TraditionalPhotographer.NET / Cameras & Accessories / Large Format Cameras / Was Ansel Adams blathering? / Latest Posts

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

naturephoto1 — Sun, 04 May 2008 17:37:05 GMT

I always try to pre-visualize the the finished image before I set up and fine tune the composition as I adjust the camera position and stop down, particularly with the view camera. I then try to visualize what I expect the transparency will look like as I adjust the exposure with or without filters including using warming filters, graduated filters or polarizing filters.

Rich

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:05:49 GMT

[quote][b]roteague (4/24/2008)[/b][hr]I was talking to a guy I work with, who is strictly a digital photographer. He is wondering why his website isn't doing better and I told him he needed to cut back on the number of pictures he has on it - the volume is just overwhelming. Seems he goes out and shoots, then upload hundreds of images at a time. Underscores what I've always felt - digital photographers shoot too much and don't evaluate the scene enough.

As an aside, I was out shooting my Chamonix with a 6x12 back last night, just after sunset. I had the digital camera that I was using for a light meter, but the exposure it keep recommending was just way too light. Next time, I'll either use my Sekonic or use my F6.[/quote]

Which brings us to another point. In order to have success you need to have failures as well. The lack of failures with digital IMO prevent people from learning, not only the process but the culling of the work as well. There is no way someone can come back home from a photo outing and have 600 good pictures, but then, what a PITA to sit on a computer and edit that many shots.

Well, at least you had the experience to know that your exposure was wrong, then again, shme on you fro chimping on the scene....LOL..

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

roteague — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:15:16 GMT

I was talking to a guy I work with, who is strictly a digital photographer. He is wondering why his website isn't doing better and I told him he needed to cut back on the number of pictures he has on it - the volume is just overwhelming. Seems he goes out and shoots, then upload hundreds of images at a time. Underscores what I've always felt - digital photographers shoot too much and don't evaluate the scene enough.

As an aside, I was out shooting my Chamonix with a 6x12 back last night, just after sunset. I had the digital camera that I was using for a light meter, but the exposure it keep recommending was just way too light. Next time, I'll either use my Sekonic or use my F6.

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:03:39 GMT

You suggested that?!? You heretic, uncouth barbarian...how dare you suggest someone spend sometime learning?!?... I am dissapointed in you!

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

eric rose — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:28:51 GMT

I agree with you Jorge. I got into a discussion with a budding photog over on PN who seemed to rely on PS to overcome his lack of photographic skill. He seems quite upset with me when I suggested he learn how to take a great pic without PS before he began using extra tools. Oh well, you can lead them to water ....

Generally I refuse to be drawn into digi vs film discussions. They go no where and just cause a lot of heart burn all around.

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:09:39 GMT

I think you are right, but those who do were the ones who used to have a discipline in film and then moved. I don't see this happening with people who start with digital, everything is photoshop this, photoshop that, everything seems to be done after the fact.

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

eric rose — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:49:40 GMT

It's so fun watching the digi boys "chimp" after each shot. Anyway back to your original question. I too pre-visualize the finished print prior to tripping the shutter. Oh course that doesn't limit me to only making that "print" when I am in the darkroom. Sometimes while in the darkroom the neg speaks to me in mysterious ways and I must follow these tangents LOL. In all fairness to the digi crowd I think the better practitioners of this genre also go through much the same thing.

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:31:11 GMT

I think it goes beyond creativity, it also includes learning from the action of taking photographs. Many times I have envisoned a finished print, tried to do all that I thought was necessary to get the desired results and have not gotten what I wanted. This forced me to learn, ask questions, ask "how do you...." I don't see the point of replicating what is displayed in a LCD screen, what do you learn? In fact, HOW CAN YOU LEARN?

When I first started with LF, I would get all exited about the image in GG, and I would forget to "think" about the image, obviously resulting in less than optimal results. It took me years to be able to "see" the print before I even pressed the shutter, but I am glad I took the effort to do it. The image "sunrise" that I posted here was one such print. Before I even pressed the shutter I knew how I was going to print it, and that I was going to display it upside down, now I am told by the digiheads that I am blathering, that a LCD screen is the ture measure of seeing a picture..... :w00t:

RE: Was Ansel Adams blathering?

roteague — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:13:22 GMT

Oh yes, this works just a well in color, although in my case the final pallete is the transparency itself. When I look at a scene I may take multiple meter readings of the subject before me. That helps me to determine if I need to use a split neutral density filter, and where to place the transition. Then I determine whether I need any filtration, this is done by experience (based upon past images) and by what I am trying to achieve in the image. Next comes the actual focusing process, where I determine where I want the focal point to be, and how much I want I want to be in focus.

This measured approach puts me more in touch with the image I am trying to make, and provides both a physical and emotional connection to the subject. I find that the in the end, my work is about more than the image itself, but also about my connection to the subject. This is probably the main reason I'm a landscape photographer, rather than a advertising photographer. I need that connection.

I'm glad you brought this up, the subject of creativity has been on my mind for sometime, and for me this all fits into having a "creative" attitude.

Was Ansel Adams blathering?

Jorge Gasteazoro — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:20:25 GMT

Well, it seems that now an LCD on a digital camera replaces visualization and judgment. Now, am I alone? HOw many here think about their shot, why they are taking it, and can "see" the finished print even before they press the shutter? I know I am not special, there is just no way I am the only who does this and by doing so obtains exactly what he wants in the final print.