Overrated photographers...

Apart from the rants against perceived or real sexuality, there are two threads running through some of the posts above: one is that Adams is not overrated and the other is that one must be a good photographer in order to have the right to judge or rank famous photographers. Actually, (professional) critics need not be practioners, good or bad, and the greatest art and photography critics have not been artists or photographers. One of the best photography critics is A. D. Coleman, who is not a photogarpher as far as I'm aware, and who doesn't think much of Ansel Adams as an artist. I would have liked to quote Coleman on Adams, but I don't have any of his books here. The books are collections of reviews that he has written and make interesting reading

—Mitch/Bangkok
Early Morning Market at Pak Nam Pran
 
Overrate (verb [trans]) Overrated (adj): having a higher opinion of something/someone than is deserved.

That is the "metric." It is qualitative, not quantitative.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
A...If you want to rate something, use a metric to rate it. The modern metric is sales volume or downloads. Adams photographs still sell at a reasonable rate to be judged as successful. Using photo.net as a source, the metric "Sort by Views" is an easy metric to judge popularity of a photographer.

Sex Sells. Most other online photographers are fooling themselves.
Click to expand...
What nonsense! By these measures, the greatest painter in the world is Thomas Kincade. And Van Gogh hardly sold a painting in his lifetime.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Shophouse Demolition
 
Brian Sweeney said:
By any reasonable metric of success, Ansel Adams is not over-rated.
Click to expand...

In your opinion...

Those of us considering him overrated in the US comparatively to what he means in the rest of the world... Those of us who think like this, and wrote it here on RFF, and others thinking the same out of RFF, have no problem at all after reading your opinion... We know your opinion exists...

Atget or Bresson or Frank have a deep content, and are far from sex. Your sexual comments came only from inside you: those of us preferring other creators over Adams, don't discard Adams because we want the sexual images only you have imagined: we discard him because his works are empty, weak compared to those of the masters of human emotions photography.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Mister E said:
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis
Chase Jarvis

Oh and Chris Weeks
Click to expand...


haha yeah pretty much
 
Roger Hicks said:
his view of the world, while still romantic, did not present the faux wilderness beloved of Sierra Club groupies
Click to expand...

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.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The print I'm thinking of was under armed guard and had a cast-iron provenance. You're absolutely right: he was usually brilliant -- and you're also right that it wasn't always the case. It's just that after all the hype, I was expecting a different order of creation, and I've yet to see it. Yes, he was one of the finest printers in the world, but only 'one of'. Bob Carlos Clarke's still lifes were at least as good, and so were his nudes/fetish shots if you like that sort of thing.

My feeling is that if picture relies too much on technical excellence, so you notice the print quality before you notice the picture, it is as much a failure as a picture where you say, "Great picture, shame it wasn't printed better."

In other words, a print need only be 'good enough', and most of the great prints I've seen (Brandt, Giacomelli, Thomas Jorion) have been just that: I didn't notice the print quality, because it wasn't important next to the picture. It was more than good enough. But when the print quality is worse than you'd see in a book, you start wondering...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not in disagreement with you. I think from the large output of technical publishing he did, and the photo depts. in US schools adopting his lab methods (which weren't at all bad), he's become "bigger than life" to many who grew up with all this. Many of the people I knew over the years knew him. He, I'm told was a nice man, but he also had a large ego. Likely a good thing for someone who needs the ability to self promote. The other thing many of us may be missing in all of this, amateur or professional (and professional doesn't mean you see better!) is that we likely, as a group have a better take on the visual arts in general, and are more likely to know what we like and dislike.. and can decide very quickly. We, who have done this "stuff", for a while, can also give credit to someone who is a master of their craft even if we wouldn't cross the street to look at the images. I've always believed that of the f64 group, Weston drove the art and Adams drove the craft. Those two were friends and likely greatly benefited from each others better talents.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
...And Salgado may be more of a romantic than the others combined...
Click to expand...
Ah, Salgado at last. An interesting and trenchant review by Ingrid Sichy in the September 19, 1991 issue of the New Yorker gives overrating a new dimension. Whether you agree or not it's an article worth reading.

Ray Metzker, a photographer I like, is quoted in one of his books of photography criticizing Salgado for tuning his tones to the same senbsibility in all of his pictures, which I find an interesting observation. But it's usually difficult to criticize a photographer who's trying to grab the "saintliness ring". There's the same issue with Ansel Adams.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project
 
Last edited:
I consider Annie Leibovitz to be overrated, but I'm not really a fan of elaborately staged photography in general.

For all the William Eggleston haters out there, I would recommend finding a copy of Los Alamos, which I think contains some of his best work. Unfortunately, it's out of print, which baffles me because it is a much more interesting book than the popular William Eggelston's Guide.
 
Last edited:
Harry S. said:
I always found most big name photographers over-rated. I mean, I enjoy the work of amateurs on flickr much better in almost all cases. I think Winogrand is quite over-rated.
Click to expand...

Hi Harry;

Remember that for some of those people, they have become money machines for a group of backers, agents, publishers, etc. Many like Cartier-Bresson weren't interested in fame if it meant that they would have to participate in the making of the "image". It's kinda like: I don't mind being famous or bigger than life as long as no one knows who I am. No restriction of freedom. I see some artists and photographers promote them selves, when they are young and poor, in order to get work. By the time they are successful, the "machine" has gotten a life of it's own and is out of control. Today with all the social networks and kids wanting money and fame more than previous generations, you will likely see more "hollow" personas than ever before. If you're concerned with being able to work freely and have to feed yourself with that work, it's a careful balance. Not to drag Adams into this, but, in the 60s-70s he was so recognizable, that a crowd would form if he was seen with a camera and tripod. Fortunately, he liked this sort of thing. Many of us are on the shy side and would have trouble working under similar conditions. I'm not at all famous, but have had people mistake my assistant for me, and the last thing I would do is correct them. Today everyone is a "photographer", and if you are seen with "professional-looking" equipment, people stop and ask advice on what camera to buy, how to better photograph their dog.. Once there are 3 or 4 people hanging around, the crowd will grow quickly. This especially true if working near a college or tourists spot.. or if god forbid, you are photographing someone who is "a recognized public figure".. If it's a popular athlete, actor or musician, it's big, big trouble. Some of these people won't go into public without client provided security. Then you are really attracting a mob. It's all about egos, of various sizes. It's tough when you're trying to work.
 
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.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of these guys: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=24419&title=the-playa-haters-ball (NSFW language, content, etc.)
 
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...

You come across as a real wet blanket.

I disagree with probably 90% of the opinions expressed in this thread, but I certainly don't think someone needs to show me some professional credentials to be allowed to express their opinion on an internet message board.

This sort of talk is no different than a bunch of guys who haven't touched a ball since gym class getting together and discussing of merits of the players on a professional sports team. It's human nature. Have a little fun.
 
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...

*giggle*

I have an art degree and some education in art history...am I qualified?
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
*giggle*

I have an art degree and some education in art history...am I qualified?
Click to expand...

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