Digital BW, The Print

Mark  

LOL.  How could you be so naïve?  This list is 80% about debating ad nausea
a limited number of topics:  film vs digital, matte vs photo paper, fine art
vs all the rest, whether technical knowledge is necessary, whether the old
guys would like today's technology and processes, from time to time Mac vs
PC...  Have I left much out?  Probably not. ;-)

Personally I don't give a rat's arse about Ansel's work (or that of any
other photographer and I certainly don't care about their upbringings or
other personal interests) except for the point that I think he exhibited an
underlying discipline and technical knowledge that allowed him to achieve on
paper what he had in his mind's eye.  (Flick through the images in Ansel
Adams at a Hundred and you realise that he was severely encumbered by the
technical and mechanical limitations of his day.)

This list is meant to be about, I think, using digital technologies to make
prints.  That is, it is about technology, materials and technique.  I don't
care if you take "good" pictures, "bad" pictures, whether they are deemed
"fine art" or personal scrapbook work. (Although I would be curious as to
what percentage of people on this list actually make a living - not in
retirement - from selling their prints.  It would be very interesting to
have a look at the demographics of this group given it is quite clearly
global and has a huge following.F or example, how many just do B&W?  How
many are hobbyists vs professionals, printers vs photographers etc etc.  I
don't know if it is possible to do some sort of electronic survey...)

People come here to learn about digital printing techniques, because they
want to do better at realising whatever it is they have/had in their mind's
eye.  By its very nature it is the technical end of the sport.  The ONLY
pervasive lesson to be learnt from Ansel in this regard was his discipline
to learning and applying the technical end of photography - his rigour in
understanding the materials and equipment he worked with to take his
pre-visualised image through the camera and storage medium (in his case
film) to the final print.  It doesn't matter who you are, what you like or
what form of photography you do, either way you can learn this lesson from
Ansel.

That's not to say that the original post which pointed us to some
interesting stuff was off-the-mark.   It is always useful to be pointed to
interesting material - even if the curator comments had to have been the
biggest load of waffle I had heard in a long time.

Steve


> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:56:18 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] For You Ansel Adams Fans
> 
> What does any of this have to do with DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint ?
> I thought this e-group was about digital printmaking not the history
> of photography?
> Mark
> 
> On Jun 15, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Djon wrote:
> 
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
>> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>>> I'd go one step further.  Not only did he have vision as to the
>> final image
>>> but he had an enormous understanding of the technical requirements
>> of his
>>> chosen mode of expression.  Witness the interview when he talks
>> about having
>>> to calculate the exposure for that capture.  One must not only
>> have a flair
>>> or taste for what is a good image -  a critic has these qualities.
>> 
>> Not quite. Critics can be valuable but they are analysts and
>> talkers, not doers.
>> 
>> Ansel's "calculations" are traditional process,  organized and
>> refined by him with Minor White (co-creator of "Zone System" and IMO
>> better photographer and teacher from important perspectives)... not
>> to mention other people who used and mentored the same techniques
>> without popularising them.
>> 
>>   One must
>>> also have a true understanding of the technical requirements and
>> limitations
>>> involved in bringing that vision to reality.  As he stressed
>> repeatedly,
>>> skill at both is required of a good photographer.
>> 
>> Not true at all.
>> 
>> Ansel learned, helped organize, and taught *a possible approach to a
>> narrow range of photography.* There are/were many other "good
>> photographers" (his equals) who didn't/don't: people like Henri
>> Cartier Bresson, Joseph Muench, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon and,
>> more recently, Sebastio Salgado...obvious examples.
>> 
>> Ansel was important as a teacher within one narrow genre, as
>> important for his support of the Sierra Club and its members
>> enthusiasm for the Sierra Nevada Mts and environmentalism generally.
>> 
>> He was very analytic, lacking broad interests and emotional
>> complexity IMO. He didn't appreciate the excitement of his home town
>> in his youth (San Francisco), the greatest music of his own youth
>> (jazz), never explored color photography to anything like the depth
>> of his peers.
>> 
>> He was a fine portrait photographer (IMO should have done more) and
>> did good industrial work. He was very successful selling prints and
>> reproduction rights, from the early Sixties (eg "Half Dome" Hills
>> Brothers 5# coffee cans that seemed to grow marijuana seedlings in
>> every kitchen window in Northern California).
>> 
>