What do members think of moving beyond Ansel Adams?

philbaum · 06-15-2012, 08:21 AM

I found an article by Alan Briot at Luminous Landscape. He describes what he calls the Alan Briot moves.

Creating Meaningful Photographs

Quote:

- Stretching and warping of significant features in the image such as
mountain ranges

- Radical modification of the color palette present in the
image captured by the camera

- Removal of significant elements of the photograph such as
rivers, trees, rocks, etc.

- Moving significant elements of the image from one area of the
photo to a different area

- Duplication of significant elements

- Combining elements from several photograph into a single
image

- Stitching photographs together for compositional purposes
(not to increase resolution)

I just came back from a juried art show in Edmonds, WA, and now i'm wondering if some of the cool landscapes i saw were combined out of 2 photographs, etc. or were the result of hard work in finding that combination of items. I remember an Art Wolfe image in which the viewer is looking down a hallway like series of forest trees, and at the very end, is a deer, i believe. I don't think Art would concur in Alan's style of making images, but i can forsee more images that are fortuitous occurrences, being questioned as to their authenticity (mostly talking about combining elements from 2 or more photographs)

It bothers me that some techniques like Alan suggests, will tend to undermine the credibility of many images produced by hard working photographers. I remember a juried art show from 2 years ago, where the jurist, a sculptor by profession, chose photographs for awards that were very simple scenes and ignored anything that could have been photoshoped.

Anyway, just thought it would be interesting to compare opinions on Alan's techniques.

VoiceOfReason · 06-15-2012, 08:29 AM

I personally like to capture the beauty I see and then share that moment I have frozen in time with my camera. In other words, I want what I saw, not what I 'shooped.

normhead · 06-15-2012, 08:32 AM

They are two different things. There will always be the capture the moment guys, and there will always be the "painting with light " guys. The painting with light side of me says "cool". The capture the moment guy says "what a waste of time". I'm already arguing with myself. No point in getting messed up with other people in the discussion.

philbaum · 06-15-2012, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by normhead

They are two different things. There will always be the capture the moment guys, and there will always be the "painting with light " guys. The painting with light side of me says "cool". The capture the moment guy says "what a waste of time". I'm already arguing with myself. No point in getting messed up with other people in the discussion.

Norm: Thanks for the chuckle, you're right, I have enough problems getting the voices inside my head to agree without getting more involved outside my head

I felt sort of on loose sand recently when i horizontally flipped a pond scene so that i could get a fence going from the lower left to the upper right. It wasn't any sort of landmark or anything, so i let it slide in the interest of composition. A slippery slope to be sure

I've always felt that one of the charms about "street shooting" is the gritty feel of unprocessed material. Relatively, anyway.

RioRico · 06-15-2012, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by normhead

They are two different things. There will always be the capture the moment guys, and there will always be the "painting with light " guys.

At LEAST two different things: documentation vs interpretation vs fantasy vs ??? All images are constructed, even those taken by robots. Choosing a view (in-camera or cropped) excludes all else; diddling with light, contrast, saturation, sharpness, projection, spectral response etc filters the image. Documentation, forensics, snapshots, surveillance, such 'minimally' processed images, are still processed, constructed. Toggers have hand-shooped images since at least 1858; why stop now? "Impartial photography" is a fantasy. No, it doesn't need to be argued, just acknowledged.

BTW Ansel Adams seriously manipulated his prints too. Nature never looked so good. Or so monochrome.

TaoMaas · 06-15-2012, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

It bothers me that some techniques like Alan suggests, will tend to undermine the credibility of many images produced by hard working photographers.

I think you have good reason to be bothered. Part of the value of photography has been the belief that it better represents perceived reality than most other forms of visual media. For example, we feel we know better how Abraham Lincoln looked than George Washington because we have photographs of Lincoln, whereas we only have paintings of Washington. But once we venture into heavily manipulating photographs...changing Lincoln's nose to something more flattering, smoothing his complexion, giving him a new body, or more modern clothes...we've lost that connection to the real world and we're right back where we were in the days before photography.

maltfalc · 06-15-2012, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by philbaum

I felt sort of on loose sand recently when i horizontally flipped a pond scene so that i could get a fence going from the lower left to the upper right. It wasn't any sort of landmark or anything, so i let it slide in the interest of composition. A slippery slope to be sure

if you feel bad, go back and reshoot it through a mirror to get the same effect. photographing a reflection isn't cheating, right? :P

normhead · 06-15-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

At LEAST two different things: documentation vs interpretation vs fantasy vs ??? All images are constructed, even those taken by robots. Choosing a view (in-camera or cropped) excludes all else; diddling with light, contrast, saturation, sharpness, projection, spectral response etc filters the image. Documentation, forensics, snapshots, surveillance, such 'minimally' processed images, are still processed, constructed. Toggers have hand-shooped images since at least 1858; why stop now? "Impartial photography" is a fantasy. No, it doesn't need to be argued, just acknowledged.

Perhaps, but when I discuss it with myself I try and simplify it to two, so I can keep track of what each voice is saying. With two many voices it's hard to keep track of everyone's point of view.

magkelly · 06-15-2012, 03:12 PM

There have always been photographers who stretch the truth to present reality as they see it. I personally don't freak when I see someone using a gradient filter to make a better sunset if the sunset looks at least plausible. Now and again you see someone who goes totally over the top and you know it's a total BS mind f- not anything even resembling reality, but again that is the photographer's choice to make in the end. I do both actually. I do more naturalistic stuff most of the time but sometimes I do like to play with filters or make a view that I probably wouldn't really see in real life once in a while. I'm all for bending the truth once in a while. If we didn't every portrait of every person on this planet we took would look like a snapshot they could have taken themselves with cell camera. People pay you to make them look good, like a more idealized version of themselves. Too much liquify filter is never a good thing but a little bit can occasionally be a good thing.

I like my clone tool, my patch tools, and all my "beauty" filters, thank you. I have 15 square Cokin filters for a reason too. I actually use them now and again to improve on Mother Nature. Great scene, muddy sky? My sunset gradient filter can come in handy. It's not like I can just ask the universe to whip me up a brilliant sunset on demand. I've been places I've never been to, likely never will go to again. Seen the most wonderful ocean views or landscapes and totally sighed because the sky just wasn't looking all that great. Yeah, I used the Cokin filters, sue me. I got some nice pics out of doing it too. I don't like to go overboard for every picture. That's just not my style, but now and again I like to go all out and play and I don't think I should ever have to apologize for doing it.

My creative mind, my call. Usually you can tell when I've thrown caution to the wind and things are getting surreal. I don't try to hide doing that when I am going there. Most of the time even when I'm using a filter or something though I make at least an attempt to keep it real or I mention that I've gone there in my photo description. I don't try to fake out people that it's all real. Having a little fun is fine, but I do think photographer's should be honest about it if they do it. If a "wow" photo was created from combining two photos then just say so. I won't think less of a photographer for doing it. But I'm not fond of photographers who blatantly lie about that kind of thing, who try to act like every photo they ever took is the equivalent of a rainbow from God's arse. Doing that is just DUMB, IMHO....

RioRico · 06-15-2012, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

For example, we feel we know better how Abraham Lincoln looked than George Washington because we have photographs of Lincoln, whereas we only have paintings of Washington.

And some of those photos of Lincoln were shooped early-on, putting his head on another body. It's a tradition.

ObTopic: Besides darkroom manipulations, Ansel altered reality by shooting in B&W. The world is not B&W. Every monochrome photo of a polychrome subject is a lie. But suppose he'd shot exclusively in color (and he shot a lot of Polacolor). The colors he saw and the colors the camera saw and the colors a colorblind male would see are not the same.

We get back to the same truism: Every photo is manipulated. Film or sensor or image orthicon or daguerrotype or whatever: none accurately captures the EMF spectrum in the visual region. Much happens outside the visible-spectrum slice that we don't see but appropriate cameras can. Every photo presents just a slice of the spectrum; the rest is excluded. Those who think they're shooting unbiased photos are deluding themselves.

jaytee · 06-15-2012, 05:12 PM

The camera is just a tool. Did you create the photograph that you intended to ? Your vision, your feeling, the "something" that made you stop and look and think. The camera, every camera, is limited in that regard, you as the artist have to finish the job. Be it with dodge and burn or photoshop does not matter it's the finale image that counts.

normhead · 06-15-2012, 05:32 PM

When it come right down to it, I'd be happy just to catch up with Ansel Adams...

and members is such an odd word...

**JimJohnson** · 06-15-2012, 06:07 PM

Capture the moment, paint with light - I've done both. Depends on why I was taking a photograph and what I want to do with it.

Has anyone added 'modify the scene' to this list? Serious photographers do it all the time. Is that tree branch just a bit out of position for the perfect natural framing? Have someone off camera give it a gentle tug or twist. Many still life photographs are completely contrived creations. This is just as much a tool as any other. How about this whimsical beach scene?

RioRico · 06-15-2012, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by normhead

When it come right down to it, I'd be happy just to catch up with Ansel Adams...

Some of his PJ contemporaries weren't so adulatory, saying he was a calendar artist, not a photographer.

Quote:

and members is such an odd word...

I prefer membrillo (maym-BREE-yoh) liqueur. That's aguardiente (raw cane rum) flavored with quince. Mmmm...

New thread title: HOW MUCH MEMBRILLO WILL TAKE YOU BEYOND ANSEL ADAMS?

normhead · 06-15-2012, 08:25 PM

Now that's funny, I'd give you a like, but if I do that, I'll never catch up with you.

Quote:

Some of his PJ contemporaries weren't so adulatory, saying he was a calendar artist, not a photographer.

I wish some of my conteporaries would say I was a calendar artist... or any kind of artist, well besides maybe a con artist.

06-15-2012, 08:21 AM	#1
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	What do members think of moving beyond Ansel Adams? I found an article by Alan Briot at Luminous Landscape. He describes what he calls the Alan Briot moves. Creating Meaningful Photographs Quote: - Stretching and warping of significant features in the image such as mountain ranges - Radical modification of the color palette present in the image captured by the camera - Removal of significant elements of the photograph such as rivers, trees, rocks, etc. - Moving significant elements of the image from one area of the photo to a different area - Duplication of significant elements - Combining elements from several photograph into a single image - Stitching photographs together for compositional purposes (not to increase resolution) I just came back from a juried art show in Edmonds, WA, and now i'm wondering if some of the cool landscapes i saw were combined out of 2 photographs, etc. or were the result of hard work in finding that combination of items. I remember an Art Wolfe image in which the viewer is looking down a hallway like series of forest trees, and at the very end, is a deer, i believe. I don't think Art would concur in Alan's style of making images, but i can forsee more images that are fortuitous occurrences, being questioned as to their authenticity (mostly talking about combining elements from 2 or more photographs) It bothers me that some techniques like Alan suggests, will tend to undermine the credibility of many images produced by hard working photographers. I remember a juried art show from 2 years ago, where the jurist, a sculptor by profession, chose photographs for awards that were very simple scenes and ignored anything that could have been photoshoped. Anyway, just thought it would be interesting to compare opinions on Alan's techniques.

06-15-2012, 11:01 AM	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: At LEAST two different things: documentation vs interpretation vs fantasy vs ??? All images are constructed, even those taken by robots. Choosing a view (in-camera or cropped) excludes all else; diddling with light, contrast, saturation, sharpness, projection, spectral response etc filters the image. Documentation, forensics, snapshots, surveillance, such 'minimally' processed images, are still processed, constructed. Toggers have hand-shooped images since at least 1858; why stop now? "Impartial photography" is a fantasy. No, it doesn't need to be argued, just acknowledged. Perhaps, but when I discuss it with myself I try and simplify it to two, so I can keep track of what each voice is saying. With two many voices it's hard to keep track of everyone's point of view. Last edited by normhead; 06-15-2012 at 11:07 AM.

06-15-2012, 03:28 PM	#10
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by TaoMaas For example, we feel we know better how Abraham Lincoln looked than George Washington because we have photographs of Lincoln, whereas we only have paintings of Washington. And some of those photos of Lincoln were shooped early-on, putting his head on another body. It's a tradition. ObTopic: Besides darkroom manipulations, Ansel altered reality by shooting in B&W. The world is not B&W. Every monochrome photo of a polychrome subject is a lie. But suppose he'd shot exclusively in color (and he shot a lot of Polacolor). The colors he saw and the colors the camera saw and the colors a colorblind male would see are not the same. We get back to the same truism: Every photo is manipulated. Film or sensor or image orthicon or daguerrotype or whatever: none accurately captures the EMF spectrum in the visual region. Much happens outside the visible-spectrum slice that we don't see but appropriate cameras can. Every photo presents just a slice of the spectrum; the rest is excluded. Those who think they're shooting unbiased photos are deluding themselves. Last edited by RioRico; 06-15-2012 at 03:38 PM.

06-15-2012, 06:07 PM	#14
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by normhead When it come right down to it, I'd be happy just to catch up with Ansel Adams... Some of his PJ contemporaries weren't so adulatory, saying he was a calendar artist, not a photographer. Quote: and members is such an odd word... I prefer membrillo (maym-BREE-yoh) liqueur. That's aguardiente (raw cane rum) flavored with quince. Mmmm... New thread title: HOW MUCH MEMBRILLO WILL TAKE YOU BEYOND ANSEL ADAMS? Last edited by RioRico; 06-15-2012 at 06:24 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NYT Ansel Adams Yosemite	weatherwise2	General Talk	7	01-23-2012 12:43 PM
Ansel Adams Plates Founds	zinj	Photographic Technique	3	08-14-2010 09:15 AM
Painter 'finds' lost Ansel Adams negatives	r0ckstarr	General Talk	2	07-30-2010 01:13 AM
K20D, Yosemite and Ansel Adams...	ebooks4pentax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	07-17-2008 05:37 PM
Question about Ansel Adams books	little laker	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	18	12-18-2007 07:43 AM

06-15-2012, 08:29 AM	#2
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I personally like to capture the beauty I see and then share that moment I have frozen in time with my camera. In other words, I want what I saw, not what I 'shooped.

06-15-2012, 08:32 AM	#3
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	They are two different things. There will always be the capture the moment guys, and there will always be the "painting with light " guys. The painting with light side of me says "cool". The capture the moment guy says "what a waste of time". I'm already arguing with myself. No point in getting messed up with other people in the discussion.

06-15-2012, 08:42 AM	#4
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead They are two different things. There will always be the capture the moment guys, and there will always be the "painting with light " guys. The painting with light side of me says "cool". The capture the moment guy says "what a waste of time". I'm already arguing with myself. No point in getting messed up with other people in the discussion. Norm: Thanks for the chuckle, you're right, I have enough problems getting the voices inside my head to agree without getting more involved outside my head I felt sort of on loose sand recently when i horizontally flipped a pond scene so that i could get a fence going from the lower left to the upper right. It wasn't any sort of landmark or anything, so i let it slide in the interest of composition. A slippery slope to be sure I've always felt that one of the charms about "street shooting" is the gritty feel of unprocessed material. Relatively, anyway.

06-15-2012, 08:50 AM	#5
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by normhead They are two different things. There will always be the capture the moment guys, and there will always be the "painting with light " guys. At LEAST two different things: documentation vs interpretation vs fantasy vs ??? All images are constructed, even those taken by robots. Choosing a view (in-camera or cropped) excludes all else; diddling with light, contrast, saturation, sharpness, projection, spectral response etc filters the image. Documentation, forensics, snapshots, surveillance, such 'minimally' processed images, are still processed, constructed. Toggers have hand-shooped images since at least 1858; why stop now? "Impartial photography" is a fantasy. No, it doesn't need to be argued, just acknowledged. BTW Ansel Adams seriously manipulated his prints too. Nature never looked so good. Or so monochrome.

06-15-2012, 10:29 AM	#6
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by philbaum It bothers me that some techniques like Alan suggests, will tend to undermine the credibility of many images produced by hard working photographers. I think you have good reason to be bothered. Part of the value of photography has been the belief that it better represents perceived reality than most other forms of visual media. For example, we feel we know better how Abraham Lincoln looked than George Washington because we have photographs of Lincoln, whereas we only have paintings of Washington. But once we venture into heavily manipulating photographs...changing Lincoln's nose to something more flattering, smoothing his complexion, giving him a new body, or more modern clothes...we've lost that connection to the real world and we're right back where we were in the days before photography.

06-15-2012, 10:51 AM	#7
maltfalc Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Winnipeg Photos: Albums Posts: 396	Originally posted by philbaum I felt sort of on loose sand recently when i horizontally flipped a pond scene so that i could get a fence going from the lower left to the upper right. It wasn't any sort of landmark or anything, so i let it slide in the interest of composition. A slippery slope to be sure if you feel bad, go back and reshoot it through a mirror to get the same effect. photographing a reflection isn't cheating, right? :P

06-15-2012, 03:12 PM	#9
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	There have always been photographers who stretch the truth to present reality as they see it. I personally don't freak when I see someone using a gradient filter to make a better sunset if the sunset looks at least plausible. Now and again you see someone who goes totally over the top and you know it's a total BS mind f- not anything even resembling reality, but again that is the photographer's choice to make in the end. I do both actually. I do more naturalistic stuff most of the time but sometimes I do like to play with filters or make a view that I probably wouldn't really see in real life once in a while. I'm all for bending the truth once in a while. If we didn't every portrait of every person on this planet we took would look like a snapshot they could have taken themselves with cell camera. People pay you to make them look good, like a more idealized version of themselves. Too much liquify filter is never a good thing but a little bit can occasionally be a good thing. I like my clone tool, my patch tools, and all my "beauty" filters, thank you. I have 15 square Cokin filters for a reason too. I actually use them now and again to improve on Mother Nature. Great scene, muddy sky? My sunset gradient filter can come in handy. It's not like I can just ask the universe to whip me up a brilliant sunset on demand. I've been places I've never been to, likely never will go to again. Seen the most wonderful ocean views or landscapes and totally sighed because the sky just wasn't looking all that great. Yeah, I used the Cokin filters, sue me. I got some nice pics out of doing it too. I don't like to go overboard for every picture. That's just not my style, but now and again I like to go all out and play and I don't think I should ever have to apologize for doing it. My creative mind, my call. Usually you can tell when I've thrown caution to the wind and things are getting surreal. I don't try to hide doing that when I am going there. Most of the time even when I'm using a filter or something though I make at least an attempt to keep it real or I mention that I've gone there in my photo description. I don't try to fake out people that it's all real. Having a little fun is fine, but I do think photographer's should be honest about it if they do it. If a "wow" photo was created from combining two photos then just say so. I won't think less of a photographer for doing it. But I'm not fond of photographers who blatantly lie about that kind of thing, who try to act like every photo they ever took is the equivalent of a rainbow from God's arse. Doing that is just DUMB, IMHO....

06-15-2012, 05:12 PM	#11
jaytee Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: tucson,az Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 255	The camera is just a tool. Did you create the photograph that you intended to ? Your vision, your feeling, the "something" that made you stop and look and think. The camera, every camera, is limited in that regard, you as the artist have to finish the job. Be it with dodge and burn or photoshop does not matter it's the finale image that counts.

06-15-2012, 05:32 PM	#12
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	When it come right down to it, I'd be happy just to catch up with Ansel Adams... and members is such an odd word...

06-15-2012, 08:25 PM	#15
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Now that's funny, I'd give you a like, but if I do that, I'll never catch up with you. Quote: Some of his PJ contemporaries weren't so adulatory, saying he was a calendar artist, not a photographer. I wish some of my conteporaries would say I was a calendar artist... or any kind of artist, well besides maybe a con artist.