Would Ansel Adams Have Embraced Digital? Found the Answer...
Discussion
16 replies
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 31, 2015 at 3:07 AM
You BET he would! In fact, he DID wish for it, 8 years before the sensor was invented.On page 25 of the book Ansel Adams in Color, the author quoted many of Adams' writings, especially this gem from 1983, where he is talking about his frustration after viewing a thunderhead at Half Dome on a recent trip and not being happy about how to capture it in color:
I am frustrated by both exposure-scale limitations and rigid film-color response. As "reality" is out of the question, I can indulge myself with explorations of the "unreal" color which may or may not have intriguing aesthetic effects. I would not want "post-card" realism, but I would enjoy "enhancements" of the colors which I fear is not possible with conventional material today.... The scope of control with the electronic image has not been explored, but I feel confident astonishing developments await us in this area.
-Ansel Adams, 1983
Whoa. Love that last line. Debate over and done, lol!
Poor Ansel must have made this statement after a long day breathing the darkroom fumes. Maybe the soup he was working with was a bit overdone too......
No doubt Ansel would have been a BIG fan with using all the tools in many of the aftermarket processing software's and very liberal with that usage also.......
When the quote above was written, films, especially chromes, were extremely unforgiving. Exposure had to be perfect and their dynamic range was very short. Additionally, the developing process (Kodak E-3) was very sensitive to temperature. The margins for error were very thin. Prints made at this time were mostly Cibachrome--a true photographic paper that required great care in terms of color balance and developing. So, it is understandable that AA, and others who shot color, were frustrated.
Ansel's primary cameras were large format because he was able to control the plane of focus and the perspective using a view camera's movements, and loved working with the huge negatives. He also loved the Hasselblad. Today, he may very well have chosen to use a LF camera with a digital scanning back and/or the latest Hassy digital along with the software we have today.
I think that Ansel would have also embraced drum scanning of his films and used software to create files that would satisfy his very strict technical and artistic requirements. One would wonder if he would opt for inkjet prints, Chromira or LightJet prints, or would he have created 'negatives' that would be printed using his darkroom?
--P
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 31, 2015 at 3:05 PM
I think that Ansel would have also embraced drum scanning of his films and used software to create files that would satisfy his very strict technical and artistic requirements.
Oh, no doubt. He understood something was on the horizon. Film got better,drum scanning appeared on the scene and I do agree he would have spent a LONG time in that scenario until sensors finally came of age, probably not until where they are today (and the CPUs in the cameras that are processing the data, we often don't mention that). I doubt he would have been enamored with the noise floor on the Canon 10D, lol!
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on March 31, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Sure caught me by surprise! How did he know? In 1983 the IBM PC jr ran on 16 colors, and I remember how slow Flight Sim ran on it, like it was 4 FPS, lol. Nothing in that desktop PC could made the average user predict the image manipulation we enjoy today, it barely ran a calculator. Somehow Ansel saw beyond that, pretty neat.
Not for nothing... but why does it matter? How often do magazines and forums talk about what Ansel Adams would have done or would have approved of? It seems silly to me to think that anyone who was a master of their craft wouldn't embrace all the tools available at any given time in history.
**Note: I'm not a "landscape photographer" and never used film
It seems silly to me to think that anyone who was a master of their craft wouldn't embrace all the tools available at any given time in history.
Luke, exactly the point I made in my second sentence. I'm sure Ansel would have used whatever was affordable and necessary to achieve his POV on all images no matter what the era is or was at the time.
I took the original comment as merely a forward thinking perspective that many at that time had no idea what Ansel was even referring to, me included.......
Posted by Paul DeCesare on April 1, 2015 at 11:50 AM
Luke, it actually doesn't matter, that's the point. I posted that with glee because it put to bed all of the articles and arguments and forums and opinions. And it was simply interesting to see his foresight. Being that this has NOT really been a topic on NPN I assumed it would be perceived as an interesting factoid, really to make the point you made about all of the banter about it.
I am sure that AA would have embraced digital postprocessing, but would Edward Weston have done that?
It's interesting to me that the old masters did their own darkroom photomanipulation but one thing they seemed to be firm on was cropping. All seemed to draw a line that what you composed in the camera was what you printed, not a section of it. A premium was placed on seeing. I believe that's true about them.
Paul - sorry it probably came off that I was digging your original post! I liked it, but I'm so tired of the (general) discussions about Ansel this and Ansel that. The latest issue of Outdoor Photographer oozes more crap about Ansel.
I just don't understand why he is the be all, end all. I get he was the "first" but the obsession that many have with him and what he WOULD be thinking or WOULD be doing is just strange to me.
Nahh, you're good... and that's the point, all the pointless discussion, right? I always love when the planet goes on a tirade about what they think, and then something comes along that derails it and the truth comes out, like this thing about AA, or the 4 observatories that measure the moon's distance by bouncing a laser off the equipment left on the surface by Apollo 11, 14 and 15 missions. Bye bye hoax theory, lol (before anyone wants to clobber me on that, have a look here first). ANYWAY, I know where you're coming from, AA's images aren't completely blowing your socks into the neighbor's yard in 2015, but the attraction is getting images like this in 1941. Changed photography forever and was really the first one that the world heard of doing images that looked like that. Look at the PGA tour, bragging about 325 yard drives using a driver the size of a laundry basket, yet Sam Snead was whacking 320 yard drives in 1960 with a small wooden driver. The pioneers had zero help and yet redirected the craft forever. So us older dudes who saw AA's stuff 40 years ago and dropped our jaws naturally wonder what he would have thought of it all, and I believe the biggest takeaway from his quote is he was all about previsioning what he wanted and calculating how to get there, then turned to the toolbox to see WHAT would get him there, regardless of make or model or medium. If the planet actually read his books on how he made his images, they all would have known he would embrace whatever toolset gets him to his goal. So, it was neat to find the proof.
Paul - Very nice write-up. I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned you "old guys" seeing that stuff 40 years ago (not trying to make you feel old!). It's like kids today who take iPads and iPhones for granted along with Wikipedia and all the internet has to offer. I didn't have my first phone until I graduated high school (the horror!)
Gotcha beat, Paul. I didn't get my first cell phone until I was 52. I only use it for phone calls, and I've never sent a text message.
As I mentioned above, I think AA would likely have used medium format digital, or a 4x5 with a scanning back.
...he was all about previsioning what he wanted and calculating how to get there, then turned to the toolbox to see WHAT would get him there, regardless of make or model or medium
This is absolutely true, and I think this is a really good lesson for all of us.
"Eva, I'm surprised no explosion has happened yet with that question, lol! "
I did just ask to stir the pot but no one bit so far. Based on Ansel Adams' dark room work, I am sure he would have embraced digital in a heart beat. Not sure he would have been into adding different elements to a scene but all wild speculation now since he is no longer with us except in spirit. Great post Paul!
Discussion
16 repliesWhoa. Love that last line. Debate over and done, lol!
No doubt Ansel would have been a BIG fan with using all the tools in many of the aftermarket processing software's and very liberal with that usage also.......
Ansel's primary cameras were large format because he was able to control the plane of focus and the perspective using a view camera's movements, and loved working with the huge negatives. He also loved the Hasselblad. Today, he may very well have chosen to use a LF camera with a digital scanning back and/or the latest Hassy digital along with the software we have today.
I think that Ansel would have also embraced drum scanning of his films and used software to create files that would satisfy his very strict technical and artistic requirements. One would wonder if he would opt for inkjet prints, Chromira or LightJet prints, or would he have created 'negatives' that would be printed using his darkroom?
--P
Oh, no doubt. He understood something was on the horizon. Film got better,drum scanning appeared on the scene and I do agree he would have spent a LONG time in that scenario until sensors finally came of age, probably not until where they are today (and the CPUs in the cameras that are processing the data, we often don't mention that). I doubt he would have been enamored with the noise floor on the Canon 10D, lol!
**Note: I'm not a "landscape photographer" and never used film
Luke, exactly the point I made in my second sentence. I'm sure Ansel would have used whatever was affordable and necessary to achieve his POV on all images no matter what the era is or was at the time.
I took the original comment as merely a forward thinking perspective that many at that time had no idea what Ansel was even referring to, me included.......
It's interesting to me that the old masters did their own darkroom photomanipulation but one thing they seemed to be firm on was cropping. All seemed to draw a line that what you composed in the camera was what you printed, not a section of it. A premium was placed on seeing. I believe that's true about them.
I just don't understand why he is the be all, end all. I get he was the "first" but the obsession that many have with him and what he WOULD be thinking or WOULD be doing is just strange to me.
Paul - Very nice write-up. I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned you "old guys" seeing that stuff 40 years ago (not trying to make you feel old!). It's like kids today who take iPads and iPhones for granted along with Wikipedia and all the internet has to offer. I didn't have my first phone until I graduated high school (the horror!)
Eva, I'm surprised no explosion has happened yet with that question, lol!
Gotcha beat, Paul. I didn't get my first cell phone until I was 52. I only use it for phone calls, and I've never sent a text message.
As I mentioned above, I think AA would likely have used medium format digital, or a 4x5 with a scanning back.
This is absolutely true, and I think this is a really good lesson for all of us.
--P
I did just ask to stir the pot but no one bit so far. Based on Ansel Adams' dark room work, I am sure he would have embraced digital in a heart beat. Not sure he would have been into adding different elements to a scene but all wild speculation now since he is no longer with us except in spirit. Great post Paul!