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.
gramps said:
(wikipedia)

Therein lies two issues IMO:-
1) The 'insult' aspect, depending on how it is used and/or the sensitivity of the recipient.
2) The "important information or facts" ... does anyone believe that a lack of knowledge of Ansel Adams amounts to a lack of "important information or facts"?
For me there may be a lack of 'information' per se but as to whether it is "important" is questionable - it could be extremely important to someone wishing to follow his particular style but for another person some other information/study/style may be what is important.
Click to expand...

if you are a photographer then yes indeed it does, knowing about AA plus many other master photgraphers should be a given really for any photographer worth his ISO(y)
 
redhed17 said:
And it is not revelling in ignorance, it is choosing a different path. I rile against the populist route by default. I have never seen a Disney film, I have never heard Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin albums. I've heard loads of Beatles songs, but I've never felt the urge to listen to a whole LP. We like what we like. I acknowledge that they have contributed a great deal to music, but they are not to my taste.
Click to expand...

The point here is that you know who Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin are and what sort of music they produced. You don't have to know what guitar was used on the second track of Led Zeppelin 2.

Riling against the populist route by default is actually pretty ignorant in itself if you think about it.
 
I tried to read this thread but skipped bit's due to some of the bickering so apologies if any of this has been said already.

I know who Ansel Adams is, I am aware of some of his images too. Mainly the Moon rise image and one of half dome. He's okay I suppose, some nice images but none I'd pay money for. I do have a nagging feeling I should make some more effort to investigate more however. Yes he was great in the dark room but he'd probably be great now with Photoshop. I'm also aware of the zone system, made a small effort but found it overly complex and probably applies more to people using film/plates and a darkroom.

Henri Cartier-Bresson, know who he is and what he did for photography with his 35mm Leica. I am also fully aware that there is not a single image I have seen by him that I didn't think was rubbish, but I accept I haven't seen a lot by him so it may just be I've seen the wrong stuff. That said you would have to pay me for it to be on the wall.

David bailey. Heard of him, know he's one of the 60s cool kids. I had to Google his images, and there's 2 images that look familiar. One of the Krays and one of Micheal Caine. The rest, no idea. Seems to have what I'd call a commercial magazine type look, guess he helped form this look in the 60s. These belong in a magazine not on my wall.

Annie Leibovitz. Know who she is, quite like the Disney stuff she's done recently and wouldn't mind a print or two to put on the walls in the girls rooms. I also know she was another front runner in the music magazine look in the US, and shot the last image of Lennon before he was shot.

Long story short, all these masters may have set certain themes in photography or created systems or looks that remain to this day but it doesn't mean I find them all that interesting or good.

From 4 "masters" I have listed there's 3-4 prints tops I'd pay for. That last sentence speaks volumes for me.
 
maninsuitcase said:
I tried to read this thread but skipped bit's due to some of the bickering so apologies if any of this has been said already.

I know who Ansel Adams is, I am aware of some of his images too. Mainly the Moon rise image and one of half dome. He's okay I suppose, some nice images but none I'd pay money for. I do have a nagging feeling I should make some more effort to investigate more however. Yes he was great in the dark room but he'd probably be great now with Photoshop. I'm also aware of the zone system, made a small effort but found it overly complex and probably applies more to people using film/plates and a darkroom.

Henri Cartier-Bresson, know who he is and what he did for photography with his 35mm Leica. I am also fully aware that there is not a single image I have seen by him that I didn't think was rubbish, but I accept I haven't seen a lot by him so it may just be I've seen the wrong stuff. That said you would have to pay me for it to be on the wall.

David bailey. Heard of him, know he's one of the 60s cool kids. I had to Google his images, and there's 2 images that look familiar. One of the Krays and one of Micheal Caine. The rest, no idea. Seems to have what I'd call a commercial magazine type look, guess he helped form this look in the 60s. These belong in a magazine not on my wall.

Annie Leibovitz. Know who she is, quite like the Disney stuff she's done recently and wouldn't mind a print or two to put on the walls in the girls rooms. I also know she was another front runner in the music magazine look in the US, and shot the last image of Lennon before he was shot.

Long story short, all these masters may have set certain themes in photography or created systems or looks that remain to this day but it doesn't mean I find them all that interesting or good.

From 4 "masters" I have listed there's 3-4 prints tops I'd pay for. That last sentence speaks volumes for me.
Click to expand...


Oh dear oh dear :LOL: I take it photography as art has no appeal to you?
 
Mahone said:
Oh dear oh dear :LOL: I take it photography as art has no appeal to you?
Click to expand...

Define art. Bare in all photography is art using one of the many definitions "the creation of images or objects". I suppose you can exclude forensic, medical and things like photos of paintings for prints.

It has to grab me, a blury shot of a man on a bike passing some stairs, or a picture of some glorified murdering thugs doesn't do that. The image of half dome, I like but find AA makes things a touch too dark for my tastes, so there's more modern images I like more. The Disney Portraits I mentioned do that, but even then I'd want them for my daughters as much as for me.

I also think the Beatles where overrated, no matter what they did for music and popular culture.
 
Andysnap said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't lol - my mum told my wife when we married "he'll never grow up". For worse when my own kids were born. I'm serious when I have to be.
 
maninsuitcase said:
I also think the Beatles where overrated, no matter what they did for music and popular culture.
Click to expand...

So you accept that they did do something for music and popular culture at least.
Who careas whether you think they were overrated, that is irrelevant.
 
Organnyx said:
I must be rather partial to "rubbish"
Click to expand...
Don't like either of those, what is so interesting about them? Genuine question what is it I am missing that makes these great?

The 2nd one more so where the composition makes me want to look left out of the frame.

I don't want to start an argument, I just want to understand.
 
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...

Ignorance, how. I'm not particularly impressed with his work. That's an opinion based on seeing his prints.

I'm not the least bit interested in the history of photography. If I see a photograph I like ill look at the photographers work if I don't I won't. Get off your academic high horse please.
 
ernesto said:
So you accept that they did do something for music and popular culture at least.
Who careas whether you think they were overrated, that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I also said the masters above did something, but I guess what I am saying is I don't understand why and also why they are then held to such high esteem.

I suppose a large part is I wasn't there and as such don't know the constraints and the mood at the time these where created and what they meant to those who took them and those who saw them. Nothing to do with the rise of digital or ignorance, just the world moves on. There's also a chance I now see so many copies by 100s of people the once great has become the normal and mundane.

Ultimately, they did something, and it may have changed the world. But is it still relevant? That's something each individual has to decide for themselves.

edit:
joescrivens said:
never seen those before now, wow they are truly awful arent they
Click to expand...

That kind of proves my point, I like them you don't. Just because a famous person took them doesn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
http://overhereplease.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/henri-cartier-bresson.jpg
- to try put it into words is difficult - for me, it's the juxtaposition of a fleeting moment, the blur of speed contrasting with the timeless stonework, and simply sensational framing and shapes in the photo.
As for Bailey photographing the Krays, no they weren't very pleasant, they were (in) famous in their day - I'm stuffed if I can see his photos as "glorifying" them at all - the Bailey pics of them will now always be associated with them - wouldn't any photographer worthy of their salt not be keen to photograph someone with similar notoriety, perhaps in an attempt to show a glimpse of their "spirit", however evil it may be? I'd be very happy to have photographed Sadam Hussein or even Tony Bliar......:D
 
Last edited:
To continue what those 2 pics "said to me" - the young and old women is a "classic" - the framing, the look on the old harridan's face say it all (a picture can be worth a thousand words)

The second is a moment and a place frozen by his camera - superb characters and composition - again the composition is top notch - the way your eye is "led" around (and out of) the picture....

And dare I say it? - with all three, the sheer genius of hitting the button at the decisive moment...........
 
Last edited:
maninsuitcase said:
That kind of proves my point, I like them you don't. Just because a famous person took them doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

oh right, i didn't read it properly, thought you were saying how bad they were and I agreed, they really are terrible.
 
Martin, unless you own these images or they are in the public domain, shouldn't you be putting links to them rather than hosting someone elses images on this site?
 
I'm under the impression they're firmly in the public domain - if I'm mistaken I'll happily replace them with a link
 
joescrivens said:
oh right, i didn't read it properly, thought you were saying how bad they were and I agreed, they really are terrible.
Click to expand...

Oh some of them are down right creepy, the peter pan one especially. The boy who never grew up looks like he's in his 60s! A couple also have some wonky PS work, the Ursula image doesn't look right for example.

The ones I like are Snow white, Cinderalla and Hook on the croc. I also like the evil witch one from (I think) snow white.
 
Organnyx said:
I'm under the impression they're firmly in the public domain - if I'm mistaken I'll happily replace them with a link
Click to expand...

I guess I question the cartier images. He hasn't been dead that long - certanly not 70 years, so why would they be in the public domain?
 
To me it is not about whether you like the work or not, or if it is still relevant today. It is about the lack of effort from people who are interested in photography actually bothering to dig even 1cm beneath the surface.
 
Dervish99 said:
The zone system is not only applicable to film, it can also be used for digital.
Click to expand...

The full Zone system includes varying development times for each exposure.
That is not even applicable to 35mm film.

Thinking in terms of zone areas, is even applicable to painting.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The full Zone system includes varying development times for each exposure.
That is not even applicable to 35mm film.
Click to expand...

Actually, for that reason, in many respects the zone system is *more* applicable to digital than 35mm if you're considering each digital exposure is unrelated to the next one you take and can be 'developed' individually (e.g. in RAW) unlike a roll of film.
 
I always admired and marvelled at Adams work.

Tried to print my work with hard blacks and solid whites through working in the darkroom

Won a few club competitions

Worked out cheaper to buy a few books of his work than to blow througb very expensive papers and chemicals.

I also enjoyed Helmut Neeton's work!

Yes I like Black and White photography.
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
And it is not revelling in ignorance, it is choosing a different path.be interested in or not.
Click to expand...

I'd be very interested in seeing the work of people who eschew the popular, or the "masters" of any discipline. If you ask them, they will probably make the assumption that this behaviour makes their work more original as there are no outside influences. In practice, from experience, I find that such people actually all produce very similar work, far more so than those who expose themselves to a much greater diversity of creative influences. I see this year in, year out.

Another thing I've found is that the ones more vocal about and antagonistic towards influence from past masters, or even contemporary sources are far less prolific. They produce less work, and are far less likely to exhibit, or display work.

redhed17 said:
If you're doing photography or music as an academic subject, then the history may be required reading, and that is a specified route you have chosen to follow, but for the rest of us, make your own decisions.
Click to expand...

Of course.. all this is your decision to make. No one is suggesting otherwise. It would perhaps be wise to pay attention to the fact that the vast majority of the best, most prolific and influential artists in history have always sought inspiration from others, and not worked in a vacuum.




redhed17 said:
And who strives for photography to be recognised as an art form?
Click to expand...

Err.. it IS an art form. No striving necessary.

redhed17 said:
After seeing what passes for photographic 'art', I don't think I'd want to be associated with the 'art' world and the BS that exists there. :shake: This image is the most expensive ever at £2.7m, and I find myself saying wtf! :eek: :LOL: As I do with a lot of art it has to be said. It should be up to the individual what they consider to be art, and the work should stand on its own. If it needs to be described or explained, then the point has been missed imho.
Click to expand...

LOL.. before I even clicked that link, or read it, I just knew I'd find "that Gursky" image.

Saying you don't like something is one thing, but dismissing it as BS because you don't understand it is not very clever. There are TONS of stuff I don't LIKE, but that doesn't mean it's not art. I appreciate it, and understand what the artist was doing. I would never BUY that Gursky image, and I would never have it on my wall, but why dismiss it as BS? Maybe you just never bothered to find out what it was supposed to be about? Is it worth millions? As an artefact, no, I don;'t think so, but any fine art piece isn't valued because of the very artefact itself, it gains it's value because of who the artist is, and the celebrity surrounding it. You could argue that ANY art work is not worth millions.

I'd actually be more interested in you posting a link of what you feel is "good" then.
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
The point here is that you know who Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin are and what sort of music they produced. You don't have to know what guitar was used on the second track of Led Zeppelin 2.

Riling against the populist route by default is actually pretty ignorant in itself if you think about it.
Click to expand...

Or to put it another way:

Would Jimmy Page have been that epoc defining a player if he hadn't spent god knows how long learning to play blues, skiffle and old style rock and roll?

(Track 2 of zep 2 is an interesting one, it's one of the first times Page used a les paul, up until then it was pretty much all telecaster)
 
modchild said:
I've heard of a few top photographers but can't honestly say I've taken more than a passing glance at their work. I don't take inspiration or follow anybodys work although I do appreciate that some people do.

I doubt I would recognize any photos by famous photographers, such as Ansel Adams, but I really don't think it makes anyone less of a photographer if they don't know of these famous photographers.
Click to expand...

+1
 
modchild said:
I doubt I would recognize any photos by famous photographers, such as Ansel Adams, but I really don't think it makes anyone less of a photographer if they don't know of these famous photographers.
Click to expand...

Based on what exactly? You can't just think that at random... something must give you that opinion. What is it?

Based on the fact that the majority of artists DO gain influence and inspiration from others, where does your opinion come from?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'd be very interested in seeing the work of people who eschew the popular, or the "masters" of any discipline. If you ask them, they will probably make the assumption that this behaviour makes their work more original as there are no outside influences.
Click to expand...

Everyone is influenced by the life that revolves around them.

Why do you need to know somebody's influences? Shouldn't the work stand alone? :shrug:

Pookeyhead said:
In practice, from experience, I find that such people actually all produce very similar work, far more so than those who expose themselves to a much greater diversity of creative influences. I see this year in, year out.

Another thing I've found is that the ones more vocal about and antagonistic towards influence from past masters, or even contemporary sources are far less prolific. They produce less work, and are far less likely to exhibit, or display work.
Click to expand...

I'll bow to your superior experience. :)

Pookeyhead said:
Of course.. all this is your decision to make. No one is suggesting otherwise. It would perhaps be wise to pay attention to the fact that the vast majority of the best, most prolific and influential artists in history have always sought inspiration from others, and not worked in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

And if your aim is to be a 'produce the best (subjective) an be a prolific and influential artist' then maybe that is a route to follow.

Pookeyhead said:
LOL.. before I even clicked that link, or read it, I just knew I'd find "that Gursky" image.
Click to expand...

I think saying it was the most expensive photograph ever gave it away. ;) :LOL:

Pookeyhead said:
Saying you don't like something is one thing, but dismissing it as BS because you don't understand it is not very clever. There are TONS of stuff I don't LIKE, but that doesn't mean it's not art. I appreciate it, and understand what the artist was doing. I would never BUY that Gursky image, and I would never have it on my wall, but why dismiss it as BS? Maybe you just never bothered to find out what it was supposed to be about? Is it worth millions? As an artefact, no, I don;'t think so, but any fine art piece isn't valued because of the very artefact itself, it gains it's value because of who the artist is, and the celebrity surrounding it. You could argue that ANY art work is not worth millions.

I'd actually be more interested in you posting a link of what you feel is "good" then.
Click to expand...

I think I was dismissing the art world as BS. Give good enough BS, and get enough of the in crowd nodding and stroking their chins and you can get away with a lot.

Do I have to know what was behind the image? :shrug: Can I not just like or dislike an image? I read what was 'behind' the image and I still think it is a dull and boring picture an not worth the money imho.

Here are some images I like. I didn't feel the need to know the story behind any of the images, and I'm not too fussed who produced the images. I compliment the photographer on taking a nice picture because I like the picture. Should any of the pictures have been taken by somebody famous would it have changed the images in any way to make it better or more valuable? Not to me. If there was a story behind the images would they be better to me? I doubt it. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about all this.

I wonder if it's all about individual aspirations.

Some people are gear heads. That's fine. I get that.

Some are happy snappers who want to know enough to take a good looking picture. Great stuff.

Some are keen amateurs who, given the time, are sort of interested in looking at what's gone before. Good on yer.

Some are pro photographers who only want to deliver what the customer needs. May there always be food on your table.

Some are aspiring artists. Whatever gets you there, good luck.

Some are academics who rightly study the subject at every level. We need people to do that.

My point is - there is no point. Do what's right for you. I will judge your photographs.

There's so much more to say on this, but there's no point.

Enjoy what you do, however you do it, and respect the views of others.

At the same time though, look into the mirror and question how you see yourself in relationship to photography, then at least be honest about the answer.

I'm an aspirational amateur with a long term goal of producing something in the long run that may be considered vaguely artistic.

And I like taking snaps of my cat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top