Slashdot Mirror
Would Ansel Adams Have Gone Digital?
Roland Piquepaille writes "After viewing photographs by Christopher Burkett, which are not digitally manipulated, Peter Lewis wondered what place have digital cameras and image manipulations in the art of photography. And a question hit his mind. If Ansel Adams, one of the most famous photographers of the 20th century, was still alive, would have he gone digital? Lewis talked at great length with Richard LoPinto, vice president for SLR camera systems at Nikon Inc. to find an answer. And guess what? LoPinto thinks Ansel Adams would have loved digital cameras. The article also discusses digital camera resolution and the future for film camera sales. This overview contains more details and a small photograph by Christopher Burkett."
Ansel Adams was above all a environmentalist, probally more so than a photographer. Do you know the kind of chemicals needed to make a roll of film into a negitive? Just the enviromental savings from the lack of processing would have given him a reason to use digital.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I'm sure it will all wind up being digital, but there will be those die-hard people that will never change. (Like Charlie Chaplan refused to use films with sound, and didn't think it was an appropriate art form.) However, the nature of a print totally changes. It's a big deal to have an original print of a photo, one that's done from the negative. How is this going to effect the monetary value of the photos? For the record, I didn't RTFA. It might be answered in the article. (At least I'm honest.)
Ansel Adams was all about the integrity and subtlety of the medium. In his day, he railed against the use of resin-coated photographic papers (which he referred to as "plastic papers"), because they didn't produce an image with the same purity and subtlety as one printed on fibre based paper (as any photographer can tell you).
Everyone has seen Adams coffee table books, but one has only to stand in front of an actual Adams print to see that there is a quality to his prints that cannot be reproduced by even the highest quality methods of reproduction. Even if you're jaded by overexposure to Adams books and calendars (as I am), it is breathtaking to see his work in person.
Richard LoPinto is trying to sell digital SLRs for Nikon. Frankly, I think it is a disrespect for him to speculate that Adams would have anything to do with a digital camera, or any digital process.
I think he would have gone digital.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
"At great length?"
And while waiting for the perfect shot, he'd enjoy an cool, refreshing Coca-Cola(tm)!
Give me a break, people. This was a puff piece.
Ansel spent countless hours in the darkroom to "manipulate" his pictures. THat included choosing print paper type, exposure time, dodging (making an area lighter or darker) and the list goes on and on. If he had had a digital camera to match the resolution of his film camera, he would probably have been overjoyed. However, it seems that neither Canon or Kodak with their 13 and 15 megapixel cameras have come close to the resolution of the large negative cameras, so Ansel would probably still be using film!
A quote from a recent PBS documentary:
...I don't know, half or forty percent of the creative process occurred in the darkroom...."
"He manipulated the work tremendously in the darkroom. He always said that the negative is the equivalent of the composer's score and the print is the equivalent of the conductor's performance, and the same piece of Mozart is conducted differently, performed differently, by different orchestras, different conductors, and Ansel performed his own negatives differently.
I could only imagine what Ansel Adams could do with Photoshop!
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Although, he would love the post processing ability of photoshop to manipulate faint details in a image, I think he would have been very unhappy about the limited dynamic range of digital.
I think he would have still used film for the contrast control not present in digital. Once digital cameras are developed with better contrast control he would begin to use them.
The Economics of Website Security
I have no idea if Ansel Adams would have used digital, but I wouldn't go asking an officer of a camera manufacturer if Adams would have bought new equipment if I wanted an objective opinion. (Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA)
Ansel Adams is well known for large format very high resolution imagery; I doubut he would have achieved the same results with today's cutting edge equipment.
"So, Ansel Adams, yeah, I think he'd love it,' LoPinto said.
End of story, begin ad copy.
And that leads to the hypothetical question, which Nikon digital camera would Ansel Adams use?
"Considering his typical tendency to use high-quality, large-format cameras and his desire that it be handy and convenient, I suspect he would be attracted to our D100, for its size and versatility and overall digital image quality."
And it goes on and on like that. Gross. If I wanted advertisements posing as stories I'd go read Gamespy reviews.
Random and weird software I've written.
He is dead. His work is art history now. Don't get me wrong, as a former photographer, a university level computer based art teacher, and large museum, I respect his work.
The simple truth is that he was a product of his time and that time was glass and emulsion. Yes thats right, glass. He started out shooting as someone who has hung Ansel Adams work in a photos on glass plates. Later he changed technologies and shot on the flexible film we all use today. Ultimately his time has past.
Were Ansel Adams alive today he might be creating art in code as many of us are doing now. He might be working with neural nets or a network of wifi nodes and location aware technology.
One might just as pointlessly ponder whether or not he would be producing Marxist institutional critique or gender based work.
To suggest that he would like digital photography is pointless. If he were alive today producing the same work he did in the 40's (no matter how beautiful) in any format we would say he was irrelevant and anachronistic.
Next up... Raphael loves Photoshop, Rembrandt digs Python and the Bauhaus goes over to OSX.
signifier-signified
www.34n118w.net
mining the urban landscape
For people currently learning to shoot, go with digital. It's a much better way to learn. My father (who used to teach at Nikon School) says he would have learned to shoot in 1/4 the time.
A 22-megapixel image is even nicer [Warning: PDF], and more and more professional photographers are switching to digital because of the advantages of end-to-end digital image processing. There still are some restrictions in high-end digital photography that make its use outside of the studio difficult or impossible, but it's matter of time and these will be overcome.
Ten years ago, most people laughed at digital photography. Today, consumer digicams are selling like hotcakes and the professionals are definitely listening, if they haven't catched on yet. Ten years from now, photography will be digital. There will still be some uses for traditional film-based photography, but it will be a niche market. And somewhere on this planet, the next Ansel Adams will buy his first digital camera and use it in creative ways the designers hadn't anticipated. Yes, Ansel Adams was an artist and a hacker in the original sense of the word in my opinion.
Another thing: no matter how big or fine-grained the film is, remember that the lens has to be able to resolve more lpi than the film, otherwise the film's resolution is wasted.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
It sounds like your answers is no then because no such camera is likely to exist for the forseeable future and building one from scratch would cost orders of magnitude more than a lifetime of sheet film even for someone like Adams.
50 megapixel would also be pretty grainy at the large prints adams liked to make. A 2 megapixel doing a 4x6 print would be the same resolution as a 50 megapixel doing a 20x30 print. 20x30 is a typical size for adams, and a 2 megapixel is just barely tolerable at 4x6.
The other side is creative control over the chemicals. We're talking about digital manipulation but analog manipulation has existed as long as chemical photography has. Ansel Adams was a master of that and I doubt he'd give up the techniques he spent a lifetime learning.
Besides the obvious darkroom stuff, film has interesting quirks. A 1 minute exposure is not 60 times effective as a 1 second exposure on real film. How will a CCD behave; in Adams style of photography, long exposures are common.
Jason
ProfQuotes
Bill and Ted?
This is a little like asking if Alexander Graham Bell would use a cel phone or if Da Vinchi would use Photoshop. I think they would use the best tool for expressing their ideas. Some folks still paint with a brush. (savages)
What?
I mean, here's the answer, right here. Dude. Discussion over.
I think, this alone summarizes what is going on here, and what will be the position of the digital imaging in 5-10 years!