Bill P

" I still try to shoot for the "machine" so my post-processing is minimal."

Oh yes, there is a gulf between those few of us here who depended on photography to put food on our tables, and the many who use it as an escape from their dreary life as an accountant or engineer. I wouldn't have lasted a minute if my photos need to be made into repro grade prints for everything. And most of my color work for a 4 color press were prepared for the press by me, and I don't get joy from time at a computer.

srt101fan

This is probably going to get me drummed out of the UHH community......

Sometimes I feel Ansel Adams is a bit overrated as an artist. Superb craftsman? Absolutely.... but does his artistry rise to the same laudable level?

Not trying to convince anyone; not even sure where I stand on this; just sittin' here thinkin'........ ("Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits" - Anonymous Maine fisherman)

philo Loc: philo, ca

I have said that what comes out of the camera is the starting point. I like the post work and almost everything is worked on. Some more then others.

spaceytracey Loc: East Glacier Park, MT

Whatever floats your boat! Then there's documentation vs creativity.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

srt, the question is fair enough.

First, I had heard of Ansel Adams and admired his work--even read his textbooks--but was quite flabbergasted when I first saw one of his own handmade prints at an art gallery. I thought the works were local and did not pay attention to the artist's name on the little card until I had stared at it for 5 or 10 minutes, mesmerized. Before walking away I glanced to see who the artist was--and it was Adams.

To me, a big part of the takeaway is that prints on paper are a horse of a different color from images on a monitor or other screen, or those published in books by mass production. As we see the works of Adams, they are very fine, but mere shadows of reality. Also, as a consequence, we can say that today's works that may be digital--start to finish--have entirely different standards. No screen (and no mass-printed paper) can show the richest, blackest blacks of silver (or platinum) prints of the finest quality, even if they are recorded in a file. But the extremes are not the whole story--all across the scales of tone and color, digital images are not the same (for better or for worse...) If an entire body of work is all digital, there are 3 levels of artistry. First (as with film) there is the artist's image in the mind, or idea of what picture is wanted. But today the conception--far more than it was in film media--is often a graphic creation, such as dinosaurs coming out of a child's head during daydreaming. How artistic such graphic art is depends on our standards for art, and not every image is artistic in the view of art lovers.

Second, the artistry in the technical applications, the mastery of scientific knowledge of the digital equipment and software at hand in the camera (and accessories), of optics and the variety of effects possible, is another level of art. All the great movements in the art of oil painting went hand in hand with the development or discovery of science--new tinctures, new brushes, etc.--but only the great artists were able to make memorable use of the science.

Third, the artistry in the postprocessing later, can just be Walgreen's copies or they can be masterpieces. It is quite possible to print a variety of artistic interpretations of a file (as with a negative). Often I ask (when studying great art), "How did he do it?" That can be because it was literally hard to accomplish, and truly innovative methods were used in postprocessing, or because methods were used in postprocessing that nobody had thought of before for that sort of file/negative.

At all three of these levels of artistry, Ansel Adams excelled. Of course, not everybody loves every one of his pictures--many commercial portrait photographers consider Adams' portraits to be a great weakness if not an embarrassment. (I suspect the portraits they judge him by are those he published as examples of how one does not have to follow standard rules in portraiture. One was a woman standing in full sun in her garden, taken with a wide angle lens so she filled 1/10 of the frame--I rather like it for the personality and joy it captured, in a place she loved.) True, he seemed to treat her as a landscape, but Verdi treated the Requiem Mass like an opera, and I like that too.

But the heart of Adam's art--which he repeated many times, is in the artists' vision of what to create with what we have. Without that vision, nothing can be done. Accidents can be fortunate, but the great artists did not get great by accidents. Even photojournalists, who make a vocation of collecting accidents, develop an art and a style to their work. A vision comes to them in an instant and they seize it.

srt101fan

Thoughtful comments, Charles; much appreciated!

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

It's hard to agree with you, especially after having seen his work first-hand at the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite. His work is absolutely breathtaking - craftsmanship aside.

srt101fan

Fair enough, Gene. I've only seen one Adams "original" and I was a bit disappointed....

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

When all I took was slide shots with the late, lamented Kodachrome, no post processing was possible. What I took was what was. Now I crop, enhance, etc., etc. almost all my shots. And happy to do so. There has to be some value, however, in the original shot: angle taken, lighting, etc. in order to have something to work with.

P.S. Take a look at what AA did to his famous "Moonrise." The early prints are full of subtle gradations of light and darkness. The later prints are bold contrasts of bright light and deep darkness and thus more dramatic. You can look at the different print styles online. I have printed out copies of the stages of development. Fascinating.

Angel Star Photography Loc: Tacoma, WA

Dark magic...

professorwheeze Loc: Maine, USA

You may take or make an image. Unless you print (and slightly more than 1% of images are printed) then you have approached the Print.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

How about when the Photographer prints his own slides; I did that for many years, including "dye Transfer", as well as "regular" reversal print processing. eh ?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I have to respectfully disagree! Mr. Adams was indeed and artist AND a craftsman. There is no reason why the two description can not go and in hand. I spent some time with Ansel Adams in that I took in one of his workshops and had the opportunity to see him at the camera and in the darkroom. If he wasn't and artist, I don't know who is!

Initially, I attended the workshop to learn more about the Zone System so that I coud better apply it to my portraiture and commercial photography and to boot, I never considered myself a landscape photographer. Nonetheless the experience was incredibly inspiring and waht I learned more than anythg else is a sense of discipline and a work ethic of applying artistry to craft and technique.

I read all of his books and had seen many of his works in print, however, viewing the original prints was an awesome experience.

I don't know how you or anyone else defines art or lables someone an artist or otherwise. Myself, I don't think "art" needs to be abstract, off beat, funkey, different, or bizarre beyond understanding. I suppose it can be that way but it can also be realistic, traditional and straightforward.

I have been in the photography business just about all of my life and I am also a perpetual student of the craft. I still read books, attend seminars, and check out online educational activities. Back in the day, I did study with a number of masters. I have come to the conclusion that there is no such person as the "King" or "God" of photography but there are lots of "princes, princesses and angels". There is usually something to lean from each of them. We may try to emulate them but we can not be them. We need to be ourselves and apply what we have learned and form our own styles and working methods.

For me, Mr. Adams is both an "angle" photographic "royalty" in that not only was he an prolific artist, writer, teacher and a naturalist but he shared his methods and skills with the photographic community. I met a lot of "big names" in my lifetime but many kept their cards close to their chest and were reluctant to educate others. You could attend a lecture or a seminar and all you would get from some of theses folks is their bragging about their achievements or some great war stories but no mention of an f/stop, shutter speed or a processing method- one would feel it was beneath their dignity or station in life to talk shop! Not Mr. Adams and many of his contemporaries he laid it out in it entirety in exquisite detail.

Me? I never labeled myself as an artist- it ain't on my business card although I always try to take an artful approach to my work. That high status of"ARTIST" is up to my customers or others. I just think I am a bloody good technician and the rest, I'll leave to others' opinion!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

More or less. More for raw captures, less for JPEGs.

srt101fan

I appreciate your insightful commentary, Ed. I think you called it with your reference to the definition of art. I'm still struggling with that. Someone once told me that "art has to speak to you". But does that mean if it doesn't, it's not art? But if it speaks to someone else, then it is art? Is there no absolute definition of art?...... I think I'll just go sits and not thinks...