Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Photography

[donald_miller5]

I think that is my point. The definitions are flexible as time passes and will morph as new technologies and capabilities become available. I do not know about power chisels but Michelangelo probably would have upgraded his tools to some extent.

[Sandy Vongries]

Ansel was a probably one of the "greats" on a short list of other famous photogs, certainly his photos still captivate and sell. Like all of us, he stood on the shoulders of his predecessors! He never walked on water., Honestly, if he is aware in another place "all of that, in re his new thoughts" has to keep him amused! Back to the Greeks, I'll walk outside and pour him a sip of wine.

[Allen Herbert]

s"Allen -- you cannot speak for me. The quote you misused describes My preference, not an attempt to impose it on anyone else. As to the rest, your customary product of fevered imagination. Your attached image is related to this thread how? Certainly not as an argument in favor of post processing". Sandy.

 

Bless your little white cotton socks, Sandy.

 

Back in the day...way back day ,,,Sandy was a policeman...If there was signs of trouble Sandy had a whistle he would blow.

 

." As to the rest, your customary product of fevered imagination" Sandy.

 

To have a fevered imagination is that a good thing, Sandy. I like good things. Do you like good things, Sandy?

 

Why do I think Ansel would like fellow photographers to do thier thing instead of going on and going on about himself.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Allen Herbert

[Sandy Vongries]

Allen, you might try writing fantasy -- you seem to have a greater gift for that than photography. Have another beverage.

[Allen Herbert]

Jeez, Sandy you are so cruel..

 

Methinks Sandy would like this photo....fingers crossed.

[Allen Herbert]

[Norman 202]

booze rools :)

[Allen Herbert]

lickers rule, Naff...

[Allen Herbert]

How is it going.

[Norman 202]

c'mon, Allen don't leave it at that. how about a nice "street" photo of someone's back?

[rossb]

Ansel was of a different era. He is not going to zoom forward in time and sit around eating pizza and photo shopping up pretty pictures.

[Norman 202]

i don't know too much about Adams but from what i learned here, from photographers i respect, he was a unremarkable photographer but a darkroom wizard who'd probably be printing perfectly exposed shots of crap

[donald_miller5]

I do not knw much about Adams either but I think that is because I do not know many people who are qualified to critique him

[Norman 202]

I do not knw much about Adams either but I think that is because I do not know many people who are qualified to critique him

that's BS. you should read more. He wrote books on the chemical aspects of photography not the artistic.

[Norma Desmond]

and photo shopping up pretty pictures

It's amazing to me how many otherwise seemingly reasonable people think Photoshop is for making pictures pretty or, as stated in other threads, for correcting mistakes. IMO, one is only limited when talking about Photoshop by one's own lack of experience with it or one's lack of imagination when using or thinking about it.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ansel Adams's photos, though I hope I appreciate his achievements in terms of post processing and printing. But here's Ansel Adams in his own words about the future. I don't see him as having a limited frame of reference for his own era only:

 

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

[rossb]

Sorry Fred I did not mean to hurt your feelings. The truth of it is I am not that found of his photos either. I do not really like the red contrast filter look all that much in landscapes. Edited June 18, 2017 by rossb

[Norma Desmond]

Ross, what makes you think you hurt my feelings? My wanting to set the record straight about the use of Photoshop and about Ansel Adams not being limited by his era is not an instigation of some sort of encounter session.

[Norman 202]

Ross, what makes you think you hurt my feelings? My wanting to set the record straight about the use of Photoshop and about Ansel Adams not being limited by his era is not an instigation of some sort of encounter session.

Fred, Ross is confused (witness his obsession with his photo medium every post). your AA adams quote is priceless.

[rossb]

I am just a guy taking pictures. My negatives are all scanned and adjusted in LR. Not that different then anyone else. I shoot film because its fun. I do not shoot digital because its boring. Others obviously have an opposite viewpoint. Its all photography and there are many ways to approach it. As far as Ansel goes he might shoot a digital camera or not. He might choose a career with health insurance, or play the piano in a rock and roll band. I would not know what he would do again. I think he is best left in the past and people can appreciate his work or not as they please. Edited June 18, 2017 by rossb

[Norman 202]

I shoot film because its fun. I do not shoot digital because its boring

weird

[donald_miller5]

I agree that he should be left in the past and his work be appreciated in that context. At the same time there will be times regardless where he will be one of those who will be used as a standard to be compared too or cited as an example and that is also valid and relevant. There are many dimensions and perspectives to how he (et al) can be viewed and discussed.

[rossb]

Well good luck to you all. Photonet has run its course for me. The threads are always the same dozen or so posters and every thread breaks down to insults and name calling. Its a waste of time for me so I will say goodbye and goodluck. I will hang around the classic camera forum for a while as i enjoy the weekly photo sharing from film cameras. Good luck.

[Norma Desmond]

I agree that he should be left in the past and his work be appreciated in that context.

I think any photographer's and any artist's work can and should be appreciated in the context of their time and can and should be appreciated in the present moment as well. I don't think, and can't understand the thinking behind, appreciating someone's work in the context of their time is "leaving someone in the past." "Leave it in the past" is usually said in fairly determinative terms and is usually meant to CLOSE the door on it. So I don't buy it. You can't put lipstick on that pig.

 

In any case, I'll not leave Ansel Adams or any photographer of note in the past. I'll carry them with me. I think of my own photography, at least in part, as a dialogue with photographers and artists (and viewers) from the past, as a response to what's been done and thought about before me, and as my own projection into the future as well. I don't know about my own work, but I surely hope that some of the work being done now by photographers and artists will be considered and brought forward into the future.

 

The past is too filled with innovation, significance, thoughtfulness, beauty, and courageousness for me to leave it behind. I think moving forward actually requires the past and drawing inspiration from it rather than some almost impossible-to-achieve notion that moving forward would require leaving the past behind. Just try leaving the past behind. You'll find it catches up with you no matter what you think.

[donald_miller5]

Fred, I agree with you. That is the problem with ping ponging posts. Many things said are correctly misinterpreted (what does that mean). Language is flexible. When I said I agree with leaving him in the past I meant that we should appreciate in terms of what he had to work with. It is an interesting what if question (just like what would Beethoven do with modern audio?) I did not mean to bury him in the past and there are contributions (maybe all his work) from him that are relevant today and in the future. I know, I did post the question about what AA would do, but that was because there were many references to him. There were times in the past where you FOR GOOD REASON took me to task and when I explained what I was attempting to say you agreed. It is as much a problem for the poster as the postee. I would say that the past is filled with more innovation. You could not go back and alter something like you can today by pressing a keyboard. I still think of Imogen Cunningham (you drew my attention to her) and the innovative work she did.

 

Ross, do not throw out the baby with the bath there is still a lot of good in there (not from me). just (me included ) have to learn to talk across their bow. Just look where it is coming. Some people's criticism I take seriously and others only reinforce my confidence

[kogalleries]

Buyers have never asked those questions to me. Some photographers always do, especially if there work is sub-par. They have something to blame it on now and most definitely try and use that argument. I would say, its what you call yourself. If you say your a photo purest, then tell the truth. If you say your a photographer, be who you say you are a without lying to anyone. Fine art photographer sounds better, can be the same or different. No laws here or bar association to beat you up if you call yourself or your images whatever.

 

I am long past that state of caring what other photographers think or call something.

Edited June 19, 2017 by kogalleries