What Would Ansel Do?

Ansel Adams is (rightly) regarded as one the of the pillars of “realistic” American landscape photography.  And though Adams is almost too popular to be hip, I will confess that I stand in awe of his work.  There is one point about Adams that many don’t realize, however.  He is great, in a large measure, because he was a darkroom expert: he was great at manipulating photos to express his artistic vision.

This point came to mind when I came across these four videos on Jim Goldstein’s blog.  These are four-part series of videos from the 1983 BBC Program “Master Photographers.”   I recommend watching all four, though to my mind the second video is the most interesting.

Ponder these quotes the next time you think that digital manipulation is killing photography:

“None of my images are realistic in terms of values…  it’s intentional manipulation” (at :50).

“The negative is the composer’s score, all the information is there. The print is the performance, so you interpret the score at various aesthetic emotional levels, but never far enough away dividing the original concept.” (at 4:00)

Notably, Adams was excited about the potential for the potential to reinterpret images using the computer:

“The thing that excites me is that in not too many years we’re going to have a entirely new medium of expression with the electronic image. I’ve seen what can happen to a print reproduced by the  laser scanner and how that is enhanced and that is just the beginning.    … and I know the potential is there and I know its going to be wonderful.  Well in that sense the negatives for these photographs as an example will take the place of a fresh kabal they are….personal or some early composer will then be reinterpreted through a fresh medium and I think that is marvelous.” (at 7:00).

Thanks to Jim Goldstein for point out these great videos and transcribing the quotes reproduced above.

Light

A hard lesson to learn, and one that I forget all too often:

Some photographers (poor souls) never learn the essential trick of photography, which is that photographs are about light—not about their subject, not about your equipment, not about colors or “sharpness” or proving you’ve been to the Statue of Liberty or Disneyland or what Uncle Fred looked like. Well, all of that, too. But mainly light. Light is the essential ingredient of a photograph. It can ennoble virtually any subject. More than that, it creates subjects. It structures the things we see. A photograph that doesn’t depend on the light it was taken in has a lot of extra work to do to amount to anything.

From The Season of Light at the Online Photographer. Well worth a read.

More Blurs, and Other Powerful Work by Alain Briot

Intentionally blurred images certain are in vogue this year. Master landscape photographer Alain Briot has posted a lovely portfolio of intentionally blurred images on his website.  Though the technique is largely the same, it is interesting to note just how different Alain’s images are from William Neil’s images that I blogged about previously.

While I am on the subject of Alain Briot, I must say just how depressing (and motivating) it is to view his work (and to read his essays). Every time I think I’m getting better at photography, I view his portfolios or read his essays on the Luminious Landscape and realize just how much further I can progress as a photographer.  Not to copy Briot’s images or his style, but rather to have the technical control and aesthetic sense to make images that reflect my style and vison as effectively as he does.

Thoughts on Being “A Digital Person”

The following from the Online Photographer review of the new Nikon D700 got me thinking:

You digital people are so lucky. And what do I mean by “digital people”? Michael Reichmann mentioned, in the course of his new Panasonic G1 review, that he encounters photographers these days who never shot film. So do I. It’s an amazing if inevitable development in the hobby. Anyway, I often don’t think you digital people have any idea how lucky you are.

I am one of the people Mike is talking about.  The only film camera I ever owned was a Kodak 110 Instamatic, and the last time I exposed some silver halide was in my father’s Minolta SLR. When I was eight.  And I definitely feel lucky to have come to photography during the golden age of digital. But I wonder, what might I have missed?

Continue reading Thoughts on Being “A Digital Person”