landscape

[Patrick]

I hate it , mostly , Ansel adams quality is the exception

To be clear, when I mentioned Ansel Adams, I wasn’t comparing my photo to his masterpiece work—far from it. I share this image precisely because I hate it.
My point was that nature gave me flat light, and I passively took it. This shot lacks personal vision; it is just a mechanical recording of a place. The only exception to hating this kind of passive photography is when someone possesses the legendary, transformative mastery of Ansel Adams—someone who can take a scene and completely recreate it through sheer artistic will.
I’m not interested in just “taking what I’m given” by the landscape. I post this failure as a reminder to myself that without an active, personal vision, a photograph is just a soulless click of a button.

 

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

Them’s fightin’ words.

 

And I don’t think if you seriously get into landscape that you are ever really going to think it is simply about taking what you were given at any random time. Landscape is far more about timing than that. It’s also about putting the various elements of the shot where you need them to be to make a compelling composition.

I mean, an argument for your shot above is that it is kind of saved by those two figures on the horizon which lead to some visual Balance to it, so it looks like you were trying to do this to some degree.

Also, you’ve captured quite a few mid tones there, which I would usually be trying to avoid.

I suppose the thing about landscape is that when you start to get into it you realise that you need to be finding close to perfection for it to be compelling. That is the challenge because perfect everything is more or less impossible.

[Patrick]

Thanks Rob , Steve  for sharing your perspectives.

[Retired Grunt]

As has been pointed out about Ansel Adam’s mastery of the darkroom, today one masters masks in whatever editing program they use. I started with the “auto” click and then simply began to adjust (over adjust) the sliders of various elements and “tada” a very dramatic severely over processed photo.

I would look at the photo and say my original, is a flat landscape such as your example and place it side by side with the edit. Yeah, over processed.

When I learned about the masking and can adjust areas of the photo, then the true depth and drama began to emerge. In the beginning, I never thought about how the sliders affect the entire photo and thus the over processed result.

Straight out of camera can work, especially if the lighting is perfect (how often is that?). But in producing that depth and drama that captivates people, in the past the art was by use of the chemicals while dodging and burning. Today, its the use of masking (and color tones) in the digital realm.

[LightandShadow]

Ansel Adams didn’t take what was given. He spent days working on images in the darkroom to produce his finished pictures, rendering iconic landscapes, investing an empty piece of paper with the interest and potential that he saw. That’s what landscape photographers do.

On the rare occasions I present about photography to groups, I emphasize that good pictures start with strong feelings. If you don’t love landscapes, you won’t make a pleasing image of one.

They also tend to choose their scenes more carefully, waiting for good light and then making sure the camera doesn’t undermine you by eliminating contrast as raw format does on purpose.

[Robert Apple]

One of the most forgotten qualities of  Ansel Adams, he was a master chemist, his processing technique on film revolutionized dark room processes. Many of his Iconic works of art are just that, they didn’t exist in that state of contrast or lightning at any time other than on his “Easel”.

[Robert Apple]

I would add, Montana doesn’t photograph well.

[Author]

Posts