Talk:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico

Topics for expansion

I wonder whether we need this article, but if an article is justified for any landscape photograph, this is probably at the top of the list. If the article is justified, I would add

1. David Elmore’s initial determination of the time and date (4:03 P.M. on 31 October 1941), described by Sean Callahan in the January 1981 issue of American Photographer.
2. Dennis di Cicco’s more accurate determination (4:49:20 P.M. on 1  November 1941), described by di Cicco in the November 1991 issue of Sky &Telescope.
3. Adams’s first account of how the image was made, given in US Camera Annual 1943.
4. Adams’s later account of how the image was made, given in The Negative (1981) and Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs
5. Alinder’s discussion of the disparity between the two accounts in Ansel Adams: A Biography.

It would also seem appropriate to add artistic criticism, and perhaps a history of sales and prices, but I would defer to others on these issues. JeffConrad (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the date and supporting ref, but have held off on the rest because I think it would give disproportionate emphasis to the making until there is more information about the image itself and its reception. JeffConrad (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we at a point where a section Making of Moonrise is justified? The current wording needs to be changed a bit, because Adams’s original account, given in U.S. Camera 1943 Annual, is considerably less dramatic. Alinder maintains that U.S. Camera got much of it wrong, but the original account was contemporaneous, and Alinder relied on Adams’s recollection almost 40 years after the fact. There’s no way to make the call; however, by my calculations, the original account better fits the facts—though it wasn’t really twilight as Adams supposedly said, the Sun was slightly below the hills to the west when Moonrise was made. Further support comes from an assertion from Cooke that they never made the lens Adams later claims to have used. Clearly, we can’t cite either of these, but they do lead me to believe it’s as reasonable to trust U.S. Camera (a presumably reliable source) at least as much as Alinder’s much later account. Adams’s own description is similar to Alinder’s, but again, it first appeared almost 40 years after the fact. In any event, I′m inclined to begin with something like “Accounts differ . . .” JeffConrad (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to be bold. If you think an idea would improve the article, go for it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fear of boldness has never been a problem . . .

I’ve added discussion of the differing accounts, as well as attempts to date the image. Though the coverage seems a bit disproportionate, making it shorter would largely miss the point. What’s probably needed is more about other aspects of the image.

I moved the mention of the number of prints to the lead, because it clearly is unrelated to the making of the image; some of the page numbers in the Alinder reference may need adjusting. JeffConrad (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

Jeff Conrad is right that there are a lot of excess page numbers in the reference to the Alinder bio. Also, there is a double reference to the Adams autobiography, one of which has excess page numbers. This is an artifact of my moving content from an article I wrote about Cedric Wright. I will pull the books and trim the refs.

The main shortcoming now is the need for critical commentary on the photo as a work of art. Once we add that, it should be OK to add a low resolution version of the photo under fair use. Thoughts? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Work for hire for Department of the Interior?

If it was work for hire for the U.S. Govt., then it would be free of copyright... AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Ansel Adams article reveals that this was one reason the exact date of the photograph mattered. Adams' contract with the government had also left him free to take photographs for his own use with his own equipment. As it turned out, this photograph was taken on a day for which Adams had not billed the Department of the Interior, so he was free to claim copyright on it, which enabled him to get income from selling prints of it. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No on so many levels. There's a lot more going on. The exact date does not matter. Glrx (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Did I misread that section of the article, or is the article itself not giving the full story? I'd rather not be spreading misconceptions. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There are many subtle issues with Moonrise, the Adams article confuses them, and I'd like to keep them as a copyright exam question. But here's an issue to think about. Mr. Lisa hires Leo, a photographer, to take pictures of his daughter Mona during the Lisa family vacation. Leo notices that a picture he took of her on Wednesday is Pulitzer worthy, so he doesn't charge Mr. Lisa for that day, keeps the picture, and sells copies of the picture for $1000 each. Does Leo get to choose which day he worked? Compare that to after a long day of snapping pictures of Mona, Leo goes home and sees his daughter Sarah playing in the yard. Leo takes her picture, it's a masterpiece, and he sells copies of it for $1000 each. Mr. Lisa didn't hire Leo to take pictures of Sarah. Now what if Mona and Sarah become friends, and Leo takes pictures of them together during the Lisa vacation. Glrx (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Glrx and AnonMoos, I have read extensively about Ansel Adams and his most notable photographs for decades, and have never once seen a reliable source that argues that Adams was not "off duty" the day he took this photo. Unless you can provide such a source, then this conversation cannot lead to improving the article. As for "Pulitzer worthy" or any other accolades, that cannot be judged by the photographer or anyone else in the days between taking a photo and billing (or not billing) the government. That sort of thing develops over time, as critics and paying customers react to a given photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not say he was not off duty; I said whether he worked for Ickes & Co. that day or not does not matter. Arguments are often made assuming one side is omniscient or possesses extraordinary powers. Adams is not ignorant of composition and drama. Glrx (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If there was any evidence that Adams was working for the government that day, then yes it would matter. But there isn't. You are correct that Adams had a keen ability to assess whether a photo was likely to be a good one even before developing and printing the negative. On the other hand, his vaunted "photographic memory" did not extend to such basic things as remembering what year (let alone the precise date) that he took this road trip with his son Michael and his best friend Cedric Wright. He was a contradictory man, Glrx. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The dramatic version

Is there any reason at all to believe the dramatic version of events is actually true? My scepticism is piqued because I find it very hard to believe that if one had undergone such a tense, even slightly panicked, moment and then getting recognition for the fruits of your labour, one would then make up a drab story about using the light meter in the usual way. The fact that the dramatic version postdates the first account by several decades does nothing to quell my disbelief. Has Cedric Wright ever commented on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Cedric was long gone before this image became a thing. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)