ANSEL ADAMS -Royaly Free ??

Discussion in 'Photography' started by RealInfo, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. RealInfo

    RealInfo Guest

    Hi all

    Are Ansel adams photos royaly free ?

    I ask this because he passed away in 1984 .


    Thanks
    EC
     
    RealInfo, Mar 31, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RealInfo

    Jeff Guest

    I think they were all donated, I don't remember where at the moment,
    some university that had a photo department.

    The thing about Ansel Adams isn't the negative so much as the print.
    If you ever get a chance to see a retrospective of Ansels work it is
    fascinating to see the same negative printed at different stages of his
    life.

    His work has been around for a long time though, and copyrights are
    stronger now than during his lifetime. Remember that twisted nose of his
    came from a fall during the San Francisco Earthquake!

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Apr 2, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RealInfo

    Vance Guest

    I disagree. I learned the 'Zone System' from Adams at one of his 3
    day workshops he gave in Yosemite and what I learned as a way of
    working and approaching photography is at least as valid now as it was
    then. Shooting digital, which I have been doing exclusively for the
    last 8 years, has changed how I apply what I learned, but it hasn't
    changed what is done. If anything, digital has enabled us to have
    control over what we do to a degree Adams' couldn't have dreamed of,
    but that has only raised the bar. We're still going to do the same
    things, for the same reasons. If you want to see what Adams was all
    about, a comparison between a contract print and a production print
    will teach you a lot.

    He didn't push 'the envelope' of a technology in the common sense of
    the term. Man Ray and others did that. What he did was master the
    factors and characteristics of film and apply them to great effect in
    the print. Starting from a 'correct exposure' (selected for the
    intended image) he developed the film to bring out the tonality he
    wanted. We have curves, etc., to do exactly the same thing. Then he
    would print on the grade paper that supported and enhanced that tonal
    range, we can use curves for that and pick our paper. Where you
    really see what he did was in the areas where he would dodge to bring
    out shadow details and burn in to get the highlight details. This was
    done in selectied areas to guide the eyes and create an overall
    impression in the final print. The difference it made when you put a
    contact print side by side with a final print is stunning, but not
    that hard to do technically. To do it with the deftness and
    understanding of how each manipulation added to the final result is
    another matter all together.

    The tecniques Adams used weren't magic, it was what he did with them
    that made all the difference. Today, we can do things that Adams may
    have dreamed of, but couldn't have done within the constraints of
    film. It's a matter of degree, though, and not so much of kind.
    Viewers respond to the same qualities of an image now as they did then
    - which is why Adams' prints are probably never going to become dated,
    or even quaint, because of technology advancing. However, just
    because we can do things digitally that Adams couldn't doesn't make a
    fine quality print any easier to produce. If anything, it may be more
    demanding now. The range and scope of adjustments you can make can be
    bewildering and in combination it can be more than bewildering.

    Technology has moved on, but the demands of mastery and artistry have
    kept apace and Adams' work (many others as well) remains relevant.
    You look to his work for what he did, not how he did it.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Apr 9, 2009
    #3
  4. Of course not!
    Greetings
    Christoph Scheingraber
     
    Christoph Scheingraber, Apr 17, 2009
    #4
  5. RealInfo

    Peter Guest

    If I purchase a work of art, unless there is a specific agreement to the
    contrary, I have the right to display it, resell the entire piece, even burn
    it if I want to. I have no right to reproduce it, except for certain
    purposes, such as commenting on it. I may not pass off a reproduction as my
    own work. This issue is more common with castings of sculpture than
    photographs.
     
    Peter, Apr 19, 2009
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.