Do you know who ansel adams is?

Have you heard of Ansel adams

  • Yes

    Votes: 216 92.7%

  • No

    Votes: 17 7.3%
  • Total voters
    233
Status
Not open for further replies.
Arguments in my thread and I'm not involved! The worlds gone mad
 
gramps said:
Possibly, but not everyone has the desire or inclination to cover every spectrum of available knowledge, most people have varied interests which will mean that some things are explored by them whilst others are ignored ... does that amount to ignorance or "inverted snobbery"?
I think not ... however for someone to insist that everyone must pursue their particular field of interest seems quite odd to me.
Click to expand...

This is bizarre.... Who is suggesting that someone else pursues their particular field of interest? I love people photography and motorsport photography. I have less than a passing interest in landscape photography, but I'm still aware of some famous landscape photographers.

Have I just stumbled onto a football forum?

Surely people join this forum to improve their knowledge of photography? So to then take the attitude that any area of photography is irrelevant (without even a cursory glance) is just odd. And to revel in ignorance is beyond my comprehension.

I'd have to have tried hard to avoid seeing the work of famous photographers, starting photography before the internet, we had a small selection of magazines and books, who all trotted out the same 'masters' over and over.
 
POAH said:
I can quite easily dissmiss something before I've seen it - you do it from when you are kid.
Click to expand...

I'm not a religous person but I think this is quite apt here.....:LOL:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.
 
Surely everyone here aspires to produce better photographs? Why refuse to investigate something that might be interesting, surely even if you find someone irrelevant or outmoded there is still nourishment in investigating what other people appreciate?

It's like a jazz guitar player refusing to use a pentatonic scale because its "too passé, too simple and blues".
 
POAH said:
or telling some bloke to jump over a puddle :naughty:
Click to expand...

Yes quite! In the same interview he reckons he held his camera up against a hole in a fence and clicked away (for that famous shot you refer to), not knowing what he would get. The interviewer was surprised and said how lucky that was. Thats where I got the quote from....

Not sure what to make of that but it was an interesting interview and he certainly didn't come across as pompous about it...
 
Delatevo said:
I take it that was said with some perverse sense of humour?
Click to expand...

none what so ever, explain why you think its perverse? i cant quite see anything perverted about it.

Give me an hour with David Bowie in a studio and i can guarantee you cover images on some major magazines. As it stands now you'll never hear from me or see any of my work anywhere.

In the same vein, i stand more chance of getting images of Yosemete published than i would of chelmsford gas works.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
An over rated early large format photographer lol
Click to expand...


The sheer level of ignorance, and arrogance in that response is shocking. Over rated? He pioneered techniques that have influenced the medium beyond measure, and inspired generations. Not only by his work, but by his passion for conservation too. The man, clearly was a legend.

You may not like his work, and to be honest, as I'm not a landscape photographer, I can't say I like it as much as others I could, and often do mention, but "over rated"?

What on earth qualifies you to make such a statement when you clearly have no appreciation of how influential he was? Not liking someone's work is one thing, but to dismiss his as over rated is just displaying your monumental ignorance for all to see.

I find this whole thread disturbing in a way actually. I wonder if you could go into a Football forum and find someone who doesn't know who Bobby Charlton is? I find that unlikely. What about going into a F1 forum as trying to find someone who doesn't know who Ayrton Senna is? Equally as unlikely. Classical Music forum and asking if anyone has never heard of Mozart? Unthinkable. Yet here we are... a photography forum where photographers don't know our equivalent of Mozart, or Senna, or Charlton.

How in the name of Satan's ball sack does this happen????
 
Last edited:
How in the name of Satan's ball sack does this happen????
Click to expand...

The rise of digital.

*edit* actually you cant blame digital, probably go back to the rise of 35mm cameras, cheap and open to all to use. Why should the general public give a fig about who's gone before. Thats just society for you. No blame to be apportioned anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Frank Sutcliffe has always been a fave of mine, he never had to moan about noise and iso performance :D
 
I honestly find it amazing that those who claim to be 'pro' and critique images on the forums have not heard of the 'masters' of photography? If we strive to have photography given its fair recognition as an art form then we should treat our approach the same as modern painters do. By studying from those who have gone before. :)
 
fifthwheel said:
I honestly find it amazing that those who claim to be 'pro' and critique images on the forums have not heard of the 'masters' of photography? If we strive to have photography given its fair recognition as an art form then we should treat our approach the same as modern painters do. By studying from those who have gone before. :)
Click to expand...

Amen.

essexash said:
The rise of digital.

*edit* actually you cant blame digital, probably go back to the rise of 35mm cameras, cheap and open to all to use. Why should the general public give a fig about who's gone before. Thats just society for you. No blame to be apportioned anywhere.
Click to expand...

This isn't really the general public we're talking about though. We're talking about people who claim to be photographers, even as keen amateurs, or in some cases, professionals. I also disagree.. 35mm had been around for most of Asel Adam's life. It was still film, and you still had to know what you were doing.

I do blame digital. Give a roll of film to half the "professionals" these days and see how crap they are.
 
Last edited:
For me one of the joys of photography is looking at the works of others - either amateur or professional. I enjoy looking at photographs and I find it interesting to find out who inspired the photographers whose work I like.

Just because I admire a photographer's work doesn't mean my images will look like theirs.

I find it similar to music, as a teenager I liked The Rolling Stones, Clapton, Hendrix etc and then started looking at the people who influenced them and thoroughly enjoyed "discovering" Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf and other blues greats.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The sheer level of ignorance, and arrogance in that response is shocking. Over rated? He pioneered techniques that have influenced the medium beyond measure, and inspired generations. Not only by his work, but by his passion for conservation too. The man, clearly was a legend.

You may not like his work, and to be honest, as I'm not a landscape photographer, I can't say I like it as much as others I could, and often do mention, but "over rated"?

What on earth qualifies you to make such a statement when you clearly have no appreciation of how influential he was? Not liking someone's work is one thing, but to dismiss his as over rated is just displaying your monumental ignorance for all to see.

I find this whole thread disturbing in a way actually. I wonder if you could go into a Football forum and find someone who doesn't know who Bobby Charlton is? I find that unlikely. What about going into a F1 forum as trying to find someone who doesn't know who Ayrton Senna is? Equally as unlikely. Classical Music forum and asking if anyone has never heard of Mozart? Unthinkable. Yet here we are... a photography forum where photographers don't know our equivalent of Mozart, or Senna, or Charlton.

How in the name of Satan's ball sack does this happen????
Click to expand...

I was going to write a lengthy and rather cynical reply until I read this and realised it summed my thoughts up probably better than I could express them myself. I can say no more than I'm in 100% agreement with every word!

I especially loved the "in the name of Satan's ball sack" bit, I'm stealing that one! :D
 
For those interested, 'ere is one of the videos wot I mentioned earlier. It's a very old-school "straight" documentary/interview with no faff which might seem a bit dry by today's standards, but there's plenty of meat to chew for those interested in landscapes, photographic history or general photography. (y)

(Parts 2, 3 & 4 added as links at bottom.)

[YOUTUBE]ZND3eczqoIA[/YOUTUBE]

...Part 2
...Part 3
...Part 4
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
For those interested, 'ere is one of the videos wot I mentioned earlier. It's a very old-school "straight" documentary/interview with no faff which might seem a bit dry by today's standards, but there's plenty of meat to chew for those interested in landscapes, photographic history or general photography. (y)
Click to expand...

Very interesting, thanks for posting (y)
 
essexash said:
but would these people be as famous if not for being in the right place at the right time. Having Yosemetie on your doorstep will improve the odds no end of generating amazing landscapes compared to if you lived in Luton.

Same point with Bailey, if i had access to the model rosta of Vogue im pretty sure i could knock out some decent fashion shots. Someone would of come along at some point and stuck a model in front of a white wall if it wasnt him first.

Talent or environemnt? which served them the most?
Click to expand...

Talent every time!

Not only the talent to create the images but the ability to access or create the environment in the first place. Or even the vision to know what environment you want to create, who or what you want to put in that environment, the wherewithall to then get access to those people or places and then the talent to get the images that you envisioned. That's what these people did and that's why they and their images are celebrated.

essexash said:
Give me an hour with David Bowie in a studio and i can guarantee you cover images on some major magazines. As it stands now you'll never hear from me or see any of my work anywhere.
Click to expand...

The reason the some people can shoot cover shots with Bowie and the like is that they demonstrated their talent beforehand which enabled them to get the gig and the freedom to create the cover shots. If you're at the stage where you could 'guarantee cover shots on some major magazines' in an hour, maybe you could let us know what the secret is or at least show us some examples?!;)
 
Interesting thread.

I don't profess to know many of the 'masters' and what they've done and achieved.... Adams is one who I looked at early in my photographic career while at university. I know who Bailey is but couldn't name you one of his shots. People like Elliot Erwitt, Faye Godwin, Jeff Wall and even Andy Goldsworthy had more relevance to me.

I appreciate that they've (the 'masters') helped shape photography through their actions, but I believe that it is the photographers who shoot these days who shape the future of photography. By all means, give credit to those who inspire you and equally, give credit to the works that help photography evolve as an art form, but I don't believe that it's a prerequisite for anyone who picks up a camera to be forced to learn in-depth about those who've gone before.
 
Before I became interested in photography I didn't know about Adams, Cartier-Bresson and the like but soon found out.

But David Bailey for gods sake. That is like someone who is into music not knowing who David Bowie is. And even people who are not even remotely interested in photography know who David Bailey is
 
Well I bloody love both past and current photographers work. And I think it's important to constantly be looking at their work too, go to galleries, buy books, or just google them. It's inspiring for me to be able see the work of Richard Avedon, Brassai and even photographers I work alongside regularly.

I think being blissfully ignorant is probably wonderful, but I'm not sure it makes for wonderful photography. When anyone first gets into photography they look around all the time at other people's pictures trying to learn, see how they did it and try to emulate or build upon it. As soon as you no longer do that, can you honestly say you are still developing as a photographer? Or are you wallowing in your own complacency?

Now go and watch the William Klein documentary on Iplayer before it disappears!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/bigscr...._Winter_2012_The_Many_Lives_of_William_Klein


And no I hadn't heard of Klein before last week. But it's brilliant
 
DT01 said:
If you're at the stage where you could 'guarantee cover shots on some major magazines' in an hour, maybe you could let us know what the secret is or at least show us some examples?!;)
Click to expand...

I cant though, because i dont have access to him :) thats the point. But in my exceeeeedinly limited experience and talent with the whole thing, ive worked with enthusiastic amateurs and paid models and the gulf between the two is measurable in how they both work and how the finnished product comes out. So slap a super model in front of me and im sure i could do something. Lend us a tenner and i'll give Naomi a ring. Im sure i could knock out a similar looking image that you see in Vogue today with the apropriate model to go with me :) Im fact im flicking through Novembers vogue now, and as far as the studio shots go, theres nothing in there that an enthusiastic tog couldnt pull off comfortably.

Cheers for the Ansel links btw. The first one was the same one they showed at the exhibition in greenwhich. What a lovely bloke.
 
specialman said:
I appreciate that they've (the 'masters') helped shape photography through their actions, but I believe that it is the photographers who shoot these days who shape the future of photography. By all means, give credit to those who inspire you and equally, give credit to the works that help photography evolve as an art form, but I don't believe that it's a prerequisite for anyone who picks up a camera to be forced to learn in-depth about those who've gone before.
Click to expand...

Really.. so it's not a prerequisite for someone who wants to be a pianist to know about Mozart, or Debussy or Chopin? Why not? I'm not suggesting you don't pay attention to contemporary artists as well, but seriously... what other discipline can you name that doesn't revere past masters? I'm not suggesting Adams is all that relevant now as a source of inspiration (although I wouldn't discount the idea by any means) but how many contemporary musicians still cite "historical" musicians as a source of inspiration? You can't just ignore the past because it's old :)


essexash said:
I cant though, because i dont have access to him :) thats the point.
Click to expand...


So how do you think famous photographers get access to them? What came first, their access, or their recognition as great photographers? I'm sorry, but what on earth makes you think you could create artwork at the same level as those currently shooting for Vogue? That's quite a bold claim... If I was making that claim I'd make sure I had some pretty impressive work to back it up.

Someone else was saying Adams had an advantage because he had the Sierras on his doorstep, well so what, many on here have the Lake District on their doorstep, or any number of other examples of stunning landscape. However, do you really think that's the only reason Adams was famous?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Really.. so it's not a prerequisite for someone who wants to be a pianist to know about Mozart, or Debussy or Chopin? Why not? I'm not suggesting you don't pay attention to contemporary artists as well, but seriously... what other discipline can you name that doesn't revere past masters? I'm not suggesting Adams is all that relevant now as a source of inspiration (although I wouldn't discount the idea by any means) but how many contemporary musicians still cite "historical" musicians as a source of inspiration? You can't just ignore the past because it's old :)
Click to expand...

I don't need no Mo-zart, yo - juz gimmy the keys, let's go go go.
 
Last edited:
Well.. this is my point. Even most non-photographic people will know who he is. How the hell do you become a photographer and not know?

Mentioned in the Simpsons too :)
 
essexash said:
I cant though, because i dont have access to him :) thats the point. But in my exceeeeedinly limited experience and talent with the whole thing, ive worked with enthusiastic amateurs and paid models and the gulf between the two is measurable in how they both work and how the finnished product comes out. So slap a super model in front of me and im sure i could do something. Lend us a tenner and i'll give Naomi a ring. Im sure i could knock out a similar looking image that you see in Vogue today with the apropriate model to go with me :) Im fact im flicking through Novembers vogue now, and as far as the studio shots go, theres nothing in there that an enthusiastic tog couldnt pull off comfortably.

Cheers for the Ansel links btw. The first one was the same one they showed at the exhibition in greenwhich. What a lovely bloke.
Click to expand...

The model/actor/singer helps to give an image impact sure, but it's not necessarily the image that they shoot for Vogue that defines the photographer (especially if they're doing fashion on mid grey colorama), it's the body of work that got them to that stage. While the enthusiast could shoot the set up, it's highly unlikely that they could come up with the theme, cast the model, make up and hair stylists and fashion stylists at the level that shooting for Vogue would require. That's before directing them all to work together in order to create a finished image that such publications would be happy to publish. Sure, slap a supermodel in front of you and you could do something but even if the Vogue shots look simple, there's probably more to it than meets the eye. Just sayin' ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Really.. so it's not a prerequisite for someone who wants to be a pianist to know about Mozart, or Debussy or Chopin?
Click to expand...

But we're not talking about pianists....

Anyway, I never said people shouldn't know about what's gone on previous, just that I don't believe it's a prerequisite to have an in-depth knowledge. Big difference.

I think those who look to specialise in something such as landscape photography will naturally search out someone like Adams, but it's not neccessary knowledge for those who just want to take photographs.

Pookeyhead said:
Why not? I'm not suggesting you don't pay attention to contemporary artists as well, but seriously... what other discipline can you name that doesn't revere past masters? I'm not suggesting Adams is all that relevant now as a source of inspiration (although I wouldn't discount the idea by any means) but how many contemporary musicians still cite "historical" musicians as a source of inspiration? You can't just ignore the past because it's old :)
Click to expand...

I never suggested ignoring the past because it's old.
 
Ansel Adams - best photographer ever, period. This man is equivalent to Da Vinci in the craft of picture making.

Oh, and you can still use the "zone system" with digital photography, learn it, it's worth the effort.
 
Ooh, I've heard of Patrick Lichfield too!
 
The best didn't become the best by ignoring those that came before them, wilful or not. That applies for both art and science.
 
FruitFlakes said:
The best didn't become the best by ignoring those that came before them, wilful or not. That applies for both art and science.
Click to expand...

Standing on the shoulders of giants

(not the crap Oasis album)
 
Only heard about Adams as one of his pictures was on Pawn stars, (History channel) even then I have not felt the need to search him out.

David Bailey - well known in his time and if you raise your camera in a room full of certain aged people, someone will say ' watch out David Bailey is here'.

PS, i'm not into music that much, listen to what I like, ignore / blank out the rest. Couldn't tell you who or what was number 1 in the past 20 years, but from those past years someone in the future will be classed as a great of their time, I hope its Rick Astley ;)
 
I cannot believe that anyone doesn't understand the importance of some of the names mentioned, they were pioneers pushing the boundaries and others followed. Bailey broke the mould of fashion photography by shooting with 35mm, he totally changed the mindset of the fashion editors at the time. Paving the way for the likes of Donovan, O'Neil and Duffy they exploited the Sixties and Seventies and became rock stars. They blazed a trail which changed the way fashion and editorial images were shot. The image that O' Neil shot of Faye Dunaway after the oscars is one my favourites along with Don McCullin image of the guvners.

Are we really saying that we should have no interest in Iconic photographers making Iconic images. I am truly amazed by Adams work toting around heavyweight gear making his images. Evolving the zone system which is still being used and applied even in today's digital age.
 
essexash said:
but would these people be as famous if not for being in the right place at the right time. Having Yosemetie on your doorstep will improve the odds no end of generating amazing landscapes compared to if you lived in Luton.

Same point with Bailey, if i had access to the model rosta of Vogue im pretty sure i could knock out some decent fashion shots. Someone would of come along at some point and stuck a model in front of a white wall if it wasnt him first.

Talent or environemnt? which served them the most?
Click to expand...

:D I think there were quite a few people living in California at the same time as Adams, quite a few more before and after as well.. and as said, there were a lot of people with better access than Bailey, who fought his way in.


Cagey75 said:
It's pretty unfair to label others ignorant because they don't know who the guy is tbh. Not knowing who he is simply means just that, you've not come across him before. Not everyone into photography feels the need to look up other/past photographers. And they really don't have to. It's probably much more refreshing not to, as you'll follow your own creativity, too many out there trying to emulate other people's work.

It's like saying you would find it hard to believe a modern painter never heard of Dali ...
Click to expand...

Ignorant means just that: lacking knowledge of a particular subject. It's not an insult as so many people seem to be taking it, it's a fair and accurate way to describe someone who is, umm, ignorant.

As for following your own path, well, that's half the reason to look at past work. I don't want to spend half my life working on something, only to then find out it was done (probably much better) by someone else 60 years ago.

And I would be surprised if a painter (artist, maybe not a housepainter) had never heard of Dali.
 
David Bailey must have been just a household name in the UK, because he certainly wasn't over 'ere ... having looked up his images, yes I know them - just didn't know his name off hand.

There's some right Lordy folk on 'igh 'orses round here. It certainly doesn't make any of you the better off for knowing who David Bailey is ... Just seems to have made those who did know a bit shoutier ... Can just imagine your pub chats ..."YOU DON'T KNOW DAVID BAILEY!!??? OMG! YOU ARE NOTHING!"

I wish that was just in jest.

I know plenty of the good photographers from this era, and I can recognise a good old classic too. Not knowing David Bailey off hand doesn't make anyone ignorant to anything. It means his name wasn't bandied about enough where they grew up maybe? How anyone can get all Lordy and self righteous [as many have in this thread, no surprise who ...] about it I do not know. Says more about them than the ones who'd not heard of him.
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
I'm amazed there's been no mention of "the zone system" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System, which is one of the things he was best known for......... it kept the nerdy ones busy back in the days of film
Click to expand...

Here here! Im only now reading through this thread and yes, so many are putting Ansels work down to location but without his absolute mastery and understanding of light, film, printing, mathematics and art his images would be mere records and not the masterpieces that they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top