yockenwaithe

<p>...unless you want your identity to remain a secret</p>

<p>If someone HAD to go to an exhibition or read books [technical books nonetheless] to understand the concept of marketing on someone's popularity, then out concept of pop culture in the past would require quite a bit of museum visiting to understand. As it stand I own exactly 0 of his books and have seen exactly 0 exhibits tailored towards his photos, yet it is still quite obvious the effect marketing had on him becoming popular after you know where to look.</p>

<p>Just looked at some of Eggleston's stuff- pretty neat. He looks like he shot on Kodachrome? I could be wrong but his photos have that slide film feel to it, I'll make sure to look at some more of his work when I have more time</p>

<p>Well it's a good thing the original question was about the masses, not photographers wasn't it? I asked why the public thinks he is the greatest [which was basically answered by a few- marketing combined with quality]. I think he is a great photographer, though I myself am tired of seeing his stuff everywhere. I don't discount what he did for the parks either- as a nature lover that is one of the greatest reasons I see him as a great man.<br> And I think that in general those regarded as great artists have a good deal of variety, just many of their most famous works don't exhibit it.</p>

<p>K.R. Whitley for one, though I am talking photography in general and not just the game he played. He has marvelous composition, the colors are absolutely gorgeous, and there is enough variety to make me keep coming back to his photos without getting bored.<br> And the comparison wasn't who is the best in landscape photography it is me wondering why Ansel is consider the best photographer is general, and general photography extends to everyone</p>

<p>It's very doubtful he was 'the best', maybe in his field [again, doubtful], or in his time [debatable]. but saying anyone is the best is a subjective matter anyhow. There are many photographer I consider better than him, but that again is merely an opinion, not a fact, as my tastes differ from the next person.</p>

<p>Function over form gets things done, can't have a nice looking skyscraper made of cardboard, no matter how nice it looks can we?<br> And I do find Ansel Adams photos absolutely beautiful I feel I should say, but there is the fact that I've seen his photos enough that, while they are still beautiful, they have lost their magic touch. I respect him and his craft, but I think it's time the media moved on. Variety is the spice of life as 'they' say after all</p>

<p>I guess I'm more a 'function over form' person on everything except art it seems</p>

<p>Though the 'Moonlight' picture is one of his worst if I do say so myself, I don't see what makes it aesthetically pleasing</p>

<p>Lichtenstein blatantly stole comic book images; regardless of whether or not he got licensed he didn't even give credit to the respective artists, many of whom didn't actually know that their work was being ripped off. He may have gone into other stuff, it may have been good, but I will still not respect someone who steals art from another person, especially in the sheer numbers he did.</p>

<p>Society! There is so many reproductions, calenders, etc. of St Ansels work, but try to look up a calender for christs sakes and you can't find it! [for reference I looked up 'Edward Weston calendar', and lo and behold I got a TOWEL with an Ansel Adams print on it for almost the entire first page! Surely SOMEONE has made a calendar of such a famous photographer, no?]</p>

<p>I was just being facetious, I am not a huge fan of Rockwell's, though I know there are many who dislike him [and his nuclear green trees]. A photographer I've actually been looking at is Mr. Ellis, mostly because his work has some huge variety in it</p>

<p>It's more or less a 'oh wow, another of of the 10 Ansel Adams photos I've seen before' whenever looking through photography books, the Yosemite one in particular, while it IS a good picture, is the same picture almost everyone has seen at one time or another. What once inspired awe now inspires ennui, therefore I look to find new things rather than looking at the same things several times <br /> And I'm not in school and don't plan on going, I'm too poor</p> <p>Maybe I'll do one on Ken Rockwell, he's really good :)</p>

<p>You can, though in my experience there's no real point as true black and white films are MUCH cheaper to both buy and process, you'll just get a black and white negative with tons of density anyhow. I'd get your C41 film developed in C41 devloper and just desaturate it post-process, then you'll get both the color and the black and white image</p>

<p>They aren't by any means 'better', and in fact there are probably a great deal of people who don't see them as the end all be all; in addition quite a few of their works [Especially those of St Ansel] have become boring over time, just being rehashed endlessly- how many times can one look at the same perfectly exposed colorless image of the wilderness before it ceases to be novel?<br> Point is, there are many new photographers and artists who are showing the world in ways we've never seen before but if we're comparing apples to oranges of course they aren't the same as the originals, the world has changed since the early half of the 20th century and so will photography, we cannot just say that the new is defunct and objectively bad because we don't want to believe that anything can be better than what is commonly accepted</p>

<p>Thank you all for [again] reiterating that Edward Weston wasn't overlooked *in classes and books*, I've got that point down. I'm saying that, in general, he isn't as famous, and having never taken a photography class I can affirm that I would never had heard of him had I not bough a history of photography book, but the whole thing is not the point anyhow.<br> What about the other photographers, the one living today that don't get any recognition for their work unless you happen to be photographically minded? A good majority of people have not studied photography and therefore wouldn't know of many besides what has become mainstream</p>

<p>'Mint is a flavor.'<br> A quote from someone in the comic collecting industry whose name I don't quite remember. True 'mint' condition is difficult to find indeed, make sure you describe it correctly or be prepared to pay return shipping quite a bit</p>

<p>As a Leica owner I don't quite get how it is reverse snobbery :)<br> A Leica is a precision instrument, feels like one, and most definitely costs one. The red dot is indicative of quality and you're going to pay for it<br> Though 'the ultimate rangefinder' is quite the fanboy statement, especially for a 35mm camera</p>

<p>Ilford Delta 3200 [b&W] is a saving grace for dungeony interiors, so that's your best bet unless you have some wide aperture [read: expensive as hell] glass that you can use, though you may be able to use color 1600 film- just expect high costs and grain.</p>

<p>And I would agree *but* Banksy should be called a street artist, not a graffiti artist, as selling your art isn't what the whole point of graffiti is. He is marketing himself as a graffiti artist and that brings in the whole mysterious secretive side of doing something illegal, which I'm sure helps him to sell his 'work' [which goes for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars!].<br> There is no doubt in my mind that if others came around and tried to do what Banksy is doing, they'd be called imitators despite the fact that many many good graffiti artists came before him [by the general public, any graffiti artist worth their salt know of Blek]. THAT is the marketing bit- acting as though he is innovative despite not really being all that new- that propels Banksy beyond the throngs of the ordinary graffiti artist</p>

<p>For selling- look at what things have sold for in the past on the Bay, it's a much better indicator than any pricing site.<br> Though if you have a brand new in the box mint flavored etc. camera than you can ratchet the price up a bit, depending on the camera</p>

<p>I beg to differ- marketing can be everything! Without marketing would Banksy have gotten anywhere, especially considering he practically stole one of his most iconic early images [the rat] from a much earlier graffiti artist-Blek Le Rat? Or Roy Lichtenstein [an artist I will forever hate] who blatantly ripped images out of comic books and sold them for sizeable sums while the originals artists were scraping by? Marketing has a large influence on how people view art as a medium whether us as the artists/photographers like it or not</p>

<p>Collectiblend *can* be pretty useful, though the bay and KEH [like Leszek stated] are the best bet, though when buying some sound advice is check KEH THEN eBay, as KEH at least has a good grading scale- unless you like living life on the edge that is</p>

<p>Just talking textbooks for schools and all that- can't vouch for actual books, though I've seen so many photo books of Ansel Adams and probably around two of Weston in stores and at work [and I work at a book distributor, so I see loads of books], so more of the pop culture the 'first photographer everyone thinks of' kind of thing.<br> Or maybe Weston does get the credit I just haven't seen it; anyhow I digress, he was good, but not God-tier is the point I'm trying to get across, I think books should have more photographers in them instead of just the original innovators, so we can see how they influenced future generations instead of just saying they did</p>

<p>Sorry Phil- should of clarified by 'overlooked' I mean he gets a mere footnote compared to Ansel in books and the likes. Though many of the textbooks I've looked through make mention of him, and he'll get maybe a good paragraph, Ansel gets at least a page, which seems goofy to me considering that Ansel only really did landscapes whilst Weston did so much more</p>