern side of San Juan Valley, and a particularly delicious sky a modicum of darkroom-itorial justice, but my agenda was other, so I didn't stop and shoot one of the more momentous images I may ever have had opportunity to shoot. There's only one other 'scene' I've ever seen --and could've shot, had other concerns [i.e., the impending death of my mother] not been more seminal, had circumstances not interferred-- but I didn't.
I've seen an actual Adams' print of 'Moonrise'. I've seen prints that were made by any number of other early "greats". I've likewise had opportunity to print the negatives of some of those others, and I have a better than passing inkling of what it takes to reproduce a "great" print in a wet, smelly, darkroom. And none of that matters, not in the slightest.
What exactly is a masterpiece? Is it an image that everybody "likes"? Is it an image that everybody can somehow relate to? Is it something that YOU think you could improve upon?
Good luck with any or all of that....
I've seen an actual Adams' print of 'Moonrise'. I've seen prints that were made by any number of other early "greats". I've likewise had opportunity to print the negatives of some of those others, and I have a better than passing inkling of what it takes to reproduce a "great" print in a wet, smelly, darkroom. And none of that matters, not in the slightest.
What exactly is a masterpiece? Is it an image that everybody "likes"? Is it an image that everybody can somehow relate to? Is it something that YOU think you could improve upon?
Good luck with any or all of that....
Apr 28, 2022 20:42:53 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
JohnnyFry wrote:
I heard about his taking this shot from the Man Hi... (show quote)
According to the account at AnselAdams.com, after applying the filter factor of 3 and other adjustments, the final exposure was one second at f/32 on ASA 64 film from the starting point of 1/250@f/8 in Mr. Adams's recollection.
I'm also coming to the conclusion that it is possible either that no one really remembers what the exposure parameters were, or that the story and associated drama developed over time. Apparently, he had a pretty frustrating day alreadt by the time he came upon this scene.
In the final analysis, none of this really matters much. He captured what became one of the iconic American photographic images.
Apr 28, 2022 21:48:36 #
RiJoRi
Loc: Sandy Ridge, NC
Wallen wrote:
br This is a question with no right or wrong answ... (show quote)
First, I ignore the title. Then I ask "What is the subject of this photo?" And "How has the photographer drawn attention to the subject?" Finally, "Are there any extraneous (unneeded) items in the photo?"
* What is the subject? I really can't tell. Is it the moon? The clouds? The town? One house in the town? I cannot tell. Because...
* How has the photographer drawn attention to the subject? He hasn't. There is no one outstanding item in this photo. Everything is given equal weight. And because of this...
* Everything is extraneous.
Had Mr. Adams concentrated on one piece of the picture - the moon over the clouds, or the town itself, or even one house - he may have had a lot better photo. As it is, this picture cries out, "Look.how.technically. accomplished.Mr.Adams.is." Nothing more, and maybe a lot less.
Just my two scents,
--Rich
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.