Why all the Ansel Adams references?

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

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

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

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.

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..

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.

Keep 'em coming people!

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

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

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

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 I could say something generic like "art is in the eye of the beholder", but I won't.

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.

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.

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!

Laziferous wrote:
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.

thanks for the link!

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

-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 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!

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]

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