Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Here are two renditions of a photo I took on top of Sentinal Dome in Yosemite N.P. in June of 1964. This was copied off a Kodachrome slide that was originally shot with an Alpa 6b 35mm camera. I had no previous knowledge of the photo that Adams had made in 1940 when I took this. How close did I come to matching him?

(Download)


(Download)

jim quist Loc: Missouri

When you carry a view camera into the mountains, and make your own chemicals to develop your prints, I guess you can compete.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Jim, Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Erdos2 Loc: Vancouver, WA

I don't think I can agree with this.

From what I can tell, Ansel Adams seemed to be more interested in what was captured and the final result for the viewer. For example, he said, "There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." No mention of the process between the two, except that there is a final result. He saw the developing as using the tools of his time to accomplish the results. In the area of developing, he said, "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships." I don't think he would care that it is now easier to doge and burn, but only in the final result.

As for the image, it is very good and in the style of a photograph that Ansel Adams would produce. When the high res image is downloaded, the different textures in the tree and the rocks are very nice. In Ansel Adam's print (can be seen at http://www.art-days.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Ansel-Adams.jpg) the lower branches were more there and sort of followed the shape of the mountains in the background. Now that those branches are not completely there, this might not matter so much in your image. You did not get quite as favorable a sky and shadows either. Ansel Adams was amazing at combining so many things together that make an image great. Therefore, my feeling is that it is a close second to his photo, so yes you are in the competition.

To take nearly the identical image without knowing it at the time is amazing. If I took the photo that you displayed, I would be very pleased with it.

Jerry

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Pretty close!

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Here is the other shot that I took on that day.

(Download)


(Download)

PB73 Loc: Fremont, Ohio

(Blasphemy...) I like yours (the blue one) better. It has more impact.

chaman

Is "competing" with Ansel Adams something important for you? Being inspired by another photographer is a valid point, but "competing"? Not so much. Regarding the images the colored ones seemed extremely blue, the BW ones are nice though.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

I just did this as a comparison exercise. The Blue ones are the result, in part, of having no U.V. filter as well as some color shift on the 52 year old transparencies from which these copies were made. Here they are warmed up a bit.

(Download)


(Download)

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

As Charlie Brown would say: Good grief. Or more succinctly: SMH.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Did you come close to matching Angel Adams' image? In a word, "No".
When Adams made his exposure he had in mind all the important aspects of the image that would come out of his darkroom. And, over the years, he would re-interpret his original negative according to his revised envisioning...as he did with many of his negatives.

The important question is, when you made your exposure (in ignorance of Adams' image) what did you envision the result should be?

The most important answer is : "how did you do in fulfilling your own visualization?".

When you are serious about that question when you make an exposure, .and equally serious and honest in formulating your answer...then you will likely be uninterested in competing with Ansel Adams because you'll have found a far more challenging competitor....yourself!

Dave

10MPlayer Loc: California

I had to check out Adams' picture. Yours is very close. His image has more detail in the bark and the mountains in the background are more interesting. But all in all it shows you had a good eye for composition back in the day.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Thanks 10M, I appreciate an answer without all the B.S. philosophy thrown in. The previous responder was a bit ponderous. For one thing, he failed to mention that the corner drug store should take part of the blame for my complete failure as it was their processor who failed. The difference between a 35mm and a 4x5" plate? Maybe that could account for part of the difference. I, for one, still feel that the composition was good and that Ansel might agree. Getz was always "the man".

Nightski

Streets .. I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Photo Critique Section. The purpose as stated in the rules is to put up one photo for Critique. Your title invited B.S. philosophy. Please stick to the rules from now on and post ONE photo per thread.

Now I will get to the critique part. You've taken a picture of the same tree, but what you failed to see was the light. In my humble opinion lighting has every thing to do with the success of a photo and Ansel Adams took his shot in the right light. He has enough light to get nice detail on the bark and the rocks. He has the right direction of light to get those fabulous shadows and to sculpt the mountains beyond. I wonder how many times Ansel scouted this place before he found it with the proper light. Light changes with the seasons and weather, not just with the time of day. Sometimes a person can wait years to get a shot like this. A successful shot has very little to do with subject matter. There are billions of trees to photograph ... probably millions of interesting gnarly trees .. but what makes them special is the light they are photographed in. When you see that, you will maybe come close to emulating Ansel.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

I wanted to wait for just the right light but my wife was tugging at my sleeve and lamenting her need for food.