John Hines Posted March 11, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted March 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Andel Adams would be still using a 8x10 with a digital back because that is Ansel Adams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 Hi John Hines, Take a look here Ansel Adams. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Donald Posted March 11, 2007 Share #22 Â Posted March 11, 2007 Come to think of it. Ansel Adams was the pioneer and advocate of the Zone system, adjusting exposure and developing for each shot for max result. As Leica film users we could only develope the film once. With the M8 and RAW we are basically back where Ansel wanted to be. Processing shots individually! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzav Posted March 11, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted March 11, 2007 I think Ansel Adams also had a Leica M, with which he took some pictures of friends like Gerogia O'Keefe. However, for his landscapes, he would surely use one of the highest resolution cameras he could find, which would probably mean 8"x10" drum-scanned. Actually, I think he used a Zeiss Contax rangefinder... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted March 11, 2007 Share #24  Posted March 11, 2007 Ansel use Zone System of metering, but that only work most effectively on negative films "starting at 120mm" and up. And most effective in Black & White films. There are 9 Zones from black to white and the technique is to meter on the shadows and develop in the highlights.  Both slides film and digital will clip on the highlights if you do Zone.  Zoning is part of my current hobby and I'm currently playing with Sodium Sulfate to develop on the highlights on a 6x6.  Many famous shots of Ansel was done on a Kodak Shoe Box Camera.  -Ron  Creature of Habbits or the Caveman within Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted March 11, 2007 Share #25 Â Posted March 11, 2007 Actually, I think he used a Zeiss Contax rangefinder... Â By jove, you are right. The picture I had in my mind was taken with a Zeiss Contax. Still, the then chose to use a Leica M4-2 as his 35mm rangefinder example. I suppose he may have had both on hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 11, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted March 11, 2007 Am I the only person who finds his photographs boring and sterile? Technically perfect, but lacking in soul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted March 11, 2007 Share #27  Posted March 11, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Technically perfect, but lacking in soul.  I agree. It is mostly flat with insufficient accutance... too much detail on the shadows will give you a flat image. I like detail in my shadows but I wont trade it for soul.  -Ron  Creature of Habbits or the Caveman within Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 11, 2007 Share #28 Â Posted March 11, 2007 I agree. It is mostly flat with insufficient accutance... too much detail on the shadows will give you a flat image.I like detail in my shadows but I wont trade it for soul. Â Ron having seen some of his photographs in the flesh I wouldn't describe them as flat. But they do leave me cold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted March 11, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted March 11, 2007 Ansel authored Chapter 8 in the twelfth edition of the Leica Manual 1951, titled Enlarging Papers and Printing. The line that I like the best is, "I have made 5 X 7 enlargements from35mm negatives that ar practically indistinguishable from 5 X 7 contact prints in quality, except under the most searching examination. A few of my 8 X 10 enlargements have approached this exacting standard." Makes you wonder what he would say about prints that size from the M8...... Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannirr Posted March 12, 2007 Share #30  Posted March 12, 2007 Ansel used a large format camera for the same reason that many people still do so today - to achieve maximum control.  This does not only mean individual sheet development (the soul of the Zone System really), or a large negative, but most importantly it means perspective control, and image control using the camera's full system of movements. To this day, this can only be done in-camera, and with a large format camera.  So, my guess would be, a 4x5 scanning back would be Ansel's choice.  Danni  PS. I have 3 original AA prints (including Moonrise) - I walk past them everyday in my house - and more than once when struggling with a digital print and lots of cuss words, I have gont to look closer at his prints to remind me why it's all worthwhile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.