[Leica] what are the most important aspects of a photographicimage?

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

I'm fully with you (and Ted) on this.

I've seen a number of original prints by AA, and they were 
breathtaking, technically. Most were nice pictures, but very few were 
truly moving. I guess what I'm saying is that in my not really 
significant opinion, he should be mentioned among the greats, but not 
necessarily as a photographer.

I get a lot more out of Weston's peppers than most of AA's photos.

However, all of this (my meandering) means very little as it is a 
purely personal opinion formed by my life, genetics, whatever. To 
each his own. My own photography has wandered over quite a wide area, 
with lots of large format technical stuff, rapid fire decisive moment 
Leica stuff, and a wide variation of each and in between. Just as I 
don't feel that colour photography is better or worse than B&W for 
any particular subject, I don't feel that one type of technique or 
technical approach is better than another. Holgas have their place; 
8x10 f/64 has its place.

That is why I've never agreed to judge photos, nor do I take part in 
listing the points necessary for a good photo.

I know what I like when I see it, and just maybe I might sometimes be 
able to start to express why I like a certain photo, but that 
expression will just skim the surface of why I like it.

So for me, Adams is nice, but there are others' I like better. Frans 
Lanting, for example. And I too like Bob Adler's landscapes better on 
the whole.




>2011-01-05-12:07:06 tedgrant at shaw.ca:
>>  AA's are merely big piles of rocks and ferns as sterile as a neutered 
>> Monk!
>
>You go, Ted!  Every now and then someone needs to take a poke at the 
>Cult of Ansel.
>
>And not a moment too soon, given some of the disbelieving responses 
>you've gotten...
>
>I have immense respect for Adams as a photographic technician and
>craftsman, and for the way he synthesized aspects of photographic
>practice into a coherent whole, and communicated that.  But the photos
>rarely move me.
>
>And yes, I have seen genuwyine Adams prints.  They had a certain
>presence as objects, but still didn't really make me fall in love with
>the images.  The ones I saw were really (perhaps hyper-) dramatic,
>with black black blacks and white whites, pretty dark in overall tone
>(someone told me this was the mark of a particular phase in Adams's
>printing life), and seemed if anything a little over-the-top.
>
>And I also agree that there are others (even here on the LUG) who make
>lamdscapes come more alive (to me).  Mr. Adler is indeed an example -
>there seems to be an attention to light and the way human feelings and
>an image interact, and an almost lit-from-within feeling in some of
>his photos.
>
>  -Jeff
>
>_____________________________
-- 

       Henning J. Wulff
  Wulff Photography & Design
mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
   http://www.archiphoto.com