Interesting article would Ansel Adams have gone digitial?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If Ansel Adams were a true artist, then he wouldn't have cheated by using a camera at
all...
....He would have painted the scenes.

On the other hand...paint is manufactured, and therefore cheating.
-He should have chiseled images into stone.

Although now that I consider it... hammer and chisel is taking the "easy route" as well...
Everyone knows the only TRUE art comes from knawing depressions into bark with one's
teeth.

Clearly, Ansel Adams was a cheater through and though...so surely he would have shot
digital.

-Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ansel actually predicted digital imaging and seemed in favor of it.

Here's a quote from the Introduction of his book "The Negative",
written in 1981 ... "I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I
believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance ..."

I think he wrote more about this in his other works but I don't have
the passages handy.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:QJQPd.90180$0u.48538@fed1read04...
> If Ansel Adams were a true artist, then he wouldn't have cheated by using
> a camera at all...
> ...He would have painted the scenes.
>
> On the other hand...paint is manufactured, and therefore cheating.
> -He should have chiseled images into stone.
>
> Although now that I consider it... hammer and chisel is taking the "easy
> route" as well...
> Everyone knows the only TRUE art comes from knawing depressions into bark
> with one's teeth.
>
> Clearly, Ansel Adams was a cheater through and though...so surely he
> would have shot digital.
>
> -Mark
>

Doesn't the art originate in the eye, we then endeavour to capture what we
see?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"And the question arose in my mind, if Ansel Adams -- arguably the most
accomplished and certainly the most popular nature photographer of the past
century -- were alive today, would he go digital?"

Ansel Adams ... ? ? ? ? ?

Would he "go digital" ... ? ? ? ? ?

HELL ... he would probably be leading the charge. But certainly not with an
8 mpixel camera, not even a Canon! He would be using something like one of
the Betterlight or PhaseOne scanning backs on a 4" x 5" view camera.

And ... guess what ... John Sexton would probably be right behind him.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:


> .... he would probably be leading the charge. But certainly not with an
> 8 mpixel camera, not even a Canon! He would be using something like one of
> the Betterlight or PhaseOne scanning backs on a 4" x 5" view camera.
>
No, he would be using a 20D, and be an expert at stitching. That's a
fact; you could look it up.

--
John McWilliams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:57:49 -0500, "Rudy Benner"
<bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>news:QJQPd.90180$0u.48538@fed1read04...
>> If Ansel Adams were a true artist, then he wouldn't have cheated by using
>> a camera at all...
>> ...He would have painted the scenes.
>>
>> On the other hand...paint is manufactured, and therefore cheating.
>> -He should have chiseled images into stone.
>>
>> Although now that I consider it... hammer and chisel is taking the "easy
>> route" as well...
>> Everyone knows the only TRUE art comes from knawing depressions into bark
>> with one's teeth.
>>
>> Clearly, Ansel Adams was a cheater through and though...so surely he
>> would have shot digital.
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>
>Doesn't the art originate in the eye, we then endeavour to capture what we
>see?

No, art originates in the heart and then the mind attempts to make the
eyes of others see what the heart felt.

"Art is not what you see, but what you make others see."
Edgar Degas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/15/commentary/ontechnology...
>
> New technologies can create incredible pictures, but do they
> compromise the art of photography?
>
>
> *****************************************************
>
> "Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods."
>
> Tim Page in
> "Dispatches"
> by Michael Herr

Sure he would, just as he changed a number of his processes as time when
on (I once saw a film of him drying test prints in a microwave oven). He
also worked in 35mm color. He did change and would have loved digital.

However he would have used digital where it was best and sheet film
where it was best and 35 mm where that was best.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1108338141.408316.297840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>Ansel actually predicted digital imaging and seemed in favor of it.

I've been watching Galen Rowell shows on my cable company's "on demand"
menu, and wonder how he would have taken to digital, if he had continued
to live. His programs are very interesting, and he seems to *really*
know what he's talking about (and doing). He knows how things work, and
make them work for him.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote:
: "And the question arose in my mind, if Ansel Adams -- arguably the most
: accomplished and certainly the most popular nature photographer of the
: past century -- were alive today, would he go digital?"

: Ansel Adams ... ? ? ? ? ?

: Would he "go digital" ... ? ? ? ? ?

: HELL ... he would probably be leading the charge. But certainly not
: with an 8 mpixel camera, not even a Canon! He would be using something
: like one of the Betterlight or PhaseOne scanning backs on a 4" x 5"
: view camera.

: And ... guess what ... John Sexton would probably be right behind him.


I agree. Art is not dependant on the tool, but on the artist. Did the
creation of paint reduce the impact of a charcoal drawing? Did photography
totally remove the desire for an artistic oil painting? NO.

True, with more tools available, there is more chance for artistic
expression to be expressed in more ways. But in this case, new tools do
not replace the usefulness of old ones.  

JMHO

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/15/commentary/ontechnology...

> New technologies can create incredible pictures, but do they
> compromise the art of photography?

An aside: all this talk about "what would Ansel have done?" reminds me
of the veneration of Lenin.

Anyway, the article seems to me to be mistaken in its assumptions.

"Burkett's photos are made on 8-inch by 10-inch color transparencies
or medium-format film, without lens filters, and are masterfully
printed without digital enhancement of any kind.

"Some people resist the idea that the beauty and color captured by
Burkett's camera actually exists in nature."

But Cibachrome prints aren't exactly natural, and neither is all that
dodging and burning. Not to mention the intense saturation produced
by colour transparency film, and the colour adjustments done during
printing.

It is possible to get something near true-to-life natural colour with
careful colour management -- you could get the closest colour
rendition possible with the available materials. But does anyone
really want to do that with nature photographs? I doubt it; this is
art. The best image of nature in people's minds isn't necessarily the
most "accurate".

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rudy Benner <bennerREMOVE@personainternet.com> wrote:

>Doesn't the art originate in the eye, we then endeavour to capture what we
>see?

Ahhh, he should really have been a poet. But then would he have
written with pencil on a legal pad, or used a word processor?

--
Ken Tough

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 13 Feb 2005 15:42:21 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>Ansel actually predicted digital imaging and seemed in favor of it.
>
>Here's a quote from the Introduction of his book "The Negative",
>written in 1981 ... "I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I
>believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance ..."
>
>I think he wrote more about this in his other works but I don't have
>the passages handy.

Here's another, much more definitive quote, albeit not directly from
the man himself, taken from the foreward of the book "Shooting
Digital" by Mikkel Aaland (the actual foreward was written by Leo
Laporte):

"Shortly thereafter, another legend, Ansel Adams, told Mikkel that if
he were beginning all over again he'd be shooting digital. Mikkel
took the great man at his word and become one of the first to use, and
write about, digital photography."

One of the things that always struck me about Ansel Adams, both in his
own writings and that of others writing about him, was that he was as
much interested in the "how" and "why" as he was in actually taking
pictures. Even in a brief skim through his seminal trilogy "The
Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" you can't help but realise how
much he liked to experiment with new ideas. Given the opportunity,
the idea that he'd have simply ignored the possiblities of digital
cameras is completely ridiculous to me.

Andy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/15/commentary/ontechnology...
>
> > New technologies can create incredible pictures, but do they
> > compromise the art of photography?
>
> An aside: all this talk about "what would Ansel have done?" reminds me
> of the veneration of Lenin.
>
> Anyway, the article seems to me to be mistaken in its assumptions.
>
> "Burkett's photos are made on 8-inch by 10-inch color transparencies
> or medium-format film, without lens filters, and are masterfully
> printed without digital enhancement of any kind.

I'd guess the "without lens filters" bit is a lie: there aren't a lot of
nature photographers who don't use polarizing filters for color, and a red
or at least yellow filter for B&W. The polarizing filter is pretty much
necessary: specular reflections from leaves burn holes in slide films.

> "Some people resist the idea that the beauty and color captured by
> Burkett's camera actually exists in nature."
>
> But Cibachrome prints aren't exactly natural, and neither is all that
> dodging and burning. Not to mention the intense saturation produced
> by colour transparency film, and the colour adjustments done during
> printing.

Really.

> It is possible to get something near true-to-life natural colour with
> careful colour management -- you could get the closest colour
> rendition possible with the available materials. But does anyone
> really want to do that with nature photographs? I doubt it; this is
> art. The best image of nature in people's minds isn't necessarily the
> most "accurate".

Really again. Fuji is threatening to discontinue Velvia 50, and people are
screaming bloody murder. Fuji has films with twice the speed, far finer
grain, far more accurate color rendition, and a choice of contrasts (Astia,
Provia, Velvia 100F). Yet folks still claim they like Velvia 50.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan