Ansel's camera noise

[Jannie]

I was looking through a book yesterday that had 400 of Ansel Adams photographs and much about him. I've been viewing his work for decades, over 30 years ago I visited his shop near his famous Half Dome ( I could have purchased 8x10 in prints made from his 8x10" negatives for $10 each back then but was a student going to Brooks Institute of Photography and simply could not afford it.

As I looked through the pages I really noticed something! His 8x10" negatives had more noise than my 5D!!!

I was stunned, I'm going to become a vegetarian and never drink again-ever, not even smoothies made from organic raspberries!

What has become of this world, he was my hero, he and Dorthea, Imogine, Edward and Henri-had they only known of a company named Canon who would outdo their most perfect cameras, OMGosh and Henri shot a Leica, my dream camera.

And now I own it allllll hahaha, okay a bit over the top but it really did kind of make me sad. I grew up in this profession with those people as my idols. And they still are, I came across a bunch of Imogine Cunningham's flower photos the other day, and in black and white and well they are still stunning, simply stunning.

But my 5D, my trusty 5D will set the standard for all digital...okay over the top again but there is some truth to the idea a friend offered another friend the other day who was complaining that his newly acquired G9 didn't have anywhere near the image quality of his MKIII. The other friend told him to give it up, cause he now owned a camera that probably took better pictures than Henri's. Oh my does that squelch my pixel peeping addiction and make me look at the world through rosier colored glasses.

[shooter mcgavin]

When I first became interested in photography, I spent most of my time at the university library reading about "the greats", but all I had to shoot with at the time was a little Canon point and shoot, nowhere near even the g9. The idea that my camera was probably just as good as theirs (well, not the large formats...) was kind of comforting to me and helped me to focus on composing and not on the gear. Still does today.

[airfrogusmc]

I was looking through a book yesterday that had 400 of Ansel Adams photographs and much about him. I've been viewing his work for decades, over 30 years ago I visited his shop near his famous Half Dome ( I could have purchased 8x10 in prints made from his 8x10" negatives for $10 each back then but was a student going to Brooks Institute of Photography and simply could not afford it.

As I looked through the pages I really noticed something! His 8x10" negatives had more noise than my 5D!!!

I was stunned, I'm going to become a vegetarian and never drink again-ever, not even smoothies made from organic raspberries!

What has become of this world, he was my hero, he and Dorthea, Imogine, Edward and Henri-had they only known of a company named Canon who would outdo their most perfect cameras, OMGosh and Henri shot a Leica, my dream camera.

And now I own it allllll hahaha, okay a bit over the top but it really did kind of make me sad. I grew up in this profession with those people as my idols. And they still are, I came across a bunch of Imogine Cunningham's flower photos the other day, and in black and white and well they are still stunning, simply stunning.

But my 5D, my trusty 5D will set the standard for all digital...okay over the top again but there is some truth to the idea a friend offered another friend the other day who was complaining that his newly acquired G9 didn't have anywhere near the image quality of his MKIII. The other friend told him to give it up, cause he now owned a camera that probably took better pictures than Henri's. Oh my does that squelch my pixel peeping addiction and make me look at the world through rosier colored glasses.

Jannie I don't know what you were looking at but it could be lousy reproduction or prints from a printer not the photographic process. I have seen allot of actual prints made by Adams and they are BREATHTAKING. I saw a 4 ft X 6 ft print of this
http://www.fresnomet.org/files/images/perm_anseladamslg.preview.jpg (http://www.fresnomet.org/files/images/perm_anseladamslg.preview.jpg)
in a gallery in Santa Fe. Prints a reproductions in books never do his work justice.
Last time I was in Santa Fe there were two moonrise over hernandez 16 X 20s one word inspiring. Back in the mid/late 1990s 97 I think I was in the Weston Gallery in Carmel and looked through a original portfolio that the had of Adams work. There I was white acid free gloves taking each print out of its archival plastic sleeve. Inches away form just amazing work. If you get a chance to see an exhibit of his original work do not pass it up.

The origianl photographs sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The two moonrise images were $160,000 a piece in 2006 and the large 4X5 ft image was $125,000 and that was 2001.

Also Adams shot with large format deardorffs... Nothing like a deardorff.
http://deardorffcameras.0catch.com/
Again never judge those reproductions in books. They are maybe 300 line screen more than likely 150...(allot of dots)

There is no way you are getting anywhere near the resolution from a small sensor than you can get from an 8x10 in negative.

[jacobsen1]

yeah, I agree with the above. Sure he had some noise, but not much. Plus the details in his negs is probably more than a 5D frame can have. Never mind Adams invented the zone system so you can be damn sure his work had more DR than digital can touch.

I've been scanning some 645 negatives this week and even after shooting a 5D for over a year now, the smallest MF format there is has been impressing me with the details...

Digital is nice, but it's a convenience. Don't kid yourself into thinking film sucked.

[FlyingPhotog]

He didn't have noise .. He had grain

Grain can be good .. Noise rarely ever is good

[fxk]

You know, that's what made film fun. An Argus C3 had the capability to be as good as Henri's Leica. And if you could scare up $50, you could get an old Leica at the pawn shop and have the exact same equipment. We knew then, that the photographic skills, the trained eye, the decisive moment all counted. We knew also, there was magic in the darkroom.

I do love digital, and all the ease and opportunities it has brought to photography. Unfortunately, it also has the side effect of creating equipment races, pixel peepers, and who knows what else, hardware-wise.

In display, we tend to substitute clarity, acuity, and saturation for well composed, well seen photographs. Don't bother me if it ain't razor sharp.

The FPS wars have eliminated the understanding of the decisive moment - how to see it, and how to capture it. Good thing, is we usually know it when we see it amongst the string of shots rattled off before and after the moment. Just hope that frame is sharp!

I think the perfect camera is as elusive as the perfect mate - we see PS models in magazines and get a false impression of what humans are to look like. Cameras offer new improvements and whiz bang that we just can't live without - yet we look at "the masters" and long to take photographs just like them. How come technology can't solve that problem? Or is thechonogy the problem?

I'm not bashing technology or where we are today - I just think we have very unreal expectations of just about everything in life.

[S.Horton]

In middle age, when I look around, it seems that fewer and fewer people really slow down to take it all in, and very few have the patience to 'wait' for the moment in any activity, let alone photography.

The consumer culture really has become, in many ways, 'I want it all, I want it now, I want it perfect, and explain it to me in 15 sec.'

At least, the culture I'm most familiar with (avoiding politics).

[BottomBracket]

I wonder what the problem is. What's wrong with a bit of grain?

[yogestee]

He didn't have noise .. He had grain

Grain can be good .. Noise rarely ever is good

Yep.. You can tell the people who didn't come up through the film era..

[airfrogusmc]

And believe me there ain't much grain on a silver gelatin 8X10 contact sheet. There wasn't much on the 4x5 ft print and I was looking!!!

[Croasdail]

I miss grain. Photography used to be somewhat interpretive. Now it seems to be more about technology.

[yogestee]

I miss grain. Photography used to be somewhat interpretive. Now it seems to be more about technology.

Yeah Mark.. Grain in some situations can add mood to the photograph.. I used to shoot a lot of theatre under ambient light.. I would push Tri-X the 1600 or 3200 ISO then make a killing selling 10X8s to the cast and crew..

[sjones]

The inability to emulate grain on digital was one of several factors that prompted my switch to film (and yes, I tried numerous Photoshop tricks and filters, like putting glasses on a person with 20/20 vision).

[fxk]

The inability to emulate grain on digital was one of several factors that prompted my switch to film (and yes, I tried numerous Photoshop tricks and filters, like putting glasses on a person with 20/20 vision).
I do miss the ability to "change sensors" by just going to the drug store and slapping down $3.50. The "post processing" is crushing, though!

[adam*]

The inability to emulate grain on digital was one of several factors that prompted my switch to film (and yes, I tried numerous Photoshop tricks and filters, like putting glasses on a person with 20/20 vision).

1ds, seems pretty close in it's noise looking like grain!

[sjones]

1ds, seems pretty close in it's noise looking like grain!

Another factor that prompted my switch to film is that I could not afford a full frame dslr, let alone the 1DS.

[airfrogusmc]

Another factor that prompted my switch to film is that I could not afford a full frame dslr, let alone the 1DS.

Film has a look all its own especially B&W...

[sjones]

Film has a look all its own especially B&W...

And yet another factor behind the switch! And a very important one at that. It is to the point that even if an affordable digital rangefinder or dslr hit the market, I would still stick with film. Plus, I just love the whole process…

[michaelnel]

I saw an exhibition of Ansel's work at Golden Gate Park a while back. One of the most stunning images there wasn't even black & white, it was an original Kodachrome 8x10 transparency (ASA 10 or something... Ansel was one of Kodak's testers for the early versions of Kodachrome) of some autumn leaves laying on some river-smoothed stones, pretty much life-size. They had it on some kind of lightbox on the wall. I swear that it felt like you could reach right in there and pick up one of those leaves.

Never seen anything to match it, before or since.

[jrader]

The origianl photographs sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The two moonrise images were $160,000 a piece in 2006 and the large 4X5 ft image was $125,000 and that was 2001.

Also Adams shot with large format deardorffs... Nothing like a deardorff.
http://deardorffcameras.0catch.com/
Again never judge those reproductions in books. They are maybe 300 line screen more than likely 150...(allot of dots)

There is no way you are getting anywhere near the resolution from a small sensor than you can get from an 8x10 in negative.


And we never will, since pixels will never be able to be packed as densely as atoms are. Film will always have higher resolution than any digital sensor created.

Just a little something I learned from my astronomy degree....

Despite this, I will never use film. I actually waited to get into photography until after digital cameras were invented and cost-effective enough to buy because I don't have the absolute patience required for darkroom work. Kudos to those who did/do.

John

[Mike-DT6]

Yep.. You can tell the people who didn't come up through the film era..

My initial thoughts too :lol:

[PhotosGuy]

I love grain when I can make it work for me:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Lillia-comp.jpg?t=1220666319

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Grandma_01.jpg?t=1220666382

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/ANR-Riggers_01.jpg?t=1220666431

[FlyingPhotog]

I love grain when I can make it work for me:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Lillia-comp.jpg?t=1220666319

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Grandma_01.jpg?t=1220666382

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/ANR-Riggers_01.jpg?t=1220666431

These are great examples Frank. Especailly the last one.

[DocFrankenstein]

So, you're disappointed with works of Imogen, Ansel and Weston because they have more noise than the little 5D?

[PhotosGuy]

Thanks. This is one of my favorites from Pam Dawber's 1st composite, but I've posted it here so many times I thought I'd show some others.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Pam-D_01.jpg?t=1220709357
Especailly the last one. Those were all on very high speed 2475 Recording film, overexposed (to flatten the contrast range) & printed on Agfa #6 to put the contrast back in.
The last one was duped on 2475 from a transparency. We blew it up to 5' wide for the office wall.

And finally, this copy of a 16X20" print was shot on Tri-X with a red #25 filter to darken the blue sky & get the shutter speed down:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Seagull-blur_01.jpg?t=1220709495

[DrPablo]

As I looked through the pages I really noticed something! His 8x10" negatives had more noise than my 5D!!!No they didn't. That was the scanner and printer they used for the book. I've seen between 50-100 of his original prints, incl contact prints, in person. The grain size even of films from his era are far smaller than what the naked eye can resolve in a contact print. Even some of his 4x and 5x enlargements (which are beyond poster size) are grain free until you're standing right next to them.

[FlyingPhotog]

Thanks. This is one of my favorites from Pam Dawber's 1st composite, but I've posted it here so many times I thought I'd show some others.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Pam-D_01.jpg?t=1220709357
Those were all on very high speed 2475 Recording film, overexposed (to flatten the contrast range) & printed on Agfa #6 to put the contrast back in.
The last one was duped on 2475 from a transparency. We blew it up to 5' wide for the office wall.

And finally, this copy of a 16X20" print was shot on Tri-X with a red #25 filter to darken the blue sky & get the shutter speed down:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Seagull-blur_01.jpg?t=1220709495

Nice Pam Dawber portrait...

I used to have a HUGE crush on her! I feel a connection to her having attended OCC for one semester! :)

[PhotosGuy]

Nice Pam Dawber portrait... As nice a corn fed midwestern girl as she seemed on TV! I was more interested in her friend Lillia in the 1st link. Sadly, we shot early AM in February, I delivered prints after lunch, & jumped a plane for a 1-month shoot in England & Italy, & I never saw her again.

[JeffreyG]

No they didn't. That was the scanner and printer they used for the book. I've seen between 50-100 of his original prints, incl contact prints, in person. The grain size even of films from his era are far smaller than what the naked eye can resolve in a contact print. Even some of his 4x and 5x enlargements (which are beyond poster size) are grain free until you're standing right next to them.

I agree. I saw a lot of Ansel's original prints at an exhibit at the Detroit Institute of Art last winter up close. Because Ansel shot large format, the grain in his direct prints is negligible. Be careful in viewing his work in anything less than his direct output. Ansel Adams was very much cautious in controlling his work from capture to print. Don't let poor prints color his images.

[Rick Rosen]

I was fortunate to know Ansel personally as I was on the faculty of his workshops. For the record Ansel had used all available film formats through his career. In his early years most of his images are either 8x10 or 4x5 negatives but in his earliest work he even shot glass plates. He also shot medium format a lot, using his Hasselblad system. He was clsoe friends with Victor Hasselblad so his system was extensive. As he aged into his 70's his use of medium format grew in frequency and his use of large format decreased.

The quality of his prints was due to many things, one major issue being that he extensively tested his films for speed and development times and also tested his paper emulsions. His mastery was his vision and his control over the craft and the materials.

Rick

[airfrogusmc]

I agree. I saw a lot of Ansel's original prints at an exhibit at the Detroit Institute of Art last winter up close. Because Ansel shot large format, the grain in his direct prints is negligible. Be careful in viewing his work in anything less than his direct output. Ansel Adams was very much cautious in controlling his work from capture to print. Don't let poor prints color his images.

COULDN'T A SAID IT BETTER!!!

And what Doc said...