Whos Your Favorite Photographer & Why?

<p>I've always been an admirer of Henri Cartier-Bresson.</p>

<p><strong>Bresson</strong>- simply because his photography for me is the purest extension of a man and camera there will ever be.</p>

<p><strong>Ralph Eugene Meatyard</strong> and <strong>Diane Arbus</strong>- Their photos move me, scare me, make me cry and make me dream. Someone has to keep the macabre alive.</p>

<p>And I absolutely <em>hate</em>, with a powerful passion, the photography of <strong>Ansel Adams</strong>. Ok, I get it. You liked mountains...</p>

<p>Sorry, a quick edit. I am not saying that about Ansel to spite anyone here who admires his work. I just feel that we are as motivated by what we detest and want to destroy as much as we are by what we find beautiful and want to create.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Ralph Eugene Meatyard</strong> and <strong>Diane Arbus</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

Both worth mentioning more than once. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And I absolutely <em>hate</em>, with a powerful passion, the photography of <strong>Ansel Adams</strong>. Ok, I get it. You liked mountains...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Boy do I agree with this. It's not just it's mountains, it's the dryness of the photos.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's not just it's mountains, it's the dryness of the photos.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, you nailed that Jeff. His photos have always been dead to me. To the point of angering me that his work is lauded so highly.</p>

<p>On a more personal and daily note, this thread got me thinking about my favorite photographers other then just the established masters. But rather about the ones who influence me and effect me on a daily basis. With that in mind, please view these links to two flickr photographers that simply humble me. I will post up some photos thinking to myself "Wow Dave, you've got some good ones there". And then I will see some of the recent posts from {no rest for the wicked} or Aëla Labbé and I am shamed that I consider my photos to be art.</p>

<p>{no rest for the wicked}<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanhawley/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanhawley/</a></p>

<p>Aëla Labbé<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aela/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/aela/</a></p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Aëla Labbé<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aela/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/aela/</a></p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Very beautiful photos.

 

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, you nailed that Jeff. His photos have always been dead to me. <strong>To the point of angering me</strong> that his work is lauded so highly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lol. You get angry because a piece of art with the highest level of craftsmanship from an avant-garde artist is praised?! I can understand if it's not your thing but anger?! I understand now why you went back and did your "quick edit." Don't worry we Ansel Adams fans are not going to get "angry" just because some doesn't agree with our <em>opinion</em>. FYI Adams did shoot things other than mountains. He shot forests, deserts, architecture, and portraits. If I recall correctly he shot the first official White House photograph portrait. I can't think of any photographer who did more to elevate the art of photography. And the work he did for conservation... Sure I would have loved to have seen more portraiture from the guy but I also understand that he left behind the single best collection documenting national parks anywhere on the planet. His art served so many purposes. It had it's own intrinsic value (which is totally okay for you not to care for). It elevated photography in the eyes of the general public. And it documented an unspoiled landscape before it was developed.</p>

<p>I can understand someone having the subjective opinion that they don't like it. But to say someone else really liking it makes you angry?! Really? There's a lot of irrational fanboism on the internet but I don't think the Ansel Adams crowd is a good example.</p>

Sorry multiple post

Trigger happy finger!

I recently went to the Ansel Adams exhibition in

London and would second Alex's comment. Having

admired Ansels work via books etc. for many years I

was blown away by the actual prints. The difference

in quality between the real thing and any other

poster or book reproduction was amazing. There was

also a video display running with interviews with

the photographer discussing his printing methods. He

was very specific about starting with as perfect as

possible negatives but still reckoned 60% in camera

40% in darkroom.

<p><em>And I absolutely hate, with a powerful passion, the photography of <strong>Ansel Adams</strong>. Ok, I get it. You liked mountains...</em><br>

Try thinking of Adams this way, as an<br>

1) outstanding technician and printmaker<br>

2) respected and successful teacher and<br>

3) outstanding ADVERTISING photographer.<br>

Unlike many landscape photographers, AA did not go into the landscape and ask "What is the landscape saying to me?" Instead he unashamedly promoted an idealised romanticised presentation of landscape for what he regarded as a good cause (conservation, Sierra Club, National Parks, etc.). It is entirely possible that this approach may not appeal to you - you have a perfect right to dislike it!</p>

<p>David, good advice. That's very much how I think of Adams, and respect him for what he offers and what I can gain from looking at his work, which is considerable. I don't "like" his work but, in the end, that doesn't count for as much as what it does have to offer.</p>

>>> FYI Adams did shoot things other than mountains. He shot forests, deserts, architecture, and

portraits. If I recall correctly he shot the first official White House photograph portrait. I can't think of any

photographer who did more to elevate the art of photography.

 

Using his camera, Adams also documented the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and Japanese nationals at the Manzanar War

"Relocation Center" (also referred to by many less euphemistically as an internment or concentration

camp) during WWII.

 

He was invited to document life at Manzanar by the camp director, with whom he had a close friendship. There, over a number of visits, Adams produced a body of

work of everyday internment camp life that was very different in perspective from photos that Dorthea

Lange made photographing the camp, and the "assembly center" at the Tanforan

horse race track in San Bruno, California. As an FYI, after being forced to abandon homes and businesses, "detainees" were first taken to and held for up to six months at assembly centers such as Tanforan and Santa Anita race tracks before being transported to various internment camps in Western states.

<p><em>""And I absolutely hate, with a powerful passion, the photography of <strong>Ansel Adams""</strong></em><br>

I'm unable to "hate" Ansel Adam photography, because it would need some passionate relationship to it. It does not touch me much, it leaves me fairly indifferent. It only tells me two things: you find some spectacular landscapes in the US and Adams had high levels of photographical skills.</p>

<p>Well, it's hard to discount Edward Weston (who else could make a pepper or cabbage reveal the same sensuous curves as a nude woman?)</p>

<p>I love the way Minor White found so much texture, so much design in everyday things.</p>

<p>But no one has mentioned Galen Rowell. The rich colour and drama of his work as well as his participation in the world he recorded have long been an inspiration to me as a nature photographer.</p>

<p>Pete Turner (<a href="http://www.peteturner.com/">http://www.peteturner.com/</a>)<br>

He made me aware that color itself could be the 'subject' of a photograph.</p>

<p>A lot of the above are good choices, such as Eugene Smith, Weston and others. One I haven't seen mentioned whom I like is Paul Caponigro.</p>

<p>A lot of the above are good choices, such as Eugene Smith, Edward Weston and others. One I haven't seen mentioned whom I like is Paul Caponigro.</p>

>>> I'm unable to "hate" Ansel Adam photography, ...

 

Same here. But mentally I have to put an asterisk next to his name for how he went about his Manzanar

project - the propaganda aspect of his photos, and his views about the internment camps being necessary.

<p>I wouldn't argue that he was the world's best, but one of my personal all-time favorites was Gordon Converse, life-long photographer for the <em>Christian Science Monitor</em> newspaper in its heyday (<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0217/p9s1.html">link</a>).</p>

<p>I felt that his association with only one paper, and one that seemed to be reluctant to allow anyone else to publish his work, meant that he was less well-known than he deserved, except to the "cognoscenti". I had some correspondence with Julia Scully when she was editing <em>Modern Photography </em>but difficulties with copyright with the CSM apparently prevented their doing one of their "modern masters" series on him.</p>

<p>A recent find within the last 8 years may put Ansel Adams in his place with regard to color landscapes and I'm speaking of digital landscape photographer Derek Von Briesen.</p>

<p>Stumbled across his work about 5 years ago in a Luminous Landscape thread titled "Schewe the Sharpener" where he posted one of his shots showing his sharpening technique of the Grand Canyon taken with a Canon 1Ds Mark II and I was transfixed. But when I tracked down his site all his shots were way over saturated with a bit of over cranked HDR effect. I was so disappointed.</p>

<p>Forgot about him and 8 years later looked up his site again and found this and a bunch others... http://www.pbase.com/sedonamemories/image/117833507/original</p>

<p>He's back in as my favorite landscape photographer. He must've came to his senses and reworked the Grand Canyon shots which I haven't found any other photographer top with regard to clarity, sharpness and color.</p>

<p>Surprised he's not a Photo.net member or lurker.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Me. Self-explanatory. ;-)</p>

<p>I'm the only person who knows exactly what I want to see in a photograph. The works of others may be impressive, but in terms of interest or personal impact, their photos will hit or miss randomly. I doubt that I would appreciate their entire portfolio even if I like some of their work.</p>

<p>My own photography is designed from the ground up to appeal to my own sensibilities. As long as I don't botch it completely (which happens when I'm experimenting), the result is likely to appeal to my eyes.</p>

<p>I would expect that any photographer other than a novice should feel a special appreciation for their own work, not to mention a sense of accomplishment when they review it. If you don't feel this way, it might be useful to ask yourself why (or why not). Shoot what you enjoy, and you'll enjoy what you shoot.</p>

<p>Alfred Stieglitz for:<br /> "My Daughter Kitty", "The Steerage", street scenes of NYC, the Flatiron Building.<br /> An American Place, Intimate Gallery, 291 Gallery and Journal, Camera Work and the Photo .<br /> Bringing contemporary European artists and sculptors to the attention of America.<br /> His resolve to convince the art world that photography was indeed art, not just a mechanical medium, aka Photo-Secession.<br /> Making me aware of his photographic contemporaries including Weston and Tina Modotti.<br /> Georgia O'keeffe</p>

<p>Doisneau. Placement of subject in a photograph; strong, active compositions; tone.<br>

<a href="http://www.robert-doisneau.com/fr/portfolio/">http://www.robert-doisneau.com/fr/portfolio/</a></p>

<p> </p>