In defense of Ansel Adams, I like everybody else involved in photography for the last decades had lots of his books and had some admiration for the man's work. But I wasn't overly impressed....his photos seemed muddy, a bit flat not my favorite. At one point I happened to be working above the now defunct AA Gallery in SF, and had a look in person....wow what a difference! Those prints tonalities came to life like they couldn't on the printed page. And even the very large prints could be viewed from afar then from inches away and revealed every detail.
One criticism I would add to the modern digital world is how images are viewed. Saying that Ansel Adam's works might be indistinguishable from us today might be true in the context of Flickr. At 800px wide lots of things look good that wouldn't hold up well to a 20x24". I have a friend who still shoots 4x5 commercially (Tom Paiva: Tompaiva.com) and I see his large prints regularly and they really stand out. Not to say that your (and my) 20x24 prints don't look good. But I don't think many "photographers" have stacks of large prints that look technically favorable compared to Ansel Adams or other technically proficient LF photographers even without considering the fifty year gap in technology we enjoy.
To bring this a little closer to the topic of stock photography that I've veered away from, there is another lesson I think that might also forming. General stock photography is oversaturated. A reasonably good photo of the Golden Gate Bridge or the Eiffel Tower might have sold for stock for hundreds of dollars two decades ago. But now at best it will languish and perhaps sell for a few bucks. Could one possible niche for photographers be similar to what we see in gastronomy now? You can get a double cheese burger from McDonald's for $1 in the US. And in many neighborhoods right around the corner you can find an organic, hand pressed, locally sourced burger with blue cheese made by your local creamery for $12. Perhaps for us in photography part of selling a premium product could be the pedigree. In this analogy I'm thinking film and making photos slowly by hand. But perhaps that idea could be expanded to other not so easy to take photos becoming a niche with a back story? Even if it's hard to see in the final product?
Maybe it's time for a "slow photography" movement to match the "slow food" movement?
Just a thought.
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "DSG" <dsg@...> wrote:
>
> Having just yesterday viewed three volumes by Ansel Adams; The Camera, The Negative, The Print, I wondered what kind of heretic I might be. So, Fred, it is with some relief that I read your assessment herein. Great as some of Ansel's images are, many would be indistinguishable among the best work of many among us today.
>
> Probably a dangerous segue to the next item, but that said, I would welcome your comments, and comments of others to my online portfolio.
>
> http://lumenlux.redbubble.com/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred
> To: selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 3:05 PM
> Subject: Selling Stock Photography Re: Post Your Images!
>
>
> And I know I'm going to get some sh*t for this but if Ansel Adams were around today with the equipment he had then nobody would give a damn about him or know his name. I have met many photographers who produce better photos than Ansel Adams and that would not have been the case if they had been photographers back in his day.
>
> Post your images! Promote your site!
>
> Fred Voetsch
>
> Group Moderator - Selling Stock Photography
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/
>
> Owner - Acclaim Images, LLC
> http://www.acclaimimages.com/
>
>
>
> .
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment