x-ray
Veteran
kbg32 said:
You may or may not like Adams work and you may or may not like 99% of all other photographers work that has ever been produced but that doesn't mean that the photographer doesn't have the knowledge and skill to execute technically and creatively superb images. Many potographers work that I see on a regular basis doesn't appeal to me in the least but that doesn't mean they're not excellent and creative photographers. It simply means I don't care for the subjects or style of shooting. I can name many well known photographers that fall into this class.
I probably know more about Adams than most anyone on this forum. I did a resident study program with him and knew him well. Although I'm not a landscape photographer IMO I gained a great deal of knowledge and skill that carried over into my other work and did improve my landscape work a great deal.
Newhall was a great friend to Adams as well as a number of other photographers. No question Newhall helped Adams career but by no means did he make Adams popular. Untill the early 70's adams sold landscapes out of his wifes families gift shop and did commercial photography. He made good money but wasn't a household name and wasn't getting rich. I purchased some of his signed original prints during the 60''s in sizes up to 11x14 and paid from $35 to $275 per print. During my period of study with him he was well known but 16x20's were running $200-250. Hardly big money even in the 70's. Just prior to my meeting Adams he hired a business manager and rep. Over the next couple of years Adams made millions which was 99% due to his rep / manager not Newhall.
I would totally disagree that Adams was a windbag. He knew his art better than anyone else and was more than happy to share it with anyone. He was the knd of guy that would invite you into his home even if he had never met you and spend the day answering any and all questions. I found him to be very honest, extremely skilled in the art, a technical marvel and a very modest and humble man.
As to whether it takes 10 or 10,000 frames to grasp the skills depends on the individual and the standards the person is judged by. Adams talked in terms of a higher level of skill than most people and his thinking was centered around not just snapping 10,000 frames but learning from each frame and applying that knowledge to improve the next. If you knew him you would understand the analytical mind that he had. Each frame was studied and the next was an improvement over the previous. Before studying with Adams I apprenticed in a commercial studio under a master photographer during the early 70's. I worked for a year five and a hald days a week with absolutely no pay. I then worked for another 6 months as a paid employ only after achieving a high standard in my work. My boss said you first learn to process film perfectly and then you become a fine printer then after learning the mistakes of a photographer you learn the right way to shoot. He used to say you haven't learned to print untill you've made your first 100,000 prints. I passed that maek many years ago and pass the 10,000 roll (not frames) mark many years ago too. I feel like I have a very good grasp of the art now and was presented the title of master photographer by the Professional Photographers of America in 1985 at their national convention. Even with the achievements in my career I feel I'm still learning and improving everytime I shoot. I learned a great deal from every person I've worked with. I don't think theres been a photographer that I haven't gained something from. This is one of the great things about the photographic art.
I'll edit in one final thought. Yes it takes great tallent to be a skilled and competent creative photographer. To become great you need friend in the right places. To be great has nothing to do with artistic, skilled or tallented. My opinion only but there are many greats that are poor artists and technically poor.
Last edited:
