Quote:
Thinking about this some more, I'm not convinced. Ansel Adams does have an incredible eye for composition and light -- there is no disputing that. But Ansel Adams was also a master of manipulating his prints in the darkroom (he wrote a book on it). Seeing his prints is not the same as seeing his original photograph. Consequently, we're comparing a bit of apples and oranges, here.

I think you're making a distinction that Adams himself would not have made. Adams was not "manipulating" during the printing process any more than he was throughout the entire image-making process.

Adams also wrote a book about exposure control, in which he gives extremely detailed instruction for how to use his Zone System, which, among other things, involves deliberately over- or under-developing the film to expand or compress the contrast range. Adams is thinking about adjustments to film developing *and* printing while he is composing the photograph. It is all one long processes to him. It doesn't make any sense to chop it up half way through and call part of it the "original photograph".

The point is, his print *IS* the "original photograph". Adams did not see printing as separate from the photographic process any more than he did his fetish-level exposure control. In fact, collectors consider prints made by other people from Adams' negatives not to be original Adams photographs. Adams himself has written that he considers printing to be the most important part of the photographic process.

The "darkroom-type adjustments" are extremely difficult to do well, and need to be seen as part of the art form. To say that our own shots could be improved by them, thereby diminishing their importance, is to hide the points that 1. it is very difficult to do well, and 2. we don't do it.

I think this false dichotomy arises from thinking that a photograph should be, above all else, an accurate representation of the subject. I know I used to believe this. Adams' books and my own photography mentor totally destroyed this (unspoken) belief I had. The point is to make a physical representation (the *print*) of one's artistic vision. The subject itself is only one input into this process. Adams himself comments in his books how different the final image looks from the original subject; the difference is deliberate and part of the creative process.

I think an important point is that great artists tend to be able to see what they want in their mind, and have the technical mastery to make that vision a reality. The rest of us, well, we take pictures and then try to make them look as good as possible by "manipulation". Its a very different thing, and a very important distinction, IMHO.

You probably also know that Adams shot very, very few negatives, especially in his early work where negatives were glass and very bulky and heavy. In some ways, I think the ability to take more images has *hurt* photography more than it has helped, because few photographers go through the meticulous planning of an image that was necessary in Adams' day. If you haven't read The Negative, check it out to see what I mean.

I heard an interview of a National Geographic photographer years ago on NPR. He said he was pretty embarrassed that he typically shot "over 2500 exposures" to get 1 or 2 that would make it into the magazine. So, I agree with what you're saying in general: we shouldn't compare our own efforts to the 1 in 2500 photos by pros that we actually see. Compare your very best photo ever taken, and it might do pretty well -- especially with some "manipulation".

Edit: When I finished this, a great quote from my favorite book, Robert Persig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" popped into my head:

Quote:
Steel can be any shape you want if you are skilled enough, and any shape but the one you want if you are not.