09-30-2011, 10:49 AM
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1317379151' post='11993']
Ansel Adams wouldnt probably be regarded a great photographer nowadays as his subjects have been photographed by trillions of other, quite often in better light and with a better composition. However, he still rules as a print master. You will struggle to find equally well executed B/W prints with comparable presence and tonal graduation now adadays. Considering that Ansel lived in an analogue world where B/W printing required spending days in darkrooms and adjusting the print with paper masks without being able to see the end result, his achievments are truly impressive. Whther you like B/W landscpae shots or not is a totally different matter, of course. Taste is free of critizism.
[/quote]
Still his subjects/composition (and deep DOF that was praised above) does very little to me.
Other photographers from his period I find much more inspiring and artistic, whether they made as good a prints or not does not really come into the equation for me.
Another point worth to make in this aspect is that a shallow DOF was not really in the tool box many decades ago. Lenses were not yet of a quality that one had the freedom we have now without serious back lashes from all kinds of aberrations. Above it is suggested that good/great photographers put as much of a scene/image as possible in focus. That is of course not true. Some, do, others don't.
Ansel Adams wouldnt probably be regarded a great photographer nowadays as his subjects have been photographed by trillions of other, quite often in better light and with a better composition. However, he still rules as a print master. You will struggle to find equally well executed B/W prints with comparable presence and tonal graduation now adadays. Considering that Ansel lived in an analogue world where B/W printing required spending days in darkrooms and adjusting the print with paper masks without being able to see the end result, his achievments are truly impressive. Whther you like B/W landscpae shots or not is a totally different matter, of course. Taste is free of critizism.
[/quote]
Still his subjects/composition (and deep DOF that was praised above) does very little to me.
Other photographers from his period I find much more inspiring and artistic, whether they made as good a prints or not does not really come into the equation for me.
Another point worth to make in this aspect is that a shallow DOF was not really in the tool box many decades ago. Lenses were not yet of a quality that one had the freedom we have now without serious back lashes from all kinds of aberrations. Above it is suggested that good/great photographers put as much of a scene/image as possible in focus. That is of course not true. Some, do, others don't.