Overrated photographers...

sonofdanang said:
Well then.

Apart from the fact that no one can possibly know the experience and background of all the forum members, I do think it's rather cynical to set up a forum, ostensibly for amateurs and pros alike, even inviting well-regarded pros to stimulate conversations by asking questions, inviting debate and discussion only to assault those same forum members as "relatively unknown" and/or "commercially unsuccessful". As if either of those conditions were a disqualification from the basic right to express opinion. As if many of the greats, some even only recognized posthumously, hadn't been "relatively unknown" and/or "commercially unsuccessful" at some time. Particularly when any of the "greats" would encourage all of these participants to do what they have precisely done: form their own opinions whether or not anyone else agrees with them. I can attest to this, having had the pleasure of study.

Yes, a lot of it is typical internet blather by frustrated wanna-bes. Yes, a lot of it is uninformed opinion. But some of the discussion here is an attempt at rational discussion. I use the phrase in the technical sense.

To attempt to shut it down with uninformed censure or insult is, at best, cynical. Rude. At worst, hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Not true. Try reading what I wrote, instead of reading into to it words I did not write.

Sure anyone can have an opinion, but throwing stones at successful supposedly "overrated photographers' who spent their lives working at their craft is not showing them or the craft of photography much respect -- respect which people like Ansel Adams very much deserve in my opinion.

Still photographers strive for excellence(whatever that is), yet too many unknowns are quick to criticize well known photographers who have achieved commercial or artistic success. Professional Insecurity or Photo Envy? I don't know, but it seems a very common occurrence for some reason.

In terms of photography, I think the naysayers time would be better spent finding out what the successful photogs did to achieve success, instead of claiming the successful photogs did not deserve it.

Stephen
 
RichL said:
Are you relatively known and commercially successful? If you can answer yes to both then you may reply starting with "In my opinion..." If you can answer yes to one of the two then you may reply with "In my humble opinion..." If you can answer yes to neither then feel free to step right up and give us your opinion without preamble. such as "Donald McCullin as a post documentary photographer is greatly under rated. " says RichL
Click to expand...

I'm very well known in Indiana, not so much elsewhere. I make enough money to live off my work, but I am relatively poor and the ability to support myself is very recent. Still, I do support myself and my son from my work...and in Fort Wayne, Indiana people still occasionally come up to me on the street and say they have seen my work. Some even remember the story that one of the local TV news shows did on me back in 2002 :D

Do I qualify for one or both?
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Brian,

Quite a few. Mercury hypersensitization was well enough known to feature in Popular Science in 1938: the normal citation is F. Dersch and H. Durr, J. Soc. Mot. Pict. Eng. 28, 178 (1937).

Custom dodge and burn tools go back to the dawn of enlarging (and indeed to contact printing for doging), and 'messing with chemicals' goes back to Talbot an the invention of pos-neg photography.

I have most of the standard texts on photographic chemistry (Glafkides, Haist, Neblette, etc.) and I do not recall a single citation of Adams as an inventor of a process. There may be some, but I have not seen them.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I worked for the guy who designed and built the horizontal enlarger (the track movable unit) Adams used. I don't think Ansel designed a lot of hardware. I know he often tested items for Kodak and others. The enlarger was unique in that it had a grid-work of lamps, that could be controlled to very the exposure on various parts of a negative. So, it was a mixing chamber with controllable hot and cold spots.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I'm very well known in Indiana, not so much elsewhere. I make enough money to live off my work, but I am relatively poor and the ability to support myself is very recent. Still, I do support myself and my son from my work...and in Fort Wayne, Indiana people still occasionally come up to me on the street and say they have seen my work. Some even remember the story that one of the local TV news shows did on me back in 2002 :D

Do I qualify for one or both?
Click to expand...

Chris, your work and ability to see graphically qualify you. Don't even question it!

p.
 
Enjoy, learn, grow... nothing else.

Enjoy, learn, grow... nothing else.

In pursuing anything, we only need to enjoy, learn, and grow. As soon as we step outside that path (e.g.: when we're rating ourselves or others), we're just wasting precious minutes of our lives.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I'm very well known in Indiana, not so much elsewhere. I make enough money to live off my work, but I am relatively poor and the ability to support myself is very recent. Still, I do support myself and my son from my work...and in Fort Wayne, Indiana people still occasionally come up to me on the street and say they have seen my work. Some even remember the story that one of the local TV news shows did on me back in 2002 :D

Do I qualify for one or both?
Click to expand...

I'm easy so call it both.

I like your Forgotten Indiana shots. Haven't checked out the rest of your pages though.
 
CameraQuest said:
The interesting thing in this thread to me are the relatively unknown and commercially unsuccessful photographers who imagine themselves in a position to judge which well known and commercially successful photographers are overrated.

That is like Holgas judging which Leica lenses are sharp.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Stephen;

Long ago the ASMP required one submit a folder of tear sheets of "published work" with a request for membership. It helped if the published work was from a national magazine. They, if I remember correctly.. it's been a while, also required a couple of current members vouch for your photographic ability. Today, anyone with a cellphone camera can post an image to a photo blog and claim "published". Times have changed. I understand your comment. I just think a few may have mistaken it's intent. There is a lot of art in our world.. some if it is "bad" in my opinion. Bad, meaning I don't care for it. My only real problem with most of it is if I had to pay to see it. Most of the "disrespect" you see here likely comes from a lack of knowledge. Art education, like a lot of things, has been dumbed down. You can thank M-TV and the lack of art classes in US schools for much of it. And yes, there is an element of perceived envy here. It's foolish, in my opinion as, I wish I had the time many of the amateurs have to pursue my personal projects. Also, I'm reminded.. by a number of gallery owners and agents.. if it sells.. it's good.. if it sells, for a lot of money, it's real good. And that's how Van Gogh was juged in his time.
 
Last edited:
CameraQuest said:
The interesting thing in this thread to me are the relatively unknown and commercially unsuccessful photographers who imagine themselves in a position to judge which well known and commercially successful photographers are overrated.

That is like Holgas judging which Leica lenses are sharp.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it's just as condescending to look at the commercial success of a bunch of amateurs to make a judgement call whether they're qualified to have an opinion?
 
patrickjames said:
Step back for a second and look at the bigger picture. The mere fact that someone is mentioned here means they are a success although they may receive more attention then they deserve. You also have to figure in the historical context of their work as well. Older photographers might have been cutting edge at their time but their images look boring now because the world has moved on and more exciting things have been done since. Ansel Adams falls in that category for many people. At the time he was working, he made some great stuff relative to the other photographers that were around, and that is the main reason we even know his name today.

You really have to give credit to the people who spent their life dedicated to photography even if you don't like their work. They went out there and did it. From the perspective of attention versus talent, Annie Leibovitz is at the absolute top of my list. She has very little talent, but I still give her credit for doing it.
Click to expand...

You mean older photographers like Albert Watson..

http://www.albertwatson.net/

I think there is room in the photo world for anyone with talent regardless of age. Watson is still commanding $30K/day. I think he's near 70. But maybe that's not old by today's standards.. or maybe I misunderstood the: "might have been cutting edge at their time but their images look boring now because the world has moved on" bit..
 
rxmd said:
Don't you think it's just as condescending to look at the commercial success of a bunch of amateurs to make a judgement call whether they're qualified to have an opinion?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more pathetic than it is condescending.

I've never met a photographer who responded to criticism with "let's see you do better." Though I have seen many many people on internet forums pull this kind of nonsense when someone disagreed with their opinion.

Typically it happens when they're terribly insecure, and take that disagreement as a personal slight against their own ability or intelligence.
 
semilog said:
Sorry, Roger, but the North American west, unlike Europe, still has significant chunks of roadless wilderness with comparatively undisturbed native flora and fauna. Adams was, like John Muir and David Brower, instrumental in preservation of significant chunks of that wilderness.

Romantic? Yes. So was Weston, and Atget, and so, in his way, was Koudelka. And Salgado may be more of a romantic than the others combined. All were, and are, important artists.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that wasn't what Adams photographed, unlike, say, Lewis and Clark, which was why I said faux. Motorable tracks were, as I understand it, well established by AA's day, and he travelled (again as I understand it) by pick-up truck. His best-known shot, after all, is of a building (or, more accurately, relies heavily on the presence of the hand of man in the subject matter).

Don't get me wrong: I'm totally in favour of what he did, and how he did it. Nor am I denying that he was a great artist. I'm just saying that his work was given a massive boost because it was a romantic vision which chimed very well with the image that a certain section of the America public had and has of itself. Much like HCB in France.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
PKR said:
You mean older photographers like Albert Watson..

http://www.albertwatson.net/

I think there is room in the photo world for anyone with talent regardless of age. Watson is still commanding $30K/day. I think he's near 70. But maybe that's not old by today's standards.. or maybe I misunderstood the: "might have been cutting edge at their time but their images look boring now because the world has moved on" bit..
Click to expand...
Hard to top Albert Watson, no argument from me!
 
Hi folks,

a lot of attention given to anything is based on being "hip", "in", "latest fashion", "talk of town". That's mostly reflecting marketing efforts to boost prices for works in exhibitions, auction, books, next big ad jobs etc. Maybe in five or ten year it's a different one. If anyone in any business has made it to stay on top for over 20 or 25 years, or even after his death, then I guess he was not overrated by a shortlived hype. Marketing is driving the perception of anything in our lives today. Photography is no exception.
Everything is a matter of personal taste. And no one is the judge over others preferences. If he feels entitled to, he should watch the mirror and check if there's some circular light around his head - if not (highly likly) he was wrong.:D. Just my 0.02$.
 
Roger Hicks' comment on how a great boost AA's and HCB's works received -and receive- from their countries' people's romantic and patriotic vision, is so clever...

As mentioned before, other photographers -like Arbus- were part of a public boom related to non photographic subjects as exposed decades ago by Sontag... Some forum members have commented here about other photographers whose success, at least in part, seems to depend on non photographic issues...

What about Witkin? What's our opinion on his work?

I'll share mine: I don't enjoy any of his photographs. I don't find them rebel either... The subjects are not horrible or dark to me, but I dislike the "weapons" he's been using to become famous... I see him as a guy with a whip, and lots of people with unresolved religious or sexual beliefs feel his whip, his images, feel touched, hurt, and accept him as an interesting photographer... I seriously have tried to find anything interesting in his shots at least to understand what he produces in a massive way, but I've failed... He likes to talk about an accident he saw being a child where a girl lost her head... Whip!

Sometimes I think this is becoming more and more common in photography: as people who judge photographers in a massive way are not photographers but the masses, photography seems to be going other directions and starting to be appreciated for non photographic reasons... Like that guy who makes shots of lots of naked people around the world and gets attention: his shots are empty and repetitive but no one cares...

What do you think about Joel-Peter Witkin and his photographs?

Cheers,

Juan
 
Come on!

Moonrise, Hernandez, is surely his best-known picture and relies heavily on the building and crosses.

Nor do I quite see the relevance of the correction about his vehicle. Swanning about in a woodie with a platform on top is closer to driving about in a pickup than to hiking through virgin wilderness.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Come on!

Moonrise, Hernandez, is surely his best-known picture and relies heavily on the building and crosses.

R.
Click to expand...

In his book "Examples - The Making of 40 Photographs" Adams writes about Moonrise "The making of this photograph - it is certainly my most popular image". He goes on to say that he "felt at the time it was an exceptional image" which is interesting because it is quite different I think than his larger body of work. It is also featured on the front cover of his book.

I also agree with you Roger about his modified woody.
 
Though I would suggest that people who are only familier with his Sierra Club moments, "Examples" is a good book to look at. There are, to be sure, several landscapes. But there area large number of other subjects as well - I find the still lifes & portrait work to be very interesting, personally. The portrait of Stieglitz is one of my favorite images of his.

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom