Yosemite and Surrounding, part 2

kevindar wrote in post #15965727
true. there was no color film back then

Sorry what?

Numenorean wrote in post #15983605
Sorry what?

either way, my point is proven.

kevindar wrote in post #15983758
either way, my point is proven.

Your point, that there was no color film, is proven by the fact that there was color film?

Uhhh...well unless your point was to be utterly wrong.....

Numenorean wrote in post #15983793
Your point, that there was no color film, is proven by the fact that there was color film?

Uhhh...well unless your point was to be utterly wrong.....

Thanks for stopping by and looking at the images.
Not interested in getting in a battle of wit with you honestly. My original respond to EL_PIC comment of "I think AA did Yosemite in black and white for a reason" was one in jest, to diffuse an otherwise not particularly helpful critical comment. Was the comment meant to say the images are over saturated? they dont look good? they dont stand well on their own? Or would they be better in black and white? and if so why? I dont mind hearing any of those with an explanation in setting of a helpful criticism, or opinion. the world is actually in color. Nothing against black and white, some of the images from Yosemite I converted to black and white.
I am aware that color film existed during AA's time. I actually met a guy who had attended his lectures and kept talking about the incredible knowledge of film, both black and white and color, as well as processing that AA had, just unbelievable.
The comment that either way my point is proven, is directed at EL_PIC, that your link actually shows Yosemite shot in color by AA. Thats all.
I hope that clarifies it, and thats about all I have to say on this topic.

Not sure why people have to be jerks when critiquing or commenting on a photograph, but your images in color are just as stunning as any of the B&W images of the same landscape. I do like B&W but when there is a chance to bring out a certain color, or just the sunlight in particular, I'd choose color.

kevindar wrote in post #15983936
Thanks for stopping by and looking at the images.
Not interested in getting in a battle of wit with you honestly. My original respond to EL_PIC comment of "I think AA did Yosemite in black and white for a reason" was one in jest, to diffuse an otherwise not particularly helpful critical comment. Was the comment meant to say the images are over saturated? they dont look good? they dont stand well on their own? Or would they be better in black and white? and if so why? I dont mind hearing any of those with an explanation in setting of a helpful criticism, or opinion. the world is actually in color. Nothing against black and white, some of the images from Yosemite I converted to black and white.
I am aware that color film existed during AA's time. I actually met a guy who had attended his lectures and kept talking about the incredible knowledge of film, both black and white and color, as well as processing that AA had, just unbelievable.
The comment that either way my point is proven, is directed at EL_PIC, that your link actually shows Yosemite shot in color by AA. Thats all.
I hope that clarifies it, and thats about all I have to say on this topic.

Spot on reply and wonderful images.

As always, good stuff. KUDOS.

kevindar wrote in post #15965727
true. there was no color film back then

Not true, where was no cheap color and he did shot color too

IMO #2 is the better shoot of theses, but I like the location in #1 better

Thanks Al, Mcguire and free soul
Jeff, there is bit of back and forth discussion about The first comment if you care to read the thread.
Yeah, the tunnel view is really nice. however I was not blessed with interesting clouds or unusual light.

kevindar wrote in post #15965727
true. there was no color film back then

Not true. The zone system doesn't work effectively with color film. You start changing processing time and you start getting uncontrollable color shifts. Thats the reason he shot B&W is the Zone System and there was plenty of color film around.

Numenorean wrote in post #15983793
Your point, that there was no color film, is proven by the fact that there was color film?

Uhhh...well unless your point was to be utterly wrong.....

Adams chose the B&W as he preferred medium because of the Zone System.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Color_photograp​hy

I like the last one.....

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15991359
I like the last one.....

Thanks. As for color, feel free to read my long post on this page

kevindar wrote in post #15991377
Thanks. As for color, feel free to read my long post on this page

My point was the reason Adams and many other great landscape photographers worked in B&W was/is the zone system. Adams shot a lot of different formats and used many different processes but the work he choose to show was his zone system, large format work. He did do some B&W medium format work but the zone system works best one sheet at a time because unless you shoot an entire roll in exactly the same light (12 or 24 exposures) and want to place your shadow in exactly the same zone for each shot you certainly loose the control you get with large format individual sheets.

I do think your point about trying to compare is right on. The one image I do believe that does stand out is the last one and to try and compare color to B&W is like trying to compare apples to oranges.

The are many zone system photographers that believe color negative and color transparency is a barbaric process because they can't control that process the way they can control B&W negative film with the zone system. So the reason that Adams serious work at Yosemite is in B&W is the control he had with the zone system.