minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Is photo manipulation cheating? Or is it a necessary part of the artistic process? Does it matter?

These questions have been argued for years on photo forums, with strong feelings in both camps. The discussions have turned Photoshop from a noun to a verb. But photo manipulation did not begin with Photoshop. This month we'll discuss/critique one of Ansel Adams' most famous images, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. This image was rather heavily manipulated, though in the darkroom rather than in the computer. For your review, the original and the final, edited version are included below.

Adams himself needs no introduction on a photography forum, and this image likely doesn'™t either. Many photographers already hold opinions about this photograph and whether it constitutes some of Adams' best work, or whether it is over-valued. Adams himself felt it was a special image, obtained in difficult shooting conditions on a day when nothing had gone right (something we can all relate to). We ask you to share your opinions of Moonrise here, and feel free to include your own thoughts about photo editing especially as it pertains to landscape or fine art images.

We also invite you to share one of your own landscape images, with and/or without editing, if you wish, to illustrate your opinion of the role of photo editing in today'™s photographic world.

When posting your thoughts, think about some of the major elements of any good work of art:
* Light, Color, Moment, Composition, Distance and of course the Subject
Additionally:
* What do you see? How does it make you feel? Do you like it, why or why not? If you could, how would you change it? Without knowing its value, would you put it on your wall?

Here are more links to get you thinking
*10 Questions to Ask When Taking a Photo http://digital-photography-school.com/10-questions
*5 Fundamental elements of great photos http://www.lightstalking.com/5-fundamental-elements-of-great-photographs

Some resources about Moonrise
http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico
http://www.silberstudios.tv/dev/blog/2016/06/ansel-adams-revisits-famous-photograph/
http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-anecdotes/
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11.asp

A recent article about photography, art, and where editing fits in
http://davidduchemin.com/2016/06/cameras-dont-make-photographs

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-srG21eLa-Gw/TpfLzMliLNI/AAAAAAAAAyc/-bVci97Hd80/s1600/ansel-adams-landscape-photography-moonrise-over-hernandez-new-mexico-1941.jpg

(Download)

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

i sometimes think the only reason this cluttered image has survived the years is because
we as photographers recognize the tremendous skill required to render a 'proper' print.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

No -Yes - No.

I see a cemetery with buildings, common New Mexico architecture, i.e. stucco building, mountain range, clouds, and sky.

I don’t feel, it invokes no emotion for me.

No, it just seems blah to me, nothing to really focus in on and it feels off balance to me. The building left is too prominant and ends up holding my eye.

Crop as shown below.

No.

The only thing I really appreciate about this shot is the effort in the darkroom. Without seeing the before and after, and only the finished product I don’t feel there is really anything here at all. then again an art critic I am not.

(Download)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

In many respects, this obsession with SOOC is a moot point in that there is no such thing an unminipulated image. Everything after the shutter press ia some kind of manipulation. Whether it is done by the camera or the photographer the image is changed in many ways.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

tries digging down into the 'storey' behind the image.
All i could come up with was the mountain range dividing the weeds, cemetery and buildings
which signify man as being bound to dirt and death from the moon and featureless sky.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Exactly! I might add that there is also significant manipulation prior to the shutter release. It seems a bit odd to be concerned about any of it given that a photograph is an abstraction that necessarily evokes an emotional response from a viewer.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

People should keep in mind that whether you like the image or not has nothing to do with judging whether it is good art or not.

It happens that for this image there is no question of whether it is good art. We know positively it is one of the greatest most significant photographs of the 20th century. Ansel Adams is known as one of 20th century America's best, if not the best, photographer. Moonrise is specifically the image that brought Adams to the attention of the public and started his rise to fame.

The real question for discussion is what is there in the photograph that makes it great. What percentage of viewers are affected by specific characteristics? Would another photograph, introduced today, get the same public response if it had those same qualities? If so the image is worth time spent studying and maybe at least some effort to copy. If not, and it is a temporal curiosity, then it is interesting as history but not as photography.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

I do not think this is one of Adam's finest works, by any means. In fact I don't particularly like it. The first version of this image I saw was a high contrast version like this. It seemed to me that I was supposed to think that the clouds and the buildings etc were being lit up by the rising moon. However, the shadows were falling in the wrong direction. So, I figured, the picture must be showing me the scene at, or near, sunset. But then, why was the sky so black? And I had never seen a sky so black without stars. So I just dismissed it as a poor attempt to dramatize a scene that had nothing going for it except the rather interesting cloud formation. Much later I saw earlier prints which were much less contrasty, and which made more sense. However, I never did fall in love with this picture.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

On this page, one pic has moon with reflection-ice-cap at bottom right; in the other, it is at bottom left; wth?

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

[quote=Apaflo.

Moonrise is specifically the image that brought Adams to the attention of the public and started his rise to fame.

xxxxxxxxx

Hardly!

Although this laud to "Moonrise" is often so stated, Adams' recognition as a master had, in fact, been established well before he made " Moonrise, Hernandez" in 1941.
His Yosemite images from the 1920s and 1930s were already considered classics. "Moonrise" was, however, one of the first about which Adams discussed aspects of his contemporarily forming concepts of the Zone System of Exposure, which had yet to become well-formed and a widely established exposure technique among photographers at large.

Dave

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

In fact Moonrise was the first image that Adams actually made a significant amount of money from. Prior to that he was a barely successful commercial photographer, and while he certainly was recognized by those in the field of photography, his was not the household word it is today. Moonrise made Adams famous for his Fine Art photography, though he still had to work at commercial assignments to make a living until the 1970's. Moonrise was his most popular print, and he produced roughly 1300 copies, most of them in the 1970's and it was that which brought wealth to Adams. Today those prints are worth a combined value of millions!

The public fame of Ansel Adams that we know today did not exist in the 1940's, nor for that matter in the 1950's or even the 1960's! And while Moonrise was not uniquely responsible for Adams' fame, it was the one print most responsible. Adams of course excelled at self promotion, and that needs to be recognized as the single item most responsible for his status today.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Apt testimony that one's history begins when one's interest is first piqued!

Equating Adams recognition and fame with financial recompense is hazardous. Stieglitz, Steichen, and Eastman Kodak would personally (and corporately) have argued your point as regards Ansel Adams.

But I do recognize your perspective as a common one.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You are failing to read critically what has been said.

There was no denial that "Stieglitz, Steichen, and Eastman Kodak" all knew what Adams was. And early on too.

John Q Public didn't know. That is documented history.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

I suppose it depends on one's perspective.
In the 50s Eduard Steichen guffawed at the idea that it had taken so long for Adams to have gained renown that he had by then acheived. Surely, his renown progressed thereafter, but long before financial rewards accrued he was well recognized a master of his art.

And, as I acknowledged, your opinion is also a shared one.

Reputations do grow, especially in day of the Internet,....don't they, Floyd?
...

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You seem to be arguing with yourself rather than referencing material from my post that you quote. If you just want say what you think, go ahead. No need to try basing it on something I didn't say as if I had.

Note that Ansel Adams' reputation was substantially formed before Vint Cerf even invented the Internet Protocol, much less managed to get it implemented, and never mind about when you even heard of it!