Tony Warren
Well-Known Member
I was browsing my copy of Ansel Adams Letters and Images 1916-1984 and came across a letter he wrote to Bill Brandt in 1977 after meeting him in London the year before and being given a copy of Brandt's "Shadow of Light and, later, an original print of one of the images.. A couple of passages I thought were interesting:
"Imagine the catastrophe if all images were the same, bound by a fixed convention of values etc."
Isn't that basically what digital has imposed on photography? Yes, there is huge scope for visual interpretation through equipment choice and pre- and post-processing through the camera and software, but the output stage conforms to Adam's description exactly doesn't it?
These two photographers were diametrical opposites in terms of style, which came from their overall approach including camera, lenses, materials and processing. The final print being the culmination of all these inputs.
Adams say a little further on:
"My only negative comment on the book is that it shows we can't match the quality of silver with the quality of ink (and vice versa)."
Reading it makes me miss the darkroom even more even though printing technology is worlds better than in those days. And what we see now is very much dictated by the equipment we are using. Progress or catastrophe?
"Imagine the catastrophe if all images were the same, bound by a fixed convention of values etc."
Isn't that basically what digital has imposed on photography? Yes, there is huge scope for visual interpretation through equipment choice and pre- and post-processing through the camera and software, but the output stage conforms to Adam's description exactly doesn't it?
These two photographers were diametrical opposites in terms of style, which came from their overall approach including camera, lenses, materials and processing. The final print being the culmination of all these inputs.
Adams say a little further on:
"My only negative comment on the book is that it shows we can't match the quality of silver with the quality of ink (and vice versa)."
Reading it makes me miss the darkroom even more even though printing technology is worlds better than in those days. And what we see now is very much dictated by the equipment we are using. Progress or catastrophe?
