PDA

View Full Version : Moonrise Hernandez



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

cliveh
09-11-2013, 02:14 PM
I think technical perfection is vastly over-rated. Not all photographs work when exposed, developed and printed as if Ansel Adams were the darkroom technician supervising their production. And photography would be unutterably boring if all photographs looked that way. Do I think photographers need to know technique and craftsmanship so that they can consciously choose what they're doing and can control their output? YES. Do they have to swear a life-long allegiance to the f64 School? No. Not everything in life is sharp, not everything is grainless, and not everything fits in the Zone IV-Zone VIII tonal range.

+1

jovo
09-11-2013, 02:35 PM
When comparing several well known AA prints of certain negatives made in different decades, it's evident that his aesthetic evolved over time to amplify "impact and interest" to some extent over "technical perfection"* whatever that is. John Szarkowski includes a number of these photographs in "Ansel Adams at 100", and the differences are dramatic with nearly featureless dark areas that were open and detailed in earlier prints. "Moonrise" itself evolved that way, and the last prints are emphatically so. To ask if it's a 'great' photograph is to wonder why the woman I think is beautiful is unattractive to you. Kinda pointless....

*For me, technical perfection is what occurs when I have made a print that exactly meets the goals I set for it.

cliveh
09-11-2013, 02:51 PM
For me, technical perfection is what occurs when I have made a print that exactly meets the goals I set for it.

Those goals being technical perfection.

Michael R 1974
09-11-2013, 03:08 PM
I don't think that is exactly what jovo meant. Technical perfection being a print that satisfies the photographer and achieves the desired aesthetic for the image. And this is not something absolute or static. It can evolve over time.

As for Adams, yes his prints - particularly from the late 60s onward and characteristic of the 70s - are more "dramatic" than his earlier versions. He himself acknowledged this using the term Wagnerian.

pcsaba1981
09-11-2013, 03:35 PM
I don't know why it's a good photo, but for me it's very important photograph.
Without that picture I'd shoot still digital. When I first saw it, it was a shocking experience.

Sirius Glass
09-11-2013, 03:36 PM
I thought Van Gogh (sp) was a hack until I saw one of his paintings in person. Seriously. I think this is the nature of any photographer/artist whose images were not meant to be displayed on the digital screen, but hung on a wall.

Many of us really appreciate being well hung. :whistling:

cliveh
09-11-2013, 03:44 PM
Many of us really appreciate being well hung. :whistling:

Sirius, get back in your box.

Vaughn
09-11-2013, 03:50 PM
But a photograph is flat, but a Van Gohg oil painting has relief.

Late reply -- my photographs have a raised relief...:cool:

Sirius Glass
09-11-2013, 03:51 PM
Late reply -- my photographs have a raised relief...:cool:

Are they well hung?

ME Super
09-11-2013, 04:04 PM
I had the privilege of seeing a print of both Moonrise over Hernandez and the clearing winter storm in Yosemite in person as part of the "Western Exposure" exhibit. Truly amazing to see in person, though I preferred the clearing winter storm print. Interestingly enough there was another photograph he made not far from the clearing winter storm photo (I forget the name). The positions were remarkably similar, right down to the two tall trees in the lower right corner of the photograph.

Western Exposure also showed some of his color work, but most was B&W. If you get the chance to see Western Exposure, do so. You won't regret it.

cliveh
09-11-2013, 04:04 PM
For what it’s worth, I appreciate the Van Gogh analogy with the finely crafted print and I think Van Gogh is probably one of the greatest artist who ever lived. I also appreciate from personal experience that seeing an original van Gogh is a mind blowing experience. However, I’m not sure this quite equates to seeing a hand crafted photographic print.

Vaughn
09-11-2013, 04:13 PM
Are they well hung?

For the record, several up around town right now are very well hung. And well lit, too! A dangerous condition, I must admit. Those who are well hung and well lit might be taken advantage of...:cool:

jovo
09-11-2013, 05:04 PM
For the record, several up around town right now are very well hung. And well lit, too! A dangerous condition, I must admit. Those who are well hung and well lit might be taken advantage of...:cool:

Being well lit will very likely preclude whatever advantage there might be to being well hung.

Sirius Glass
09-11-2013, 07:14 PM
For the record, several up around town right now are very well hung. And well lit, too! A dangerous condition, I must admit. Those who are well hung and well lit might be taken advantage of...:cool:

I think that is why you have twins. :devil:

Vaughn
09-11-2013, 07:27 PM
I think that is why you have twins. :devil:

Triplets, actually...:whistling:

The Boys, Luffenholtz Beach, 2012 or 2013
11x14 negative, Platinum/Palladium print

TheFlyingCamera
09-12-2013, 09:04 AM
Triplets, actually...:whistling:

The Boys, Luffenholtz Beach, 2012 or 2013
11x14 negative, Platinum/Palladium print

That photo makes them look very NOT triplet-ish. Each one looks distinct from the other, to the extent of even being different heights. Probably a side-effect of standing on uneven ground.

Thomas Bertilsson
09-12-2013, 10:24 AM
The easy answer is: some people will consider it a good photograph, and others will not.

The difficult one is: asking why is like asking if people like cats or if they enjoy eating mushy peas with their supper. Knowing if people like or dislike those things might help you gain an insight to their personality, you might even find out why they like those things. But does it in any way help you understand whether you like cats or mushy peas?

In case it helps, I very deeply respect the level of Adams's craftsmanship, his dedication to photography, and his willingness to share that knowledge as a teacher and mentor. That's about the extent to which I can appreciate his work and person.

As has been established, it's a very successful photograph, from a standpoint of selling prints and exhibiting them.

ntenny
09-12-2013, 01:59 PM
The difficult one is: asking why is like asking if people like cats or if they enjoy eating mushy peas with their supper. Knowing if people like or dislike those things might help you gain an insight to their personality, you might even find out why they like those things. But does it in any way help you understand whether you like cats or mushy peas?

I suppose it might, if their answer contains an insight into cats or mushy peas that you hadn't thought of before and that changes how you experience them. I'm not sure what level of "insight" is meaningful for mushy peas, but for a work of art, sure.

-NT

Thomas Bertilsson
09-12-2013, 02:36 PM
I suppose it might, if their answer contains an insight into cats or mushy peas that you hadn't thought of before and that changes how you experience them. I'm not sure what level of "insight" is meaningful for mushy peas, but for a work of art, sure.

-NT

I think you are right.

Sorry for the poor analogies, folks. That was not one of my brightest moments ever...

I guess perhaps I wanted to say something to the extent of the photograph being 'effective'.

Looking at the scene it can be interpreted in as many ways as there are viewers, of course. Looking beyond ones own 'likes' or 'dislikes' can sometimes be difficult, so I agree with you that discussing with others will help. Thanks.

Vaughn
09-12-2013, 09:37 PM
That photo makes them look very NOT triplet-ish. Each one looks distinct from the other, to the extent of even being different heights. Probably a side-effect of standing on uneven ground.

Three different rolls of the genetic dice...personalities very different, too.

Alex on the left is an inch and a touch shorter, Bryce in the middle is taller than Calder by 1/4".