Robert Watcher
Well-known member
I ended up watching some Ansel Adams documentaries on Youtube yesterday, and even though I have never been one who really follows his work and I have never taken the time to really get to know about him - - - I found his image creation methodology fascinating and simplistic in nature - in many ways much like I have worked over my 30 plus years as a visual person using photographer to express the way that I see things.
As with him, I come across found subject matter as I walk around doing my daily business or even when out searching for things to photograph. I revel in capturing that fleeting moment that will not be there a few moments or even minutes from when I take the shot. Not much is a deliberate drawn out process as to what I end up photographing.
For me the most important area where our minds mesh, is that I have always viewed the captured image as something that is just kind of a representation of a scene - as he describes it, like the 80 keys of a piano - - - and then that technically sound image, can be interpreted in many different ways through the method of processing the image, so that a photographer can come to a final image that is identified uniquely to its creator, in the same way that Beethoven or Bach manipulate the keys on the piano to achieve their unique experience. As he states, if many photographers created prints from his negatives, each print would be different. He even had in his home, one of his own well known images that he had printed a 3 different times in his life - - - each print different and reflecting his feelings at that time in his life.
Of course a good technical image has to be in the digital file or film frame to begin with - but that is where every competent photographer can produce basically the same photographic capture. Mind you it is true that there is an art in the photographer composing the image so that there is visually useful content and also the ability to anticipate and capture changing elements comes into play - - - the art of seeing. However, for me the photograph has always been indelibly reliant on the time and steps involved with processing the film and print - - - just as it was with Ansel. That becomes the difference between "great shot" and a show stopper that makes people stop in their tracks - whether they like the image or not.
So I looked up this old forum post that I made in 2004. Not necessarily to discuss whether this is a great image or not - - - but more about the value that I have always placed on processing - whether that was in my wet darkroom in my film days - my hybrid days of shooting film and processing digitally - or more recently with digital capture and digital processing. In the case of this image that I used as a basis for a popular thread called "Platinum Print Emulation Instructions", I went through the steps of how at that time I was achieving a look that made me feel very satisfied with my work, and one that my paying clients happened to appreciate as well. The original - taken in decent light - would have been fine for the client, and they wouldn't know any different if they never saw any other version - - - but the final image is an artistic expression of mine that could then become even more identified with me.
I feel that there is even more relevance to Ansels way of labouring over the printing process - today - than even in the past. Everyone now has great technical cameras and tend to follow the pack in getting perfectly exposed and noise free files - applying whatever popular effect is the action of the day - whether that be plastic looking faces, green faded out portraits with lens flare, the list goes on. To move beyond that, a skill still valued by me though - is the ability to use the tools at my disposal to process my images to be unique to me as a creative photographer, and most of the times that means each image even being processed not exactly the same as the last.
The first image from that 2004 forum thread, is my finished work after composing, shooting and processing - - - and the second is a simply a nice wedding picture after composing and shooting. The original was taken with Ilford XP2 film and scanned to process digitally.
Rob
As with him, I come across found subject matter as I walk around doing my daily business or even when out searching for things to photograph. I revel in capturing that fleeting moment that will not be there a few moments or even minutes from when I take the shot. Not much is a deliberate drawn out process as to what I end up photographing.
For me the most important area where our minds mesh, is that I have always viewed the captured image as something that is just kind of a representation of a scene - as he describes it, like the 80 keys of a piano - - - and then that technically sound image, can be interpreted in many different ways through the method of processing the image, so that a photographer can come to a final image that is identified uniquely to its creator, in the same way that Beethoven or Bach manipulate the keys on the piano to achieve their unique experience. As he states, if many photographers created prints from his negatives, each print would be different. He even had in his home, one of his own well known images that he had printed a 3 different times in his life - - - each print different and reflecting his feelings at that time in his life.
Of course a good technical image has to be in the digital file or film frame to begin with - but that is where every competent photographer can produce basically the same photographic capture. Mind you it is true that there is an art in the photographer composing the image so that there is visually useful content and also the ability to anticipate and capture changing elements comes into play - - - the art of seeing. However, for me the photograph has always been indelibly reliant on the time and steps involved with processing the film and print - - - just as it was with Ansel. That becomes the difference between "great shot" and a show stopper that makes people stop in their tracks - whether they like the image or not.
So I looked up this old forum post that I made in 2004. Not necessarily to discuss whether this is a great image or not - - - but more about the value that I have always placed on processing - whether that was in my wet darkroom in my film days - my hybrid days of shooting film and processing digitally - or more recently with digital capture and digital processing. In the case of this image that I used as a basis for a popular thread called "Platinum Print Emulation Instructions", I went through the steps of how at that time I was achieving a look that made me feel very satisfied with my work, and one that my paying clients happened to appreciate as well. The original - taken in decent light - would have been fine for the client, and they wouldn't know any different if they never saw any other version - - - but the final image is an artistic expression of mine that could then become even more identified with me.
I feel that there is even more relevance to Ansels way of labouring over the printing process - today - than even in the past. Everyone now has great technical cameras and tend to follow the pack in getting perfectly exposed and noise free files - applying whatever popular effect is the action of the day - whether that be plastic looking faces, green faded out portraits with lens flare, the list goes on. To move beyond that, a skill still valued by me though - is the ability to use the tools at my disposal to process my images to be unique to me as a creative photographer, and most of the times that means each image even being processed not exactly the same as the last.
The first image from that 2004 forum thread, is my finished work after composing, shooting and processing - - - and the second is a simply a nice wedding picture after composing and shooting. The original was taken with Ilford XP2 film and scanned to process digitally.
Rob
