JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

He certainly was a photographer, with a great eye for composition and light. Moonrise is not typical of his work, as it had to be shot as quickly as possible before the light went away. He was also a great darkroom technician, but it was always at the service of his photographic vision.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

I have seen a contact print of the original "Moonrise" negative. And I agree most of us would have likely discarded the image.

But Adams clearly saw the potential of the shot when he took it, and indeed used his darkroom magic to get the image we revere. But I have to dispute your point that he was more of a darkroom processing master than a photographer. Indeed, that would seem to be a limitation on his mastery. He visualized the whole package and did all the steps he needed to do to realize it. He was a photographer who used all the tools available to him.

I would say a darkroom master would have never taken the picture. And neither probably would most of us. Ansel Adams did.

Cheers

Bob Locher

tomcat

Yep, he did indeed have an eye for a photo scene. Most of us riding down the road would look at that landscape and say to ourselves, "I should get a shot of that", and then keep on driving. I know that I often do......and that's why I'm relegated to this instead of the fame.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Hardly on a par with mistaking two rangefinders and an Polaroid SX-70 for an SLR.

If you read about the History of the single-lens reflex camera you will find that ,"The history of the single-lens reflex camera (SLR) begins with the use of a reflex mirror in a camera obscura described in 1676, but it took a long time for the design to succeed for photographic cameras: the first patent was granted in 1861, and the first cameras were produced in 1884 but while elegantly simple in concept, they were very complex in practice."

To carry it a step further, in an article about the camera obscura when you read about its history you will see that it can be traced back as far as "30,000 BCE to 500 BCE: Possible inspiration for prehistoric art and possible use in religious ceremonies ..."

So the modern DSLR was inspired by either a Neolithic caveman or a Han Chinese philosopher named Mozi. Or was that Kodak Mozi?

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Along with his talents he had a great store of knowledge. When he was preparing for that shot, he knew there wasn't much time and in his haste couldn't find his light meter. His exposure was based on a known luminosity of a full moon. It also took him a decade (or more) to get a print he wanted.

BebuLamar

The 500c without the prism is an SLR and also the SX-70. The prism isn't the requirement for being an SLR. As long as your viewing system uses the same lens as the taking lens and use a mirror to reflect the image to your eye it's an SLR.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And according to art historians his rendition of that image continued to evolve over the following years with significant changes each decade.

Bipod

Painting ceilings and cars is important to me. But artists aren't forced to use rollers or spray guns. They still buy camel's hair brushes.

But digital cameras and computers printers--unlike making brushes--are both high-cap, large company businesses, involving "high tech"
consumer electronics. The consumer determines what gets produced.

Photography is the only art form where artists have to use consumer products. This didn't used to be the case: it happened when
digital sensors replaced film and computer printers replaced optical enlargers. Both are now microprocessor-based "embedded systems"
-- far beyond the understanding of any one person, complex beyond the dreams of King Minos.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

That too

Bipod

Always before in history there have been hard and fast limits on complexity. There are only so many gears that you can fit
in a mechanical watch or a mechanical camera.

But the number of transistors you can put in an IC is in the millions. And when software or firmware enter the picture, the only limit on
complexity is the amount of RAM you stick in the box: it can easly run into hundreds of thousands of lines of code. Memory is getting
smaller and denser.

Complexity is always a cost and a source of bugs. And it tends to "leak" out of the device and affect everything we do.
Programmers used to have a saying: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid). This was very good advice.

The more complex any device is, the harder it is to understand and control It can be totally automated and trouble free--
until the day you push the button and nothing happens. On that day the user is clueless and helpless, like a new-born babe.

He better pray that the manufacturer is still in business, still supporting that model, and returns his phone call.
If the device is out of warranty, probably he will end up having to throw it away and buy another. There goes
another $4000 digital camera... Another $3000 motorized lens... Another $2000 laser printer...

And the next camera, lens or printer? He won't understand it any better than the last one. And it will be even more complex...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are correct. A different image came up when I first searched.

Nevertheless, looking at the SX-70 does not conjure up any inspiration for a DSLR and I have never seen a DSLR without a roof prism (pentaprism).

The TLR may be a better place to start since it also uses a stationery mirror. The SLR evolved from that to fix the parallax problem and the pentaprism was added to fix the left-right reversal.

PeterBergh

Incorrect! SLR stands for single-lens reflex. Whether a SLR has a prism finder or not does not change its nature, that of a single-lens reflex.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Yes, I understand that. And the MILC evolved from the DSLR. It's just as well we stopped with a four letter acronym (FLA) as opposed to a three letter acronym (TLA).

The "SL" part of the SLR actually preceded the TLR. We call it a view camera. So we are right back to the kind of camera where Adams made his reputation.

Trying to trace the origin of the modern DSLR back to it's origins can be carried to extremes.

This is probably a good point to return to the intent of gvarner's original post before it got diverted to this trivial digression.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Of course we don't see as the camera does. When we see an image, it is within the context of what went before and came after. It triggers memories when you look at it. However, it does not trigger those same memories in others. The artistic part of photography is taking a photo that can elicit similar emotions in another viewer. The camera actually sees everything, while your brain filters out those things you consider unimportant to the scene. If you can learn to step out of the moment and take photos as others will see them, you may get closer to an ideal. Just don't be disappointed if you never quite get there. It is a quest, not an end.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

Every day, when driving my son to high school I pass the same place and think "One day... one day..."
But the road is dangerous and risky to park at the (inexistent) shoulder and use the gear. It is difficult to
live in a place with so many thieves and bad drivers.