The biggest debate about AA is his work as an artist. He brought beautiful
pictures into homes and offices. Many critics claimed it was all technical
wizardry absent any interpretation (that's what artists are "supposed" to
do = see and interpret). I thought it was well known in photographic
circles that he did many darkroom techniques. In fact, he often
meticulously proscribed them, and usually had darkroom assistants copy off
the work in limited editions to his exact instructions and specificatons.
His famous work was all large format. It was a small studio factory, not
unlike that of many famous artists, sculptors, etc... that he ran. I see
his work as technically brilliant - and I do enjoy many of the great ones.
I think the secondary message is that nature is beautiful. Nothing more
powerful beyond that. I would not put him at the top of MY favorite
photographers, because I focus (pun intended) more on interpretation than
on technique.
Benson
In my opinion, some recent comments about the techniques of Ansel are
rather too harsh, and I suggest, reflect that the writers may not have
understood what ( I understand to have been ) Ansel's goals when doing
photography.
I've read many of his books but do not even pretend to understand all his
reasoning. However, it seems to be that a major goal he had, maybe the
main one, was to produce outstanding prints. All the things on the way were
something he used to achieve that end. And he was a master of the medium.
Reflect on how he worked.
He would find a subject.
Then he would envisage how he wanted it to appear in the print, and
compose an image in the camera view-finder (excuse me - ground glass
screen).
But just before that he would decide on the film to load, decision based on
his knowledge of film properties. He would decide on a lens, often screwing
and unscrewing the components of doublets etc.
Then he would take an exposure reading, and, using the Zone System
(which HE invented) would decide on the exposure to give the negative,
based on the previous decisions he had made; in order to impart to the
negative the degree of dark to shadows, to not wash out highlights he valued
in the scene etc etc..
Then he would make the exposure.
On getting home, he would decide on one of MANY negative development
techniques he had at his disposal, taking into account what he had
envisaged using when he took the shot. He wrote a whole book about this
part of the deal.
Having got a developed, fixed and dried negative, he would assess it and
then decide on the kind and grade of printing paper (multiple choice
question), and the cropping needed to be done.
And then he would make the exposure in the enlarger, burning and dodging
to create the print image he envisaged at the time of the exposure - or to
create a version he had since realised was possible but different. Then he
would develop and fix the print.
Later he would spot out dust marks etc and possibly even tone parts of it.
He wrote a whole book about this too.
I suspect that very few of us put so much effort in the creation of one image
that Ansel did. And in addition, especially in his younger years, he would
spend whole weekends lugging VERY heavy cameras and tripods up and
down very steep terrain that many of us would not even contemplate without
using climbing ropes, just to get special shots. For example.
And what did he get from all this?
Outstanding prints that have brought his everlasting fame and our enjoyment,
and hopefully his family some continued income.
Cheers, Brian
*********************************************
Benson Honig Ph.D.
University of Haifa
Graduate School of Business
Tel: 972-4-8249582
Fax: 972-4-8249194
Cellphone 053-748972
E-mail: benson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|