Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Food for Thought  (Read 9955 times)
Rick
Guest
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2002, 02:36:24 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I dissagree about Adams. if he was not a good technician his images would have been boring and quite normal. If you ever get a chance check out some of his original prints before post processing. They are quite dull and unimpressive. Thats why you rarely see them on display. Ansel's brilliance lied in his ability to manipulate in post processing. He was a good magician in the dark room.[/font]
Logged
NEwbie
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2002, 05:43:15 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']The reason for the age disparity is most young photographers are photo journalists. Thats where the real career is. Its hard to make a serious living otherwise in photography when you are young and starting out and don't have a name. As they get older the Photojournalist gets bored and seeks to find meaning in life and becomes a Landscape or wildlife photographer. Most serious landscape photographers are semi retired older dudes or rich kids who long since gave up PJ work and become bored. They have the time and money on their hands to not have to worry about making a living and can blow wads of cash traveling around the world to take photos. Then there is the rare landscape photographer who is paid by someone like National Geographic to travel the world taking images. You have to have a name though and it takes years to reach this status. You have a better chance of making it into the NFL or NBA than becoming a payrolled NG photographer. You wont see any 20 year olds shooting for National geographic on assignment either. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.[/font]
Logged
Johnathan
Guest
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2002, 06:05:34 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I liken Ansel Adams to George Lucas of Star Wars fame. Both of them produced eye candy using high tech wizardy of the times. On substance though they both fall short. There is nothing really striking about Adam's composition just like there is nothing really striking about Star Wars. Both works are heavily manipulated and processed eye candy.[/font]
Logged
NEwbie
Guest
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2002, 10:41:32 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']There is an over obsessesion with Ansel Adams when the subject of landscape photography is discussed. There is more to the field than Ansel Adams. Why isn't anyone concentrating on any of the modern masters?[/font]
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad