A couple of months ago I joined a website for photography enthusiasts called photo.net. The site provides portfolio space (my own photo.net portfolio is here) and has many interesting articles and discussion forums. Some while back, having devoured a number of books on basic photographic technique, I asked which books should I consider reading next, and this was one of the suggestions.
As the name implies, the book is a collection of 40 of Adams’ photographs; each is accompanied by an essay in which he explains how he happened to take the shot, the things he considered before positioning the camera and pressing the shutter release, and the steps taken to make the print. These are usually accompanied by some anecdotes about the time and place, and the general circumstances surrounding them.
The pictures, of course, are excellent, and range from the subjects we’d all expect (Half Dome, El Capitan, Taos) to some that I didn’t, including a number of portraits that really caught my eye. The essays make interesting reading–if you’re in the target audience. There are no discussions here about the meaning of any of the photographs, or about how the desired emotional response is achieved by the composition; Adams felt that photographs need to speak for themselves. In short, if you’re looking for a short course in appreciating the art of photography, that is, in how to look at photographs, this isn’t it.
What is here is a great deal of technical detail on how the shots were set up, the exposures taken, and the prints made. The writing is clear and engaging, even when the details were rather over my head, as they frequently were. I’m a digital photographer; the little I know about the processes behind fine art film photography I’ve learned from my friend the Test Lead over the course of the last year. I wasn’t completely at sea, therefore, but I suspect I missed a lot of the subtleties as well.
What caught my attention most were the details of how Adams made his prints–mostly, I think, because that’s a part of photography I’ve mostly ignored to date. So far this year I’ve been focussing (no pun intended, alas; if I could think of a better word, I’d use it) on composition and exposure–on learning to get the picture right in the camera so that it requires a minimum of post-processing work. I’ve made quite a few prints, of course, but I’ve generally done little to the images beyond minor contrast adjustments and sharpening. Adams’ approach was different. His goal was to make the exposure in such a way that it was possible to produce from it the print he visualized ahead of time. In some cases that print might be very easy to produce from the exposed negative; in other cases, the visualized print might require quite a lot of work even given an optimal exposure–some “dodging” here, so that this area doesn’t get to bright, some “burning” there, so that that area isn’t too dark, and so forth.
Adams had two motives for going to this effort, or so I gather from his book. The first was to make the print resemble the subject as he saw it; and the second was (paradoxically) to make the print resemble the subject as he saw it in his mind’s eye, rather than as it was, so as to emphasize the details he found important. The human eye can see a range of light that is much wider than film can record; and if you do color photography, the color as seen by the camera is frequently somewhat different than that perceived by the eye. Even with the best camera, producing a print that appears to match the range of tones seen by the eye can be tricky. And if you wish to modify the tones so as to emphasize this or that detail, it becomes trickier still.
Consequently, the book has encouraged me to spend more time over (some of) my images; to consider whether I see in them what I saw when I pressed the shutter release, and if not, to do something about it. In addition, it has also prompted me to spend more time thinking in terms of black & white compositions, something I’ve done very little of. I like color very much; but for subjects which involve a lot of fine detail, a black and white treatment can be extremely appealing.
Anyway, if you have a serious interest in photography the book is definitely worth getting, and I’m sure I’ll go back to it from time to time; but if you’re just getting started and want to get a handle on just what photography can do, I’d start with Beaumont Newhall’s History of Photography instead. I’ve found both to be inspirational; but Adams’ book is inspirational in a much smaller, more focussed way.