| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/10/2002 07:10:24 PM · #1 |
"Good photography is not about Zone Printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."
- Elliott Erwitt (b. 1928)
Learn more about Elliott Erwitt HERE.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 07:43:56 PM · #2 |
Oh wow. This guy does it all doesn't he? I see journalism, candid, nude, scenery, the list goes on. This is one of the best black and white portfolios I've seen in a long time. He even has photos that I'm sure were contovercial for their time. I mean, this guy made spilled coffee look good.
He has 8 books listed on that site that are about him.
I really loved the photos took "way back when" that show the older hair styles and the way they dressed.
Thank you for sharing this! Great site.
~Heather~
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 07:53:13 PM · #3 |
I like the way that guy thinks :)
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 07:56:23 PM · #4 |
Right, that's why the bookstores are full of Ansel Adams' work and as i recall, who's this guy again? Calling Ansel Adams vision nonsense is pretty funny, actually, as if he's calling Ansel for not having a vision or not being able to see.
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
"Good photography is not about Zone Printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."
- Elliott Erwitt (b. 1928)
Learn more about Elliott Erwitt HERE.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 08:02:55 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Right, that's why the bookstores are full of Ansel Adams' work and as i recall, who's this guy again? Calling Ansel Adams vision nonsense is pretty funny, actually, as if he's calling Ansel for not having a vision or not being able to see.
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]"Good photography is not about Zone Printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."
- Elliott Erwitt (b. 1928)
Learn more about Elliott Erwitt HERE.
[/i]
Where in that quote do you see Erwitt speak of Adam's photography or vision? I believe he was referring to his 'theories' as nonsense. :)
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 10:03:36 PM · #6 |
Then he obviously didn't understand Adam's work with the zone system. The Zone system combines both the print + the negative to give more than the 4 F-stop of details that limits film's exposure, or 8 to 1 degrees of light/darkness. The human eyes sees 4000 to 1 degrees, and all he is doing is extending that through printing and proper exposure.
You don't need the Zone system to be "successful" but if you want your images to convey the maximum amount of details (which is really important for landscape work, not so much for the boring studio types since lighting is usually controlled and USUALLY do not have a great dynamic range), then it's very helpful.
I'm sorry if you like studio work :) no offense.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Right, that's why the bookstores are full of Ansel Adams' work and as i recall, who's this guy again? Calling Ansel Adams vision nonsense is pretty funny, actually, as if he's calling Ansel for not having a vision or not being able to see.
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]"Good photography is not about Zone Printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."
- Elliott Erwitt (b. 1928)
Learn more about Elliott Erwitt HERE.
[/i]
Where in that quote do you see Erwitt speak of Adam's photography or vision? I believe he was referring to his 'theories' as nonsense. :)
[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/10/2002 10:46:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 11:38:43 PM · #7 |
I would love to hear some more comments on this... I don't believe that this quote is really criticizing Ansel Adams at all...
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 12:39:44 AM · #8 |
okay..further comment...
I totally agree with Erwitt here in that 'good photography' is the product of one's ability to see and capture a subject/scene/mood. Someone without that natural ability could study thousands of techniques/'rules' and still never capture one image truly worthy of notice. Studying may help to hone one's photography skills...but those techniques/'rules' are worthless without talent.
I, for one, haven't picked up one book about photography...haven't read much about technique, composition, etc. I haven't even looked for images I would like to try to umm...COPY. :P I'm intentionally avoiding such influence to see where my natural abilities (limited as they may be) will take me. So far, I've found that I often compose a shot based on the rule of thirds without ever having studied it...it just *looks* right that way. I'm guessing I probably 'follow' other rules as well...but I wouldn't know because I don't know the rules.
As far as the Zone Printing part of the debate is concerned...that's post processing...not photography. Should it be allowed? Sure...why not (my images certainly aren't up to snuff without it). But is it photography?? Not to me.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 01:01:49 AM · #9 |
I'm sure that Erwitt was saying that a mere understanding or mastery of the physical and chemical relationships of light, lenses, and emulsions will not make one a "photographer." These are just tools the artist can use to convey their message more effectively, and perhaps more economically (fewer bad shots/prints).
To create the message-carrying image; to see (as I called it in another thread) the picture within a scene, and be able to capture, extract, improve, and communicate that vision, is what makes a "photographer."
Adams certainly had those abilities. In fact, his whole printing technique -- all the dodging and burning and stuff -- are intended to help the rest of us "see" what Adams saw: not a scientifically accurate color-map of the scene in front of him, but the "picture" within it.
That he is perhaps better-remembered for his pioneering technical achievements, or that we are so inundated with his images that we now just "look at but don't see" them is not his fault... |
|
|
|
10/11/2002 01:03:43 AM · #10 |
I'm pretty sure anyone who uses the "Levels" control or sets "White/Black Point" values is using a form of the Zone system.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 1:02:56 AM. |
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:17:17 AM · #11 |
That's where I disagree.
One can't separate the technical factor from the creative factor in making of a photograph. You can't have one without the other.
A musician have to PLAY IN TUNE, HAVE THE RIGHT RYTHYM, in order to give his passionate artistic performance. A passionate performance completely out of tune is unbearable to the listener and renders it pointless. Similarly, a photograph without technical merits would not be effective no matter how creative it is.
Adam's method is truly unique in that he is the pioneer of photography that combines both technical aspects AND creative aspects into a single medium. That's why everyone has heard of Ansel Adams but not everyone knows who Elliot Erwitt is.
Through his Zone system, he extended photograph's range to capture light greater than it was possible. His method would not work on transparencies as well as it would with engatives (transparencies meaning slides), but it is still revolutionary in his time. When he makes a photograph, he's not only seeing hte creative side, he's also thinking about what the photograph would look like in the end via the printing method.
How many of you have made a photograph PURPOSELY underexposed or overexposed to get this? That is, you purposely underexpose it for a reason and ignored the "high tech matrix 3D blah blah blah" exposure system? I'll give you an example: my CD photo with the color reflection was about 1 1/2 stop UNDEREXPOSED than what the meter system tells me. The rainbow when you underexpose it will darken the color and create more saturation. By underexposing it, i can then use photoshop to extend that range even further with levels, without underexposing it, i could still do the same but i will end up with MORE NOISES. The rainbow was actually quite bright. The obvious side effect is that the walls will not be milky white but will turn gray due to the underexposure, but that's a compromise i am willing to live with.
Yes, in conclusion, a major part of photography is seeing and that's the part that i am constantly working on, but the other major part is the technical side of it. One cannot live without the other. You can always just use your camera's auto exposure system, for example, and except during low light or weird light conditions (such as sunsets) it will work very well in MOST situation, but if you want to use the ability of the camera to its limits, you have to understand the technical aspects of exposure and PRINTING (or PHOTOSHOP/PRINTPRO/GIMP/YOUR FAVORITE editor in today's world).
Originally posted by Lisa:
okay..further comment...
I totally agree with Erwitt here in that 'good photography' is the product of one's ability to see and capture a subject/scene/mood. Someone without that natural ability could study thousands of techniques/'rules' and still never capture one image truly worthy of notice. Studying may help to hone one's photography skills...but those techniques/'rules' are worthless without talent.
I, for one, haven't picked up one book about photography...haven't read much about technique, composition, etc. I haven't even looked for images I would like to try to umm...COPY. :P I'm intentionally avoiding such influence to see where my natural abilities (limited as they may be) will take me. So far, I've found that I often compose a shot based on the rule of thirds without ever having studied it...it just *looks* right that way. I'm guessing I probably 'follow' other rules as well...but I wouldn't know because I don't know the rules.
As far as the Zone Printing part of the debate is concerned...that's post processing...not photography. Should it be allowed? Sure...why not (my images certainly aren't up to snuff without it). But is it photography?? Not to me.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 10:58:34 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:55:35 AM · #12 |
This quote is very similar to something I said (much less concisely) in another thread, so yes, I agree with it. And by the way, not "everyone" has heard of Ansel Adams. I think I had probably heard that name once or twice before being a participant here, but never in any context that made me remember him. I looked him up after hearing about him so much on DPC, and he's always described as "An American Icon" so I guess that might be why.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 09:47:26 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by lisae:
This quote is very similar to something I said (much less concisely) in another thread, so yes, I agree with it. And by the way, not "everyone" has heard of Ansel Adams. I think I had probably heard that name once or twice before being a participant here, but never in any context that made me remember him. I looked him up after hearing about him so much on DPC, and he's always described as "An American Icon" so I guess that might be why.
I'd agree, shops and photobooks and US web sites here are obsessed with him
I'd never heard his name before moving here. Mainly because most of
his work was in the American national parks.
But I do agree on the need for a harmonious combination of artistic
and technical skills, both prior to pressing the shutter and during
the final processing. Both parts are certainly photography and
required to fully show someone what you saw.
Photography doesn't end with the pressing of the shutter. At best
you are half way done, often not even that far along in the process.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 11:07:44 AM · #14 |
I believe Ansel was one of the earliest landscape photographers around.
Maybe it's because when Erwitt made the quote in 1928, Adams didn't reach his peak until the 1930's and of course one of his most dramatic print in 1940 of Winter Clearing in Yosemite. It'll be interesting to see Erwitt's feeling toward Adams in the 1940s after he show the world how his Zone system works.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 11:48:58 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by paganini:
I believe Ansel was one of the earliest landscape photographers around.
Maybe it's because when Erwitt made the quote in 1928, Adams didn't reach his peak until the 1930's and of course one of his most dramatic print in 1940 of Winter Clearing in Yosemite. It'll be interesting to see Erwitt's feeling toward Adams in the 1940s after he show the world how his Zone system works.
The quote wasn't made in 1928. That's when Erwitt was born. I think the quote may have been fairly recent. It was taken from the Aug/Sep 2002 issue of Lenswork magazine...
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 12:08:38 PM · #16 |
Then i wonder what this guy thinks of digital photography? Invariably the zone system was the way to extend contrast and detail levels of a photograph through chemical processes, similar to digital's dynamic range capability of the CCD/CMOS sensor in conjunction with photoshop. I wouldn't doubt if he also doesn't like digital photography.
And after looking at Erwitt's work, it seems he's more of the "photojournalistic" type, than the "landscape" type. Ansel's work with the large format camera is not very practical on photojournalistic photos, it's a different era. I mean, when you shoot at F64 aperature with a large format, the exposure time takes minutes :-) (The F64 photography group still exist, and they only take photos at F64 aperature, giving it the maximum depth of field possible)
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I believe Ansel was one of the earliest landscape photographers around.
Maybe it's because when Erwitt made the quote in 1928, Adams didn't reach his peak until the 1930's and of course one of his most dramatic print in 1940 of Winter Clearing in Yosemite. It'll be interesting to see Erwitt's feeling toward Adams in the 1940s after he show the world how his Zone system works.
The quote wasn't made in 1928. That's when Erwitt was born. I think the quote may have been fairly recent. It was taken from the Aug/Sep 2002 issue of Lenswork magazine...
[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 12:13:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 01:10:29 PM · #17 |
This discussion of post-editing being an integral part of photography has my mind boggled. All along I've been aspiring to gain enough knowledge/control of my camera and equipment so I would be able to produce that 'perfect' image with the release of my shutter button. Surely, I haven't set an unattainable goal for myself...as I know there are a few people on dpc that submit incredible photos with little or no post-editing. :)
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 01:18:43 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Lisa:
This discussion of post-editing being an integral part of photography has my mind boggled. All along I've been aspiring to gain enough knowledge/control of my camera and equipment so I would be able to produce that 'perfect' image with the release of my shutter button. Surely, I haven't set an unattainable goal for myself...as I know there are a few people on dpc that submit incredible photos with little or no post-editing. :)
I usually just draw the analogy with traditional print photography.
Sure some people use the one-hour photo lab, but more often, particularly for fine art photography, people expend a lot of effort
developing the image correctly, selecting the correct type of paper/
contrast/ chemical mix etc to realise the image they had in their
head.
Getting everything as good as possible before you take the shutter
is the right approach. Getting it exposed right is the right approach.
I'm not suggesting 'fixing' things later, I just mean finishing things off properly.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 01:21:04 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
"Good photography is not about Zone Printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."
- Elliott Erwitt (b. 1928)
My take on this quote is that photography isn't about the technical side, which often people get lost in, obsessing over zone systems,
pixel numbers, papers, sharpening approaches, lens optics etc. There are plenty of photographers that to them, this is all photography is about.
All the best technical stuff in the world is meaningless if you can't
see and compose an interesting picture. I think the zone system and
similar stuff is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures.
That's all this quote is saying, the photographer feels that a good image is the essence of good photography, rather than 'perfect' technique. Of course you need the technique to be good, but it isn't
the point, or the end. It is part of the means to the end. You can
learn the technical stuff, perhaps you can't learn all the artistic stuff.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 1:18:59 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 1:20:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:04:27 PM · #20 |
What a great thread. I agree a lot with Lisa in that part of me doesn't want to get too influenced with what other photographers are doing because I want to see where my own vision takes me. I also think it is good not to focus too much on the technical stuff, at least when you are out shooting. I'll try to make this point clearer. I love playing pool a great deal and enjoy reading up on techniques to improve my game but when I am at the table shooting my shots I will usually only focus on one particular technique at that time because 1) it is difficult to focus completely on more than one technique at a time and 2) it can greatly take away my rythm and timing, causing me to shoot worse. Similarilary with photography I think it is important to be fluid and in a rythm so you will be ready to capture shots that occur quickly and for discovering photo opportunities. You want to study the technical aspects before hand so that they are with you almost subconsciously when you need them. I know I will still forget some important setting on my camera but I am seeing more opportunities. I will usually set my camera on full auto for the first shot just to make sure I get a shot before I switch to manual and attemp to be creative. Like with so many things, sports, music, public speaking, it is about developing your own rythm and the technical stuff should always be there in the background for support.
T
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:18:18 PM · #21 |
Paganini said: Adam's method is truly unique in that he is the pioneer of photography that combines both technical aspects AND creative aspects into a single medium. That's why everyone has heard of Ansel Adams but not everyone knows who Elliot Erwitt is.
I strongly disagree with this comment. Mr. Adams work speaks for itself. I have nothing but the highest regard for the man, his vision and his work. With that being said, there have been and will continue to be many GREAT photographers whos work will never become famous. Mr. Adams had a clear vision far beyond the photograph. His marketing staff was innovative in their approach to getting his name and fine art work into the hands of the right people.
Elliot Erwitt's work as well as many other great photographers who's names may never become a household word, is in no way less of a photographer. I believe every artist should have their own vision.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:40:37 PM · #22 |
Part of Adams' success is because his image makes a huge impact on the viewer and part of that is the technical aspect he puts into the photograph that OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS AT THE TIME do not.
His Zone system has been adapted to everything now. We owe the Matrix 3D exposure system (by Nikon) or whatever segmented-matrix metering system in our cameras to Ansel's original Zone system. He came up with a systematic way to measure exposure, where prior to that, there was no such system and photographers for the most part are using intuitive feel to get the exposure and often not suceeding.
I am not ssaying Erwitt's work is good or bad, but i am saying his quote is just not correct about the Zone system. He had the advantage of using the zone system decades after Adams produced his most memorable work in the 30's in the modern day camera systems. Part of the Zone system deals with how to calculate the correct exposure by spot metering different shades in the scene and calculate the exposure based on each shades of "gray". If all of them matches to a single exposure, then the person probably has it calculated correctly to what he wanted to see. That's basically the basis of segmented metering system: Take a frame, divided into zones, and calculate the exposure on each zone and merge the results together.
Originally posted by Gotcha:
Paganini said: Adam's method is truly unique in that he is the pioneer of photography that combines both technical aspects AND creative aspects into a single medium. That's why everyone has heard of Ansel Adams but not everyone knows who Elliot Erwitt is.
I strongly disagree with this comment. Mr. Adams work speaks for itself. I have nothing but the highest regard for the man, his vision and his work. With that being said, there have been and will continue to be many GREAT photographers whos work will never become famous. Mr. Adams had a clear vision far beyond the photograph. His marketing staff was innovative in their approach to getting his name and fine art work into the hands of the right people.
Elliot Erwitt's work as well as many other great photographers who's names may never become a household word, is in no way less of a photographer. I believe every artist should have their own vision.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:47:43 PM · #23 |
Do you even understand what Zone system is? You said "Zone system is responsible for the most lifeless blah blahb photographs in the world". Uh, no. NO one, not even Adams, has claimed Zone system works by itself. I don't mean to say that there aren't people out there who just take a great "snapshot" of something and think it's the best photograph (and often on DPC those photographs gets the highest rating), but to say that Adams Zone system is RESPONSIBLE is totally false. That's like saying a gun is responsible for shooting someone without the actual person pulling the trigger. THe Zone system is a method of exposure calculation, and that's it.
The point is, anyone who ignores good technical values in a photograph will fail as a photographer, just as anyone who makes a perfectly technically good photograph without vision would fail as a photographer. They are equally important. And for some photographer to basically say "well, the zone system is irrelevant" is simply irresponsible. Erwitt is probably using a modern day camera with a metering system advanced enough to calculate exposure, etc. so he can claim that it wasn't important. In Adams time, that was not possible!
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]"Good photography is not about Zone Printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."
- Elliott Erwitt (b. 1928)
My take on this quote is that photography isn't about the technical side, which often people get lost in, obsessing over zone systems,
pixel numbers, papers, sharpening approaches, lens optics etc. There are plenty of photographers that to them, this is all photography is about.
All the best technical stuff in the world is meaningless if you can't
see and compose an interesting picture. I think the zone system and
similar stuff is responsible for some of the worlds most technically
perfect, lifeless, dull, boring pictures.
That's all this quote is saying, the photographer feels that a good image is the essence of good photography, rather than 'perfect' technique. Of course you need the technique to be good, but it isn't
the point, or the end. It is part of the means to the end. You can
learn the technical stuff, perhaps you can't learn all the artistic stuff.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:53:38 PM · #24 |
There is a way to do this:
Use manual mode, no in camera metering, etc. and shoot your photo in RAW mode and see what your photo looks like :)
your digital camera does a lot more than just taking the photo. it does exposure calculation, sharpening of the photographs, contrast and white balancing adjustment. All of it is done during the time you press the shutter and aftwards, you just don't know about it because a computer is doing it for you.
Originally posted by Lisa:
This discussion of post-editing being an integral part of photography has my mind boggled. All along I've been aspiring to gain enough knowledge/control of my camera and equipment so I would be able to produce that 'perfect' image with the release of my shutter button. Surely, I haven't set an unattainable goal for myself...as I know there are a few people on dpc that submit incredible photos with little or no post-editing. :)
|
|
|
|
10/11/2002 02:59:43 PM · #25 |
oops
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/11/2002 2:59:54 PM. |
|
