Why all the Ansel Adams references?

[Laziferous]

I hear everyone refer to Mr. Adams as if he was the most gifted photographer of all time, and whatever he said relating to photography is law. I know I'm going to get a lot of backlash for this, but the following is my opinion.

I spent an hour or so looking at a large portion of his photos online. I know I probably only scratched the surface, but I believe I saw enough to form an opinion. There were more than a few that really stood out, and were very exceptional. For most of them however, I felt that they were only average, to slightly better than average.

What am I missing? They all seemed to look the same to me. The one thing I did notice however, is the broad tonal range displayed... which is quite impressive considering no bracketing of exposures. I know he came up with the rule of thirds and all, but seriously, anyone with a good eye just does that automatically without thinking of it anyway.

Like I said, I know I didn't see all of his work, and what I'm saying is probably considered photographic blasphemy to most. I just think I've seen better photos in many amateur galleries around the net... many of the members of this forum actually.

So, in a nutshell, I think he's overrated. Sorry Ansel :oops:

Does anyone else agree with me? Or even disagree, and why?

[iwatkins]

I have to agree in parts.

Lets get something straight, compared to my work he was more than a genuis. Take into account the equipment he had etc. and you can add another few plus points.

Most of the images he produced don't actually do much for me to be honest. Again, don't get wrong, they are technically excellent but they just don't "move" me much.

I'm very much of the attitude that if an image really moves me, it is a great image. I don't care if it follows the rule of thirds, whether the lighting etc. is technically excellent, sharp focus blah, blah. If it doesn't move me, it isn't a great image.

Even so, I can't help admiring a man that produced all those images, with the equipment he had and also coming up with the various theories on photography that we all follow to some extent today.

Cheers

Ian

[PaulB]

It is not that every image Ansel Adams took or had published was jaw-dropping.
I think that youe assessment "There were more than a few that really stood out, and were very exceptional. For most of them however, I felt that they were only average, to slightly better than average." is perhaps a little on the down-side.
However it was Adams whole approach to photography which stands out; he was, if you like, one of the first photographers to take a holistic approach to picture 'making'. Everything was planned to get the final print, the position from which the photo was taken, the exposure, the development and the printing were seen as a whole.
Yes, some of what he did was more on the spur of the moment - but he could see the moment and envisage that final print.
Adams took exposure seriously enough to 'invent' and develop (sic) the Zone System of exposure determination which was a way of maximising the tonal range captured on film and then transferring it to the print. He also spent an awful lot of time getting to know his favourite spots through the seasons and over years before he got the shots he wanted.
Online reproductions of Adams photos only really give a flavour of how good his original prints were - even if you don't agree with the composition!
Get hold of a good, well printed book of Adams work - or better still try to see some of his original prints - then re-assess.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It is that when he did what he did he was years ahaed of his time. Before him,. there simply weren't any photos that looked like his do. Sure,. now his work may no longer seem completely ground breaking,. but the fact is that he literally wrote the book on how to do what we are trying to do here,. his influence has effected every aspect of photography from film development to camera design since.

You've got to look at it like art history,. You may hate Picasso or Pollock,. but they where pioneers.. so often imitated now that there own personal styles have become entire genres of painting.

Now on the other hand,. I DO agree that there is too much of a fixation on his name. No one can even recall the names of any of the other photographic pioneers like Elliot Porter, Dianne Arbus, Helmut Newton..etc..

[maderito]

It's just not possible for me to imagine the emotional, intellectual and physical energy Adams devoted to capturing and developing one shot. Landscape photography is challenging. How he was able to translate the power and beauty of landscapes of the far west to black and white tones is simply beyond my comprehension. I know that if I were given a year and a thousand attempts, I could never produce an image that would compare to his most average print.

I often listen to "director's cuts" of good movies to hear how the director and his cinematographer conceptualized and realized their image of a particular scence. I understand what they are saying, but the power of their imagination and the technical command of their craft is light years beyond my meager capabilities.

So too it was with Adams. Other photographers may have expressed themselves over a wider range of subjects (Adams was almost totally obsessed by the wilderness of the Far West). But he conquered his subject with a level of ground breaking innovation and creativity that was recognized in his time and after his death as the work of genius.

I recently met a photographer who spent a lifetime capturing street scenes in NYC. The prints were highly evocative. I loved EACH one of them. I asked him what camera he used. He said: "Phuff .... I don't remember ... I usually borrowed the cameras. I was only interested in the getting the picture." I think today we are more obsessed with the camera and less attentive to the art of capturing the image.

IMO - to question Ansel Adams' genius is to misunderstand the art of photography.

[Laziferous]

Thanks for the replies fellas. I knew a lot of people would disagree :lol:

What can I say, I'm a troublemaker :twisted: Haha, j/k :wink:

I will definitely try to see more of his work. Maybe I'm feeling a bit let down, because ever since I joined this forum, I've heard the name Ansel Adams thrown around like a video of Pam Anderson (you can now crown me the king of bad analogies). I never took the time to look at his stuff until today, and I guess I had an idea in mind of what I'd see, and when it didn't match up, I was really shocked, and surprised.

I know he was better than I'll ever be, but I was just expecting more after hearing the way his work is constantly lifted up. I do enjoy hearing everyone elses thoughts, and am glad I haven't yet been met with the "He's good because he just is" type mentality.

Again, don't get me wrong, I saw a lot of really great shots, and I have to admit, that with what he had to work with as far as equipment, it's pretty impressive. To hear people talk, I just expected mind blowing compositions, and every photo to be so good, it's almost unreal. Instead, I saw a lot of the same exact scenes, over and over.

I still feel the same about it, but I will definitely try to see more of his work. I'll check it out next time I'm at Barnes & Noble or somewhere.

Now you must pardon me while I remove my foot from my mouth :P

[Laziferous]

IMO - to question Ansel Adams' genius is to misunderstand the art of photography.

I guess that's me then. Oh well, I'm still a relatively ignorant n00b (which may be plainly obvious by my creation of this thread), so that's fine with me. It's all relative in the end I suppose... as is all of life.

[ilya]

IMO - to question Ansel Adams' genius is to misunderstand the art of photography.

I guess that's me then. Oh well, I'm still a relatively ignorant n00b (which may be plainly obvious by my creation of this thread), so that's fine with me. It's all relative in the end I suppose... as is all of life.


Laz, I have to disagree with you. You've got a great eye, and your stuff that you take with your G3 is much better then most others with more equipment.

I can't really contribute to the Ansel discussion as I've not read any books or studied his works, though I did have a print on my wall when I was in college - but didn't really know who he was back then :roll: I could say something generic like "art is in the eye of the beholder", but I won't.

[Laziferous]

Umm, thanks man. Appreciate it.

I've just spent another couple of hours looking through Ansel's stuff. I have to say that they are the most technically sound pictures I've seen. I must've looked at over a 1000. There are 1761 alone on this site (http://photo.ucr.edu/photographers/adams/).

[maderito]

Laziferous - I have to agree with Ilya. I happened to browse through your "some stuff" gallery a few days ago, and I was VERY impressed. I didn't make the connection until now that the author of this thread is also the author of that gallery. Ironic I think. Obviously you care enough about your work to study one of the masters. I think Ansel Adams would have congratulated you for questioning conventional wisdom about what makes for great photography.

[msvadi]

Chris,

I'm very new to photography, but I'm trying to read, see, try everything I can and have time and money for. Until now, there was no another photo that make such an impact on me as his "Moonrise". I don't think he is overrated, just because of that one picture. And you have too see it in print. Reproduced in books and on the web it looses 95% of its quality. It's just not the same, believe me.

On the other hand, if you saw the thread "bracketing" here, I did not like reading his book ("Examples"). The writing is really boring. I don't want to know how he shot the "Moonrise", I just want to enjoy it. More than that, some of his statements sounded to me too ... well, I'm not going to go there. I just did not like it and don't believe I'll try to read more of his books.


By the way, about the rule of thirds. I'm reading the Michael Freeman book on composition "The Image". He never mentions the rule of thirds, does he?! He talks about positioning subjects off center, about golden rule, but never the rule of thirds. He says to place the main subject off center, but not too extreme, and that's all ;) And it's one of the best books on photographic composition!

[msvadi]

Umm, thanks man. Appreciate it.

I've just spent another couple of hours looking through Ansel's stuff. I have to say that they are the most technically sound pictures I've seen. I must've looked at over a 1000. There are 1761 alone on this site (http://photo.ucr.edu/photographers/adams/).


thanks for the link!

$600 for a 16x20 print!!! O-H-M-Y-G-O-D!!!

[Laziferous]

-Woody
Thanks man. Much appreciated. Please though (and this goes to anyone reading), it's flattering when people like my photos, but I wouldn't want anyone to agree with me on anything, simply because they like my photos. I've seen that around here before. There are a few users whose names I won't mention, that are extraordinary photographers, who sometimes post a crappy shot (happens to everyone). Oddly however, most people continue to slobber all over them regardless. Maybe they somehow feel that if such a photographer posted an image like this, well, it has to be good, because it came from "so and so". Surely "so and so" wouldn't take a bad photo. Unfortunately, for "so and so", they may believe all the hype, and stop in their growth as a photographer.

I love it when people disagree with me. Ok, wait, I don't love it... what I love, is that I'm pretty sure when someone is disagreeing with me, they are being honest. I just want people's honest opinions about things. I guess we all do. Haha, well, that's wrong too. Heck, there are people in my family that would rather be lied to, as long as it made them feel good. Things like "Your baby is absolutely beautiful", when in reality, it looks like an alien. I guess you can't say "Eww, put it back" though, can you? :P

Wow, did I get off topic or what :shock: :D That's what an unchecked ADD disorder will do to you. I am my wife's prime source of comedy... involuntary of course.

Back on track here.

-msvadi
I hope I get the chance to see some of his work in actual print. I'm sure I could learn a lot, just by looking at it. I learn so much, just by looking at everyones photos here.

I must have missed "Moonrise", I'll have a look for that one. I'm curious now. I did see your thread about bracketing, and in a way, this thread I made is in response to it (not directly to it, just some thoughts sparked from it). I really think I should have looked at more of his work before making this thread, but what's done is done, eh? Maybe I'll learn something, and that's always a good thing.

Oh, the rule of thirds... I meant to say the zone system. I get the names of the two intermingled sometimes. I have to say though, I haven't read much on photography apart from this site, and a few others on the web. I'm afraid I'll start applying someone elses techniques to my own photos, before I develop a style of my own. I'm probably just paranoid... I have no "style" anyway :?

Thanks guys!

[shelbix2020]

Unfortunately, for "so and so", they may believe all the hype, and stop in their growth as a photographer.

I think that is what makes you a good photographer ... always reaching for a better picture than the last and exploring new ways to take photos, like in your gallery, most of your pictures are great! but there are the few that look like practice shots lol and Im sure as you take more shots theyll get better and better.

Whenever I show my girlfriend or friends my pictures I always dissagree with them when the say "Oh my god! thats the best picture Ive ever seen" hehe cause I know its not true and not to mention it took like 4000 pictures of other things to get to that "great" photo and after another 4000 more shots, they will look even better and so on.

Ive only had a real camera (my G2) for about a year now and I have learned so much and so many different ways to take a picture of something, that I know by next year Ill be amazing myself!

As for Ansel Adams I dont know much about him so I wont comment.

I dont know where I was heading with this post, I probly pushed the thread more off track so Ill close by sayin the standard ... "Practice makes perfect!" [finger pointed in air]

[sdommin]

What am I missing?

Go see some of his images in a real gallery. Then you will know.

[Laziferous]

Will do Scott. I see there are about 35 of his prints at the Smithsonian American Museum Of Art... looks like a little road trip is in order. It's about a two hour drive from my house. Hopefully I'll be able to go this upcoming weekend.

Thanks again everyone for your input!

[stoneylonesome]

I think where the credit for Adams lies is in his use of the light metering and then his extensive manipulation in the darkroom.
the photographer of old that I find the most interesting is Henri Cartier-Bresson http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/cb/
most of his work was done strictly in the camera and the film proccessing done in any commericial lab.

[PacAce]

Hi, Chris,

Have you ever done any film processing of your own and tried to print the images from the negatives that you just got done processing, all in a darkroom using chemicals the old fashioned way? If not, I think it would be a very useful, and humbling, exercise to try doing it to really get an appreciation of what the early photographers had to go through to make the vision of what they saw with their eyes and then trying to lay that vision down on a piece of photographic paper.

We are spoiled because we can either take out negatives to K-Mart or download the image files into our computer and do wonders with a photo editing program. The early photographers didn't have that luxury. Yes, I'm pretty sure a lot of photographers today can replicate a lot of Adams' photos but can they do it the same way Adams did?

[Laziferous]

Thanks again for your input, please continue the discussion.

This is my background, and summation up to this point:
I only picked up photography recently. My roomate from 1991-1996 was a photography major in college. I would accompany him occasionally to the lab on campus, and was impressed with his photos, but did not pursue it myself, nor attempted to process any images in the lab. I have owned film cameras before, but they only served to be a tool for keepsaking memories, as is most common among the population. I originally got a digital camera to make this process easier, and cheaper. Being that I could experiment freely, I gained interest in photography as an art form.

I realized the limitations of my humble 1.3mp A10. I decided that I may on occasion, take a picture that might possibly warrant an 8x10, and that this little camera would be incapable of this quality. I chose the G2 as my next camera, which I still currently own. With this new advantage of a prosumer camera, I quickly realized the only thing I new how to do was put it in auto, and hope for the best. That did not make for good images.

I began to read all I could online, mainly about what the technical aspects of a camera are. I had no clue what aperture was, or how it related to an image. I didn't know why handheld pictures in low light came out underexposed, and blurry. I didn't even know what underexposed was. I soon realized the importance of a tripod. I learned when to use certain apertures. I learned when to use different shutter speeds. I learned to use combinations of apertures, and shutter speeds to get what I wanted... all from experimentation. I am still struggling with how to make the image I see in my mind, translate to the camera.

Where am I now? I am STILL learning. Every time I learn something new, it becomes more and more evident, of how little I actually know. I only think I know something, until I learn something new, then it's clear that I know close to nothing when compared to the whole picture of all that there is to know about photography. Photography is only one of my hobbies anyway, and my interest wanes from time to time. I also enjoy, playing six string, and bass guitar, surfing, skimboarding, skateboarding, mountain biking, hiking, and kayaking. Oh, and computers :shock:

Yes, I am spoiled by digital technology. It's where I started. It's all I know. I don't claim to know anything else, and what I DO know is limited.

My opinion of Ansel Adams is this. He was a man that knew his equipment inside and out. He knew what he could, and could not do with it, and pushed it to the very limit. He has some of the most technically sound images of all time, without the help of digital manipulation. However... in my opinion, that is not ALL it takes to make a great image. There also has to be interest of subject matter. Now that, is a whole matter in itself. Interest varies among person to person, that's what makes us human. The composition has to be unique... blah blah blah. I don't even know all of what makes great image. I only know some photos make me go, "Wow, how did they do that?". Maybe it's only the mystery of how an image was created that compels me to think it supreme? Maybe that's why I don't think Mr. Adams photos are so awe inspiring as many consider them to be... because his methods are talked about constantly, and thre is no longer any mystery to what he has done. It's been picked apart, and analyzed over, and over again.

I know my opinion is not the norm, and I really apologize if I rub anyone the wrong way with this topic, and my replies. Believe me, that is NEVER an intention of mine. I only wondered if my opinion was shared by anyone else. I do really appreciate all of the replies so far. I have changed my opinion slightly, after seeing more of his work, and that may change again, when I see the actual prints.

Again, please continue this discussion, it's very interesting. I don't know that I have anything else to add though... after my excedingly lengthy reply (which I apologize for).

Thanks again for everyone's input!!! :)

EDIT: I need to stop wasting my day off today on the computer, and get out and actually take some pictures :P

[neil_r]

, I've heard the name Ansel Adams thrown around like a video of Pam Anderson (you can now crown me the king of bad analogies).

Most of what I want to contribute has been said, He was a pioneer, He equipment was made out of wood and his negative was a glass plate, His darkroom technique was flawless. He did use colour and if any of you want to check out “Ansel Adams in Color” published by Little, Brown & Co I am sure you will be blown away.

As to why his name is used by so many people, there are many reasons, for my part he is one of the few really great photographers whose name I can spell.

As to the Pamela Anderson reference…. Given the magic that AA managed to give the peaks of Yosemite I would love to see what he could have done with her, adhering to the Zone System, obviously.

Neil

[neil_r]

Laziferous,

Way off topic but... How did you do Crusin' on your web site...

appologies for the OT but I guess you will be coming back here.

Thanks

Neil

[Laziferous]

No problem Neil! I'm lucky if I can stay on topic for more than 60 seconds usually. Fortunately for me, this is the internet, and I can edit my posts unlimited times before I hit the submit button :D

Thanks for the interest. I strapped a tripod to my passenger seat, focused my G2 to infinity, then exposed the frame for about 6 seconds while I was driving. I took about 30 shots or so, but I liked that one most. Thanks again.

You knew I'd be back? It's funny how overwhelming the desire to check replies to something you've created is :D

[CoolToolGuy]

Chris,

As said previously, Ansel Adams blazed the trail. So many have used what he created ('found' is probably a better word) that his work doesn't seem that unusual. But if he had kept it all to himself, his work would probably stand out more.
Taken to another art, now it might not seem that the work of Jimi Hendrix is all that great. But in 1967, no one had heard anything like it before. Others were influenced, and the art advanced.
OBTW, I viewed your 'stuff' and they are some great images of places I am very familiar with. I don't have the free time right now to spend on the hobby, but you make me want to find some. Keep it up.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Belmondo]

Around a month ago, there was a thread in the EOS DSLR board with the title "Philosophy, Photography, Art." I posted the following:

I don’t consider myself a capable enough photographer to insinuate myself into any discussion of the deeper meaning of photography as an art form. I know it when I see it, but can’t come close to creating it on my own. I do know that as time goes by, equipment will continue to improve and I will become a better ‘picture-taker’ on the strength of that fact alone. But then, so will everyone else.

Art is relative to its time. Today’s most talented people do things that were undreamt of a decade ago. Some of it is art; some of it is just technical ‘WOW.’ I don’t have any idea where technology ends and artistry begins, because it is a very fine and vague line that my discriminating eye can’t discern.

In some ways, I long for the good old days when art was a matter of composition, a good negative, and creativity in the darkroom. Many years ago I had the good fortune of running into Ansel Adams and a group of his protégés as he conducted a walking seminar around Yosemite Valley. Since I was not an invited participant, I stayed a respectable distance from the group, but tried to remain close enough to hear what he was saying. His passion was palpable, and to this day, I hold that experience among my life’s most special. I remember how little of his discussion was about the mechanics of taking the picture. He talked about other things – shape, flow, depth, motion, and other magical things that I simply could not relate to. Although I didn’t have any idea what he was saying (still don’t), I knew I was in the presence of someone very special. His love of the art form was a key component of his genius.

By today’s standards, his equipment was downright primitive, yet the quality of his work is rarely approached by all but a few of the most gifted individuals working in the medium today. I guess the lesson should be that regardless of what technology brings us in the next 10 years, it cannot elevate us to the elusive rank of photographer/artist. Only our abilities can do that, and it is unlikely that many of us will attain that lofty status, regardless of the magic the folks at Canon will create for us.

It doesn't tie directly to this discussion, but it does have some relevance.

[shelbix2020]

Thanks for the interest. I strapped a tripod to my passenger seat, focused my G2 to infinity, then exposed the frame for about 6 seconds while I was driving. I took about 30 shots or so, but I liked that one most. Thanks again.
hehe sorry to go even more off topic but I noticed that picture too and was wondering if your car was a Toyota of some sort :lol: it looks just like my Tundra's dash ... sorta

[gandini]

Nice discussion, and started by an honest expression, that appears to have been modified slightly during the discourse, which is perhaps not unexpected.
As someone who quotes and refers to Adams quite a lot in my ramblings, I have a few reflections to share. Having seen many Adams prints in galleries, I can only say that spending 2 hours to get to the National Gallery will reward you a thousand times more than spending 2 hours surfing the 'net to find digital images of Adams photos. Some things just must be seen "in the flesh," and an Adams print is one of those things. Accept no substitutes. This is also very consistent with an Adams philosophy that the print is the performance--I wonder what he would have thought of displaying his photos digitally, especially when monitor technology is one of the limiting factors in digital display today.
I believe that Adams was an artist, but one who felt that good art required exceptional technique to express. He did not suffer poor execution very well, and I think the focus on his technical prowess, and the three books he wrote on the subjects (negative, camera and print), both demonstrate this, as well as distract many people from the true genius of the man. Take a look at the Nova documentary about Adams. It reveals Adams as a lover of the environment, dedicated to protecting the very living elements he used as the subjects of his photographs.
Adams became an icon because he presented a side of America, that while often devoid of humans, was full of the human appreciation for nature. As a commentator once said, Adams' photographs are about things larger than humans, longer lived, and more grandious than even the most famous movie or rock star. It's quite possible to believe in God when you see an Adams photograph, or at least something beyond, and above, humans.
Still, Laz, in the end you're right--he put his pants on, one leg at a time, just like you and me...You can choose to see him as no more than that, just as I choose to take inspiration from his view of photography, and the world.

cheers!

[Leighow]

.
Great post Laz -- its got soul!
================================================== ================================================== =======
I know little about god, the prophets or spirituality but I do sense how their contributions (past and present) have inspired people to grow, photograph, and pick or smell the roses.
================================================== ================================================== =======

SOUL RIDERS
But both past and present, local and international icons inspire us to do better with our own talents and resources. Ansel was certainly one of these. I have seen his books and images on sale all over North America. However, prior to viewing a PBS documentary I knew little about him. What I saw then was inspiring. Even so, his images have not been representative of my "world" any more than great images of the Matterhorn. So, while I recognize the legacy, I am not an active consumer. In contrast, images of Canada, especially Eastern Canada, appeal to my senses, concern for the environment, etc. So too, some great and inspiring images appear on The Luminous Landscape. Ansel must ride with all who work in dark rooms. Select Canadian photographers ride with many of us here in the Great White North.

THE SPIRITUALITY OF SNOWBOARDING
Laz's post hit me tonight some 2 hours after listening (in the car on a snowy evening) to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview with a PhD student in the middle of his thesis on "Soul Riders". I decided that Ansel, all of you, and I are all Soul Riders. When we enter the photo-op pipe, we enter with Ansel somewhere in the back of our minds. http://www.lss.uce.ac.uk/sites/Research%20pages/Paper%208.pdf

Or something like that!

[jim monroe]

First, I echo many of the above with "great post" I get a lot from some of the very excellent technical posts but this is just as good and different.
Second, in no way am I able to "rate" Adams as a genius, somewhere in between, etc. I don't have the knowledge and I really suspect few do. To begin with he needs to be placed in historical context and one needs to understand the technology of his day. A couple of weeks ago I picked up from the library a biography of Adams, titled simply "Ansel Adams" by Mary Street Alinder so I could understand a little more of the man. It describes getting one of his early shots of Half Dome in Yosemite. He had decided where he needed to be to get the shot he wanted and it describes the difficulty of getting there and it adds the following "Compounding the arduousness of Ansel's journey was his backpack, wich contained his 6 and 1/2 by 8 and 1/2 inch Korona view camera and a couple of lenses and filters, but just a dozen Wratten Panchromatic glass plates. A wood tripod was tied onto the backpack with rope." and it goes on from there. One thing that impressed me immediately was he's limited to a dozen exposures. Several months ago there was a thread here where people listed how many shots they had taken, some in 10,000 + if I remember correctly. It might be a good excercise for all of us to take a full day trip and limit ourselves to 12 shots.
Then there is the business of seeing the originals. I have often wondered, looking on the Share Photos section of this forum, what to me appear to be wonderful shoots displayed with maybe 500 by 800 pixels how much am I missing from what I would see with the full 6.3 Meg pixels of the 10D. So what must I be missing when I visit a site on the internet illustrating Adam's photographs? in some sense the internet is great we can share our photos but how can 400,000 pixels do justice to a shot with 6.3 Meg pixels?
I don't yet understand what the internet posting does to a shot. I remember a particular Great Blue Heron shot of CDS which looked great but then how much greater would it look seeing an 8 by 10 print? In a similar vein I often wonder how good my eyes are to "see" various aspects of any shot? I mean in terms of just plain sight as determined by the optometrist as well as the artistic vision of the photographer?
The thread raises plenty of questions in my mind, and just wanted to share a few, but very few answers. Buts thats fine questions are generally better than answers.

[Laziferous]

Hello everyone,

I just want to thatnk all of your for your replies, and insight. This topic has definitely been a learnig experience for me. My opinion when I first started this was a sincere one, and now, it has changed, yet still a sincere one.

Honestly, a lot of what's been posted about Adams, I was unaware of. I think what I did was make a snap judgment, without doing enough research. The more I learn about Adams, the more I understand what made his work special.

I think maybe, I just didn't want to be yet another person mindlessly bowing at the throne of Adams. I now know he was a master, but it's not because everyone else thinks he was, it's because I understand. I didn't before, and was confused.

I really very much appreciate everyones input, as it forced me to dig deeper into the subject, and as a result, learn something. Now please don't take this as a comparison, because I know I am light years away, and will never reach his quality... but I found that I share a similar philosphy about nature as Adams. I love to be outside. I love to smell the air, and feel the sun on my skin. Nature is the most pure part of life, so innocent, it has no agenda. When I take a photo of something, I just want other people to appreciate nature as much as I do. I hope that people who sit inside all day would be prompted to go outside, and find the beauty of nature near them. I love state parks, they are my getaway from the hustle and bustle of everyday life.

That makes me feel good, and as if I relate to Adams now. I really should have researched a little more before creating this topic, as I'm sure I would have never even created it. In the end however, I'm glad I did, because I learned something, and that my friends, is always a good thing.

The only part of my opinion that now remains, is that I do grow weary of all of the references to Adams. Although, now I understand why, where as before, I didn't. Now I know he isn't just "popular", but a true icon, deserving of recognition.

Thank you all so very much for your time, and input. This was a wonderful, "eye opening" learning experience.

God bless,
Chris

EDIT: fixing typo

[Yance]

I don't think I have ever heard him referred to as the greatest photographer. He is among the greats though not only as a photographer but as a teacher and influence on fine art landscape photography. In that realm, there is no equal.

I might also echo other's opinions that you can't judge a large format print accurately by looking at a 600x400 jpeg. So just because a picture might look mediocre on the web, if you ever saw a print of his in a gallery, you would be awestruck. I mean it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

One thing that impressed me immediately was he's limited to a dozen exposures. Several months ago there was a thread here where people listed how many shots they had taken, some in 10,000 + if I remember correctly. It might be a good excercise for all of us to take a full day trip and limit ourselves to 12 shots.

Excellent point...

...indeed,. I was one of the "over 10,000" posters... and I would never consider taking my gear out to the local park,. let alone Yosemeti,.. with only twelve shots....


..But then again,. I'm "no Ansel Adams" :mrgreen:

[jim monroe]

CDS,
So my challenge might be for you and myself to do just that for one day and see what happens. In fact it seems to me it forces us to see more and perhaps think more before rapping off another shot. Doing something like this might have a real long term benefit although I would be the first to admit it would take perhaps more discipline than I have.
And in no way would I think it a good long term strategy to be used every day. As you have stressed earlier the technology governs what we do but we can't, at least shouldn't, let it completely do so.