Ansel Adams entry remake - DPChallenge Forums

10/23/2005 12:37:27 AM · #1

I wasn't too unhappy with my Ansel Adams entry many moons ago, but I always bemoaned the lack of interest in the sky. Did some photoshop editing tonight, using some of the comments from the challenge, and came up with this:

Is it over the top or too edited? It would have been illegal to do it for the challenge, but would it have scored well do you think? You know how it is when you've been looking at something for awhile...I need new eyes to give some feedback. Thanks!

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

10/23/2005 12:42:34 AM · #2

Over the top, yes. Not appealing to me at all. A major flaw is that the light on the clouds is not consistent with the light on the building.

Robt.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

10/23/2005 12:44:35 AM · #3

For comparison.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/23/2005 12:48:26 AM · #4

Originally posted by bear_music:

Over the top, yes. Not appealing to me at all. A major flaw is that the light on the clouds is not consistent with the light on the building.

Robt.

Is it mainly the light that is the problem? Also, if you care to explain a bit more about how the light is inconsistant, I'd appreciate it. I'm not really seeing what you're referring to. It's late here, so if you don't feel like a more in depth comment, I understand. I do appreciate the remarks.

Nikon D200

10/23/2005 12:52:46 AM · #5

Jpochard, that is certainly a very dramatic sky! It does seem a bit over the top. It seems like the sky is very stormy, but the scene below doesn't match. Maybe because there is clearly sun shining on the ground, but when you look at the sky you wonder how any sunlight got through those clouds?

@Bear - is this what you mean, or does it have something to do with the light/dark of the dodge/burn being vertical instead of from the side? I'm not sure what you meant, either, so I'm hoping you respond again... :)

10/23/2005 12:54:54 AM · #6

The light on the barn is from high on the right: note the lack of long shadows from the barn on the earth. The light on the clouds is the sort you get with low light angles, near sunset or sunrise; it can't happen at midday. Plus the light on the clouds is coming from the left, not the right.

Here's a more traditional "ansel" approach to your image; I didn't take the time to do it well, but you get the idea. You don't hAVE to have a dynamic sky to make this image work. In fact, I'd say that the cloud version, even IF the clouds were "correct", is running contrary to what youw ant; the building stands out better and more strongly against the neutral sky IMO.

Robt.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/23/2005 01:18:07 AM · #7

Okay. I understand a bit more now. Although, I do need to add that the barn shot was taken at late afternoon, and the sun was quite low as it was in the clouds shot.

I think perhaps the directional issue is more evident than how high the sun was. I think maybe it looks as thought the clouds are being lit from behind the photographer and the barn scene lit from the right? And I also agree, I think, with the issue of the simplicity vs. kind of over the top. The more I look at it, the more it's too much. I do like your gradient sky version. I'm just a cloud addict :)

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. It's really helpful.

conglett

Nikon D70

10/23/2005 01:18:56 AM · #8

If you want to emulate The Man, you will need to get comfortable with curves. Normally clouds make a huge difference and without them the sky has to be blown completely out. Here is my attempt...

10/23/2005 01:23:04 AM · #9

Originally posted by conglett:

If you want to emulate The Man, you will need to get comfortable with curves. Normally clouds make a huge difference and without them the sky has to be blown completely out. Here is my attempt...

I would have to disagree with you on this one. I'm not overly familiar with Mr. Adams' work, but it seemed to me that he was always able to produce very detailed work, and the details are quite lost in the blown out highlights of the contrast on this version. Just my opinion.

10/23/2005 01:28:58 AM · #10

Originally posted by jpochard:

Originally posted by conglett:
If you want to emulate The Man, you will need to get comfortable with curves. Normally clouds make a huge difference and without them the sky has to be blown completely out. Here is my attempt...

I would have to disagree with you on this one. I'm not overly familiar with Mr. Adams' work, but it seemed to me that he was always able to produce very detailed work, and the details are quite lost in the blown out highlights of the contrast on this version. Just my opinion.

Oh, definitely. I'm not sure what conglett's getting at, but that's about as un-ansel as you could MAKE this image be...

BTW, Judy, I look closer at your image, at the fencepost shadow, and see what you mean; it's just the topography of the land by the barn that makes that shadow look not-long. Still the wrong direction ofr the light on the clouds, though :-)

R.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/23/2005 01:32:03 AM · #11

This shot of Adams', for instance, has very little interest in the sky, other than a gradient similar to what bear added to my barn shot. The sky is definitely not blown out. Just an example, 'cause you did get me wondering about it. This is "Church, Taos Pueblo"

Thanks for having a shot at it though! It's something I don't mind a bit to try and learn the best methods here. I don't expect or want to be another Ansel Adams, but would like to work on the basics and get my own "style" as well...so I'm always looking at what "might" be done with my photos.

conglett

Nikon D70

10/23/2005 01:36:30 AM · #12

Originally posted by jpochard:

Here's your chance. Take a look at some of these and see what you think here.

Quite often he loses detail in the extremes of light and dark, and yet it doesn't affect the emotional impact of the images. I find it fascinating that he would likely have been raked over the coals in voting and comments on this site with his particular style.

10/23/2005 01:41:04 AM · #13

Originally posted by conglett:

Sheesh, Conglett. That's the work he did for the government on contract, and they got the negatives. Those examples are straight prints by people in the archives, not Ansel's prints.

Good example of just how much of a master printer he was, though :-) By comparison, I mean...

R.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/23/2005 01:52:52 AM · #14

I have to say I am suprised by especially the Death Valley shots. However, I also noticed that the quality of the examples on that site seem quite a bit lower than I've seen elsewhere. This one, again, as an example.

Same shot from two different sites...very noticable difference in contrast and detail. Still, I have looked at the site you linked and see your reasoning a bit more.

The zone process that I've read just a bit about (certainly not extensively) would seem to be the more typical Adams' presentation...not the rather bland, flat looking results on my barn shot.

I don't know if he'd get clobbered here or not. He didn't do badly in his own challenge! :)

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/23/2005 01:53:30 AM · #15

Originally posted by conglett:

Take a look at some of these and see what you think here.

Quite often he loses detail in the extremes of light and dark, and yet it doesn't affect the emotional impact of the images. I find it fascinating that he would likely have been raked over the coals in voting and comments on this site with his particular style.

Very much afraid that these DO NOT qualify as Ansel Adams prints. These would seem to be straight reproductions of negatives handed over to the government.

Perhaps I should have read the comments made by Bear_Music prior to starting my post.......he is dead on with his comments.

Ray

10/23/2005 02:04:51 AM · #16

Originally posted by RayEthier:

He wished to his dying day that the Gov't did not have that work of his. There are literally thousands upon thousands of photographic prints made from those negatives floating around with his name on them, and they are an embarrassment.

Robt.

10/23/2005 02:05:53 AM · #17

Sure does make me feel better about some of my "pre-editing" shots, though! LOL