G'day Art,

Of course, much of the applied densitometry skill of Ansel Adams was spent in the absolute essential of capturing an image - making sure that every possible detail of the scene was captured and available on the negative. This was the second part of the triad of skills that made him unique.

The first was his vision ... and the times and lengths over which he could hold in his mind the final image he sought ... and the consumate skill and dedication with which he worked to finalise that image.

The second was this total understanding of his materials - the films he tested out and chose and the families of developers / times / contrast ranges that he kept in his mind, as well as his notes.

The third was his skill as an interpretive printer - using every printing / dodging / burning / enhancing tool that could be found ... or built.

I'm sure he would have used any tool that could advance the image - PhotoShop included.

That said, I'm sure he would not have been settled for the output of most systems for printing from digital images. I had only seen his work as reproductions for many years - when I got down to Canberra for some other good reason ... and visited the (Australian) National Gallery. I sought out their photographic exhibitions, without checking any listings. I wandered into an exhibit of really nice work by Minor White ... then stepped around a corner and was confronted by a full portfolio of Ansel Adams's prints.

I could scarcely comprehend just how vastly better they were - Adams had wrung out every last detail possible ... in scenes of great beauty ... magnificently composed ... photographed at the absolute optimum moment for lighting - and put more of that detail into any single print than I would have believed.

I'm not quite sure how he would have equalled, let alone bettered, that ... but I think he would have - and he would not have scorned any tool that could help.

Regards,

Bob Bolton