wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

In the ongoing debate between purest “do it in the camera” folks and the PP folks Ansel Adams is brought up as a great PP in the darkroom. His analogy of a Composer writing a score and then injects personal expressive interpretations on the basic patterns of the notes. Sounds like PP guy. And he goes on to say ”I see no reason why any control that is of purely photographic nature is not valid. However, I believe that the border line of good taste usually lies this side of retouching or emmmployment of texture screens, diffusion and distortion devices, paper negatives, and methods such as bromoil and gum printing.” Looks like he is saying just a little PP is OK. Another quote “We should know what we desire in our print before we expose the negative” the above quotes were from Ansel Adams book “The Print”.

Now what he could do in PP in a B&W darkroom. 1 - Push or pull while developing his negative to control how dense the negative will be. 2 Pick the paper to control texture, finish, contrast, etc. 3 – crop the negative 4 – expose the negative to his liking (used a test strip or print that is exposed in different sections to see what exposure is best) Do the burning and dodging he plans. You have less than a minute to do this. Mr. Adams did some time planning what he was going to do. 5 - Tilt the easel to straighten lines. (I don’t think he did much of this. 6 –under or over develop the print so it comes out right. (don’t think he did this either) 7 – Tone the Print. 8 – polarize this is where you turn a white light on then off while the print is developing and it turns some of the blacks white and whites black. Never saw an Adams print that used this affect. That’s about what he could do but if anyone knows of more please post it. The one other thing he did was spot the dust spots on his prints. Anyone who printed exposition prints know that you will have them on big prints.

He did not get out the airbrush as the real PP of that day did.

I am very neutral on the debate - I think eash should do what he likes and he should respect others and let them do their thing without making a big deal about their way is better. I just don’t think Ansel Adams should be used as an example of someone who did a lot of PP if you do please post why and give examples of how he did the PP. - Dave

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Thought provoking. If I got it right the discussion is would he do more today than he did in his day. Simply put- NO. He was a purist, he would have used Lightroom to tweak and that would be the end of it. IMHO

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

This debate is one that will go on and on into eternity, Dave. Ansel Adams stands as the prime defense for people who would feel a need to validate their use of post-processing. I think it's a matter of intent on the part of the photographer:
Let's say you have two painters who paint with their fingers instead of brushes. Painter one uses his fingers because it gives a result unobtainable with brushes. Painter two uses his fingers so he doesn't have to clean brushes. They may both create equally beautiful artwork, yet one is valid and one is a cop-out. But who's going to know which is which, just by looking?
I created a photograph, back in the day, that took me 7 hours of intense darkroom work. I had intricate dodging and burning-in that required very precise "choreography" during multiple exposures, using multiple negatives. In hour 5 I ruined the piece and had to start over from the beginning. When I finally finished and mounted it (16x20) people were amazed, but they had no idea what went into its' creation. All they knew was it was a photograph, and it had to stand on its' own merits along side other photos, some of which were done (literally) in 1/125th of a second.
I think we're really in the same "space" today. A finished photograph must validate itself each time it's viewed, or suffer the "slings and arrows".

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I agree with you completly. The final print is the true test. Never did do a 5 hour print session but I have had a helper doge while I burned. I don't think Adams did multeple negatives. It just does not seem right that PP people use Adams as an example when it seems he was more of a purest for example he was one of the Group F/64 (Group f/64 was a group of seven 20th century San Francisco photographers who shared a common photographic style characterized by sharp-focused and carefully framed images seen through a particularly Western (U.S.) viewpoint. In part, they formed in opposition to the Pictorialist photographic style that had dominated much of the early 20th century, but moreover they wanted to promote a new Modernist aesthetic that was based on precisely exposed images of natural forms and found objects.) I have a 1929 Photographic Journal and most of the pictures were Pictorialist type pictures. These used PP or very soft focus lenses. Let them look up these photographers for their examples. - Dave

olcoach Loc: Oregon

First, I have no idea what Ansel Adams, or any of the great photographers of that earlier era did, or didn't do in their dark rooms to enhance or change their photos. However, It sounds like no-one else knows either. I get the impression some are using the few clues left to prove their position. This is a dangerous way to attempt to arrive at a "proof". It makes for an interesting discussion but it still seems to be a maybe yes, maybe not proposition. Have fun and keep shootin'. Mike

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

He did spot some things out. There actually is more you can do in the darkroom than what you have mentioned such as print bleaching and masking. He did solarize one image but he did so by drastically overexposing the film.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

It's all speculation, of course, as to how much and in what way Adams would have used digital post-processing. In an interview with his son, his son stated that he thinks his dad would have very much enjoyed much of the newer digital technology, and had engaged in conversations with Steve Jobs about the potential influences computers might offer. Would he have gone off into a totally different photographic style? I tend to doubt it. Regardless, many of us do look at Adams as a photographer who did not define "getting it right in the camera" as narrowly as many "straight photographers" do today. I often refer to his image of "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM" as an example. Adams did much more than just "tweak" that image. In the last series of prints he made he estimated that he had burned in the area of clouds to the right by almost 90%! To me, that is a pretty good indication that he had no qualms about major amounts of post-processing when he felt it was needed. Many other of his images received similar treatments. So, although he was not one to use many of the more elaborate darkroom post processing techniques that others of his era chose to use, neither was he an example of one who believed one should always print what was captured in camera with little or now darkroom manipulation.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

interesting article http://currentphotographer.com/the-myth-of-the-non-manipulated-image/
Just remember if you shoot in JPEG the camera is post-processing the raw file to give you the JPEG

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

What speculation on what Ansel Adams did? Everybody knows what he did, how he was so good at it, perhaps is a mystery. Like every great artist/athlete, dancer- he made it look easy.

First, he was adept at choosing his subject matter and point of view- We can pretty much see that. But this aspect isn't what is being discussed here.

Photography and enlargement is a known process, he used the zone system which he helped to develop, to capture all the detail he desired in a single negative. We know ALL about this too.

Apparently he would wait around for days till the light was just right or plan it as such. Then he knew how to make his settings to capture it, zone system is designed to capture detail from the darkest darks, to the lightest lights. This too is known.

He developed his own negatives and wasn't above experimenting with new chemicals, etc. BUt by and large it was normal chemistry and paper available to everyone. Pushing and pulling negatives or agitating.. is a common practice. This is Known- he didn't make his own paper and chemicals.

Then he did what EVERY B&W enlargement process is, you dodge and burn in areas, so you bring out details that are already present in the highlights and shadows... so the paper is exposed correctly to respond to them. Basically HDR in a single negative. This is taught to every photographic student as a darkroom technique, how to make your own tools, I have a folder with all sorts of cardboard shapes an dholes, some still taped to lengths of hangers... no hanger was safe! Why this sort of manipulation is somehow frowned upon is beyond me. So he is supposed to decide on a 2 min exposure of his paper, Midtones are great... but the sky with out detail and his shadows filled in, and that is somehow superior because he didn't manipulate it?

Like telling "Itzhak Perlman to "just play the notes?"

"purists" ignore the fact photography is, by its very nature, manipulation. But then Michelangelo had many critics on the Sistine Chapel.

The difference is a kid sitting down to a piano and a concert pianist sitting down to the very same piano- they won't sound the same. However the notes are not in the piano, the musician uses his talent to coax them out, some bring out more then others.

charryl Loc: New Mexico, USA

That's not quite right. There are definitely people living who worked with Adams in the darkroom. I know one. So we can definitely get some idea about his darkroom process. Also, he wrote books about processing. And third, we can see how he changed a print over the decades. Take a look at the first Moonrise over Hernandez. Then look at subsequent prints over the years. The final one (his personal favorite) is vastly different than the first print.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Haven't we all looked at a old photo that we thought looked "perfect" at the time and thought it needed a little more or less light or something? Our tastes and preferences change over time. I wonder how your friend would answer the original question.

jojedi Loc: Cannock,Staffs.UK

I just wish I could produce prints of that quality I don`t
care how

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Just to clarify, my comment was that it is speculation as to how much, or for that matter if, Adams would have made use of digital editing possibilities available today.

rebride

I can understand and respect the photo realist.
I get the limitations of photojournalism, National Geo. et al.
But some 'Purist' 'in camera only' school of photography is bunk. A myth.
What was this school? Who were the photographers?
And to get it right 'in camera' is as true in digital as was in film. To get the best image file (or film negative/positive) as possible (to work with!!). Detail in the shadows, don't block up (clip) the highlights. This I understand.
Purist, ah Pshaw!

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

Ansel used every technique known to man to make the image captured by the camera--(starting with developing by inspection) through printing--match the image he envisioned in his mind--I have no doubt, were he still with us he would be shooting in color (which he very much wanted to do) and printing with Photoshop--again to make the image captured by his camera match the image he had in his mind.
Stan