There's always been two philosophies in photography: "get everything perfect in-camera", vs "what you get in the camera is just the start". Ansel Adams clearly fell into the latter category of shooters while someone like Galen Rowell fell into the former category. The choice is yours. Neither one is necessarily "better" than the other, because ultimately, the only thing that counts is the final image.
If I hear the word Ansel Adams mentioned one more time on this forum I think I will puke.
--
--
Oh yes it is . . .
Uh, where did I say Ansel Adams was God? And what ridiculous leap of conclusion will you jump to because I mentioned Galen Rowell? Both are simply points of reference that are mentioned because many people are familiar with them and their work. That's kind of the point of a "point of reference": a common point of familiarity that many people can understand. It doesn't mean that the mentioned point of reference is "God". It's kind of like giving driving directions by saying, "The store you want to go to is in the same shopping center next to the McDonald's", and you scream "I'm sick of McDonald's mention mentioned. McDonald's isn't God!"If I hear the word Ansel Adams mentioned one more time on this forum I think I will puke.
It's like the reference is validation for ones opinion and stature.
Sorry bud... nothing negative against you, I'm just tired of hearing Ansel's name mentioned so often here. He isn't GOD
You have a good point, and I'm not picking on you ... I'm just tired of hearing Ansel Adams this and Ansel Adams that. It seems like he is the be all and end all of photography on this forum.
Cheers,
no harm intended,
I have a lot of those images as well. Most of the B&W prints from 1950's and earlier were shot on MF and LF film, and often contact printed. This produces images with tonal ranges that match anything today, if not exceed given the raw density range of those old papers.
There are plenty of photographers happily using both mediums, and achieving high quality results from both. Both mediums have inherently different looks....which is why many of us use both in our workflows.
Keep in mind that those high quality "professionally taken and printed" black and white prints were done by someone with skill and knowledge to produce a high quality print. Likewise, today's skilled and knowledgeable digital print enthusiast or professional can, and does, produce a high quality print from digital as well. But the nice thing about digital is that even the modestly trained or self-taught hobbyist can comfortably get a print of amazing quality from the comfort of his own home, without chemicals or a bulky enlarger or a years of practice in a darkroom. There are plenty of sites online that you can upload your images to and get a very high quality print made, in color or black and white. These days, the ability and technology to get a high quality print is more accessible than it has ever been before.
Well China and India dumps millions of gallons of acid and other chemical stuff everyday in their seas, rivers and the ocean, do you think stopping using the little fixer is going to make a difference? And have you ever imagined how much toxical waste making sensors and hardware from digital cameras and computers produce too?
I had a look through your images. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubereye/ Honestly, I can't see there the advantages of the 21 century.
There can't be agreement. It's like debating whether ice cream is better than steak, or steak is better than ice cream. They are two totally different things.
Agrred, I like both ice cream and steak ...
