Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Ansel Adams, Group f/64, Manipulation and the History of Photography
Page <<first <prev 3 of 16 next> last>>
Jan 17, 2018 00:46:00   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
tdekany wrote:
I have a feeling that you may have a copy of this book. Check out the price of it on eBay!


Yes and a copy of Monsters and Madonnas! I am a big fan. Thanks for the memories, now I have to find those books in my "archive". The are in there somewhere!

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 02:33:21   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
Darkroom317 wrote:
This is an expansion of a post I made on a thread about "manipulation"

While Ansel Adams was a master printer and a photographic and American icon, I grow tired of hearing about Adams and manipulation. It misrepresents his aesthetic and his working philosophy. If you read anything about Group f/64 you will find that the movement promoted "straight photography." This means among many things that photography should stand on its own merits and not try to mimic painting or drawing. A photograph according to this aesthetic philosophy a photograph should be sharp, nearly everything in focus and should represent reality. Dodging and burning change are hardly manipulation, the contents of the scene remain intact but the feeling changes with the changing of some tonal relationships.

Prior to the straight photography movement was the Pictorialist movement. Soft focus and heavy manipulation were key as was narrative. One of the last proponents of pictorialism was William Mortensen. If you haven't heard of him, it is no surprise as Ansel Adams and Beaumant Newhall despised him and his work and essentially wrote him out of history by Newhall omitting from his History of Photography book.

Furthermore, the world of photography and its nearly 192 year history is vast, complex and rich. Dig deeper that Ansel Adams. Other photographers did far more manipulation in the darkroom beyond what he did before and after him. For instance Oscar Gustave Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson and Jerry Uelsmann and Carol Golemboski.
This is an expansion of a post I made on a thread ... (show quote)

Regarding the History, I recommend “The History of Photography” by Beaumont Newhall. Perhaps a bit dated as it predates the digital revolution. Copyright 1982. Museum of Modern Art.

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 04:38:21   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
Peterff wrote:
A fair point, but you didn't start them all. The ban on photo manipulation is an interesting news story about CVS and is really about truth in advertising and the effect of the objectification of women. A different but related topic in my mind is the guy that objected to Lily Cole being given a role as a creative partner by the Bronte Society. So she's a model and an actress, she also has a double first in history of art from Cambridge. They do not get given out for nothing.

Nick Holland has now quit the Bronte Society in "disgust" that the Bronte Patronage Museum has recruited Cole as its "creative partner". Holland issued an angry denunciation: "What would Emily Bronte think if she found that the role of chief 'artist' and organiser in her celebratory year was a supermodel? "Anyone who doesn't isn't fit to make the decision or have any role in the governance of the Bronte Society. The very basic rule should have been that the person chosen for such an important role as creative partner is a writer."

But as Nick Pettigrew revealed: "Lily Cole has a double first Arts degree from Cambridge. Nick Holland went to Huddersfield University. If you're trying intellectual snobbery, mate, you're on shaky ground."

Cole herself pointed out: "Emily Bronte, whose extraordinary novel Wuthering Heights has stirred the world for over 150 years, published her work under an androgynous pseudonym: Ellis Bell. Now I find myself wondering, fleetingly, if I should present the short film I am working on for the Bronte Parsonage Museum under a pseudonym myself, so that it will be judged on its own merits, rather than on my name, my gender, my image or my teenage decisions."



http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42564230 ,
http://www.telegraphindia.com/world/supermodel-in-bronte-row-198990 , http://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2011/10/26/lily-cole-liberated-to-graduate-from-cambridge-3120
A fair point, but you didn't start them all. The b... (show quote)


Nick Holland is an idiot.

Reply
 
 
Jan 17, 2018 05:47:11   #
Shutterbug57
 
Darkroom317 wrote:
...I grow tired of hearing about Adams and manipulation. It misrepresents his aesthetic and his working philosophy... Other photographers did far more manipulation in the darkroom beyond what he did ...


I am not clear on what you are saying here. Do you think Adams manipulated photos or not? Your initial statement seems to indicate that you do not, but your conclusion seems to say that he did, just not as much as some others.

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 05:59:59   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Shutterbug57 wrote:
I am not clear on what you are saying here. Do you think Adams manipulated photos or not? Your initial statement seems to indicate that you do not, but your conclusion seems to say that he did, just not as much as some others.

We seem to be working with a "squishy" definition of "manipulate". Giving generic definition does not help. Those who say he did not manipulate need to give a good pedantic definition - almost a "religious" definition of what is "manipulation" and what is not.

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 06:21:38   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Yes and a copy of Monsters and Madonnas! I am a big fan. Thanks for the memories, now I have to find those books in my "archive". The are in there somewhere!



Reply
Jan 17, 2018 06:27:23   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Darkroom317 wrote:
This is an expansion of a post I made on a thread about "manipulation"

While Ansel Adams was a master printer and a photographic and American icon, I grow tired of hearing about Adams and manipulation. It misrepresents his aesthetic and his working philosophy. If you read anything about Group f/64 you will find that the movement promoted "straight photography." This means among many things that photography should stand on its own merits and not try to mimic painting or drawing. A photograph according to this aesthetic philosophy a photograph should be sharp, nearly everything in focus and should represent reality. Dodging and burning change are hardly manipulation, the contents of the scene remain intact but the feeling changes with the changing of some tonal relationships.

Prior to the straight photography movement was the Pictorialist movement. Soft focus and heavy manipulation were key as was narrative. One of the last proponents of pictorialism was William Mortensen. If you haven't heard of him, it is no surprise as Ansel Adams and Beaumant Newhall despised him and his work and essentially wrote him out of history by Newhall omitting from his History of Photography book.

Furthermore, the world of photography and its nearly 192 year history is vast, complex and rich. Dig deeper that Ansel Adams. Other photographers did far more manipulation in the darkroom beyond what he did before and after him. For instance Oscar Gustave Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson and Jerry Uelsmann and Carol Golemboski.
This is an expansion of a post I made on a thread ... (show quote)


I am happy to manipulate to my hearts content. It all started in the dark room with b&w, then to color printing in the darkroom. Now I am chemical free and love to manipulate the print to MY INTERPRETATION OF REALITY. Love it, keep that software PP coming, can't wait to see what's new and exciting.

Reply
 
 
Jan 17, 2018 06:29:11   #
pjeffers
 
For my part, I find these posts very interesting so thanks for the links. I enjoyed reading about the history of photography. Whether one calls it manipulation or art we are fortunate to be able to bring out our own vision of what is around us. Or just capture what we personally see.

and lucky us we have an undo button!

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 06:50:10   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Excellent observations, Darkroom317. Thanks for these posts.
--Bob
Darkroom317 wrote:
This is an expansion of a post I made on a thread about "manipulation"

While Ansel Adams was a master printer and a photographic and American icon, I grow tired of hearing about Adams and manipulation. It misrepresents his aesthetic and his working philosophy. If you read anything about Group f/64 you will find that the movement promoted "straight photography." This means among many things that photography should stand on its own merits and not try to mimic painting or drawing. A photograph according to this aesthetic philosophy a photograph should be sharp, nearly everything in focus and should represent reality. Dodging and burning change are hardly manipulation, the contents of the scene remain intact but the feeling changes with the changing of some tonal relationships.

Prior to the straight photography movement was the Pictorialist movement. Soft focus and heavy manipulation were key as was narrative. One of the last proponents of pictorialism was William Mortensen. If you haven't heard of him, it is no surprise as Ansel Adams and Beaumant Newhall despised him and his work and essentially wrote him out of history by Newhall omitting from his History of Photography book.

Furthermore, the world of photography and its nearly 192 year history is vast, complex and rich. Dig deeper that Ansel Adams. Other photographers did far more manipulation in the darkroom beyond what he did before and after him. For instance Oscar Gustave Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson and Jerry Uelsmann and Carol Golemboski.
This is an expansion of a post I made on a thread ... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 06:57:03   #
Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina
 
Personally I’m from the film days where you only had processing of the negatives via the zone system and yes I did use zone system to my advantage and than you had printing dodging burning so essentially “pure photography” what the camera could capture is what you could print.
The pure argument begins when in PP you change the original capture passed sharping burning dodging to bring out all the detail is when you start cloning in or out how about replacing the sky because the day you were there was blah or how about adding or removing components to me your no longer in the realm of pure photography your crossing over into computer art and how far one goes is up to the computer artist

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 07:07:27   #
cameraf4 Loc: Delaware
 
Just a quick "shout-out" to Darkroom and E.L. Shapiro for all the interesting (and, obviously, thought provoking) information they have provided on this thread. Thank-you.

Reply
 
 
Jan 17, 2018 07:37:28   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
rehess wrote:
We seem to be working with a "squishy" definition of "manipulate". Giving generic definition does not help. Those who say he did not manipulate need to give a good pedantic definition - almost a "religious" definition of what is "manipulation" and what is not.


Yeah, who would want a definition.

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 07:53:27   #
Shutterbug57
 
Below are the plain print of the image Moonrise and the print that is famous. Is the final image manipulated? I guess it is all about interpretation, but as I see it, when the clouds are removed by burning in, that is manipulation. I like the artistic interpretation, but I don’™t find that I can say it is not the result of manipulation.

Additionally, Adams notes:

“œThe negative was quite difficult to print; several years later I decided to intensify the foreground to increase contrast. I first refixed and washed the negative, then treated the lower section of the image with a dilute solution of Kodak IN-5 intensifier. I immersed the area below the horizon with an in-and-out motion for about 1 minute, then rinsed in water, and repeated about twelve times until I achieved what appearaed to be optimum density. Printing was a bit easier thereafter, although it remains a challenge.

There were light clouds in a few areas of the sky, and the clouds under the moon were very bright (two or three times as bright as the moon)... I also burn upward a bit to the moon to lower the value of the white clouds and the comparatively light horizon sky. I then burn from the top of the moon to the top of the image with several up-and-down passages [to get rid of the clouds in the upper part of the image].” Page 42 of Ansel Adams’ Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 07:59:42   #
donrosshill Loc: Delaware & Florida
 
Ansel Adams. Photographer and Artist. Enough said.
Don

Reply
Jan 17, 2018 08:11:20   #
Ariel
 
What a boring record of a face .

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.