Edward Weston vs. Ansel Adams

[wei_yan_wo]

The zone system is a scientific approach to make a picture. On the

other sied, Edward Weston use a rather intuitive approach.

Nevertheless, Edward Weston is not scientific as Ansel Adams.

Is it necessary to treat photography as precise science? Or use

intuitive appropach?

Could anyone contribute your arguments?

[light-zone]

Bach or Beethoven.....hmmmmI like Brahms, no wait...Wagner, yeah, Wagner.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Wei

 

If I work for myself I work more like Weston, if I work for a paid job I work more like Adams!

Because if I work for me I prever to work more intuitive, but if I get paid for it it has to be right in the first time and I use all my exposure meters color meters etc.

But thats just me!

[art_haykin]

Weston was far more technically minded than many know: read his day books. And the reverse is true: Adams brought a lot of intuition to his work. Still, Weston was a bit more the 'neurotic artist' than Adams, but he knew what he was about.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>The zone system is a scientific approach to make a

picture.</I> This is a hugely false premise. All the Zone System

was designed to do was to teach photographers how to

understand and hopefully get better control over how to expose

and develop the film to make a negative that is as close to your

intentions for what the final print will look like as is possible.

Adams often said "the negative is the score and the print as the

performance." A performance inflected by your changable

emotions on a particular day perhaps, and by how your

personality (hopefully) grows & changes as you go through life.

<B>Using the zone system bears the exact relationship to

photography as tuning a piano does to playing a Beethoven

piano sonata.</B><P>Another great myth you express in your

question is that there is some sort of dichotomy in photography

between "art" -- the expression of the core of one's life and

having technological control over the process. Edward Weston

may not have codified his photographic processes the way

Adam's had to sell it to his students, but you would be foolish to

think that he didn't have control over those processes. Works of

art whether bad or good are an expression of the maker's

passions and self. For Adams & Weston & Strand &

Cunningham this was true, and even for commercial hacks like

me this is true, and even for you it is true. <P> I suggest you read

and carefully reread:<P><B>The Camera</B> by Ansel

Adams.<P>

<B>Ansel Adams; A Biography </B> by Mary Street Alinder<P>

<B>Mirrors and Windows</B> by John

Swarkowski<P><B>Beauty in Photography: Essays in Defense

of Traditional Values</B> by Robert Adams<P>

<B>The Nature of Photographs</B> by Stephen Shore<P>I then

suggest you go spend some time in photographic galleries and

museums.<P>All the time always test your beliefs against the

ideas in those books and in those photographic images.

[eugene_singer]

Wei Yan Wo, it is not necessary to treat fine art photography as an exact science, in my opinion. However, if I was using my camera for scientific purposes,(ie: astronomy, or forensic lab. work), I would certainly treat it more as a science than an art form. Ansel Adams was very intuitive. He could visualize the image of the finished print in his minds eye. The Zone System was formulated as a teaching tool that he could use to help his students to learn to visualize the way he did. Photography, to put it in simplistic terms, is an art form with a scientific basis. I see the image first, then I attempt to put it on film and create a print that represents what I saw. It involves exposure calculation, film development, and knowledge of the printing process. It takes a combination of intuition and science to accomplish the final result.

[daniel flather]

I use my camera(s) to get outside, to relax and have fun and make some gret images that I like. Do as you want.

[richard_ross]

"...if I was using my camera for scientific purposes,(ie: astronomy, or forensic lab. work), I would certainly treat it more as a science than an art form."

 

I heard on NPR about an interesting exhibit of forensic photography from the archives of the LAPD. The curator described how truly artistic the older photographs tended to be. While not as useful for law enforcement purposes as todays full color close ups of crime scenes, these older works produced using LF equipment were able to truly capture the essence of these scenes. They definitely influenced and were influenced by the whole Film Noir genre. Clearly they had to get the shot, but they definitely brought an intuitive and artistic approach to their work.

[marv]

I know when I take a reading in the deep woods and It comes out at f64 @ 2 minutes, I really need f64 at 8 minutes. If it is close to sunset, make it 12 minutes. If I am out in the field, literally, and an exposure is f64 @ 1/10 and nothing changes between one set up to the next it is redundant to keep taking the same meter reading.

 

The point is; you need to work intuitively even as you approach the subject methodically.

[aaron_van_de_sande]

On one hand you are checking values on a spotmeter, in the other you are comparing densities during development (development by inspection). Which one is the precise approach?

[michael_alpert1]

Wei,

 

What method do you use? Do you enjoy your procedure and does it result in the quality you want? If you see room for improvment, what change would improve your happiness and/or your photographs? These are simple questions (I hope I am not being condescending). I am quite sure that similar questions were asked by both Adams and Weston. Of course it helps to know what others do in order to decide what fits your temperament and aspirations. In any case, I don't think your original questions are answerable. Photography as art is neither science nor is it wholly intuitive. But every craft-based art is likewise complex. The choice that you are positing (science vs intuition) does not reflect what photography is.

[tony_galt]

My memory may be off, but I seem to recall that Adams somewhere credits Weston with the ideas that led to the zone system anyway. Adams had to work things out more systematically because he was also a teacher. He had to convey the operation of his intuition (pre-visualization) to neophytes. Weston had a couple of disciples (Margarethe Mather (SP?), his sons) but didn't systematically teach like Adams did. Adams did seem to be aware of some technical details like defraction at small apertures that didn't bother Weston very much.

[per_volquartz1]

The Zone system is just a tool that allows you to place the "seen" image on a greyscale according to the way you perceive its emotional content.

 

By being in control of the final image - at the moment of making the exposure - the photograher is able to pre-visualize the finished print.

It is similar to a furniture maker looking at a piece of wood, understanding the grain and the physical aspects - and being able to pre-visualize how this particular piece of wood may look like in its final form.

[tim_atherton2]

> the photograher is able to pre-visualize the finished print.

 

I love the term "pre-visualize" in photography - what the heck does it mean.

 

In this post it obviously means visualize - because the photographer/woodworker doesn't pre-visualize it and then, a little later "visualize" it and then actually take the picture/make the chair.

 

The photographrapher visualizes what the final image is to look like.

[kevin_kolosky]

How one uses the zone system is an intuitive approach to creative photography, but I disagree with anyone who says that it is not based on scientific fact and theory. Starting even before Hurter and Dryfield (spelling might be wrong) and continuing downward, it has clearly been shown that chemistry, physics, and sensitometry define why the zone system works. How one wants to "work it" is the artistic part.

 

Kevin

[jim_galli4]

Of course there are as many different "right" answers as there are personalities involved. Science is great and so is the zone system. I love printing the negs that have a full long range of tones because I understand how my materials and equipment are going to react to different situations. But it's not all science. I can just see Ansel at a dead run trying to get stuff set up in time to rip off one shot at "moonrise!" Science? or intuition? You need to have the science in place so when those shots come along the intuition can take over and it just flows.

[bruce watson]

I'm one of the heretics of the group. You asked for opinions; I'll give you mine, but that's all it is.

<p>

In my mind, I separate the art and the technical photography. There are many fine artists, and there are many fine technical photographers. I find Weston to be a fine artist but a poor photographer. I find Adams to be a fine artist also, and a superb photographer.

<p>

Adams was a good friend to Weston. They spent a fair amount of time together, and Adams was a big booster. Rumor has it that Adams sometimes kept him fed, but I don't know how true that is.

<p>

Weston's art proves he was certainly a visionary, and was clearly very persistent. The results are excellent photographs. My objection is to the path he took to get there. He would set up a pepper, for example, compose the scene, setup tripod and camera, then expose the negative. Often he didn't use a light meter (often he didn't own one). He would develop the one negative (often by inspection, [shudder!]), complete processing, examine it, then decide to try again, changing exposure a little. He would keep this up until he had what he wanted. This could take days, weeks, months. His process was, IMHO, out of control, but in the end, he did make art. No question.

<p>

Adams, on the other hand, wanted to be in control of his medium. He developed a system (the now famous Zone System) that helped him nail the exposure of a scene with the first negative. He would see something he wanted to capture, setup tripod and camera, meter the scene, expose a negative, pack up and leave. His process was under control, and in the end, he also made art. No question.

<p>

The fact that Adams had his process under control is, to me, admirable. The fact that I like his art better is just my personal choice.

<p>

To answer your question: No, it is clearly not <b><i>necessary</i></b> to treat photography as precise science. Weston proves that. However, I think mastering the technical side of photography is very desirable. I work too much outside, in changing weather, blowing wind, moving clouds, moving light. I need to have enough control over my photography to know that I can take the exposure and my negative will give me what I need to make a good photograph. If I screw up, it often means that scene is just lost. Sometimes it means a multi-thousand kilometer trip back to the scene, but usually I don't have the time or money for that.

<p>

For me, the Zone system is a must. After all, I'm no Edward Weston!

[eugene_singer]

Richard Ross, I specifically said forensic LAB work. I was not referring to the gory, sensational crime scene shots that Weegee used to take for the tabloid publications. That certainly was considered art" by some segment of the population. There was a time in my life when I tried to emulate his great flash shots with my hand-held Speed Graphic and potato-masher flashgun. F8 at125th, and BE THERE! That was truly intuitive shooting. I think that intuition (visualization) and intellect (science)need to be balanced somewhere in the middle in order to create great photographs.

[jay_de_fehr]

I am surprised to learn how heavily biased this forum is towards A.A., although I shouldn't be. I believe that the two men represent diammetrically opposed methodologies. There are basic physio-chemical similarities that bind everyone working within the photographic medium, but how one photographer works can bear little resemblance to the way another works. As it has already been mentioned, Weston rarely used a light meter. He developed his negatives by inspection in a highly compensating Pyro developer, and contact printed them onto Chloride paper which he developed in a variable Amidol developer. The zone system would have been no more appropriate to his way of working than development by inspection would have been for Adams. To say that Time/Temperature development is more scientific than Development By Inspection is very defensible. Time/Temp is a quantitative method that lends itself to repeatable results. Development By Inspection is a Qualitative method dependent on the judgement of the "Inspector". As to which man was more "artistic", that is a purely subjective question. I prefer Weston's work to Adams'. Until recently I've attempted to emulate Adams' methods, as they are more appropriate to the materials I have been using. As a consequence of recent developments regarding equipment and facilities, I'll be working much closer to Weston's methods. Which I will prefer, and wether it will affect the quality of my work are open questions. One day soon I may be able to say definitively which method I prefer, and for myself, declare that method superior. I believe that in the pursuit of artistic expression through photography, the ends justify the means. I don't care how many Pepper prints Weston rejected before arriving at the widely admired final version. Can you separate photography from science? No, as a physio-chemical medium it is inextricably bound to the laws of physics and chemistry. Can you use an intuitive approach? Intuition is integral to expression, and only varies by degree from one artist to the next. In short, you'll have to discover for yourself the methodology that offers the widest path to your own expression. Be fearless.-jdf

[m0002a]

I think many forget that Weston and Adams were really from different generations and not as much technical information was known about photography, nor was the available technology the same when Weston started in photography compared to when Adams took it up as a serious endeavor. As others have mentioned, Weston did most of his early formative work in a studio and Adams did most of his work in the field (often in fairly remote areas). These circumstances had a big impact on how their techniques came to fruition.

[chris_jordan3]

my two cents here is that dichotomies are being drawn where none really exist.

 

first, weston and adams were friends who frequently corresponded on both artistic and technical issues. both had highly developed senses of artistry (ansel adams was a world-class pianist, in addition to his photographic work), and both men were sophisticated technicians who compared darkroom experiences and traded notes over nerdy stuff like the sharpest aperture for this or that lens.

 

ansel never applied the "zone system" when considering an image or composing behind the camera; the zone system was merely a method for figuring out how long to expose his negatives, and how long to develop them. ansel composed his images with his artistic eye, and printed with both artistry and technical skill, just as edward did. the two men had different levels of talent, skill and judgment in every aspect of their work, but that's the way it is for any two individuals.

 

additionally, there are a great many wonderful, talented genius-level photographers who existed before those guys, and who have existed since, who have made photographs just as artistic and technically excellent. sometimes i get the impression that people think that there have been only two great photographers in the history of the medium so far...

[chris_jordan3]

hey Tim, i think the term "previsualization" is to be distinguished from "postvisualization," which is when, after trekking, shooting, developing and printing, you visualize how much better the final product would have been if you had gotten the original exposure right...

 

~cj

[jonathan brewer]

Seeing Westons work in person, I was incredulous at his ability to get the spontaneous looks and positions that he got with his subjects, the excitement and sparkle of 'Summer Sunshine' would've been quite a feat for someone shooting with a 35mm or MF camera, let along LF.

 

I respect the hell out of Ansel Adams, but being a portrait photograher I was thrilled at what Weston could do with his subjects and he seemed to do whatever he wanted to do.

[domenico_foschi]

Adams himself said( i believe you can read that in the

biography,) that Weston was less dedicated to technical

minutiae. He states however that this "flaw" of his was greatly

counterbalanced by his great sensitivity .

An exemple can be the fact of shooting without metering .

I believe Weston had learned the craft before Adams did, when

photography didn't have that many tools .

He had learned a process through trial and errors

and...inspection ( which sounds a great way to go about!). He

had reached a level of excellence and could get the result he

wanted , what else did he need?

Even though Adams and White came out with the Zone System

he probably thought about his technique: " If it ain't broken , don't

fix it".

To answer to your question, Wei, i think that if you treat

photography as a precise science, to reach your goal, that is fine.

But let's keep in mind that the tecnical knowledge we have can

expand our creativity in ways that many "purists" will scorn.

 

There isn't a only way to go about, if i understand for instance

how a toned silver halide( no more a silver Halide) reacts in

contact with potassium ferrycyanide and i use this reaction to

achieve an effect, am i just being silly , or am i trying to mold the

medium to my needs , by treating photography as a precise

science?

[Troll]

Although the Zone System is generally associated with Ansel Adams, the actual inventor of the concept was Fred Archer. He and Adams together developed it as a teaching tool, and AA was almost always careful to give him full credit.