Ansel Adams on Camera Equipment

Todd Lambert wrote in post #14369158
Yeah but obviously you overbought on that hammer for your skill level.

Todd, my thumbs begged me to buy it

highergr0und wrote in post #14369353
Have most of you read the quote?

""I urge, again, avoiding the common illusion that creative work depends on equipment alone, it easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to posses superior instruments. "

Yes I have. And that would be in the "No sh*t Sherlock" category.

It's just a damn quote from Adams. You can do what you want with it. The way I roll is the way I roll. I say you can be a gear whore and creative whore at the same time. Again, I am drowning in gear, some of it I absolutely do not need, but that doesn't hamper my creativity at all. If it did, I wouldn't be shooting.

I mean seriously. Did I really need a 600EX-RT or the 5D3. Not really. Is it helping me be more efficient, especially the 5D3. Absolutely. Could I shoot what I shoot with the 5D2. Sure thing. But what's the fun in that? I mean, really, we are in it because it's fun right? What's the point other wise? I would hate to hire a wedding photographer for thousands of dollars and find out he/she was just running through the motions, using 5 year old technology b/c he or she wanted to keep it real.

I guess this thread is going into a wrong turn.

Yes the ledgend Ansal Adam said it very right, but someone correct me if I am wrong; He usually used the very expensive and very top of the line on his time equipments and gears.

samsen wrote in post #14370719
I guess this thread is going into a wrong turn.

Yes the ledgend Ansal Adam said it very right, but someone correct me if I am wrong; He usually used the very expensive and very top of the line on his time equipments and gears.

Its ok, most don't really get but I think even you missed this part a bit alter on in the quote.
"Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run."

He's talking about trying to avoid the gadget go round. Its a little side show created by the camera manufactures designed to separate us from our money. Its lead by the belief that if I only had X is would be a better photographer but the truth is there is really only one way to get there and thats put in the work. It takes YEARS to get good and even with all the new stuff its still so very true because learning to see and finding your own vision is a long journey that yes the right equipment can help but to many different tools without mastering any of them will surely confuse.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14371937
Its ok, most don't really get but I think even you missed this part a bit alter on in the quote.
"Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run."

I think "not getting it" and "not agreeing" with are completely different things. I get it. I don't agree with it. Doesn't matter. It's what one guy said and it should not be treated like the bible. You can either agree or disagree. Trust me, Adams isn't losing any sleep over it.

"Roll the way you want the roll and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise." -nicksan

nicksan wrote in post #14372579
I think "not getting it" and "not agreeing" with are completely different things. I get it. I don't agree with it. Doesn't matter. It's what one guy said and it should not be treated like the bible. You can either agree or disagree. Trust me, Adams isn't losing any sleep over it.

"Roll the way you want the roll and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise." -nicksan

So you disagree that its really about the vision of the photographer and the photograph but instead you say its the tools and thats what matters?

If you're not saying its about the tools then you clearly do not understand what Adams was saying. He said that tools are important just not the end all. Thats exactly what he is getting at. That if you start chasing gadgets then it becomes a never ending chase but instead you should put your energy into chasing your vision. Not to say you shouldn't have the right tools. Just that you probably do not need all the tools.

I'm new here, and somewhat new to 'photography' (ie going out with the sole intention of taking pictures, rather than just snapping a few for documenting a party, trip, event). I looked at the quote in the OP and started wondering what Adams would have said if he were alive during this era of photography. Hundreds of lens and camera options, the ability to instantly circulate your work around the internet to millions of people, and quickly compare your work to someone else's. During his time, technology didn't allow most of these "conveniences", and it's unknown what types of other photographs he was able to critique. Especially without the ability to check EXIF info on every one of them! Hell, just think of all the amazing shots he took that the world never saw because of the house fire that consumed many of them, whereas most of us have everything we shoot backed up in 2-5 different places. After reading about the gear aspect of this discussion, I dug around for what Adams carried with him, and for the time period, he sure had an extensive kit.:

from 1957:

http://www.pbs.org …/sfeature/sf_pa​cking.html

pheldozer wrote in post #14372736
I'm new here, and somewhat new to 'photography' (ie going out with the sole intention of taking pictures, rather than just snapping a few for documenting a party, trip, event). I looked at the quote in the OP and started wondering what Adams would have said if he were alive during this era of photography. Hundreds of lens and camera options, the ability to instantly circulate your work around the internet to millions of people, and quickly compare your work to someone else's. During his time, technology didn't allow most of these "conveniences", and it's unknown what types of other photographs he was able to critique. Especially without the ability to check EXIF info on every one of them! Hell, just think of all the amazing shots he took that the world never saw because of the house fire that consumed many of them, whereas most of us have everything we shoot backed up in 2-5 different places. After reading about the gear aspect of this discussion, I dug around for what Adams carried with him, and for the time period, he sure had an extensive kit.:

from 1957:

http://www.pbs.org …/sfeature/sf_pa​cking.html

Did you also read what he shot almost all of his serious work with? He was a zone system photographer. He was the first to fully and effectively articulate the system. The most effective way to use that system is to expose one sheet of film at a time because each situation requires different development times of the negatives.. So thats why his serious images the ones he chose to show were mostly shot on large format. Some portraits and botanical close ups he shot with his Blad but those where in such small #s its really not significant. If anyone is really interested his auto biography is very good read.

like i said, i'm pretty new to the technical side of photography, but was under the impression that the zone system was a mathematical/developme​nt process using 2 exposures that yielded a very old school version of an HDR.

is that close to accurate if you dumb it down?

pheldozer wrote in post #14372860
like i said, i'm pretty new to the technical side of photography, but was under the impression that the zone system was a mathematical/developme​nt process using 2 exposures that yielded a very old school version of an HDR.

is that close to accurate if you dumb it down?

Not quite. The zone system was a way to get to film what Adams or any photographer saw/sees in his minds eye at the moment of exposure which is a way to capture the scene in a way that was probably much different from the way it actually presented itself to the photographer.

To do this it first requires a series of tests to find out what the proper ASA/ISO for the camera lens used is. For that you need to have access to a densitometer. This will give you a base or a starting point of where to place your shadow (first perceivable tone over film base + fog).

Once you've established that base then you can control the highlights by development time of the negative. So if you meter the scene you can place your shadow where ever you want it to be. Say zone II zone III or zone IV depending on how much detail you desire. Then you control the highlights by the negative development time. Because film only has so much latitude say 9 visible zones the photographer has a way of controlling where all of those zones will fall. (control the contrast).

If a scene when metered is say to flat (not enough contrast for the way the photographer see the scene then you can add development time to negative increase the contrast to the exact desired level. And this is expressed by N+1, N+2 etc with N being normal development time which all of this is determined through the test you did at the start.

If the scene is to contrasty or exceeds the range you can control that to by bringing back the development time on the negative and this is expressed by N-1, N-2 etc.

This system can give you total control over what you perceive the final print should look like at the time of exposure. Then you can finish and fine tune the rest in the printing of the print. This is way over simplified but all this is a way to pre-visualize a scene and its a tool so that you can get that pre-visualized scene to a final print.

There are some really good books if you are interested.

The Camera, The Negative and The Print all by Adams and The Zone VI Workshop by Fred Picker.

Theres a reason why many great landscape photographers are still shooting large format B&W film.

Heres on of my favs and he gives amazing workshops. Give it a bit of time to load. His midwest landscapes are my favorites.
http://www.michaeljohn​sonphotography.com/

was reading up about the zone system, and am a lot more confused than when i started! really makes you appreciate being able to plug the camera into the computer to "develop" pictures

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14372692
So you disagree that its really about the vision of the photographer and the photograph but instead you say its the tools and thats what matters?

If you're not saying its about the tools then you clearly do not understand what Adams was saying. He said that tools are important just not the end all. Thats exactly what he is getting at. That if you start chasing gadgets then it becomes a never ending chase but instead you should put your energy into chasing your vision. Not to say you shouldn't have the right tools. Just that you probably do not need all the tools.

Again, I get what he's saying. It applies to me. I usually buy the tools that I feel would enhance my artistic vision. Absolutely. Can I shoot weddings with a Digital Revel and Kit lens? Sure. Can I shoot that same wedding a LOT better with the gear I have right now? You bet. But what's the one constant? My skills and my vision.


However, I am also saying that if someone feels that the tools are the end all, then that's not necessarily wrong. Relative to the artistic side of photography, gear is definitely not the end all. Of course. That's a given...well at least to most people.

nicksan wrote in post #14373830
Again, I get what he's saying. It applies to me. I usually buy the tools that I feel would enhance my artistic vision. Absolutely. Can I shoot weddings with a Digital Revel and Kit lens? Sure. Can I shoot that same wedding a LOT better with the gear I have right now? You bet. But what's the one constant? My skills and my vision.


However, I am also saying that if someone feels that the tools are the end all, then that's not necessarily wrong. Relative to the artistic side of photography, gear is definitely not the end all. Of course. That's a given...well at least to most people.

So then you agree with Adams?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14374270
So then you agree with Adams?

I tried to get him to realize it too...... He does agree with Adams. He knows that gear does not make a photographer good but that a good photographer chooses to use the best gear he can get. Adams never says that you can make great pics with crappy gear.

highergr0und wrote in post #14374527
I tried to get him to realize it too...... He does agree with Adams. He knows that gear does not make a photographer good but that a good photographer chooses to use the best gear he can get. Adams never says that you can make great pics with crappy gear.

Kinda the way I see it too.

And for the record I admire Adams but he is no god to me and there are certainly more influential photographers and ones that had a larger impact on me both philosophically and visually.

I did learn and study the zone system and shot extensively with large format using those tool and techniques but I am more in line with my personal work with the east coast style of say Winogrand, Bresson and Meyerowitz. I'm more of a post visualist and opposed to a pre visualist like the west coast Weston,Adams approach.

I'm probably more like Meyerowitz in the fact is he is truly a highbred of the two, I certainly use some of the principles of the zone system every time I shoot especially the part I learned about reflected light and how to meter, what to meter and understanding what the meter is telling me.