Why is it that the best photos are after the photographer's ONLY good photo?

[spanky]

I agree with HCB when he stated that the true litmus test of a photographer is the contact sheets. These are the best ways for to see how a particular photographer works. Of course these days with film shooters in the minority I guess this is now an outdated concept.

[mkelton]

Spencer - where is your one really good photo? All I see is...

[iancoxleigh]

Tim Holte, I agree with your sentiments in general.

 

But, with regards to:

 

"By the way, your sentence "A few well photographers." is incorrect. Neither Adams or Lange is "well", they are both dead. They were both "good" however, . . ."

 

I think the easier error to suspect he made is that he meant 'well known' but the 'known' got left out while quickly typing the message. I know I've managed to leave out the 'all' in 'over all' before.

[sandysocks]

What Bob said. I am having trouble coming up with any "one hit wonder" photographers. It's all about having a strong body of work. I can think of a number of photographers who have one, famous or not.

 

Also, while Moonrise is nice, I prefer Adams' Yosemite and Sierra work. But what you and I think doesn't prove much off anything, does it?

[petemillis]

Adams' "Mount Williamson" is a miles above average landscape. It's beautiful, and is the sort of picture that inspires people today. As for "Moonrise"...as Adams would admit, he got very lucky in that he just chanced upon the scene when returning from a day of crap photography.

[doug grosjean]

I've seen a show of Adams' work at the Detroit Institute of Arts.

 

Prior to that show, I sorta wondered what all the fuss was about Adams, too. But the show had excellent work that he'd printed himself, prints you could gaze at for a loooooooooong time and be dazzled by, that I came away with a much deeper appreciation of the man and his work.

 

After that, a friend showed me an Adams' still-life that he owns, printed by Adams, from a portfolio that was broken up and sold. Gorgeous stuff. Just like the museum stuff.

 

FWIW.

[gordie]

I think quantifying Adam's work as above-average lanscapes is kinda stupid. In my opinion, his work quantifies where one should hope to be at the very peak of one's career. But, besides that...It is really really hard to create great art. Those that can do it consistently are something of a rare happening. I know I can write fairly well, and I have written a few poems that have gotten high praise, but every time I sit down to write, it is still as hard as can be to put out those words. If you check my portfolio here, you'll see quite a lot of crap. And that is even my best crap. I have shot thousands of photos. My best one is B&W Mountain 2, and that was complete luck. Shooting consistently good photos takes years of practice, and so with the portfolios of young learning photographers (such as myself) you are bound to find quite a few that have that lucky shot, with a bunch of crap that they have because they aren't skilled enough to complete their visions.

[tonmestrom]

Spencer, apart from Bob's question of giving some examples which you haven't done yet would you be so kind to state what are YOUR criteria of what a good photo should be? It would have been nice if you'd done that to start with.

[jgalyon]

Spencer, There's no doubt that Moonrise is an amazing photograph...but there's nothing "average" about the remainder of AA's body of work. Moonrise was one of those rare shots in which the "gods" smiled on an incredibly talented and always prepared photographer. If you don't know the story behind it...I'd encourage you to find and read it! Moonrise was the result of a once in a lifetime...but that certainly doesn't translate into Adams being a "one hit wonder".

 

As someone mentioned, if you haven't actually seen some of his prints in person...you can't imagine how wonderful his work truly is. For example... until I had viewed a print of "Mt.Williamson" in person, it had never been one of my favorites. But seeing it from inches away as it hung on a museum wall, there was such a sense of it being three dimensional that I felt as though I could literally walk into the landscape. I kept wanting to move my head so that I could peer around the boulders in the foreground. You just can't fully appreciate any photograph by viewing it on a computer screen.

 

Adams was incredibly critical of his own work (as I'm sure all truly great photographers are)...and I feel it's pretty much a certainty that he never knowingly allowed an "average" photograph to be seen by the public. Some of his pictures may not be as compelling as others, but "average" is not a word I'd use to describe anything I've ever seen from the man. And...I'm sure that any photograph that Ansel took and that he considered to be average...would be a hell of a lot better than anything most of us will produce during a lifetime.

 

I'm not one of those people who worship at the feet of Adams ...but to be quite honest... anytime I hear someone attempting to diminish the accomplishments of the man, I write them off as having very little understanding of photography, or simply arrogant. And...I'm not speaking of you Spencer. What I'm referring to is how that it's become "fashionable" to disrespect those who have made major contributions to the very foundation of the craft. Adams has become a prime target due to the fact that the market is so saturated with his work...everything from posters, to calendars, to day planners filled with his images. Whenever I hear some fool refer to his photographs being a cliche... I wanta smack 'em up the side of the head with a 4 x5....