Ansel Adams at 100 - NYTimes article

[erik_eks2]

<a href="http://members.home.net/larry.sabo/irgallery/Technical%20Details.htm>Ansel Admas at 100</a>

 

<p>Comments?</p>

[erik_eks2]

<p>I'm sorry. I messed up the HTML. Here it is again:</p>

 

<a

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/arts/design/29DECA.html">Ansel

Adams at 100</a>

 

<p>Comments?</p>

[tom_raymondson]

If you've only seen the posters and the books you should take this or

any opportunity to see his prints. Amazing.

[mark_minard]

Hi,

 

<p>

 

I happened to see the book at Borders last week... The prints look

green to me. My wife agreed, and she's not nearly as picky as I am.

Even Monnrise has a greenish hue to it. It's a real shame, because it

is a beautiful book, and I wanted to buy it. Now I'm not sure. Anyone

else here see the book??

[mark_minard]

sorry - Moonrise not "Monrise"

[scott_jones4]

Thanks for the hot tip. Not only did I learn about New York Times on

line and read the interesting article, but also found that the show

runs from August to January in San Francisco, just a hop, skip, and

jump from where I live in Portland, Or. My family will travel to SF to

get a chance to see AA's more unusual and less iconic photographs.

Thanks for posting this information!

[kcrisp]

I'm not defending the printing of a book I haven't seen, but just so

you know sometimes Adams real prints do look a big greenish. I was

at the gallery in Yosemite about 9 years ago and a big print of Mt.

Williamson (boulders in foreground) was on display and it had what

could only be described as an olive tone to it. If you looked at

just that print it wasn't obvious, but if you looked at others with

neutral tones it was hard to miss by comparison.

[mark_minard]

Hi Kevin,

 

<p>

 

I agree... I've mostly seen it in his older work, though. Just last

week I saw the AA show at the Eastman House in Rochester, and most of

his better known work - Mt. Williamson, Moonrise, Clearing Winter

Storm, ETC. represented in this particular collection were printed

about 1960, and they all were neutral in tone and absolutely

beautiful. I need to take another look at the book, I think. Let me

know what you think after you see it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

It is interesting that they are getting away from Ansel'smarketing

guru's "greatest hits collection".

[erik_eks2]

What I find intriguing in the article is the comparison of Adam's

prints done thrity apart. It is interesting to note that early Adam's

prints were a lot lighter in tone and not as contrasty. Later, as

John Swarzkorski (sp?) posits, his prints were more Sturm und Drang,

to appeal to the buying public.

 

<p>

 

For those of us who have held the familiar and widely seen later

Adam's prints ('overwrought' as the writer puts it) as the

gold-standard of print excellence, will this insight cause you to

revise your printing methods and rethink your printing process?

[erik_eks2]

I'm sorry. That should have read "...done thirty years apart".

[wilhelm]

I don't think that AA's later prints were made that way to appeal to

the buying public. I think that it was because AA liked them better

that way himself. As do I.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Read Mary Street Alinder's biography of Ansel Adams for more

info on how and why Adams changed his printing style over the

years.

[eric_williams3]

Mark,

 

<p>

 

I have seen the new book and I have to tell you I was surprised at

the look of the photographs in this book. To my eye many of the

photographs look green and many are not as sharp as the same prints

found in other Adams books. Compared to other Adams books, California

for exapmle, the paperis not as glossy and to me seemed thinner, I

have seen better paper in some high quality magazines. For the $150

price tag I think that they could, and should have done a lot better.

As an Adams fan who owns several of his books, I am dissapointed not

only in the quality of this book but the steep price tag. However, I

am looking forward to seeing the Adams at 100 show.