Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

The premise of the question was hard to accept for anyone who spent any time looking at one of his larger prints. The compressed blocked up web pic looks like an average post-card you might find at a convenience store almost anywhere in the southwest, except worse. On the other hand, his large original prints of this are in a totally different realm. Everything that makes this photograph great was lost before the OP clicked Send. It is a valid and interesting question, but to request opinions about an anonymous master's work after it was unknowingly butchered is less than fair to the artist and the viewer. If the OP is implying that this photograph may have become famous by riding on the artist's name, then no. It's one of the many reasons he is so famous.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

From what I recall of his notes about his approach to his work, he probably created this image before he stopped his truck. The rest was executing his famed process of carrying the final image from pre-visualization to print. Each step was an integral part of the entire workflow with improvisational tweaks along the way as he encountered one or more unexpected challenges as he described in his letter that was generously posted earlier.

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

Such a fool's errand tinkering with an iconic photo such as this. You want to show off, go create something of merit on your own two feet.

I find this entire thread little short of ridiculous. So many people confusing what they like/don't like with what's aesthetically and technically good/not good. Asking all the wrong questions, giving glib answers. A validation of banality.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Wallen basically asked if Moonrise were submitted to UHH by a member for discussion what would be both positive and negative comments about it, and what would be suggestions for improvement or other ideas about how the image could have been achieved. This is the sort of question that is posed almost daily by people asking for commentary and assistance with images they have submitted. What Wallen has done was simply move this sort of question to an iconic image and requested that we try to consider Moonrise without being unduly influenced by our familarity with the image. Perhaps there are other such iconic images that could be discussed. It seems reasonable that phototgraphers talk about photographs whether it be a cemetery in New Mexico or a "nekkid" woman wearing a tool belt climbing a step ladder.
Assuming that you do not have an issue with a discussion of a particular image, how you would pose Wallen's question so that it was not sophomoric?

srt101fan

I get your point. But good reproductions of artworks, including photographic prints have always been difficult to achieve. And few of us are able to see the originals. Should we stop looking at reproductions and stop expressing opinions about a work because we haven't seen the original? I think not....

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

In my experience, it is no different from judges making unfounded and uninformed comments about contest entries, which happens quite frequently. And many times those contest entries are forced to be the same "crippled," limited resolution versions of photographs that we see here. That's the main reason that I rarely post photographs here.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I agree. Of course there are some good books. In an earlier post I thought I recommended that anyone not able to see Adams' prints in exhibits to look for good quality books. I have one book that is poor but has a lot of good text, another decent one but the pages are yellowing, and one that is quite good when if comes to the printing. What I meant was no one should judge one of his prints from a poorly done web pic. Much of his work is exceptional, in part, because of his meticulous capture of the subtleties in light and detail in scenes that interested him. I hope that makes sense.

Nikocarol Loc: NM & FL

A great question! To me it is all about the "tones" and with that...excellent! Subject? Well, it gives a great perspective of a small northern New Mexico town that cannot be duplicated(everything seems to change). I like the image for its tonal values. A beautiful work viewed best large.
I guess lots of images in b&w are all about tones...and this one pulls me right in.

jburlinson Loc: Austin, TX

From the heart -- the story sold by this photo is big sky/small moon/small man. The iconography of the human part of the landscape is sparse but loaded. Church on left, dwellings (minimal) in center, graveyard on right. In tonality, the crosses in the graveyard compel the eye more than the mid-zone tones of the church/dwellings. All this is on a horizontal that takes up less than a third of the total surface. So the little town is fighting a losing(?) battle in trying to assert meaning (significance?) pitted against the mountain/cloud range and the massive sky. Just as the moon is trying to assert itself in the blackness of the night. But is it really a losing battle, or do the town and the moon achieve a certain kind of victory by simply being what they are? Anyone who has lived in a small village dwarfed by the colossal natural world will know the feeling.

There is much more that could be said, but that's my first response to the picture without knowing the who, what and where. I think my reaction is somewhat validated after a little research. Adams was driving along at sunset when he saw this scene. He jumped out of the car and got his passengers, who included his 7 year old son, to help him set up his gear. He couldn't find his light meter, so he used his experience to figure the exposure. He wanted to take a second shot but quit when he lost the light as the sun became covered by clouds at his back. He no longer could get the crosses in the graveyard to stand out. Very important thematic point.

The "straight" photo showed a much lighter sky. As Adams continued to process this image over the years, the sky became darker and darker.

Putting this kind of thing in words is a poor substitute for what the image gives the viewer.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

In the early 80's AA did an interview with Playboy - I thought it so important that I have a copy saved in my files here some where. It is probably here on the internet also - and worth tracking down ! 8-)
.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

"Moonrise" is the single most telling example that if Ansel Adams was really the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If this had been an image I captured, I probably would have deleted it at some point. Just doesn't do anything for me. All the elements within the composition are so tiny. And the editing is so over-the-top dramatic, it doesn't look real anymore. I do like some of Ansel's works, but this isn't one of them.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

In my mind it's a great photo. As time went on, AA printed the photo with more and more sharp contrast until, for example, the wispy cloud strands were eliminated. I have three copies from different stages of printing that show this development.

srt101fan

Yes, it does make sense. Thanks!

AustralianPhotoeyeball Loc: Silver Sands, WA, 6210

I think the photograph is of average quality. Most of the brilliance of the print is created in processing in the darkroom. A lot of the work was dodging and burning at the enlarger.

The polarising filter started the prosses in the large glass plate camera that Ansel used. A wonderful job done.