In defense of Ansel

Someone over on photo.net's Nature forum pointed out an interesting

review of the "AA at 100" show; you can read the review at

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/brower.htm

 

The review is by Kenneth Brower (David's son), who hung out a lot at

AA's place when KB was young (and even lived there for awhile). He

takes "AA at 100" curator John Szarkowski to task for both the print

selection of the show and for Szarkowski's analysis of Adams' work.

Brower even manages to get in a few digs at postmodern photography

along the way ("blurry, empty hipness," as I recall).

 

Raises some provocative questions about "intent," especially in light

of collectors' preference for photographers' early prints: Szarkowski

likes AA's earlier, less contrasty, small prints; Brower likes AA's

later, more Wagnerian, larger prints).

 

Also good musings about whether Eastern urban critics can understand

goals of Western landscape photography.

 

Well worth reading, ideally BEFORE commenting on it below(!).

Interesting review. Basically a savaging of Adams critics,

including John Swarkowski who is the "Ansel Adams at 100"

exhibit curator, whom the author feels are too cloistered

(imprisoned?) in their New York City towers.<P>

 

I particularly liked the author's recollection of Adams calling

Edward Steichen "the Anti-Christ of Photography." I also relished

Mr. Brower pointing out that in Adam's landscapes ,devoid of

people, there is very much a person present in every square

centimeter of his prints and that person being Mr. Adams. But I

disagree with Brower's assesment of Diane Arbus's work and

his rejection of the value of earlier prints. This stance seems

predicated in his nostalgia for his youthful associations with

Adams and ignores Adam's own assesment of the negative as

being similar to a musical composition in that it might be

interpreted differently at a later time or possibly by a different

printer.<P> Adams made very large prints from the late 1930's

onward. He liked seeing some of his work at a proper scale for

the subject.. Adams also felt that the peak of his creative powers

as aphotographer had passed by the early 1960s , after which

he was either wrapped up in teaching, commercial work, or

reprinting and re-interpreting his older negatives.<P>

 

If you have read this far you might want to search out <U>Ansel

Adams: A Biography</U> by Mary Street Alinder to get a fleshed

out background on much of what Mr. Brower writes about and

where he writes from.

What�s with all the endless rehashing of AA and his work? Can�t we let Mr. Adams rest in peace and move on, maybe even focus on our own photography instead of indulging in this adolescent hero worship? Sure he was good and contributed much to the photo community, but he wasn�t the only one. Who wants to walk in the shadow of another? Why be a wanna-be? Sure we don�t have the smog-free skies and silver rich film to work with, but don�t you guys and gals think you have the potential of creating equally expressive work?

 

I get really tired of this trend to interpret history as the story of the big name people of fame, fortune, and power, as if the common man, the �little people� didn�t matter. Adams would have been nothing were it not for the thousands of people shooting LF commercially who gave a reason to keep producing film. Ditto the values of the common man who has been increasingly besieged by industrial and urban blight.

 

There is some truth to the loving the wilderness to death line in the article. Adams deliberately promoted Yosemite (and the N. Parks) supposedly to further preservation. However, he should have been wise enough to understand that N. Park popularity has been a disaster for wilderness preservation. Adams apparently didn�t realize that he lived in a hedonistic, consumer society that would always push for high impact recreational exploitation and development of the parks. Everything E. Abbey wrote on industrial tourism in Desert Solitaire 35 years ago is still 100% true today. I think this is the danger of �place� photography, pix of icon scenery. Good imagery shouldn�t always depend on competently capturing pretty places know to the public, but this is what seems to pass for creativity these days, judging by what gets published and the fixation many have on shooting in the national parks.

 

Great point about the easterners and their reactions. They can have NYC for all I care; let them fester in their smug urban catastrophe, just keep the mentality east of Kansas. Unfortunately the Eastern seaboard, California, and Texas run the country, so it seems like before long L.A. will come to us all. But for now, I plan on documenting as much of what remains of the west Adams photographed so well.

 

H

My comments are based on the book (I tried to get into

theSFMOMA the last week-end, and arrived too late in the

afternoon given the 2-hour line). I always saw it as

a revisitation of AA's work, because it showed many lesser

known images or renditions. This can be disappointing or

deceiptive if you think you are looking at a definitive reference

book, which it isn't. The problem is that one expects from

a centenary exhibit to be a reference retrospective. I would

have shared Kenneth Brower's disappointment with the

size of the prints. After all, there is a reason AA uses 8x10

in the first place, and I don't think it is a mystery to anyone

on this forum.

Hmmmmm. Interesting. Thanks for bringing it up.

IMHO St. Ansel's successors are not Robert Adams and his ilk, but Clyde Butcher, a Californian working in the swamps of Florida.

Reading through the critique and thinking about the perennial division between East and West Coast photography, I couldn�t help observing how right and proper the whole thing is. Having lived on both coasts I can attest to the division in aesthetic sensibilities.

 

Photographers who claim even a little of the artistic bent tend to photograph things they care about�and critics tend to put down things they don�t care about.

 

Paul Strand practiced the same craft as did Ansel Adams but due to his social consciousness fed by having lived in a hotbed of class conflict, produced a vastly different body of work. Had he grown up next-door to Yosemite, he would have been doing rocks and cliffs right along with Ansel. And John Szarkowski probably never handled and ice axe or saw the morning sun on the East Face of Mt. Whitney. Hey, this is what makes life interesting.

"What�s with all the endless rehashing of AA and his work? Can�t we

let Mr. Adams rest in peace and move on . . . instead of indulging in

this adolescent hero worship?"

 

The fact is that--whether you like him, hate him, or envy him--AA was

probably the most prominent photographer in history, certainly in the

public mind. Like any prominent person, he's likely to be acknowledged

at least occasionally by those in his field, just as painters will

occasionally acknowledge Rembrandt, Monet, Picasso, or another of

their ilk.

 

I didn't do a search, but I'm guessing that AA doesn't come up more

than once every hundred threads or so in this forum. In fact, if the

frequency of mentions in this forum defines "adolescent hero worship,"

then Philip Greenspun, Brian Mottershead, and QTLuong (and not AA) are

the true gods around here!

 

I'm always amazed by how hard it is for us humans to admit that

someone else might have done something before we did it.

As I grow older I like larger prints. Not because I see poorly but because I like large prints. I also like smaller cars. If a print can fit into my car, the print is too small or the car is too too big. AA was a man of pratical wisdom and artistic honesty. As he grew older he liked bigger prints. No mystery.

I really do not think this is a East West thing, but rather urban

rural division. Urban culture and its constituents are so far

removed from the natural world that they have convinced

themselves that they do not need it. They can live without it.

Clearly, they reason, any art that portrays the natural world in a

natural and sensitive way is useless decorative art. I suspect

some may even find it offensive and unnatural to their urban

surroundings.

On the other hand, I'll bet a check of Barnes & Noble's calender sales would confirm that Adams and landscape photography in general has pretty wide popularity in urban centers both East and West. As I understand John Szarkowski's critique, he objects to the higher contrast in Adams's later prints, which he considers overly dramatic. I also thought he is displaying the older and newer prints side by side, so the viewer can decide for him/herself. But this is based on a column I read a couple of months ago. Anyhow, maybe it's all a matter of aesthetic taste?

This is the second time I will post. The first time never made it! First I want to say thanks for the link and the comment!

 

I attended the AA retro at MOMA back in the 70's that was also curated by Szarkowski. It was the first time I had ever seen fine prints of anyone and it was mesmerizing. It consisted primarily of AA's most noted and popular images, most printed high key, which I prefer. They were mostly of the larger sizes. Prints of the same negative done at different times of AA's life were hung together to show the changes and evolution of AA's creativity and craft. This was the first time this was ever done. The book "Yosemite and the Range of Light" came from the show.

 

I also attended the Szarkowski lecture. The concluding statement was what I remember the best, that essentially said, Now we can all go home, to dinner, or for drinks to discuss what we have just seen and heard. Essentially saying this is all find and good, but don't let it consume you.

 

AA at 100 is pretty much a different approach by Szarkowski, concentrating mostly on images that may be considered AA's seconds, rejects, images not widely known, printed in AA's earlier days, with some of his more popular images and style interspersed.

 

One of the things that strike me is comparing my own prints with AA's at comparable age and stage of development and I think, wow, some of mine are better then his! HOW ARROGANT OF ME! No not really, because so are many other photographers prints. It says to me that AA had his phases, stages of development like so many others afterwards. That maybe he should not be idolized to the extent he is.

 

To me, AA is the father of modern photography along with Stieglitz. Stieglitz identified it, and Adams defined it. AA's contribution of writings, textbooks, zone system, how to see, previsualize what you see and feel and translate it into the finished product is the foundation we all work and build on. That contribution can never be surpassed. AA was a true genius in that he realized that he is only a link in the chain. He encouraged, taught those who follow to build and improve on what he built. AA as great as he was, is not the epitome of landscape photography, the final say. If that were the case, why bother, we should all just hand up our tripods.

Terry, adams wasn't at all the most influential photographer of

photography history.

He is very ( overly ) popular in the U.S. , but in europe for instance

he is surpassed by names like Cartier Bresson , Kertesz, Strand

and others. Photography includes much more than

landscapes, i am sure you know that . . Let's face it ,Adams

wasn't a real interpreter, but merely a recorder of nature.

Most of the poirtature he did was pointless. His merit goes for

the development of the zone system that helps many of us.

I see Weston as a true artist with the camera, his sensibility

tanspire through his images, but Adams?...... no, don't see it.

 

I agree with you Hiperfocal in your view on photography and on

your judgment about the trend that has been going on about

landscape photography and in this self castration that many

photographers inflict to themselves by positioning Adams as an

hero whose work has reached untachable heights.

I

I enjoyed the article but thought that Mr. Brower was pretty much biased against the exhibit from the outset because he didn't think John Szarkowski should have been the one to curate it. This idea in turn was based on all of the controversy surrounding MOMA's firing of the Newhalls and the hiring of Steichen to head the photography department shortly after WWII. While Adams resigned from his position on the MOMA photography advisory committee as a result of this matter, and held very bitter feelings towards the leadership of the Museum as a result of it, nevertheless it's obvious from Adams' correspondence with Szarkowski that he had a lot of respect for Szarkowski and they had a very cordial relationship. So I thought that Mr. Brower's obvious prejudice against the exhibit solely because he didn't think Szarkowski should have been the one to curate it was misplaced. Regardless though, it was an interesting article, well worth reading by anyone interested in photography regardless of your views about Ansel Adams' merit (and domenique, if you think Adams was simply a recorder of nature, you need to learn more about him).

Domenico, I didn't say Ansel was the most "influential" photographer

in history (though he's definitely in the top tier; anyone who does

landscape photography is responding to the popularity of the AA

aesthetic, whether they embrace it or reject it, just as almost every

street photographer is somehow responding to Cartier-Bresson).

 

I did say Adams was the "most prominent," and I stand by this (even

though I personally prefer other photographers). In other words, if

you asked members of the general public (nonphotographers) in every

country to "name a famous photographer," I think Adams would get more

mentions worldwide than would any other one photographer (of course,

I'm speaking from the US, where Adams would far and away win such a

poll; Cartier-Bresson might do better in Europe. I can't think

members of the public would name Kertesz or Strand before Adams or

C-B). Asia, I couldn't say. Interesting parlor game, anyway!

I have been a painter longer than I have a photographer, for over 23 years. I have always drawn inspiration from going to the museums, and looking at the old masters of painting...Rembrandt...Degas...Picasso...

In every era of painting there were "masters"; those who had achieved a high degree of artistry and proficiency in their work, and they inspired not only the artists of their time, but those who came after them. There are also many painters who, during their lifetimes, were dismissed by their contemporaries, never achieving fame, such as Jan Vermeer, or Van Gogh. Yet they are now considered "masters" as well. There are also painters who were considered "great" in their time, but now are hardly known or admired...Gerome was one of the most famous painters of 19th century France, making what amounts to a million dollars a painting in his day, but does anyone now remember him?

"Modern" oil painting goes back to the days of Jan van Eyck and the fifteenth century. We have over six hunderd years of art to look at, as well as many different periods...Renaissance...Rococo...Baroque...Classical...Romantic..

Only a generation after the Impressionists, the younger painters; the Fauves...the Nabis..these painters looked upon the older Impressionists such as Pissarro and Monet as hopelessly old fashioned, painting scenes from nature, lakes, mountains, fields... But a hundred years later, what painters are more famous, or more admired? Do we really want to replace the "older" paintings with the "newer? Do we replace the Rembrandt with the Picasso, or the Michelangelo with the Matisse?

Photography is a relative newcomer to the arts. The swings and tilts of time gives us perspective on artists and their art. Let us not be too hasty to dismiss a photographer who was acknowledged as one of the greats in his own time, and a man who, more than anyone, made photography a fine art form...

Domenico,<P>You wrote <I>" Let's face it ,Adams wasn't a real

interpreter, but merely a recorder of nature...."</I> <P>That

statement is no more more true than saying "Henri

Cartier-Bresson, Dosineau, Strand, etc. only snapped what was

happened to be in front of him." Such statements belie an

ignorance of photographers and photography, and also betray

an ignorance of Adams great work as a pusher and prodder of

what a photographic print is capable of being, and also shows

off a kind of aesthetic provencialism: is it not true that different

people from different places living in different times have

different influences on their creative work?<P>Like

Cartier-Bresson's best work, Adams best work is modern

abstractionist art at its highest. All photography is abstract of

course -- it is a result of many, many decisions made by the

artist, starting with the thought "there might be the potential for a

photograph here', proceeding through the process of deciding

where to point the camera, what to leave in, what to leave out,

waiting for the correct moment ("Photography is like hunting" to

paraphrase H. Cartier-Bresson) and ending with the production

of the print (or the electronic equivalent thereof. All of these

decisions made by the photographer. This act of creation,

whether made consciously or not, is inherent in every

photographic image and renders your claim moot.<P>The print

Vickie Goldberger is "chilled by" according to the quote in the K.

Brower article to me is very much like one of Paul Klee's black

and white minimalist paintings. Both works, alive with the

emotions and intellect of the artist, create their own reality, are a

grand gesture of life and bear only the slightest connections to

the raw material from which each was shaped.<P>You are right

to say that too many photographers (and critics) are just as dead

& dessicated as poor old King Tutankhamen of Egypt when they

mistake mere technical mastery as being artistic value and

never strive to go beyond what has been done before by others.

A question I've had recently, having bounced it off my former mentor and some other photographically inclined people:

 

Is it possible (probable?) that the late, 'Wagnerian' prints, that Brower argues Szarkowski overlooks, are in fact a response to Adams eyesight getting worse with age? He had to print in a more brilliant fashion in order to see the print as he had when younger?

 

One thing I noted about his earlier pictures, is that they don't look too impressive when the original prints are seen, but when you see his reinterpretation, on modern paper, large, of a picture he took when he was 16, you realize that he had a good vision from the start, but had to wait for his technical skill to catch up. The show's fascination with the small, early, or proof, prints was valuable for that alone.

 

As for the eastern critics, there's always the old quote that "the world is falling to pieces, and Adams and Weston are taking pictures of Rocks!" If you live in the concrete jungle, you wonder why anyone would want to live in, or record, the organic one. Their loss, but if they'd content themselves with writing for, and talking to other people on Manhattan, and leave the rest of the country free of their 'wisdom', I for one would be just as happy.

 

-Fred

(an easterner, but not an urbanite)

<I>Is it possible (probable?) that the late, 'Wagnerian' prints, that

Brower argues Szarkowski overlooks, are in fact a response to

Adams eyesight getting worse with age? He had to print in a

more brilliant fashion in order to see the print as he had when

younger? </I><P>

That point is also made or at least brought up in the Alinder

biography of Adams. As I recall Alionder wrote that Adams was

well aware of this.<P>

 

 

 

<I>As for the eastern critics, there's always the old quote that "the

world is falling to pieces, and Adams and Weston are taking

pictures of Rocks!" </I><P>That was made by Henri

Cartier-Bresson during World War II, not by an "easterner". It is

sort of an easy cudgel to use and against non socially motivated

photographers if you remove it from the original context. H.C-B

was unaware of the work Adams had done at the American

concentration camp at Manzanar,California which imprisoned

American citizens of Japanese descent.

Domenico, I disagree with you on this.. Ansel's portraits were gorgeous for their time. Take a look at "Trailer Camp Children" and the way it was printed. It has a glow that isn't apparent in any of Bresson's work nor Eisenstadt, two of the most influencial photographers of their day. I find that many people base their likes and dislikes of various photographers by what genre they like or understand. Everyone thinks their hero is the best and fail to critically judge an artist by their accomplishments. Look at the image Ansel took of Orville Cox and Stieglitz muse. Awsome. the look between the two is wonderful. And Bresson couldn't have created any of Ansels images of the landscape because that wasn't his vision. He was the master of people. Of the urban scapes he was good. But he wasn't ther technician in the darkroom that Ansel was. So it's like which is the more exquisite flower. The rose or the orchid? Depends on your preference. And Ansel Adams is known very well in European photography circles. And much admired. ou need to read more on the collecting of photography around the world.

Let me start by saying that i am not trying to insult anybody , so

please, try to read what i have to say with a bit of detachment.... i

do like to speak my mind.

 

James, i have more books in photography that you can imagine,

and yes, i have read them , i don't only watch the pictures.

 

When i was talking about Bresson, that was an example , i view

photography in a different way than he did . He would refuse to

crop an image, his prints where of "poor " quality, in a nut shell

bresson images reflected the fugitive moment he was talking

about and surely a fine print would have failed to transmit to the

viewer the "primordial energy.

 

I insist, Adams portraits sucked, big time. What do you mean

they were great for their time?

Poirtrature photography has probably been the most popular

kind of photography since the beginning of the medium. Look at

Weston Stieglitz, Duhrkoop, Sander, Lange, Man Ray, Penn,

Newton , And many others . That is excellence in poirtrature.

 

Ellis, Adams has departed away from reality in his images very

few times , and is true that those few times were his highest

points.

I have many of his books and i consult therm all the time,, and

many times , when he explains the picture taking, negative

developing and printing technique, he struggles to achieve' more

realistics ' results.

Adams prints show an extreme elegance, and elegance alone

has nothing to do with Art, that's why Ansel is the photographer

more revered by the masses. The majority of the people will

look for the pretty picture but will not make themselves available

for work that will question their world..

Weston on the other end , a far deeper artist than Adams has

never reached the same popularity . The same can be said for

Stieglitz.

And Strand.

And Brassai

And so many others Me and many of you....

Unfotunately, too many times the rule of thumb is that the fame

of an artist is inversly proportional to his or her value .

Adams was lacking that capacity of getting in tune with his inner

world at the moment of the shot, that's why his images don't

depart from reality. His prints were made with an incredible

mastery of the tools on the other end.

I disagree Ellis , when you say that photography is abstract.

Then the same should be for paintings. Are they all abstract?

Or is it the way the subject matter is handled that makes a piece

"abstract"?

Some may find AA's work pedestrian, but all of us have been influenced by it, the true sign of his importance to contemporary photography. Debates on whether he was the single most influencial photographer are ridiculous, as he would make any top 10 list.

Szarnarski may not like AA's big prints at this time, but he certainly did in 1979 at the MOMA show, as the giant prints are what I remember best about the show. Maybe like all of us, his tastes have changed over time, but again it would be pointless to debate whether that change is for the better or worse. Change is change.

Adams may not have liked New York, but he came East to get Steiglitz's blessing on his work. Us Easterners may not have ready access to Yosemite, but with 4 million visitors per year, you can be sure that many are from the East. Many are drawn to the parks because of AA's photographs. This too is AA's legacy, and while it may make the parks too crowded for some, viewing or communing with "Nature" is why they were established, and why AA fought for them.

Domenico,

 

I'm with you on just about everything you've said in this thread, but the stuff about Adams not being an interpreter of nature, you are just plain wrong about that. Others have accused you of not studying his work enough, but I think the problem is you haven't spent any time in the Sierra Nevada. You get a MUCH more realistic idea of the Sierra Nevada from Weston, who you claim did interpret what he saw (I'd agree with you there, too), than you get from Adams' work. Just because Adams said he was striving for "realism" doesn't mean he wasn't making big decisions about what he wanted to portray.

 

Like you, I'd mostly prefer to look at other artist's works, but I have to say, Adams was one hell of an artist -- in his kind of limited regime, which is big pointy mountains with glaciers and lakes on them.

AA not abstract? Photography not abstract? Well, Adams did not consider himself an abstractionist. When asked about his photography and Zen, he stated, "I practice Zone not Zen." But when you consider, taking what is precieved in real life, a 3 dimensional, full color reality, and interpreting, transforming it onto a two dimensional plane and in black and white, requires at least, some abstract interpretation.

 

In my readings of AA, his autobiography, he never attended college, I don't think he ever got a high school diploma. I never heard of him ever taking any art courses. Yet his interpretations and compositions are as melodic, rythmic, flowing, expressive as any ever produced. He was trained to be a concert pianist, which in itself requires the understanding of abstract concepts. That type of musical personality, screams, cries, flows, emminates from his works like a piece of classical music, as varied in his images as there are pieces of music and composers. He had the uncanny ability to read the subject before him. Like sheet music, not only to see in his minds eye, but hear in his minds ear, the emotions from what was presented before him. Then transfer that music to the finished print. Many composers used the sounds and sights of nature as the basis for their great compositions. Adams produced visual images, rather then sound images.

 

These ablities are something that cannot readily be taught. You either have it or you don't. Much like artistic abilities, you can only teach a person so much. To be truly unique, you either have that ability or you don't. Open your eyes, and hear the music.

Domenico,<P>

<I>... I have many of his books and i consult therm all the time,,

and many times , when he explains the picture taking, negative

developing and printing technique, he struggles to achieve' more

realistics ' results.</I> Realistic to what <I>he felt, </I>I think.<P>

<I>Adams prints show an extreme elegance</I>(and command

of techique)<I>, and elegance alone has nothing to do with Art,

that's why Ansel is the photographer more revered by the

masses.</I><P> Not true. Adams is so widely known and vastly

popular because he hired someone to market his work i nthe

early 1970s, to turn him into a brand name so he could finally

quit struggling to make ends meet. He is also popular because

his images fit America's ideas of itself in the the same way that

Woody Guthrie's songs (This Land is Your Land) fit America

too.And because the quality of the work is there. Also

landscapes are always more popular than other subjects of

art.<P> </I>The majority of the people will look for the pretty

picture but will not make themselves available for work that will

question their world.</I><P> Oh yes, absolutely. You do know

that Adams was one ofthe strongest and most effective

opponents of a very serious plan to turn Yosemite Valley into a

lake to power a hydroelectric station? This is why I think his work

is valuable, it does help to change people's perception of the

world. I had a great discussion yesterday with a friend about one

of my favorite photographers, Nicholas Nixon, whose work does

just that ( my friend happens to own a lot of outstanding

photography, including some of Nixon's prints.<P><I> Weston on

the other end , a far deeper artist than Adams has never reached

the same popularity . The same can be said for Stieglitz. And

Strand. And Brassai And so many others Me and many of you....

Unfortunately, too many times the rule of thumb is that the fame

of an artist is inversely proportional to his or her value.

</I>Adams also did much to create a serious market for

photographs and to make the general public think of

photography as being as worthy of serious consideration as

painting or sculpture. Steiglitz, Adams, Strand, Cunningham,

Weston & Cartier-Bresson dragged Photography out of being a

sleepy art form imitative of painting. and into the modern era.

<P><I>...Adams was lacking that capacity of getting in tune with

his inner world at the moment of the shot...</I><P>I'm sorry but I

needs must say that you are very out of your depth here and truly

do not know what you are speaking of. Just because his work

does not touch you does not mean that he "lack(ed) that capacity

of getting in tune with his inner world at the moment of the shot."

Landscape photography (and I say this as on who practices that

form of photography badly) definitely has it's decisive moments

too. I think you are passionately putting forth a good argument

but this point is just wrong.<P><I> ...that's why his images don't

depart from reality. </I>Have you ever visited the realities he

photographed? Again I think the problem is with your perception

of his work.</P><I> I disagree Ellis , when you say that

photography is abstract. Then the same should be for paintings.

Are they all abstract? Or is it the way the subject matter is

handled that makes a piece "abstract"?</I><P>I am glad you

disagree, but I think it is both, and more, it is in the viewer's

perception. Do you see a photograph as a mere depiction of

what was in front of a camera, or as a thing itself? Do you look at

paintings in this way? I think I photograph best when I photograph my "visions", and

see with my emotional senses as well as my physical &

intellectual being. having visited your website I think you do this

as well Domenico. Would Adams work look the same if he were

alive, young and photographing today? How could it? Adams

was definitely of his time and place. It is such an obvious point,

but we too have no choice but to look at Adams work now as we

are now, informed by everything that has happened since, and

by the societies that surround us.

 

After reading these posts and the Brower review, I trudged back to Barnes & Noble to have another look at the "Adams at 100" book. The most interesting thing to me wasn't that his printing had changed much, but that the papers he printed on were different. The early work is almost Sepia in coloration, and except for the Aspens photograph, the entire collection is printed on warm-tone paper, with yellow (not white) high values, and getting less yellow each year. It definitely creates a completely different emotional response. St. Ansel's warm-toned prints say, "if you look at me I will give you pleasure." The Cold-tone prints say "LOOK AT ME!!!"