Ansel Adams — Observations on the Eve of the Chall

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

03/06/2005 11:02:10 AM · #51

Originally posted by orussell:

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by orussell:
Thanks for answering my questions Robert. You are one of the most helpful and knowledgeable people on this site. Would it be too much to ask you to post a scan or two of your film work - I think it would be appreciated by all who enjoy your posts.

As I've mentioned before on other threads, over a decade ago we had a basement flood of catastrophic proportions in San Diego while we were away for a week, and my entire body of work, prints and film, was lost. I am working on having my sister take a couple shots in for scanning...

Robt.

Sorry to hear of that great loss Robert. I look forward to seeing those. Do you still have your medium/large format gear? It's a fascinating medium I'd love to learn more about, although with the direction digital in going in, it's doubtful that I'll ever buy any of that equipment.

No, I sold all my gear to my assistant when I retired, and the business also. I stopped shooting pictures for 15 years. I was burned out on photography, and needed a break.

I'd be happy to discuss larger format photography in detail if anyone ever started a thread directed to specific questions on the topic.

Robt.

melking

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

03/06/2005 11:05:36 AM · #52

Let me get his right, It does not have to be a landscape ....Right?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/06/2005 11:07:29 AM · #53

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Great starting thread Robert. I recently became fascinated by Adams' work. I've been looking up biography's and his images all week it seems to get a sense of his style. Bear Music helped me a lot with the explanation. However, how can Robert say that someone with a shallow DOF has no chance in this challenge, if Ansel himself took closeups of various leaves and artifacts? I don't believe that every submission should have a deep DOF. If the composition is good, and the image has good tone, lighting and all the qualities of a B/W photo, then points should not be deducted because of a shallow DOF.

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer. Ansel definitely did many photos that are in close to objects; rocks, leaves, tree trunks, whatever. But in all these images, the entire image is as sharp as a tack; there are no out-of-focus areas of any significance in the image. This is actually more noticeable, from a technician's point of view, in the close-ups, where this sort of DOF is REALLY hard to attain.

So when I say his work is characterized by extreme DOF, I don't mean to imply that all his work has both near and far objects in it, but rather that everything IN the picture is sharp, and this is one element I will be judging by. Does this help?

Robt.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

03/06/2005 11:11:01 AM · #54

Originally posted by melking23:

Let me get his right, It does not have to be a landscape ....Right?

Sure, as long as you don't mind finishing in the bottom 50%. ;)

After 1.5 years on this site, I have little doubt the winners and high scorers will be landscapes.

A completely overcast day here. Yesterday, not a cloud in the sky, also no good. ;) We don't really have the typical high scoring landscape scenery anyway.

melking

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

03/06/2005 12:03:42 PM · #55

Ok, so it can be a model, or a object?

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

03/06/2005 12:06:09 PM · #56

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Originally posted by melking23:
Let me get his right, It does not have to be a landscape ....Right?

Sure, as long as you don't mind finishing in the bottom 50%. ;)

After 1.5 years on this site, I have little doubt the winners and high scorers will be landscapes.

A completely overcast day here. Yesterday, not a cloud in the sky, also no good. ;) We don't really have the typical high scoring landscape scenery anyway.

Maybe no dramatic clouds in overcast conditions but the light is perfect.

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

03/06/2005 12:11:17 PM · #57

Originally posted by melking23:

Ok, so it can be a model, or a object?

If you're asking what Ansel typically shot, you would want to concentrate on landscape, architecture (especially old buildings), and natural-world closeups (leaves, rocks, waves, the like).

If you're asking what the voters are going to go for, that's a crapshoot, but I'd guess you'd be better-served by concentrating in those areas.

For those of you who don't have ideal shooting conditions or dramatic scenes to hand, try looking close. Find natural patterns, shoot them in diffuse skylight (overcast skies work well for this) and enhance the tonal range with curves and levels so they pop nicely; that's the Ansel way.

Robt.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

03/06/2005 12:18:47 PM · #58

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by orussell:

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by orussell:
Thanks for answering my questions Robert. You are one of the most helpful and knowledgeable people on this site. Would it be too much to ask you to post a scan or two of your film work - I think it would be appreciated by all who enjoy your posts.

As I've mentioned before on other threads, over a decade ago we had a basement flood of catastrophic proportions in San Diego while we were away for a week, and my entire body of work, prints and film, was lost. I am working on having my sister take a couple shots in for scanning...

Robt.

Sorry to hear of that great loss Robert. I look forward to seeing those. Do you still have your medium/large format gear? It's a fascinating medium I'd love to learn more about, although with the direction digital in going in, it's doubtful that I'll ever buy any of that equipment.

No, I sold all my gear to my assistant when I retired, and the business also. I stopped shooting pictures for 15 years. I was burned out on photography, and needed a break.

I'd be happy to discuss larger format photography in detail if anyone ever started a thread directed to specific questions on the topic.

Robt.

Thanks for the offer Robert. BTW I stumbled upon this website while I was doing some searching on Adams: //www.jimhair.com/rez.html Quite a coincidence.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/06/2005 12:22:50 PM · #59

Originally posted by bear_music:

... everything IN the picture is sharp, and this is one element I will be judging by. Does this help?

Robt.

Grrrrr .... you keep making me change my picture : (

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

03/06/2005 12:27:00 PM · #60

Russel, that's a real blast from my past. He was one of my better assistants. Thanks for the link.

Robt.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

03/06/2005 12:32:24 PM · #61

Originally posted by bear_music:

Russel, that's a real blast from my past. He was one of my better assistants. Thanks for the link.

Robt.

Looks like you taught him well. He has some stunning images.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/06/2005 01:09:00 PM · #62

Originally posted by orussell:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Russel, that's a real blast from my past. He was one of my better assistants. Thanks for the link.

Robt.

Looks like you taught him well. He has some stunning images.

To be fair, we hired him because he was good. He had the eye. Over the years I had 8 "serious" assistants (as opposed to organization people who had no interest in photography per se) and 6 of them went on to succesful professional/artistic careers that I am aware of. Jim I lost touch with; if he's making a living at this, that makes 7 of 8 :-)

Robt.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

03/06/2005 11:11:00 PM · #63

There is an observation that has not been addressed in this thread. That is, the assumption is that ansel represented the 10 zones in most of his images. This is not so. The heart of the zone system is simply to give a weight to each step. When used, it is applied like this:

You select the zone that you want to represent in your image by studying the image. Let us say, we see a bolder but it is facing away from the sun. We determine that the side facing us is in the 4th zone because the area around is beach sand. Okay, we shoot to make zone 4 the reference instead of the normal zone 5. Zone 5 is for typical shots.

Exposing for the lower zones means we will sacrifice zone 10 and part of 9 but from 1 to 8+ it will be very rich. However, the richest tones in this image will be aboiy 4 and not 5.

Again, look at many of Ansel's images. The most startling one's are exposed with particular zone's in mind.

Not all images lend themselves to the complete 10 zones.

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

03/06/2005 11:16:56 PM · #64

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/06/2005 11:21:13 PM · #65

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

I've actually addressed that in detail. Exposing for the dark areas, developing for the bright areas, making a print where all significant areas retain some degree of texture and detail, and how the system is tailored to the useable range of the output, be it print or whatever.

Working in traditional photographic media, we can't express 10 zones anyway. Not possible. The useable range is typically 7 zones. The trick is to compress the tonal values in the negative so they fit within these 7 zones.

Nothing in Zone System REQUIRES that all tones be represented; it just is a means of being sure trhat nothing falls outside the useable range of the media. A zone system print of a grey card against a white brick wall would of course have no blacks in it, unless the card threw a shadow and the photographer chose to have the shadow be black. If he wanted the shadow on zone 4, he'd place it there.

If your point is that Zone System does NOT mean "contains black and white and everything in between", this is correct.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-03-06 23:25:31.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

03/06/2005 11:47:02 PM · #66

My apologies Robert. I am still in aquint mode when I read, but of course, I am certain you understand the zone system. It is just that so many people have such a misunderstanding and they fail to learn it when it can be your biggest friend.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/06/2005 11:55:54 PM · #67

I am not entering for various reasons already described. But I did some shots today and I've been trying anyway to produce an ansel like contrast.

When I do the conversion using the channel mixer, using Red 160%, Green 140%, and Blue -200%, I get a lot of blotchy noise in the image. What are others doing differently?