Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Ansel Adams and digital
From: sethrosner at nycap.rr.com (Seth Rosner)
Date: Tue Jan 13 13:23:33 2009
References: <C5926CCB.4833B%mark@rabinergroup.com>

It's what the b+w image evokes in the viewer that matters, eh Mark? Not what 
the fellow standing next to the photographer sees while you're making your 
photograph.

S.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabinergroup.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Ansel Adams and digital


> You put a dark red or green filter on something, deep yellow even and your
> interpretation of the shot is in your minds eye is certainly is not what
> everybody else is seeing when they're standing next to you watching you 
> take
> the photo or what they're probably getting in their Brownies.
> AA's filtration was as often as not not all the subtle.
> He's critised about that; by people who no doubt walk around feeling great
> about how subtle they all are.
> But it fits my tastes perfectly. As in black and white landscapes I tend 
> to
> go for the gusto as well.
> Realistic NOT I think as dramatic effect is possibility as most often the
> intention. A shot that would knock your socks off.
> All I ever asked from a picture...
> Mine or what I'm looking at.
>
> The f64 ethic meant get it all in focus no fuzzy wuzzie pseudo art but it
> didn't not mean having things look realistic.
> Or look like they'd really look in a "straight" black and white shot.
>
>
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
>> From: TCB <tcb@thadbrown.com>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:48:06 -0600
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Ansel Adams and digital
>>
>> Indeed. I was just flipping through 'The Negative' again and AA suggests 
>> doing
>> a
>> polaroid before exposing a negative, instead of taking two negatives,
>> developing
>> one in the lab, and then developing the second according to the first. 
>> The
>> funny
>> thing is that my D300 has more or less devolved to doing this job. When 
>> I'm
>> trying to be 'serious' and shooting MF I put my D300 on the tripod first. 
>> I
>> like
>> to shoot a lot of low and night things, so exposures can vary pretty 
>> wildly.
>> The
>> D300 gives me an LCD and a histogram to read to get an idea of what's 
>> what
>> with
>> shadows and highlights, just like a polaroid.
>>
>> The other funny thing in 'The Negative' that I ran across was the closest
>> thing
>> you'll ever to an AA 'rant.' It was something like, 'I am categorized as 
>> a
>> realistic photographer, but great care and effort is needed to make an 
>> image a
>> viewer will perceive as natural' which I took as AA's very gentle way of
>> saying,
>> 'You know, folks, I didn't just happen upon some dogwood blossoms and 
>> pull out
>> my
>> point and shoot, that thing too some flamin WORK!'
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> On Tue 13/01/09  8:24 AM , Slobodan Dimitrov s.dimitrov@charter.net sent:
>>> Couldn't agree with you more on this!
>>> The very fact that he was instrumental in the development of PN55 at
>>> Polaroid attests to the possibility.
>>> I mean, who took Polaroid as a serious, and relevant, product at the
>>> time?
>>> sd
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2009, at 9:30 PM, TCB wrote:
>>>
>>>> AA had a deep, almost sensual understanding of
>>> all of the  > technology involved in
>>>> making an image. I can't imagine he would be
>>> resistant to any newer  > tech
>>>> available today, though I also can't imagine
>>> he'd be locked into  > any kind of pure
>>>> digital rig.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon 12/01/09 11:05 PM , Nathan Wajsman photo@fr
>>> ozenlight.eu sent:>> I am certain he would. In his autobiography,
>>> written shortly before>> his death in 1984, he comments on the then
>>> revolutionary notion of>> digital photography and makes some very
>>> positive statements about  >> what
>>>>> he imagines will be its possibilities. I
>>> cannot find the exact>> reference at the moment, but it is in
>>> there.>>
>>>>> Nathan
>>>>>
>>>>> Nathan Wajsman
>>>>> Alicante, Spain
>>>>> http://www.frozenlight.euhttp://www.greatpix.euhttp:// >>
>> www.nathanfoto.com>> Books:
>> http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&am
>>> p;am>> p;y=0PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/pawsBlog:>
>> http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:18 AM, Geoff
>>> Hopkinson wrote:>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that if AA was with us today,
>>> he would>> be an avid  > enthusiast for
>>>>>> Photoshop as his darkroom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for
>>> more>> information
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
>>> information
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
>>> information
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1891 - Release Date: 1/13/2009 
8:17 AM


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Ansel Adams and digital)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Ansel Adams and digital)