In2SciFi

I try to keep an eye on any commentary about Ansel Adams because I consider him an inspiration. Today, I found a blog entry labeled ‘“Moon Over Hernandez” An insight into Ansel Adams’ about my favorite photographer. Imagine my delight to find it was a video of an interview with his son from a blog entry ‘ A Visit to Ansel Adams’ Home’ which was published last year at silberstudios.tv. How I missed it, I don’t know, but I’m glad to have found it.

Don’t expect any profound revelations, they’re not here, but do expect some interesting insight into Ansel’s work on one of his most famous photographs, ‘Moonrise, Hernandez , New Mexico‘. One of the interesting insights provided by his son, who was there when the picture was taken, was how much work Ansel did to create the masterpiece we see. He shows how the photo looked when printed straight as well as Ansel’s notes about how he modified the image in the darkroom. Looking at the difference just heightens my conviction that Ansel Adams would have taken wholeheartedly to the Digital Darkroom and would have been a master at it, setting the standard for craftsmanship.

For me, one of the major points here, illustrated by the video, is the mastery of every phase of the process. Many people I’ve talked to seem to be under the impression that Adams never did anything more than minor touch up work, that the images were complete in the camera except for necessary spotting and such. This video shows clearly how this isn’t the case.

The original, unmodified print makes it clear that ‘Moonrise’ started with an image that in itself wasn’t very impressive. Once in the darkroom, Adams worked on the image step-by-step until he was able to produce the image he wanted. The video doesn’t address it, but it seems clear that Adams visualization of the image was far more than what you can see on the bare print.

I’m sure Adams would point out that you can’t take just any image and turn it into a masterpiece, but even a masterpiece evolves through a process that brings out the potential through craftsmanlike handling of the artist’s tools. What’s more, his notes about what he did could serve as guidelines to reproduce what he did in making additional prints. Even with all of our automated tools available to us, a plain, old-fashioned notebook can still provide useful insight to help us learn from our mistakes or to reproduce what needs to be done.

I have to admit that my personal favorites among Adams images are mountains such as his photos of the Tetons:

but I can’t think of any of his images that I don’t admire. I can get lost in his images, always finding something new.

One of my favorite pastimes is trying to ‘visualize in reverse’, a habit Adams suggested. Starting with a photograph, I try to see the scene as the photographer saw it, then try to re-visualize it for myself. How would I have visualized the scene and captured it to realize my visualization? Adams himself advocates doing that as one of the many ways of learning to visualize.

We ignore Ansel Adams at our peril. Many people I’ve spoken to see nothing in Adams work remotely comparable with Digital Photography, yet if you take the time to read his works on Polaroid Photography, you’ll quickly come to understand that it was the instantaneous result that most impressed him and made ‘Instant Photography’ an important tool in his arsenal.

Adams book ‘Polaroid Land Photography’ is an excellent treatise on the use of instant photography. Both Adams and Minor White saw the potential in instant photography as early as the 1950’s and worked extensively with it from that time forward. The book was originally published in 1963 and focuses on the role of craftsmanship in the use of Polaroid materials. Much of what he wrote could be rewritten with ‘Digital Photography’ substituted for ‘Polaroid Land Photography’ without loss of meaning. For example, in his chapter on Visualization on p75, we might take

“Obviously, using Polaroid Land films calls for adjusting our image visualization to accommodate the process”

could be rewritten as

“Obviously, using Digital Sensors calls for adjusting our image visualization to accommodate the process”.

It’s my feeling that not only would Ansel Adams have taken to Digital Photography in a big way, but he would have shown us that the Zone System is applicable to Digital photography as well.
I’ve read many authors claiming the Zone System just isn’t applicable to Digital Photography. Michael Freeman in his book Perfect Exposure says: “While the Zone System, as invented, is fairly pointless for digital photography, and completely pointless when shooting Raw, the principle of analyzing scenes and images in zones is a good one.” (P134) Certainly it wouldn’t survive as exposure control tied to a set of chemical processes, but I think Adams would have shown us that it IS applicable if you go back to the conceptual basis for the Zone System itself.

As I see it, what the Zone system is all about is very simply being able to create the print you visualize when you’re standing in front of the scene getting ready to make an exposure. It’s about knowing EVERY step between visualization and print so well that you can accurately see the result in your minds eye when you click the shutter. It doesn’t matter whether the processes are chemical or digital or something else, what matters is that you have such a command of your tools that you can visualize the result and produce it when it comes time to print.

Ansel Adams speaks about “careful craftsmanship” frequently in his books. For him, craftsmanship is basic to good art because you must have command of your tools, whether they’re paint, pencils, camera, or photoshop. You need to know exactly what the effect of each tool is and how one can manipulate it. He’s quite explicit when on page 72 of ‘Polaroid Land Photography’ he says: “Our ability to achieve the desired image will … be limited by our mastery of craft. … craft is the thorough understanding of the process and the facility of expressing this understanding with intuitive efficiency.”

I believe Adams would have embraced digital photography and become an expert in Photoshop. His philosophy was one of total control from the exposure to the final print, and he would have applied that to digital photography by mastering the tools include Adobe Camera Raw, Photoshop, and any other tool he found of interest. He was looking forward to the experience when in 1983 he said:

“I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.” (quote from photoquotes.com)

Unfortunately he died in April, 1984 before he could see Digital Photography really flower into the tool it has become.

To get a feeling for how Ansel would have worked with Digital Photography, I think the best example is Polaroid Land Photography. I’ll be taking some time to see what he has to say later.

One of the best ways to learn to control your tools is to experiment with them. This picture was a set of fairly dull picture taken of some trees during a rainstorm. I stitched together 4 pictures from the bottom to the top of the trees, then applied a curves layer experimenting with the curves to see the impact of local adjustments in specific contrast ranges. Playing like this is what helps you to learn your tools.


Color Experiment

How much do you REALLY see when you set out to take a picture? Do you ‘see but not observe’ to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘A Study in Scarlet’)? Ansel Adams spends some time talking about the difference between what you see and what the camera sees. “The eye has enormous selective power.” (’Camera & Lens’, p17). Our visual system can take in an enormous amount of detail and without any conscious thought, can focus on parts of what we see, adjusting for lighting conditions and isolating a subject from the surroundings. We have an amazing visual system, but that wonderful visual system is the enemy of good photography.

“ … Our lens does not share our excitement and selectivity; it merely records - with faithful observance of the geometric rules of perspective, image size, etc.” (’Camera & Lens’, p17). How many times have you heard someone say how disappointed they were with a picture because it wasn’t what they SAW? It happens especially with landscapes, a view that strikes you and causes you to take a picture but only to find that the elements that were so impressive seem to have lost their grandeur when captured on film.

Visualization, as Adams explains it, is seeing as the camera sees with all of it’s limitations. George DeWolfe in his book ‘Digital Masters: B&W Printing’ puts it like this: “The fundamental error in what both the sensor of a camera and the retina of the eye see is that it is not what is perceived in the brain as visually real.” (B&W Printing p35). He goes on to say that:

1. “We need to see like the camera sees in order to capture an accurate two-dimensional luminance image.”
2. “… we need to manipulate the luminance image to conform to our perception of the subject or scene …”

(B&W Printing p35)

As I starting thinking through what I wanted to say here about seeing, a very good post made it online at the Digital Photography School web site called 4 Practice Techniques to Develop Photographic Observation by Christina N Dickson. The focus of this post is that we ALL need to practice observation (or seeing or in Adams terms Visualization). Dickson’s advice boils down to:

1. Analyze - look at an object in depth and notice everything about it that you can
2. Exhaust Perspective - take as many pictures as you can of a single object from as many different perspectives as you can
3. Evaluate your Locations - analyze the location you’re shooting at in depth, take nothing for granted
4. Take Pictures in your Mind - create images in your mind from what you see around you, visualize whether you have a camera at hand or not

Many years ago, I started to draw more seriously. I didn’t do this because I had any talent. I don’t. My motivation was to force myself to SEE what is actually there in front of me without the normal processing the Human Visual System imposes on everything we see. Just recently, while reading DeWolfe’s book, I found this advice about learning to see: “In order to take good photographs, we first have to see two-dimensional space, the space of the retina and camera sensor. … The easiest way I know to learn to see two-dimensional space is through the art of drawing.” (B&W Printing p36).

DeWolfe goes on to recommend Betty Edwards book ‘Drawing on the Right Aide of the Brain’ as a good resource if you’re learning to draw. That and her workbook ‘The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain Workboo’k a more than enough to help you SEE better.

I started with Edwards book ‘Drawing on the Artist Within’ which I found first, but the first two books are the best, at least for me.

Personally, I tried dozens of books and always felt that they didn’t really help me. They seemed to assume a talent I lacked. Edwards’ books were different. I found them enjoyable and they helped me to really SEE. As bad as I still am at drawing, it has immeasurably improved my photography by making me more aware of what is REALLY there.


Waiting for a Plane at the Houston Airport

Working late in my room

Practice makes perfect when it comes to seeing like a camera. Adams talks about ‘Dry Shooting’ (Camera & Lens, pp 15 & 35-37). “The photographer should constantly practice ’seeing’ images, establishing shape relationships; exploring relative scale of subject and space, avoiding mergers of edge and shape, etc., in the world about him.” (’Camera & Lens’ p37).

Adams describes ‘dry shooting’ like this: “ … select something that presents both an opportunity and a problem: visualize, setup the camera, compose, focus, read the luminances, determine exposure and related development, etc. - But you do not actually make the picture!” Based on Adams writings about Polaroid Photography and it’s use as feedback, I feel sure that if he were writing today, he’d actually recommend taking the digital picture and then spending some time comparing it to your visualization. However far you carry it, it’s good practice. For myself, I try to think like a camera every day, whether I’ve got a camera with me or not (actually, I’m rarely without some means to taking a photo … more on this some other time). I try to look at something and see it as a photograph.

Digital cameras make it so easy to capture a picture, any picture, that there is almost no excuse for not having an image to review. During a return trip from Southern California, I had only my TREO 600 cell phone with me, but I loved the view of Mt Shasta visible from the rest stop at the Weed Airport northwest of the mountain. With no control, no choices, and a fixed lens, I still wanted to capture the mountain as I saw it in it’s surroundings. Handholding my phone, bracing against my car, I took a series of pictures back and forth across the mountain then stitched them together in Photoshop to create the image I ’saw’ in looking at the mountain. I’ve come back with proper equipment and done this picture several times, but none of my attempts pleases me as much as this flawed image which still makes me feel as awed by the mountain as I have always been.

Mount Shasta from the Weed Airport Rest Step Northbound

Space, and the twelve clean winds are here;
And with them broods eternity—a swift, white peace,
       a presence manifest.
The rhythm ceases here. Time has no place.
       This is the end that has no end.

from Tietjens, The Most-Sacred Mountain
also quoted in Robert Heinlein, ‘Lost Legacy,’
a 1941 novella included in the book
‘Assignment in Eternity’