Why could Ansel Adams make such great, enduring photos? Four main reasons:
- He had a great eye for subject and composition
- He knew his subjects - the American landscape, etc - exceptionally well.
- He was an absolute master of technique, some of which he invented and developed himself.
- He was willing to schlep an *enormous* amount of delicate, heavy, expensive gear long distances to the middle of nowhere. Seriously.
petes_bread_eqn_xls
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •“He was willing to schlep an enormous amount of delicate, heavy, expensive gear long distances to the middle of nowhere.”
There’s the “99% perspiration” part I guess
Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze reshared this.
Prabhakar Ragde
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Prabhakar Ragde • • •David Stucky
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Not sure I fully agree. You really need a good SLR with "real" lenses, digital or otherwise. And as you noted a lot of his personal talent came from is own personal development process. Few are doing their own film development these days.
- Some low res scans of my wife's film she developed herself over 18yrs a go. I believe a Pentax K1000
Matt Blaze
in reply to David Stucky • • •David Stucky
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Chuck Fry
in reply to David Stucky • • •David Stucky
in reply to Chuck Fry • • •David Stucky
in reply to David Stucky • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to David Stucky • • •David Stucky
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •keith
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Better paints than Rembrandt too.
Matt Blaze
in reply to keith • • •Matt Blaze reshared this.
Mike P
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Mike P • • •₵ⱧⱤł₴ ⱤØ₥₱ NZ6F 🇺🇸🇺🇦💪🏻
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •TenguTech
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Dave
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Ehrenreich Meuchel
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •His ambition apparently was to depict as many shades as possible in one shot. This why so many of Adams' photos have a touch of 3D, methinks.
Nicholas Weaver
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Plus material cost per photo has gone from "OMG" to 0.
That was National Geographic's secret during the 35mm film era, everyone else bought film by the roll, they bought it by the palletload.
Steve Bellovin
in reply to Nicholas Weaver • • •Nicholas Weaver
in reply to Steve Bellovin • • •Amdahl's law in action once again.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •A couple people have asked about my camera setup and how I travel with it. Warning: Long equipment-centric thread follows.
I mostly use the Phase One system, which is built around a very flexible medium format (54x40mm) interchangeable-back sensor mount. This allows me to use a variety of different cameras (DSLRs, technical field cameras, or full view cameras) and lenses. I usually shoot with the “XT”, which is a small (as these things go) field camera with horizontal and vertical movements.
Matt Blaze reshared this.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •The XT camera itself is little more than a back-to-back mount that connects the sensor to the lens, with some geared controls that can move the image up and down and from side to side (for controlling the geometry of the captured image).
Here’s the camera without a lens or sensor back attached, mounted on a tripod. It doesn’t look like much. It’s basically a frame with a big hole in the middle.
Matt Blaze reshared this.
Rob C 🐳
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •The Phase One sensor sits inside a bulky cube that you attach to the back of the camera. (It also houses the processor, battery, memory card, controls, and display).
Once you attach the sensor and lens, it starts to look like an actual camera, and it’s a bit heavier than it looks. The lenses for the XT have a helical focus ring (just like manual focus SLR lenses). Aperture is controlled electronically from the back.
Here’s the XT with an IQ4-150MP Achromatic sensor and a Rodenstock 50mm lens.
Matt Blaze reshared this.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •I usually use a “compendium” bellows hood to keep glare off the lens when shooting outdoors. It also says “don’t mess with me, for I am a time traveler from the 19th Century”.
The XT has a neat feature where you can rotate between landscape and portrait orientation without removing the camera from the tripod.
Matt Blaze reshared this.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze reshared this.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •I shoot mostly outside the studio. My working kit, with 4-5 lenses, filters, cables, and other knickknacks weighs in around 30 or 40 lbs. I can fit a usable subset into a backpack, but that usually makes me regret leaving something at home. So I usually use a Pelican wheeled case, which I can strap the tripod to with bungee cords. I like the 1510 “mobility” case, which is fitted with extra large wheels. I can stand on it to be a bit taller.
Ansel had his station wagon, I have my Pelican case.
Matt Blaze reshared this.
Eric Vitiello
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •The kit - 5 lenses, two backs, XT body filters, etc. - fits inside two padded packing cubes that fit snugly in the Pelican case (Phase One sells them separately, highly recommended).
My lens lineup generally tends toward the wide side. Shown here are 23, 32, 50, 70 and 90mm lenses, along with a bunch of filters (mostly ND and IR, plus a polarizer and Wine Country holder). That would give angles of view from ~ 16mm to 60mm in 35mm terms.
The blower bulb is essential. Sensor dust is the enemy.
Matt Blaze reshared this.
Matt Blaze
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Anyway, that’s my typical setup. My gear choices are optimized for the kind of photography I generally do, which is mostly large fine-art and fine-art adjacent prints of architecture and the constructed world. It would be a TERRIBLE kit for street photography, sports, or wildlife.
Also, this system, with movements that control geometry at the time of capture, suits my preferred workflow. You can accomplish a lot with post-processing, but I prefer camera controls where possible.
Matt Blaze reshared this.
lnmnkatz
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to lnmnkatz • • •lnmnkatz
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to lnmnkatz • • •John Rohde Jensen
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Post is a necessary evil imho.
Norman Wilson
in reply to John Rohde Jensen • • •QRSS_Test
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Chris Samuel
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Concepts of an account
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Megan
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •sayrer
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to sayrer • • •sayrer
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •ah, ok. I think you can probably find something better from Pelican, though. I have something close to yours with no wheels. There should be a strap or something, sort of like the grids on a “tactical" backpack. I actually use a small Nike SB one most of the time amazon.com/dp/B004HZAX4C.
Also, do not miss the Pelican SD cases if you haven't seen these: bhphotovideo.com/c/product/130…
Matt Blaze
in reply to sayrer • • •sayrer
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •sayrer
in reply to sayrer • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to sayrer • • •sayrer
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •yep, but then you are in Bogen/Manfrotto territory. I like them in the studio because everything is too heavy and doesn't move.
Pelican and Gitzo are better if you have to move around, so they should have this.
Karl Auerbach
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Karl Auerbach • • •Debbie Wade
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Debbie Wade • • •Eric Vitiello
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Eric Vitiello • • •Eric Vitiello
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •midendian
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •JamesK
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Dennis Boone
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Kent Borg
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Ralph Brandi
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Ralph Brandi • • •Ralph Brandi
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Ralph Brandi • • •Ralph Brandi
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Darryl Ramm
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Don Cruse
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •lnmnkatz
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Dan
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Dan • • •Dan
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •lnmnkatz
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Michael Wyman
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Michael Wyman • • •David in Tokyo
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Having only known Adams from the coffee table books, Aperture (late 60s/early 70s), the calendars, and having only seen one exhibition (the SX70 release exhibition at Polaroid), I was quite surprised when I finally got to see some of his full size prints: they were soft and gentle and subtle. Nothing like the razor-sharp works I knew.
So, yes. Your "sharper, higher resolution" bit is spot on.
Kent Borg
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Matt Blaze
in reply to Kent Borg • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •@octothorpe I agree. But even larger format digital cameras are smaller and lighter and much higher image quality than what Adams worked with. And they require much less adjunct equipment - no film holders, changing bags, etc to bring along.
My full Phase One kit (with 5 lenses) fits in a small rolling case. No station wagon required!
Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •Karl Auerbach
in reply to Matt Blaze • • •Adams photography - there were lots of his own prints at the Ansel Adams studio in Yosemite (he was still alive at that time) - taught me the difference between real white and real (sincerely real) black. His images also tried to teach me this lesson: "Look at all the corners, look at all the areas, look at *everything* before pushing that shutter button." I have failed on that.
Once I was choosing to buy a print that he made (an 11x14 - the one with the horse in the meadow near Lone Pine beneath Mt. Whitney - I remember it being $1200) and a watercolor by Jane Geyer that was hanging in the visitor center next door - I bought the painting (it's still in our living room, in a dim part of the room to preserve the water colors.)
Matt Blaze
in reply to Karl Auerbach • • •Matt Blaze
Unknown parent • • •@elaterite I suspect he didn't shoot from there very often. Aside from the stability problems, adding a few feet of height when shooting a MOUNTAIN just doesn't seem like a big change in perspective.
But sometimes you just need to be taller.