Re: [Leica] Ansel Adams/John Wimberley WAS Mapplethorpe, high qua ilty porn

[Dean Chance <mreyebal@pacbell.net>]

on 12/5/00 12:36 AM, Rodgers, David at david.rodgers@xo.com wrote:

> Dean
> 
>>> I was once shocked to see a quote from Elliott Erwitt which went, in part,
> "...this is not the same thing as the quality of Ansel Adams, which, if I
> may say so, is the quality of a postcard."<<
> 
> Everyone looks at art through the veil of their own emotions and life's
> experiences. EE was right in that there's a "postcardish" quality to Adams'
> photographs. But I think he's reflecting the subject matter, and not the
> technical printing quality. When I look at Erwitt's work he always seems to
> hold subject matter above technical quality. I'm not saying his stuff is
> technically poor. He just wasn't a printer like Adams. Nor was Erwitt into
> scenic photography, that I've seen. I'm guessing that's what he meant by
> "quality of a postcard".
> 
> Speaking of interpretive veils, I used to look at every b/w image and wonder
> whether or not it was taken with a Leica. Now I wonder if it's a digital or
> a chemical print. Sometimes it's a curse because I can't seem to enjoy a
> photograph for what it is....which is a photograph.
> 
> Dave

Yes, so much of this stuff gets in the way once your start taking pictures
yourself. I like EE's pictures. He likes to say that's it's a matter of
intent, not technique. Like R. Frank's "The American's." Everything is
technically wrong, EE notes, but the pictures work as Frank intended anyway.
One note about the AA "postcard" comment. One reason we react this way to
AA's work is because we tend to see it on postcards a lot. As I mentioned in
an earlier post, I have seen some of AA's own prints in person and the
experience is quite overwhelming. But...they're not my kind of pictures.
It's important to remember that AA's technical mastery was not just about
printing. He did a lot of manipulation in the field as well...filters,
exposure, etc. and also a lot of manipulation when developing negatives,
either compressing or expanding the development as needed. The same people
who throw fits over digital manipulation always accuse me of lying when I
mention how worked over AA's images are. "Straight Photography" could never
have produced these images. Half Dome actually looks kind of dumpy in a
straight photo, kind of like a giant thumb. AA'S ability to previsualize the
results he wanted, then make the adjustments at every phase in the
production of the finished image still impresses me. Yet, I am not moved.
Other people are.