Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on October 10, 2015, 12:27:32 pm
-
Beautiful essay! Thanks to all that brought it to us.
-
Hmmm... I was curious when I saw the title, so I read it. Strangely enough (or maybe not so strangely), I've always found it difficult to find, define or assign any kind of higher or deeper meaning to my love of landscape photography. I read what others have to say about it, how they've discovered the deeper implications of this or that, how they've even discovered who they really are through some redeeming or clarifying value of the photographic activity...
All this has, I must say, always sounded to me like a lot of mumbo-jumbo. I mean, I'm happy for the guys who finally "found the way", as Lao-Tseu put it, but honestly, I'm not sure I can follow them there. Maybe I'm too much of a pragmatist, but when I look at the photos they say are emblematic of the "before" and "after" phases, I can't really tell the difference, except that the "after" ones often are blurry and technically questionable... If that is typical of a landscape photographer who's finally found the higher meaning of it all, then I have indeed found it quite some time ago, as I can remember producing such "unfortunate" pictures myself; I just chose not to show them! ;)
In other words, as much as I would love to move into that higher and more meaningful phase of my photographic life, I am afraid my path has not been enlightened yet —and somehow, I doubt it ever will.
-
Hmmm... I was curious when I saw the title, so I read it. Strangely enough (or maybe not so strangely), I've always found it difficult to find, define or assign any kind of higher or deeper meaning to my love of landscape photography. I read what others have to say about it, how they've discovered the deeper implications of this or that, how they've even discovered who they really are through some redeeming or clarifying value of the photographic activity...
All this has, I must say, always sounded to me like a lot of mumbo-jumbo. I mean, I'm happy for the guys who finally "found the way", as Lao-Tseu put it, but honestly, I'm not sure I can follow them there. Maybe I'm too much of a pragmatist, but when I look at the photos they say are emblematic of the "before" and "after" phases, I can't really tell the difference, except that the "after" ones often are blurry and technically questionable... If that is typical of a landscape photographer who's finally found the higher meaning of it all, then I have indeed found it quite some time ago, as I can remember producing such "unfortunate" pictures myself; I just chose not to show them! ;)
In other words, as much as I would love to move into that higher and more meaningful phase of my photographic life, I am afraid my path has not been enlightened yet —and somehow, I doubt it ever will.
You must have heard the term "A picture paints a thousand words"? Nowadays its changed somewhat to "A thousand words paints a picture". To me photography has gone AWOL in this modern digital age.
I loved it when photographers just went out and made photographs that meant something to them and they never felt the need to have to explain themselves to others on what they were actually trying to purvey to the actual viewer. Each photograph spoke for itself without the need for words. How times have changed.
Nigel.
-
I liked the article. Found it meaningful.
Nothing says a photographer can't also be a writer, and even write about his photography.
-
If you want to simply take sharp photographs of the landscape, well that's a perfectly decent hobby, but why would I care about your pictures versus some other chap's or versus simply looking out my window?
If you want me to have an interest in your pictures specifically you have to have a point of view, an idea, an opinion.
I thought the piece was the best thing I've read on Lula.
-
What is involved in moving beyond technically proficient postcard-pretty images which could have been taken by anyone, and what does one find when one gets there? It may not be what one expects, and it may be an unsettling, even scary place. But ... it is what was always calling to us. I thought this was a beautifully expressed essay.
-
Hmmm... I was curious when I saw the title, so I read it. Strangely enough (or maybe not so strangely), I've always found it difficult to find, define or assign any kind of higher or deeper meaning to my love of landscape photography. I read what others have to say about it, how they've discovered the deeper implications of this or that, how they've even discovered who they really are through some redeeming or clarifying value of the photographic activity...
All this has, I must say, always sounded to me like a lot of mumbo-jumbo. I mean, I'm happy for the guys who finally "found the way", as Lao-Tseu put it, but honestly, I'm not sure I can follow them there. Maybe I'm too much of a pragmatist, but when I look at the photos they say are emblematic of the "before" and "after" phases, I can't really tell the difference, except that the "after" ones often are blurry and technically questionable... If that is typical of a landscape photographer who's finally found the higher meaning of it all, then I have indeed found it quite some time ago, as I can remember producing such "unfortunate" pictures myself; I just chose not to show them! ;)
In other words, as much as I would love to move into that higher and more meaningful phase of my photographic life, I am afraid my path has not been enlightened yet —and somehow, I doubt it ever will.
[/
Agreed!
-
You must have heard the term "A picture paints a thousand words"? Nowadays its changed somewhat to "A thousand words paints a picture". To me photography has gone AWOL in this modern digital age.
I loved it when photographers just went out and made photographs that meant something to them and they never felt the need to have to explain themselves to others on what they were actually trying to purvey to the actual viewer. Each photograph spoke for itself without the need for words. How times have changed.
Nigel.
Generally I agree: Visual artists are often pretty awful prose writers.
However, I thought this article seemed pretty honest & unpretentious.
-
Generally I agree: Visual artists are often pretty awful prose writers.
However, I thought this article seemed pretty honest & unpretentious.
+1.
-
Hmmm... I was curious when I saw the title, so I read it. Strangely enough (or maybe not so strangely), I've always found it difficult to find, define or assign any kind of higher or deeper meaning to my love of landscape photography. I read what others have to say about it, how they've discovered the deeper implications of this or that, how they've even discovered who they really are through some redeeming or clarifying value of the photographic activity...
All this has, I must say, always sounded to me like a lot of mumbo-jumbo. I mean, I'm happy for the guys who finally "found the way", as Lao-Tseu put it, but honestly, I'm not sure I can follow them there. Maybe I'm too much of a pragmatist, but when I look at the photos they say are emblematic of the "before" and "after" phases, I can't really tell the difference, except that the "after" ones often are blurry and technically questionable... If that is typical of a landscape photographer who's finally found the higher meaning of it all, then I have indeed found it quite some time ago, as I can remember producing such "unfortunate" pictures myself; I just chose not to show them! ;)
I don't think most photography really gets beyond "I saw this and thought it was important enough to put a frame around it and capture" especially landscape photography. As an art form, photography really isn't that creative because at it's heart it is recording reflected light rather than creating something entirely from scratch. I struggle reading attempts to attribute additional meaning which often feel like ways to try and legitimise it as ‘art’ or otherwise elevate beyond what it is.
-
If you want to simply take sharp photographs of the landscape, well that's a perfectly decent hobby, but why would I care about your pictures versus some other chap's or versus simply looking out my window?
If you want me to have an interest in your pictures specifically you have to have a point of view, an idea, an opinion.
I thought the piece was the best thing I've read on Lula.
This.
Pretty as the sunset pictures are, you look at them and put them away. A picture that makes you think - or even look again - demands something more.
-
I don't think most photography really gets beyond "I saw this and thought it was important enough to put a frame around it and capture" especially landscape photography. As an art form, photography really isn't that creative because at it's heart it is recording reflected light rather than creating something entirely from scratch. I struggle reading attempts to attribute additional meaning which often feel like ways to try and legitimise it as ‘art’ or otherwise elevate beyond what it is.
Well said. One can "think" what they like when they capture an image and have all sorts of thoughts about it but when they process it and show it to someone then that person won't know what thoughts were in the photographer's mind? They will have thoughts of their own based on their own experiences and likes and then dismiss the image or praise it. Too much "thinking" is a waste of time imo.
-
Just a quickie: the article could have been reduced to a single phrase: the difference between stock and art.
Rob C
-
As an art form, photography really isn't that creative because at it's heart it is recording reflected light rather than creating something entirely from scratch.
Duane Michals said something similar in an interview recently... but of course it may be that the photographer has created the thing reflecting the light. Although rarely from scratch ;)
-
Duane Michals said something similar in an interview recently... but of course it may be that the photographer has created the thing reflecting the light. Although rarely from scratch ;)
Ha ha yes. It does also vary a bit by genre: a big reason I shoot fashion is because it is about creating something and while not totally from scratch, it is at least choosing and combining many different elements (model, location, hair, makeup, clothes, lighting) rather than simply seeing/finding something existing that might be a good picture.
-
I guess the big question is, how do you invest a landscape photograph with emotion, beyond the "pretty picture"? And, is the key just photographing where you live, day to day, instead of going to exotic locations? People have feelings and associations about where they live - not necessarily so, when being a tourist elsewhere.
-
The answer to how one invests a landscape, or any other photo, with emotion is deeply personal.
You have to look at a lot of pictures, and have a rough idea how to produce a lot of effects. Then you mull it over and, if you are lucky, you get an idea.
If you are luckier still the idea proves to be doable, and in fact works.
But there's no formula. You have to feel, and then you have to translate. There are techniques you can use to help, but they boil down to meditation, with breaks.
-
His web site has a few more pictures that I think reflect more of what he is saying.
-
My liking for an image or a subject is basically a gut instinct which I find is hard to describe. If I showed someone a favourite image I had taken and the person asked me to describe what attracted me to it I would be lost for words. I couldn't/wouldn't try to make up a description and I suspect a lot of photographers have an "over active imagination" when they talk about their images? :(
-
Mark,
...a big reason I shoot fashion is because it is about creating something and while not totally from scratch, it is at least choosing and combining many different elements (model, location, hair, makeup, clothes, lighting) rather than simply seeing/finding something existing that might be a good picture.
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
Credit: Ansel Adams
-
Mark,
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the LANDSCAPE photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
Credit: Ansel Adams
Additional word in caps mine.
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob,
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the LANDSCAPE photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
Credit: Rob C
Are you a landscape photographer?
-
I was going to write more but Dominique, Nigel and Rob have pretty much said it.
The earnest explanations of how someone reached their photographic epiphany are often disappointing or an anticlimax; no doubt he/she appreciates what they've made, but the implicit assumption that others will be recognising the triumphs to the same extent is likely to be wishful thinking.
Many of us can probably remember images which turned us on to photography; for me they were Moonrise at Hernadez, Aspens Colorado, and On the Prairie. The late Ansel Adams described the techniques with great precision, so most likely we could emulate them, but his choices on the day were just a crucial and impossible to copy. Even with loads of advice. Laura Gilpin's image of the young optimistic woman, hat blown off and looking into a never ending drone and indistinct plain is far above 1000 words of advice. Of course, she never attempted it. And that might be very good advice.
-
Rob,
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the LANDSCAPE photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
Credit: Rob C
Are you a landscape photographer?
Are you a fashion photographer?
Rob C
-
Rob,
Are you a fashion photographer?
No. Why do you ask?
-
Mark,
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
Credit: Ansel Adams
Did he explain why he thought this? And if you agree with it, it would be interesting to hear why. Without such explanations, I am left in sympathy with Rob C's amendment. And when I look through illustrated world histories of photography (which provide a rough guide to what has been considered best) then I certainly don't find anything to convince me that landscape photographers are supreme in achievement. Maybe AA thought it the supreme test because he understood how hard it is to make photographs with no people in them deeply interesting.
-
…how hard it is to make photographs with no people in them deeply interesting.
Exactly, and how photographs with people in them will unsurprisingly interest people.
-
Ken,
Did he explain why he thought this?
Sorry, I don't know.
...if you agree with it, it would be interesting to hear why. Without such explanations, I am left in sympathy with Rob C's amendment.
That is your prerogative.
...when I look through illustrated world histories of photography (which provide a rough guide to what has been considered best) then I certainly don't find anything to convince me that landscape photographers are supreme in achievement.
Landscape photography, not landscape photographers.
-
As you pass through all the landscapes of your life, there are certain rare moments when a particular view (and it may last only for a few seconds) seems transcendental -- more than just hills and trees and autumn color. It's a moment that tell you something about the worth of the world. The problem that most landscape photographers have to deal with is that they get their camera and go hunting for images and they find them, and they're usually "pretty" at best. They don't tell you (or your viewers) much of anything about anything, they're just the same hills and trees we see every day out the car window. They don't have that momentary transcendence.
One thing Ansel Adams was able to do was to see potential in a variety of landscapes, and then to be there when the moment occurred. But, this didn't happen every time he went out, or even very often -- but he knew where and when it might happen, and tried to be there. If you look at his best images (and he took clunkers like everybody else) you realize he probably didn't get one good image for every year of his shooting life. Probably more like one every five years. Jumping in your car on the odd Wednesday afternoon and driving off to no place in particular with your camera, probably isn't going to work. You have to have an intention, and have thought about that intention, and then execute it. I really believe that there is artistic potential in landscape photography, you just don't see it achieved very often.
-
John,
One thing Ansel Adams was able to do was to see potential in a variety of landscapes, and then to be there when the moment occurred. But, this didn't happen every time he went out, or even very often -- but he knew where and when it might happen, and tried to be there. If you look at his best images (and he took clunkers like everybody else) you realize he probably didn't get one good image for every year of his shooting life. Probably more like one every five years.
Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.
Credit: Ansel Adams
-
Landscape photography, not landscape photographers.
That seems to me a distinction without a difference. And I would still love to hear if you agree with Ansel Adams, and if so, why (because I enjoyed the work on your web site).
-
As you pass through all the landscapes of your life, there are certain rare moments when a particular view (and it may last only for a few seconds) seems transcendental ....... I really believe that there is artistic potential in landscape photography, you just don't see it achieved very often.
Thanks for that John, a lovely and persuasive explanation.
Thinking about my own responses to landscape photographs, some of those that move me powerfully capture the elements, or elementals, of nature - "mountains and rivers without end" (to quote Gary Snyder), and the sea, and forests, with simple and powerful composition. At some level these places are where we live, in our unconscious minds and in deep time. I also have a taste for landscape shots which tell a certain kind of truth by including marks of human presence, either discordant or in harmony with nature.
-
My liking for an image or a subject is basically a gut instinct which I find is hard to describe. If I showed someone a favourite image I had taken and the person asked me to describe what attracted me to it I would be lost for words. I couldn't/wouldn't try to make up a description and I suspect a lot of photographers have an "over active imagination" when they talk about their images? :(
I feel much the same which I why I choose a visual medium, if I wanted to express things in writing I would have taken up writing.
Marketing, writing the books and running the workshops most professional photographers seem to do these days all require writing and possibly drawing on an "over active imagination".
-
"Landscape photography is the supreme test of the LANDSCAPE photographer - and often the supreme disappointment."
I adjusted this line by inserting the word in caps, and had imagined the point was obvious.
The point, for anyone not getting it, is that whatever your speciality, getting the best out of it is the most difficult thing. That's common to all genres. And the difficulty lies in your sophisticated knowledge and understanding of your genre, of what's been achieved already, and where your work stands in relation to those achievements.
Rob C
-
It's difficult to capture the sense of awe our eyes and brain "see" with a camera that displays and prints the scene in 2D with no wind, smells, no vast panoramic view. Anyone who's been to Inspiration Point in Yosemite or the Grand Canyon and were totally disappointed with the pictures they took and those others took as well, that don't duplicate that transcendental feeling understands this. Yet we keep trying, sometimes just catching a piece of it, if we're very lucky.
-
Ken,
That seems to me a distinction without a difference.
Nowhere in the quote credited to Ansel Adams is landscape photographer mentioned:
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
Perhaps you mistook Ansel Adams for Rob C?
Did he explain why he thought this?
Apparently the quote was first published in the Photographing Nature edition of the series LIFE Library of Photography by Time-Life. I have ordered a copy and when it has been delivered I hope to be in a position to answer your question.
Edit: post edited to correct typographic error.
-
Ken,
Nowhere in the quote credited to Ansel Adams is landscape photographer mentioned:
Perhaps you mistook Ansel Adams for Rob C?
Apparently the quote was first published in the Photographing Nature edition of the series LIFE Library of Photography by Time-Life. I have ordered a copy and when it has been delivered I hope to be in a position to answer your question.
Please, NO!
Rob C
-
Ken,
Nowhere in the quote credited to Ansel Adams is landscape photographer mentioned:
Perhaps you mistook Ansel Adams for Rob C.
Apparently the quote was first published in the Photographing Nature edition of the series LIFE Library of Photography by Time-Life. I have ordered a copy and when it has been delivered I hope to be in a position to answer your question.
Edit: post edited to correct typographic error.
Rob, I do understand that you have correctly quoted Ansel Adams. My point was simply that in the context of the discussion and the view I was putting forward, the difference between your correct version of the quotation and my incorrect one is immaterial.
I will certainly, in future, do everything possible to avoid confusing Ansel Adams and Rob C. Much as I respect both of them, I wouldn't claim that is "a distinction without a difference".
Ansel Adams on Photographing Nature sounds interesting. I will see if my local library has a copy (the chances are good, since it is the National Library of Australia).
-
Ken,
My point was simply that in the context of the discussion and the view I was putting forward, the difference between your correct version of the quotation and my incorrect one is immaterial.
I think you may have missed my point. Here is the quote credited to Ansel Adams:
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
Here is your relevant comment:
...when I look through illustrated world histories of photography (which provide a rough guide to what has been considered best) then I certainly don't find anything to convince me that landscape photographers are supreme in achievement.
The view put forward by you qualifies landscape photographers. The view put forward by Ansel Adams makes no such qualification - landscape photography is the supreme challenge of the photographer, independent of what the photographer normally photographs.
The difference between my correct version of the quotation and your incorrect one is the difference between the quotes credited to Ansel Adams and Rob C respectively.
-
Ken,
I think you may have missed my point. Here is the quote credited to Ansel Adams:
Here is your relevant comment:
The view put forward by you qualifies landscape photographers. The view put forward by Ansel Adams makes no such qualification - landscape photography is the supreme challenge of the photographer, independent of what the photographer normally photographs.
The difference between my correct version of the quotation and your incorrect one is the difference between the quotes credited to Ansel Adams and Rob C respectively.
I fear we are strenuously missing each others' points, Rob, and that too much further discussion is likely to put even us to sleep, let alone any other readers. What I was trying to say, probably with poor choice of words, is that when I look through histories of world photography, I don't find the photographs of landscapes to be the best, the most interesting, representative of the highest artistic achievement in photography, etcetera. In that context whether those photographs were taken by "photographers" or "landscape photographers" seems to me immaterial. Over and out.
-
Looking through the annals of photography one finds almost no photographs which are both:
- Particularly good photos.
- Straight landscapes without the hand of man, etc.
The form is murderously difficult. The easiest photo to take is a mediocre landscape and among the hardest is an excellent one.
-
The form is murderously difficult. The easiest photo to take is a mediocre landscape and among the hardest is an excellent one.
Which, it belatedly occurs to me, may well be what Ansel Adams meant (I know, I know, I promised to STFU, but this is a mea culpa).
-
Ken,
I will see if my local library has a copy...
To aid you:
ISBN: B001J85HLY
Publisher: NY Time-Life Books C; 6 edition (1980)
What I was trying to say...is that when I look through histories of world photography, I don't find the photographs of landscapes to be the best, the most interesting, representative of the highest artistic achievement in photography, etcetera. In that context whether those photographs were taken by "photographers" or "landscape photographers" seems to me immaterial.
You seem determined to misread the quote credited to Ansel Adams:
Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment.
The quote is couched in terms of the challenge that landscape photography personally presents to a photographer - it makes no claim on the superiority of landscape photography versus other photography.
Andrew,
The form is murderously difficult.
Everything's easy when you know how.
-
Everything's easy when you know how.
Things we know how to do may still require great effort.
-
Isaac,
Things we know how to do may still require great effort.
Yes, my comment was poorly stated. Thank you for the correction.
-
You seem determined to misread the quote credited to Ansel Adams:
The quote is couched in terms of the challenge that landscape photography personally presents to a photographer - it makes no claim on the superiority of landscape photography versus other photography.
Good point. I still think there might be some implication about the relative quality of your results if and when you actually pass "the supreme test", but that is certainly not stated, and Ansel Adams might simply be saying, as others have, that landscape photography is very difficult, and hence explaining why there are not so many outstanding landscape photographs (relative to outstanding photographs of other subjects).
-
Good point. I still think there might be some implication about the relative quality of your results if and when you actually pass "the supreme test", but that is certainly not stated, and Ansel Adams might simply be saying, as others have, that landscape photography is very difficult, and hence explaining why there are not so many outstanding landscape photographs (relative to outstanding photographs of other subjects).
Yes, IMHO, while there are many photographic genres there are only photographers.
Also, despite the variety of photographic genres they are all complementary.
We may all tend to specialise in particular genres but often the best way to create a really striking result in a particular genre is to employ a technique, an approach, a philosophy that might be more conventionally thought of as belonging to another genre.
It is true that landscape photography can push the boundaries of one's skills, both technical and artistic, but it is also true, for example, that having good skills related to portrait photography can be very helpful, not because one can control lighting as is done with portraits, but rather, that one might recognise the circumstances of light prevailing and exploit it to the full.
For me personally I am finding that the more I experiment with genres other than the outdoor/landscape/wildlife stuff the more and varied ideas I have about how to do things. This is still a work in progress for me.
Tony Jay
-
Yes, IMHO, while there are many photographic genres there are only photographers.
Also, despite the variety of photographic genres they are all complementary.
We may all tend to specialise in particular genres but often the best way to create a really striking result in a particular genre is to employ a technique, an approach, a philosophy that might be more conventionally thought of as belonging to another genre.
It is true that landscape photography can push the boundaries of one's skills, both technical and artistic, but it is also true, for example, that having good skills related to portrait photography can be very helpful, not because one can control lighting as is done with portraits, but rather, that one might recognise the circumstances of light prevailing and exploit it to the full.
For me personally I am finding that the more I experiment with genres other than the outdoor/landscape/wildlife stuff the more and varied ideas I have about how to do things. This is still a work in progress for me.
Tony Jay
Tony, I'd agree with that 100%.
Though landscape doesn't cut it for me, I do know that the more I play with things beyond my comfort zone (oy vey!), the more my general standard in whatever I do improves. I think so, at least, and that's what matters most to me.
Compared to when I was working, I find that I do far more different things now than before, but that's probably just due to lack of clients to pay for the girls needed for me to keep on truckin' in the old genre. I'm not saying that I prefer the new reality, simply that I've accepted the inevitable and still keep busy with something else.
I guess the important thing comes in two parts: I'm able to stave off too much boredom; I still love photography most next to family which, of course, is numero uno.
Rob C
-
Thanks for your article Declan. I should add that in general I don't usually find much of value in essays dealing with the metaphysics of photography; I often find them saying something I really don't understand or expressing something I find somewhat pretentious. Yours is an exception; the mention of Paul Klee drew me in and I found myself understanding and agreeing with your thoughts. I find real joy in photography's ability to call attention to the unnoticed.
Here are two images I like, you and posters to this thread may as well. The first I titled Mark Rothko Visits Lake Erie; it could have been a typical sunset image over the lake, but I find this much more interesting. The second, Winter Blues : a horizontal pan of a frozen harbor.
Regards,
Tom
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8526/8674248336_e7eee3c0f4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/edvMPN)Mark Rothko appears in Lake Erie (https://flic.kr/p/edvMPN) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21294128@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/13278453583_73c595c3c7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/menxCT)_IGP0917-1 copy 3 (https://flic.kr/p/menxCT) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21294128@N08/), on Flickr
-
Ken et al.,
Did he explain why he thought this?
Apparently the quote was not first published in the Photographing Nature edition of the series LIFE Library of Photography by Time-Life. My copy arrived earlier today and this is what it has to say:
Nothing seems easier, to a person who has never tried it, than photographing a landscape. The beauty is all there to start with - the bright flowers, the rich forest greens, the clear or cloud-studded sky, the gently rolling fields and hills. Surely all the photographer needs to do is point his camera and click away. And surely nothing is more exasperating than the pallid snap-shots that usually result. Where is the panoramic sweep, so clearly remembered, of those rolling hills? The wild flowers seem barely visible in the finished print, and the groves of trees have turned flat and colorless. How did those telegraph wires get into the picture? And the little blue bump on the horizon - could that be the distant mountain that looked so majestic to the eye? What went wrong?
Almost everyone, after shooting his first casual landscape, faces such a moment of truth. For landscape photography is no casual matter, but a skill that requires time and patient effort. Ansel Adams, who has spent a lifetime at it, calls it "the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment." Scores of variables must be considered. Each hour of the day, each change of weather, the slightest shift in viewpoint, can radically affect the way a picture will look. A range of mountains that looms dramatically in the dawn light, with the oblique rays of the sun casting each spur and pinnacle in bold relief, may shrink into insignificance under the hard unyielding light of noon. A field that seems visually exciting when dappled with the shadow patterns of clouds may turn drab and monotonous under a clear sky. Yet all these pitfalls may be avoided by applying a few basic principles...
The above is written by "The Editors" of the book. The bibliography lists the following under Adams, Ansel: Camera and Lens, Morgan & Morgan, 1970.
I have ordered a copy, although it is likely to take a fortnight or more to arrive. I will post my findings in due course. For those interested, the ISBN is 0871000563.