Ok, I might get some REALLY weird looks and some nods here, the webpage is indeed funny, but some are right.
Yes yes, the old masters were masters. Some of them have breathtaking pictures that I wont even imagine coming close during my entire life. But they have subpar pictures, other pictures that show no interest to me ( albeit it might do for somebody else ).
There are some funny comments, for example the HCB picture, its hilarious. And the guy recommending the S3 for more dynamic range. But just because its a HCB or Ansel Adams picture, does that mean its automaticly flawless ? That is perfect in every way ? Ive seen quite a few photo exbhits from "old masters" and sometimes I see something that might be different and could make the photo better.
That doesnt mean Im better than them. I just would express that mood / sentiment / perspective in another way.
Now, what is remarkable in almost old masters pictures is that they completly mastered photography with no or very limited light meter, no AF, no help. Just brains.
Its like saying that Nikki Lauda ( F1 ex/driver ) is the best driver in the world and that all its races were flawless. He was a heck of a driver and specially if we compared what he did in those day without ABS, traction control, 300 million paid crew members, etc etc. But that doesnt put him in the best place as worlds greatest driver.
Same with the old masters : what most impresses me is what they did without all that techno junkyard which is almost necessary for today suposedly good photography. In todays world you need to pack 3 mules with memory disks, ultra fast lens, dozen of DLSR bodies, couple of tripods, memory data bank, this and that to get a sucessfull picture everytime. But if something fails, theres always a new gadget to buy that will improve that.
That why I returned to film and leica. All manual ( well, I know, Im cheating, I got a M7 with AE ) so if i got 28 bad pictures in a roll, its because my fault. Not a gizmo that failed or some part to be blamed. But those 8 good pictures, specially that 2 or 3 that are marvellous, I fell proud . Was me. Yep, was me. I focused the thing. I metered the thing ( or well, half of it in some cases ). I compensate the low or high ISO that I was stuck with because that was the roll I had. I didnt had to spend 23098402938 hours in PS to mask for errors, just a few minutes to remove scratches and sometimes to increse a bit here or there. The rest was not a few thousand pounds sensor with a dozen thousen pounds accessories. Was me. That's why how much I crave for a M8, when I think why I turned back on a good digital DSLR just because of that and thats why the reason I came to film, I pat my M7 and just think "you going to stay a long while darling".
So to finish this long rant. the old masters were indeed masters but they also revolutionized because some of them "broke" the rules... well most likely created and bended them. And thats one of the issues that made them great. And thats why photography is evolving ( at least to me, not by mp count ).. because people are breaking, bending, creating rules that define new perspectives and make them so great.
If the old masters work was immutable, then we were all copying others ppl already done work, just with different subjects.
anyway, sorry for the long long ranting 🙂 I know it went a bit offtrack of what this post is about ( that today is a photo expert and can judge on about anything ) 🙂 Which I agree.. but then again, where to find good constructive comments about your pictures ? The very few I got so far were from Photosig.com .. the rest I get from photographers that I know in person and show them the pictures and we talk over a cup or two of tea ( welcome to London🙂 )
