Generally my experience as well, but I'm stuck now with only considering
that opinion valid for me and those who happen to agree with me. :-)
Some of the very high quality poster reporoductions s almost capture the
feeling of the originals, but others miss the mark pretty far. It is
also useful to know that he printed some of those negs many times over
his lifetime and not always the same way.
I was lucky enough many years ago to stumble upon an exhibit of his
prints that was quite different in that it had multiple prints some of
the same photos. In at least two cases it had straight prints without
any darkroom manipulation beside one or two "finished" prints. If I
recall correctly, one straight print had his instructions to himself for
printing it marked on the print. The New Mexico shot with the crosses
glowing in the moonlight is pretty ordinary looking in a straight print.
The difference was less dramatic in the other example, a Yosemite
landscape, but it was still the difference between "Nice image." and "Wow".
I said "generally" above because I've seen an exhibit of a number of his
images from early in his professional career. These were shots of the
campus and students of a Catholic college in Marin. Perfectly
professional, but no real hint, sans hindsight, of what was to come.
Moose
Earl Dunbar wrote:
>Interesting. Each time I've seen original Adams prints, I've been blown
>away.
>
>Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
>
>>>Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>I saw some Ansel Adams original prints a few years back, I wasn't too
>>impressed by
>>them, even the technical quality wasn't up to what I was expecting.
>>
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|