The Tetons and the Snake River (1942) Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. National Archives and Records Administration, Records of the National Park Service. (79-AAG-1)、By ANSEL ADAMS(1902 – 1984) Adams was employed by the US Government to take this picture.Under section 105 of the Copyright Act of 1976, therefore, this photo has no copyright. **アンセル・アダムズは1989年に死んだので著作権はアメリカでは有効ですが、この写真に関しては、アメリカ連邦政府に依頼された記録写真撮影の仕事で撮影されたもので、米国の連邦著作権規定により、著作権は生じないことになっており、パブリックドメインの扱いです（日本の法律ではそうならないとか言い出しても、元のアメリカの権利者が法律で著作権放棄しているので、著作権侵害は生じない）日本だと、旧著作権法の写真著作権、撮影または公表時１３年（1970年末までの期限が来ていれば、そこで著作権消滅）と、サンフランシスコ平和条約の戦時加算約１０年で、1946以前あたりに撮影されたアンセル・アダムズの写真は日本では著作権は消滅しているとも言えます
繰り返しになる項目は避けて、上のドイツサイトで扱わなかった早い動き物のAF性能の項目を見ましょう(このサイトでは Sony A1（5000万画素）と Sony A7RIV(6100万画素)が使われる)
La performance AF est bonne comme sur la V1 mais pas très bonne non plus（Sony Alpha Blog 上記記事引用）. AFのパフォーマンスは、一型のようによいが、すごく良いわけでもないと、AF性能は２型になっても大差がない
Il y a pas mal de ratés en rafale quand le sujet s’approche à courte distance et même sur les sujets statiques comme pour des portraits il y a un manque de précision à F2.8 et donc pour 1 photo sur 3 on atteint pas l’excellence mais seulement le grade très bon sur 50Mpix（Sony Alpha Blog 上記記事引用）被写体が至近距離に近づくと、連射失敗がかなり発生し、ポートレートなどの静止した被写体でも F2.8では【ピント】精度が不足するため、3 枚中 1 枚の写真はエクセレントには達せず、５０００万画素機【ブログで使うSony A1】では、非常によい結果にとどまります。
OVING Brethren that were, I salute you. I owe you one apology, oh! my friends, for in the earnestness of my heart I fartly misled you. You, who stuck by me in storm and stress I shall never forget—if any of you, after this renunciation, seek advice, ask and you shall receive of my best. You, enemies, who will now rub your hands with small-souled glee, rub on, till it all ends in imaginary soft-soap. You, whom I have in mistaken zeal attacked, pray forgive and forget.
And now list. I, saner than ever, renounce and abjure all theories, teachings and views on art written, and first promulgated by me in sundry works, articles, etc., and finally collected in a volume, entitled ‘‘ Naturalistic Photography.” I’cast them upon the dust-heap.そして今リストします。 これまで以上に正気になった私は、最初に、私によって書かれ、さまざまな著作や記事などで広められ、最終的には「自然主義的写真」と題された大冊にまとめられた、芸術に関するすべての理論、教え、見解を放棄し、棄却します。 私はそれらを塵の山の上に投げました。
I am for the present and future neither idealist, realist, naturalist, nor impressionist—photographic impresstonist, indeed ! —as though ALL graphic artists were not impressionists, and as if the photographic process could give aught but transcripts more or less literal. Shall I forsooth explain this burning of books ?
List, you who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
In the fulness of my heart I dreamed a dream. I thought art might be taught by writing. I was wrong, I confess. I, even I, “the lover of nature,”—everyone is that now—preached that all art that did not conform to ‘‘truth to nature” principle was bad—that was a fatal sermon to many. From this followed again the idea — mistaken, alas ! —that photography pure,—(not impure, on rough papers, touched up by clumsy hands) — was an art surpassing all black and white methods. Eheu! That this was ever believed !
However, I was sincere, enthuSiastic, but mistaken, and I was and am no amateur. I have by the sweat of my brow learned, under a master, something of this thing they call art. Being no amateur, I have therefore left the Camera Club, the home of the “amateur.” But ye reasonable ones in photography — some of you ave that, true and worthy sons of the goddess Science, who has little to do with the goddess Art— you will ask, and with right, why this thusness ?
I respect you true workers in science—ye Abneys, Dallmeyers, Hurters, Driffields, Vogels, Jones, Harrisons, Bolas, Waterhouses, Eders, and others. I will tell you, for the vulgar mob of pseudo-scientists have done naught but prove their ignorance and Show signs of the itch … the itch for publicity and venom.
To you, then, who seek an explanation for my conduct, Art—as Whistler said—is not nature—is not necessarily the reproduction or translation of it—much, so very much, that is good art, some of the very best—is not nature at all, nor even based upon it— vide Donatello and Hokusai.そこで、私の行為の説明を求めているあなたへ、ホイッスラーが言ったように、芸術とは、必ずしもその複製や翻訳ではなく、非常にそれが良い芸術であり、最も優れた芸術の一部であるということです。 —自然ではまったくなく、自然に基づいていることさえありません—ドナテロと【日本の浮世絵の葛飾】北斎を参照してください。
The limitations of photography are so great that, though the results may and sometimes do give a certain esthetic pleasure, the medium must always rank the lowest of all arts, dower than any graphic art, for the individuality of the artist is cramped, in short, it can scarcely show itself. Control of the picture is possible to a slzght degree, by varied focussing, by varying the exposure (but this is working in the dark), by development, I doubt (I agree with Hurter and Driffield, after three-and-a-half months careful study of the subject), and lastly, by a certain choice in printing methods.写真の【芸術表現手法としての】限界は非常に大きいので、その【撮影と現像プリント】結果はある種の審美的な喜びを与えることもあるし、時には実際に与えることもあるが、その媒体は常にすべての芸術の中で最下位に位置しなければならず、アーティストの個性は【写真というものの制約下で自由度が低く】窮屈であるため、【作者が自分の意思をより自由に行使できる】グラフィックアートよりも劣っている。 、それはほとんど現れません。 【撮影者が表現のためにできる】写真のコントロールはわずかで、焦点【ピントのこと】を変えたり、露出を変えたり（ただし、これは暗闇の中で機能します）、現像によってある程度可能であるというのは、私は疑うんです（私はハーターとドリフィールドの意見に同意しますよ、3.5か月かけてこのテーマを注意深く研究した後ではね）、そして最後に【焼き付け】プリント方法を、特定の方法でえらぶことですね。
But the all-vital powers of selection and rejection are fatally limited, bound in by fixed and narrow barriers. No differential analysis can be made, no subduing of parts, save by dodging—no emphasis—save by dodging, and that is not pure photography, impure photography is merely-a confession of limitations. A friend once said to me.しかし、【写真に写りこむものの】選択と【写真に邪魔なものを】拒否【して取り除く】といった、極めて重要な力は、【写真という手段では】致命的に制限されており、【写真での撮影者の表現の自由度は】固定された狭い障壁に縛られています。 差異の分析はできず、部分を抑制することもできず、避けて保存することはできず、強調することもできず、避けて保存することはできません【要するにモンタージュや合成写真を否定している】。【人為的に不要なものを消したり、付け足したりするような、工夫、もちろん合成技法で作られた写真は論外、】それは純粋な写真ではなく、不純な写真で、単なる【写真表現の】限界の告白にすぎません。 かつて友人が私にこう言いました。
I feel like taking nearly every photograph and analyzing it.” Compare a pen and ink drawing by Rico or Vierge, in Pennell’s book. I thought once (Hurter and Driffield have taught me differently) that true values could be obtained and that values could be altered at will by development. They cannot; therefore, to talk of getting the values in any subject whatever as you wish and of getting them true to nature, is to talk nonsense.
It is impossible, in most subjects, to alter your values as you wish, and to talk of such things now is mere emptiness and puffed-up humbug.
Some amateurs following Colonel Noverre’s REVIVAL of rough printing-papers LasT yEAR (1889), have thought that salvation lay in rough surfaces. Colonel Noverre’s dustheap was ransacked, and we have heard of a “new departure ”—a newer “school,” and all the bleat of the overweeningly vain “amateur.”
If there can be no scientific basis for an art, as some have asserted, Meissonier can claim to be-as artistic as Monet, and Monet as Meissonier.
The sharp photographer can assert his artistic rights alongside of the veriest “‘blottist.” So all opinions and writings upon art are as the crackling of thorns beneath the pot. In short, I throw my lot in with those who say that photography is a very limited art. I regret deeply that I have to come to this conclusion. Photography is first of all the hand-maiden of art and science. It has and will register new facts of light, form and texture. Pure photography is a scientific method of drawing, and scientists should work on until a true and literal scientific transcript of nature can be made—this by ortho-chromatics, etc.鋭い写真家は、最も優れた「ブロッティスト[汚すとかシミを作るという単語からの派生だが、落書き屋のような意味か？]」と並んで、その芸術的権利を主張できます。 そう、芸術に関するすべての意見や文章は、鍋の下でパチパチと音を立てるいばらのようなものです【まあいろんな意見があるという意味】。 つまり、私は写真は非常に限定された芸術であると主張する人々にロットを投げ込みます【＝賛成です】。 このような結論に至らざるを得なくなったことを、私は大変遺憾に思います。 写真はまず第一に、芸術と科学の侍女です。 それは光、形、質感の新しい事実を記録し、そして記録するのです。 純粋な写真は科学的な描画方法であり、科学者は自然の真の文字通りの科学的転写が作成できるようになるまで取り組む必要があります。これはオルソクロマティックなどによって行われます。
It will interest some to hear what I think of some points that have been vexed questions in a war I have, I regret to say, stirred up. Composition, as understood by Burnet and others, I hold to be futility itself, though I can appreciate the attempts to meet the difficulties in this matter. The eternal principles of art I have heard so much of are mere catchwords.
Sharpness v. Diffusion.— lf the work is for scientific ; purposes, work sharply ; if for amusement, please yourself; if for business, do what will pay.シャープネス vs. 拡散[ぼかし技法] – 撮影が科学的なものである場合。 目的に応じて、シャープになるよう作業します。 娯楽のためなら、どうぞご自由に。 ビジネスの場合は、お金に見合うことをしてください【頼んだ人が好いように仕上げる】。
I have, I regret it deeply, compared photographs to great works of art, and photographers to great artists. It was rash and thoughtless, and my punishment is in having to acknowledge this now. – Think of the marvellous dexterity of the man who with pencil, pen and ink, or paint and brush, produces a masterpiece, the drawing equal to that of the lens, the tones in harmony, the colour delicate and marvellously beautiful. Read Rood’s Chromatics for a hint of the manifold difficulties surrounding this subject. Then think of the amateur photographer who, if clever, can in a few weeks turn out good technical work.とても後悔していますが、私は写真を偉大な芸術作品に、写真家を偉大な芸術家に例えてきました。 それは軽率で軽率な行為であり、今このことを認めなければならないことが私の罰です。 – 鉛筆、ペンとインク、あるいは絵の具と筆を使って、レンズと同等の描画、調和した色調、繊細で驚くほど美しい傑作を生み出す男の驚くべき器用さを考えてください。 この主題を取り巻くさまざまな困難については、ルードの『クロマティックス』を読んでください。 次に、賢ければ数週間で優れた技術的な作品を仕上げることができるアマチュア写真家のことを考えてみましょう。
It may be asked then what theories on art I have? I answer at present wove. What artists I admire? I answer, all good artists and all good art. To what school do I now belong? None. What do I thick of writings upon art and art criticisms? Mistakes.
A final word. Suggestions have been made that I get some of my ideas from a book, called “ Naturalistic Painting.” I have a letter in my possession from an artist, wherein is stated clearly and exactly that * Mr. Bate had read a paper of mine on Naturalistic Photography before his first article appeared in the “ Artist.” At the Society of Arts, the other day, a paper was read by Mr. Davison—an amateur without training, and with superficial knowledge—in which my o/d ideas were freely and impudently handed about and no credit given me. It was whispered about by my enemies that this person had originated some of the ideas of Naturalistic Photography. To enlighten the public 1 append a quotation from his letter to me on this point. There are plenty more confessions of “his lack of knowledge ;” that his articles were “drivel,” it is his own word, and other confessions of incompetence and proofs of plagiarism, if necessary. He is now welcome to my cast-off clothes if he likes—he or anybody else. It is with deep regret. I do this thing, and it is only as a duty to myself. I justify myself by stating that I wrote privately to Mr. Davison, expostulating with him for freely appropriating my ideas and telling him that if he did not give me full credit at the Society of Arts I should publish a history of the matter. He never replied. He can publish my letter in full if he likes. This was Mr. Davison’s reply to a letter I wrote to him and others asking them if they minded me thanking them in public for their support. His reply is dated from the Camera Club, 16th December, 1889, ONLY A YEAR AGO. It is, “I AM GLAD AND PROUD TO BE IDENTIFIED IN ANY WAY WITH NATURALISTIC PHOTOGRAPHY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN’ WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT MORE AND MORE CLEARLY TO BE, BUT I DOUBT VERY MUCH WHETHER ANYTHING I HAVE DONE DESERVES RECOGNITION.”
I sent a copy of Naturalistic Photography some time ago for review, to the Editor of the journal of the Society of Arts, and it got a bad notice. All the ideas offered the other night were thus offered to the Society previously. Lastly, a special speech, read from a paper by a friend of mine, especially pointing out how I had originated these ideas, was not reported as it was read, the printed report giving altogether a different impression from what the speaker said. Those who heard the original can refer to the speech, as reported in the journal of the Society of Arts—not Artists, as Mr. J. Pennell has aptly described it. This sort of treatment, which is nothing new to me, may excuse some of my bitterly written invectives.
Finally. Some of my friends to whom I have recently privately communicated my renunciation, have wished to know how it came about. Misgivings seized me after conversations with a great artist, after the Paris Exhi- bition; these were strengthened by the appearance of certain recent researches in psychology, and Hurter and Driffield’s papers; and finally the exhibition of Hokusai’s work and a study of the National Gallery pictures after three-and-a-half months’ solitary study of Nature in my house-boat did for me. ; P.S.— Will every Secretary of every Photographic Society take four wafers and a sheet of black paper and hide for ever the words ‘To the Student” in Pictures of East Anghan Life.
Having taken some earnest photographers a little way into the Art-world, I feel it my duty to say that, when I have fully reconsidered the limited art possibilities of photography and the general philosophy of art, I will write another book; in the meantime, let students avoid all spurious imitations.何人かの熱心な写真家たちをアートの世界に少しだけ導いてきた私は、写真の限られた芸術の可能性と芸術の一般的な哲学を十分に再考した時に、別の本を書くつもりだと、いうのが、私の義務だと感じています。 それまでの間、生徒には偽りの模倣をすべて避けてもらいます。
Pure photography is a scientific method of drawing, and scientists should work on until a true and literal scientific transcript of nature can be made（純粋な写真は、科学的な【手法による】描画方法であり、科学者は、自然の、文字通りの科学的記録が作成されるまで取り組む必要があります）
“Fading Away”, by Henry Peach Robinsonヘンリー・ピーチ・ロビンソン, 1858 著作権切れ
The Two Ways of Life 人生の二つの道 (1858) by Oscar Gustave Rejlander
まあ、エマーソン以前から、創作の手段しての合成写真を否定する、意味不明な流れは写真のプロの間では根強く（ほかのジャンルの美術家たちなどは支援したので、合成写真で１９世紀著名に活動していた人は特に珍しくなかった）。1860年代には特に著名だった、旅行写真家Francis Frith(England 1820-1899)は、Francis Frith, “The Art of Photography”, The Art Journal 5 (1859)という記事で、
We now come to the disadvantages of this attribute: for it happens, by a singular fatality, that upon it hangs the chief reproach to photographic reproductions as works of Art. The fact is, that it is too truthful. It insists upon giving us ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Now, we want, in Art, the first and last of these conditions, but we can dispense very well with the middle term. Doubtless, it is truly he province of Art to improve upon nature, by control and arrangement, as it is to copy her closely in all that we do imitate; and, therefore, we say boldly, that by the non-possession of these privileges, photography pays a heavy compensation to Art, and must for ever remain under an immense disadvantage in this respect.
マイクロストック、投稿型ストックフォト、または投稿型素材写真サイトの話 