View Poll Results: I am a....
- 72. You may not vote on this poll
I lean most heavily to the intuitive approach. The zone system is fine and I use it slightly for value placement but that's it. I think Adams was a lot more intuitive than his writings make the reader believe. He was pushing a methodology because that's what was wanted from him. The Zone System is a good methodoly for teaching and I belive that is why he came up with it and pushed it. But how could he have done Moonrise without being fully adept at the intuitive?
My personal feeling is that Ansel Adams was more of a person that would make photographs out of a heart feeling. He loved nature and tried to show to the world how amazing, earth, our home can be. I would say passion was his main drive.
Originally Posted by djklmnop
In the case of Weston I feel he shot out of a very intense feeling of curiosity, one of deep questioning of the world, of its things and how they affect us on a deep emotional level.
So, I always feel Weston's work is deeper. That's the way this guy was, simple and deep and it shows. Adams was grandiose and complex and it shows. Both great artists. I take Weston any day.
This sounds like a perfect subject for a raging arguement ;-)
Although I've never really liked Weston as a person or photographer, he did some nice photos ;-) I like most of Adams work but just can't see his methods...
The way I learned photography and the way I still do it is more intuitive, experimentation, trial and error, logical thinking, experience...
Simply put, take a general reading, make a quick judgement that some area needs an extra stop ot two (or less), adjust the exposure and go at it. Back when I actually did photography I rarely even used a meter. Now I do because I've gone and spent so much money on them ;-) But a few weeks ago when out shooting a dozen rolls of MF, I metered for a few hours, then noticed that I was again setting exposure without looking through the meter first. It really doesn't take much to jusge the right exposure without all the metering and calculations...
I suppose that if I really had to pick just one, it would have to be Weston as I simply could not handle all those little details that Adams thought so important...
I guess a Weston, but really I'm more of a Dykinga or Cornish type of guy.
I'm an Aniston.
Wait. No. that would make a hot actress who probably doesn't do any serious photography.
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
A Weston aspiring to be a Mortenson...
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
I suppose I'm a Wadams. I admire the photography of both men. and both contributed an enormous amount to the art and consequently my growth as a black and white photographer.
I would pose a slightly different question --
If either Adams or Weston were starting out today do you think they would make it as succesful regarded photographers?
I personally think they would but I doubt they would be the masters we see them as. I see work by many photographers of this age that in my view [personal] is the equal or better of anything either of these men did.
I contend that as great as they were, historical timing was advantageous in both their careers.
I follow the european tradition.
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
Neither, I`m a Strand person!
Between those two masters, I prefer Weston`s approach, but respect alot what Adams gave to photography.
When I pick up a new film or a new developer, I put on my Adams hat and examine the results thoroughly so I can go on and wear that Weston hat (or something else, perhaps a Strömholm hat) later on when I just want to enjoy photography.