100 thoughts on “IF ANSEL USED INSTAGRAM

  1. I absolutely agree with every word you say – I remember retiring the last dot etcher in printing
    People forget about zeitgeist. It is all relative to the moment.

  2. I think when we look back at this time period in the future we will see it was one of the greatest moments in photography history. Will there be the super standouts ? Probably but not like Ansel Adams and others of the past. We have a bigger pool of talent. People are scraping to stay on top of the others. But you will see the greatest amount of mass creativity ever. We have kids coming up in this computer age that this is all they do and really understand how the digital world works. Their minds are working much differently than folks from the past. So for the next 10-15 years there will be a creative boom in mass like we've never seen the photography and videography. Especially in video. But as video grows so will the ability to pull single pictures out of the mass of fps . We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Very exciting time indeed.

  3. I am one hundred thousand percent done with people romanticizing the past, unable to separate their imaginations from reality. Get a grip of this for once, in photography as in everything else: you are not entitled to the past. What's past is not your right. You have a right to the present and that is it. Learn to live with it. Adapt. Or give up on all your dreams and live the rest of your days in bitterness. You don't get to trail the steps of others. You have your own trail to walk. And that's scary, but it's all you have.

  4. Following Ted's reasoning, I guess one example of contemporary equivalent of "street photorgaphy" (emphasis on "of its time", and not just riffing on old masters) would be Humans of New York, with the whole Social Media dimension to it etc.

  5. Like many other commenters here, I agree it's an exciting time. In my opinion, embracing technological advances has always been a key feature of the relatively young art-form of photography.

  6. I agree. And I'd combine this answer with what you said in "Nobody cares about your photos" video. It's not about just a photo. It's about a story and an arc in the work.

    Btw. I do think that the local character of work can matter, even today. You live somewhere and you can show how the place is changing. It's easy to see when looking at your old pictures.

  7. I respectfully disagree. Every Tom Dick and Harry has a camera. Be it a cell phone camera or some million dollar digital thing that makes images for you. Not to mention Photpshop doing all the work for people. These people, by the vast majority, have no talent, no eye, no creativity. No skill or passion for the love of shooting. I still stand by my idea that film is far superior to digital in every way. It makes you think about what you want to capture and HOW to do it. Not just close your eyes, shoot, hope for the best and then correct everything in a computer.

  8. What do you think of Daniel Arnold ( @arnold_daniel ) who shoots street photographs on film but is very popular on instagram? Where does someone like him fit into this? Would love to hear everyone's thoughts!

  9. The early Masters were "of their time" but , also, because of their unique vision they remain for all-time. Because of the lack of instant gratification they did not have the "luxury" of putting their mistakes, failures, and mediocre images instantly upon a forum for all to see. I think their position of 'living a bit longer' with their images provided a greater sense of careful selectivity.
    Prior to the digital phenomenon, photographic learning was an evolutionary process that involved ascending steps of learning.
    For example if you had 5 people using the same camera and you gave one a roll of TriX , another Fuji Velvia, another K64, etc., each would be starting at a different place, with a different end result in mind based upon the property of their film. Today we all start at the same place regardless of camera make and model. In many case we are preparing our shooting for the post processing software. As a former instructor of mine tells his workshop students; "When I began it took me 2 years to become a mediocre photographer. You can now become mediocre instantly." Too often in a beginners zeal for instant success they look to the internet where they are sometimes led astray by much of what is passed on as being meaningful photography. The world of "likes" becomes a substitute for healthy introspection, self-evaluation, and deeper understanding.
    I feel that today there may be too much emphasis on apps and less opportunities for beginners to grow personally and evolve.
    In my mind, 'The Art of Photograph' vlog is among the few that understands and addresses these concerns.

  10. (José Ortega y Gasset ALERT)
    A lot of people are missing the point here… Don't get caught up in wether or not streetphotography is "of the time". 2:07 is the essence of this video,
    "… they looked at the history and what it came before them and they found their place with in that."

    Im not sure if Ted realized the magnitud of this idea.

    This way of approaching, not only photography but also, life reminds me to a famous writer. The spanish (hell yeah) philosopher of the twentieth century, José Ortega y Gasset, put it nicer:
    "Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia y sino la salvo a ella no me salvo a mi."

    "I cannot be detachted of my circumstance".

    Meaning that you have to engage in a dialogue with you circumstance, your world, in all the scopes of life (photography) in order to "save yourself".

    In one of the articles that I left at the end, No ser hombre ejemplar, he describes very eloquently the kind of men he calls "ejemplar(someone you admire)" (using the quotation marks for it's ironical purpose).The "ejemplar" man sets out to be admired, before he even feels the urge to pursue some project. The type of man who follows very rigid negative rules and makes nothing. Shaping his genius by what he doesn't do, rather than by what he does. This "ejemplar" man makes a big deal of matters that have no importance.(film vs digital)

    I've been guilty of it all but this philospher has helped me view photography (life) (see what I did there?) so differently.

    I urge you to read more about his philosophy, which can be sumerized into: raciovitalismo (reason with life as its foundation) and historical reason. Say bye to the self-help "literature" after you read him.

    If you are lucky enough to speak spanish and you can find the 2nd volume of Obras Completas, you should defenetly take a read at these:
    "Carta a un joven argentino que estudia filosofia" (He talks about the importances inner discipline, rather than serious structure)
    "Apatia artistica"(You will probably have this one on your mind for weeks)
    "No ser hombre ejemplar" (This was a cold truth)

    Faak, this was so unnecessary. I hope somebody finds value tho


  11. Ted, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "of our time" in the context of street photography. Do you mean the subject matter from the photos of the 60s is dated—what people wore, the cars on the street, the storefront signs, etc—or do you mean how those subjects were shot? If the latter, what would "of our time" look like today, then, when it comes to street photography?

  12. Here's something I came across in a photography book (can't remember which one, I just wrote the quote down). It's from a 1938 letter from Alfred Stiegletz to Edward Weston:

    "Yes, there seems to be millions on millions of photographers and billions of photographs made annually, but how rare a really fine photograph seems to be. 'Interesting' shots. It's a pathetic situation–so little vision. So little seeing."

    As true today as it was 80 years ago.

  13. I agree with your summary. This happens in every field. Some find a way to get recognition in their time. Some don't. Music. Journalism. Ballet. Cinema. Shoes. Comedy. And so on. Nothing has changed, fundamentally.

  14. Question: Are you going to photograph the Solar Eclipse happening this August? If so how do you plan to approach this once in a lifetime shoot?

  15. Cameras are a bit like pianos. Bach played an early version called the harpsichord. Beethoven ran with it in the form of a piano. Scott Joplin. Glenn Gould. Oscar Peterson. Little Richard. Ray Charles. Then all the synthesizer players. The keyboard was linked to the computer and HGip Hop,.
    The piano goes on. There are more peopl playing piano today, in its many incarnations, than ever before. Much beauty has been crreated, and much more beauty is to come. Are cameras any different. Musicians continue to play music. And photographers continue to photograph. Both, wonderful voices of art and society.

  16. I has sure this video will be polarizing. :)) I was thinking of what Ted said and it is not completlly wrong. Advertisement and public relations being one of the critical issues to get noticed. As Saul Leiter said: Noboby will discover you sitting blissfully in a sunlit medow … or something like that :). Photogaphy is hard! Street photography not of our time … I would guess so is landscape, portrait … god forbit on wedding photography clichés whitch I truly belive they are, nature morte and so on. But I guess the important message here is to try new things … maybe it will fit you maybe not. Maybe you could build a buissness around it or not. The important is to try and be curious for what is outthere. As a last mention, I was looking at Daido Moriyama's work … . Is it avangarde? of it time? dismissful? I have no ideea. But I enjoied geting a quite different perspective of street photography. No ill thoughts … just getting my opinion out 🙂

  17. That' some strong mojo there. Totally agree. Good <fill in the blank> are good no matter when they exist. The tech changes, but good vision wins out. Also work ethic.

  18. The gear and technology has altered but there are some core things that have not changed. Such as telling a story, capturing a moment, creating memories for us and future generations to become nostalgic about. Would Ansel have had a drone?…..hell yeah.

  19. Well, those Italian photographers from that book were great… regardless if they were 15 years late. I love their work.

  20. This video could kill all the fun you have taking pictures :/. Don't try to be differend or modern or whatever… Just be yourself and be proud of your work. Enjoy life!

  21. I totally agree that they would have adopted technology. But are you sure the photography which will be looked at in future as document of our lives today is gonna be the one famous now on socialmedia, i doubt that. I think maybe photos which look very common today, i.e. urban landscapes, potrait and stuff, will be of interest then. What makes HCB work so impresssive to me is the connection you get to the scene and people in it. Do you think anyone will care about some sponsored gear review in 50years, thats whats succesful here and now, but its not gonna be an euvre ! Of course HCB would shoot an leica m10 because they will pay him to do so 😉

  22. What I have observed with digital photography is that it is like theft. There is little communication with your subject. Ansel's photography was a byproduct of his communion with nature, where he felt most at home. What I experience with digital is very invasive and I don't think that it is possible to even place large format in the same category as digital. Of course, any medium may be used for self-expression… but being a skilled technician (although it certainly helps) does not make a photographer or great artist… This is just my opinion, of course, but I used to feel the opposite. When I started shooting all analog, in mostly large format, it opened up a whole world of authenticity. I became aware of layers to the craft only made possible through experience. Again, my opinion, everything has it's place.

  23. We are drowning in digital noise…
    "Masters" would have about 500k followers on istagram just like photographers of today that work for large publications (such as Nat Geo). Estimated 1.2 Trillion photos will be taken in 2017. Street photography can be done with an iPhone.
    Trends also shift much faster as various new technology and platforms are developed which means its harder to be relevant over a period of many years.
    I doubt that great photographers of today will be regarded as "masters" in future.

  24. Back in the day it was extremely difficult to get into the professional photography due to all the hoops you had to jump through, a manager, knowing people, etc. Now its the opposite where I think its to easy to get into. If a company is looking for a photo, or needs photos done, they can go to an already well known photographer. In many cases companies can go to stock photography. If neither of those options something they want to pursue then they can choose from how many photographers out there? Where are they looking? Flikr? Instagram? The local photography community? Now of course I'm only trying to explain high end photography work. But photography's strength nowadays is also its greatest weakness. I'm also talking from a stand point of being known as a good photographer, not necessarily making most of your income from photography. I can go on about this but I'm curious what people think of this.

  25. A really interesting thought process and an important question. I admire the inquisitive nature of these videos, a pleasure to watch. The photography 'circuit' is better off with people such as yourself and John Free etc. You guys cut through the technical marketing jargon and talk about the essence of photography.

  26. Great discussion here. It reminds me of the attempts in sports to compare well known athletes from different times: who is better, who is the best? The most insightful observation I have ever heard in this context is : "A champion in his time is a champion forever". Compete on the field of the day. Become the champion of your time.

  27. Ansel would be using anything he could to make the images he wanted to create. Anyone who thinks otherwise should study his photography career more.

  28. aye your right just how like rooftop photos were unique at one point but now just got cliche/corny/cheesy/boring… just have to think outside the box i guess

  29. Both would be shooting digital as it is the medium of the day. Adams used the best technology available to him at the time as did HCB.

  30. I think one of the difficulties of an over saturated media outlets is the ability to stand out. I just don't see stuff on Instagram that inspires me like Ansel or HCB. Yes, a lot of it looks good and it's pleasing, but it doesn't always leave me impacted. It's strange and bizzare feeing that I can't put to words effectively.

  31. You make some excellent points. I think many photographers lose sight of the fact that cameras, in whatever form, are tools. Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson and other great photographers were not great because of their tools, they were great because of what they accomplished with their tools. I also think that we need to have an awareness of the traditions of great photography or art or poetry to understand how we can use our tools in the best way possible to realize our own vision. David Hockney is an amazing artist who has explored all the tools and traditions of the past, questioned them, used them and transformed them into his own unique vision. I love your videos, they always give me food for thought and great insights. Also you have introduced me to many photographers I would not have know about without your amazing videos! Keep up the great work – you inspire me!

  32. There's PLENTY of amazing street photographers on instagram specifically. Seriously some of the best work in existence is being shared everyday on instagram.

  33. Funny that anyone who says "There are too many photographers today" would never count themselves in that number!

  34. Well said. The crux of the matter is that their images would be reflective of the times and available technology at the time they lived.

  35. I fully agree with your point of view. I would also add that many of the pictures those two took many years ago would not even be possible in our time. Laws regarding privacy and ownership of one's image have changed the way we can capture life on the streets and in public settings. So many possible shots involving children, for instant, would now require parents' consent before going public… C-Bresson and Adams would simply do something else, but I agree, they had a talent that would go beyond these new limitations.

  36. During an interview with Anzel Adams, only months before he died, he said he was very excited about the developments in digital imaging.  He spoke about computer graphics that was not just manipulations but original images.  He also spoke about why he stuck with black and white while colour was the norm.

  37. All the photographers, all of those that photograph with their cell phones. You will not have images to save, to pass on through the ages. Everyone needs to print their images!

  38. i have just this question:
    Who would buy a photo taken with a cellphone from Instagram?
    …the reaction on a good pic on Instagram is going on Apple store/Android Marketplace and search for the app and buy the app …. not the photo.
    Iam sorry to say guys…but with digital photography the real artists art not the photographers but the engineers and programmers who made the tools you use to do the "photography on the rails"…
    If its easy its not worth it. Hundreds of people do not stand in line each day in front of the Sistine Chapel because to Michelangelo was a breeze to paint it…

  39. Hi Ted, you make many good points in your video! I think Ansel Adams would be annoyed that he could not fly a drone in Yosemite today… 🙂

    What I think is, we always associate photojournalism or street photography with the "golden era", the 50s, 60s and maybe the 70s, and they are definitely getting less attention nowadays.

    If we look at social documentary/street photography solely as a style/way of shooting/genre, it has not changed much and it would be exactly the same as in the golden times. However it will be still relevant because of the context/subject matters. The fact that you are documenting something today, makes the photographs "of our time", but certainly there will be less recognition today.

    I am a bit stretching here and not accurate in expressing thoughts in English, I hope you understand what I mean.


  40. I understand what you mean about Street Photography not being of this time because you see it from the perspective of the art world. Anyone can paint like Jackson Pollock did, but he did it at the right time and at that time it was the new thing. I think the important thing is to create photographs or paintings for personal satisfaction first and foremost and if in that process you come upon something that many others like, great; but if not, still great because you did it for yourself.

  41. as usual with your videos, inspirational enthusiasm. I totally agree. they would take the world around them and put t out there.

  42. Whether or not Ansel Adams and Henri C-B would use modern film, wet plate, color film or digital stills and video is not what I take from this. They used what they had and captured the spirit of what was than mood and happening in their day and area they lived. They backed it up with passion and skill.

    I don't think they clung to the past. They paid homage to the past and lived in the present. Today we have the option for film or digital. Both are very good for different reasons. If you choose film because of how it causes you to think and work or you just like the look of it, great! If you prefer the look and immediacy of digital that's great too! Just don't wallow in the past and mourn its passing or today will be gone and you will be mourning what you missed – again.

    Strive for excellence in all you do. I have never forgotten an old rhyme that I learned as a kid.

    Good – Better – Best
    Never let it rest.
    Until your Good is Better and your Better is Best!

    I use both film and digital – it all depends on what I want to accomplish. The hardest part for me is to move past the techniques that I learned 25 years ago and embrace the direction of today without falling into a trendy or gimmicky trap. Not an easy thing to do. Who ever said life was easy?

  43. I do agree that if HCB or Ansel were around at this time, their medium and journey would be considerably different.

    However, there is a certain timelessness to their photographs that would gain traction even in today's world.
    Although they may of that time – their relevance holds strong even today and their style will continue to stay – just the environment changes.

  44. I think you a definitely right about Adams, not so sure about Henri Cartier-Bresson since he stuck to Leica just because it got the job done… his way of photography is accordingly dated to a time where people obviously cherished their stuff more thanks to shorter product cycles … but I don't think you can not do it anymore like there others did it before. There is a thought experiment by Arthur C. Danto that asks, what is the difference between the original and the new work when somebody re-publishes Don Quixote the exact same book just under his own name. More particular he asks what makes this second Don Quixote an artwork?
    I think this question – at least – points towards the fact that datedness is also a stylistic choose and those it is something you can and maybe if you or your costumers are inclined to it shall do.

  45. Well said. Special people are special people regardless of when they lived. I agree if it was possible to bring a talented successful artist from the past, forward to today, they would probably adapt and use modern day technologies but still be successful.

  46. People will always adapt to new technology if they want to – Stephen Shore has an Instagram feed, mainly iPhone but with Throwback Thursday to show his older work. Andre Kertesz was very enthusiastic about Polaroid photography (I think you did a show on this) and I can imagine he would have used an iPhone (or whatever) to brilliant effect.

  47. I agree with your thesis. What we usually forget is that back in those days, photography was expensive, laborious and complex.
    Using one of your own quotes "forget f-stops and speed, it's about the story", people with a good eye and imagination always make good use of available tools.

  48. That reminds me of the Painter Hundertwasser, who utilized for his art, the japanese 19th century print technique, Ukiyo-e. That gave him finally the medium, suited for his unique motivs of nested lines. His ideas of originality in coloring, challenged the printers (most in their 70s and 80s) to the limit, in the process leading to a Renaissance of Ukiyo-e! So You nether know ;-)) PS Love Your video art!

  49. I think this was one of your best videos, Ted. Your passion shines through so much and it inspires me so much. Awesome, job man, and thank you.

  50. i really dont care what tools the artists would use "now" just be in this time… visionary artists are always few steps ahead of their time… the end results are the most important that we should focus on…yes be open minded on new tools and try them all, see what is best to create what you invision !! dont let cameras make a photographer out of you !! should be the other way around!! thanks for the discussion…now i just want to take some fotos out there, yeah!!!

  51. You really summed up a lot of the things that have been rumbling around in my head. I've been struggling with why I find a lot of modern street photography sort of uninteresting, and I think you really cut to the hear of it: street photography is of a different time. The few modern street photographers whose work I still enjoy (dirrtyharry comes to mind), I think have found a way to make of THIS time instead. I think they succeed because the don't dogmatically stick to an aesthetic that isn't aligned to the subjects at hand. Lot's to ponder in this video. Thanks!

  52. There's a difference between SEEING an image and taking a picture. There is a difference between an artist and everyone else…… I've been working on it a looong time and still haven't got it.

  53. Hey Ted,
    I think you raise some good points, but I don't agree completely. I think that the two artists you mentioned would not have succumb to this modern fetishism we see many photographers fall into today; where one would seek the latest object to fulfil some missing piece within themselves and feel as though they belong to something greater by way of consuming, buying and instantly gratifying via social media.
    I agree that Bresson and Adams were "of their time" as you said but I fail to see how that could make them contemporaries in terms of technique.

    great topic and great videos.

  54. Ted. So so sorry. Your worst video til now. Lack of information. Bresson has a video in YouTube in French we're he is questioned about using helps in photography. When asked about flash he says that flash is the same thing as being in a theater with orquestra and someone rises up and shots a gun! When asked about metering he says that metering is the same of being the same play and the maestro suddenly stops everything to check if everyone is liking. I mean, don't know about Adams but Bresson was a 100% purist that reject flash, tripod and metering IN HIS TIME! Just imagine now!

  55. Hi ! I really love your videos. At the end of this one you got me wondering is photography somehow different from literature and any other form of art ? And if not, how do you explain in literature : Poe, Dickinson, Bronte, Frank… : all those famous poets and authors that only became so after their death because they were in advance of their time ? Or even those that created a movement through literature, that was actually not always welcomed from their time? Is it different because today we live in a very digital era where even literature is very commonly found on screen..?
    This may be a really stupid question because you're a photographer but if you're feeling like you have an opinion on it then I bet it's worth sharing and I'll really appreciate it. Thank you!! 🙂

  56. Thanks for the video Ted. I really enjoy the photographic discussion videos. Personally I am inspired (like many other photographers) by the masters of our craft (insert name here) and I feel that what many of these photographers would say is for all of use to take the next step and create our own amazing work. Therein lies the path to our own fulfillment and our own external success.

  57. Agree, Ansel will do digital, most people don't know he helped develop the Hasselblad cameras and shot alot with them, not just the 8×10 we all imagine.

  58. Wow, thank you for your video. I agree with you I think that they would have embraced digital photography. That being said, I also believe that film has a lot to offer. I also believe that street photography is still alive and well, but as you said needs to reflect the times we are living in.

  59. They may have been off their time, but I also think they were ahead of their time and that their work is timeless. Would they have been just as successful in this time? Ansel had the patience to wait for the light and Bresson had an intuitive sense of the moment. Those are skill sets that never go out of fashion. Would they have adapted to digital? Bresson would still be shooting a Leica and Ansel would have spent hours with Photoshop and Lightroom, and they would probably have mastered both.

  60. A little late response… I'm thinking so many photographers are going back to film as a reaction to the saturation of just too many images. I know I've made a conscious effort to slow down and become more thoughtful again; look more closely and be more selective. I'm not discounting the look of film and the satisfaction of the 'hands on' practice of film photography – there's something to that. The challenge is to find a visual voice and avoid the 'phone image, quick filter' aesthetic that's so prevalent whether shooting film or digital. That's no easy task as we are satiated. Side note: some of the people with the best, most expensive toys, make the emptiest images… another anti-tech point.

  61. There was an economic podcast episode a few years ago talking about baseball and how there doesn't seem to be any modern day Babe Ruths running around. It turns out the average skill level of baseball players has increased since Ruth's time. Nobody stands out because everyone today is close to or at Ruth's level. That's probably over simplified, but I think it relates to photography today. Everyone's better because the information and tools are more accessible. It's harder to stand out.

  62. I don't think Ansel would use digital cameras he will stay with film miles away better quality than digital especially with 8x 10 cameras the silky effect and the micro contrast that film offer you can not get with digital technology and again that is not a nostalgic approach is a matter of taste
    Ah ! Ansel didn't like color film, very new technology in his time.

  63. I just discovered your podcasts… where have I been? I vaguely remember seeing you previously, but somehow I lost track of you… Just FYI. On the subject of this podcast, there is no doubt in my mind that A.A., who is my hero, would have been involved in everything that is now available. He probably would have been experimenting with things that we don't even know about or can't imagine. The guy was a wizard. For heaven's sake, he did a great deal of work with Polaroid Instant films.

  64. So from one of those "old guys" (ok, been shooting since 77). Today I still shoot b&w film as well as digital. I'm not a huge social media user, but I love following different photographers. There are a lot of great photographers.

    The guys that I had to study when I was getting my photography degree (those used to exist).. Adams, Westin, etc… Would they use digital today? I think they would be using both. I can see Adams carrying around an iPhone snapping shots. He would probably love it. However, when people talk about "would he/they be using digital?" they tend to forget these photographers never did use anything small format like a 35mm. Even Adams who had access to 35mm's in his time never used them for his actual work. So when the question "would he use……" comes up, you can't think DSLR. We have to think 8×10, 5×7 digital back. I don't see him having switched his format just because digital came along. He already had the camera bodies. And I am almost positive there would have been a digital back maker (LEAF??) that would have jumped on the bandwagon to provide him with what he needed to have their name associated with him. So digital? Oh ya… DSLR? Maybe for family gatherings and vacations. His serious work? Probably not.

    Social Media. I'm really not sure. If you have ever printed your work in a darkroom, there is this depth that comes out of it that you just cannot get in the digital printing. Ok: there are probably a handful of digital printers and people who really know how to use Photoshop, and the two combined that can create the depth that you can get out of the darkroom. These guys could somehow have figured it out as well. Digital anything compresses the data. So to get an image to look like it really should on instagram, facebook, twitter, etc… does all of our work an injustice. Not to say that it doesn't look great, but from what our work looks like hanging on the wall to what it looks like on social media; especially for Adams and Company; they would see the difference.

    Today's photographers really are outstanding in their chosen field being portrait, commercial, landscape, etc… I read once how many photographers there are on instagram and other forms of social media. It was mind boggling. Everyone has their own definition of what a photographer is today. Traditionally, a photographer is someone who makes money/living at taking pictures (a little more detailed than that). Today it is more of anyone who takes pictures. So a lot of photographers that we see on social media never even print their work. The idea is just to see who can get the most followers. NOT everyone… but it would be interesting to know out of the hundreds of thousands of self proclaimed photographers, how many post for the followers, how many post in hopes to get noticed and how many are already practicing professionals.

    In the video it was mentioned that at that time, a photographer needed a manager, you had to know someone…. Even in the early 80's and into the 90's that was still the case. Unless you were a portrait photographer. even then you almost needed to have done an internship or have a degree. Sometimes both depending on where you were. So it wasn't that long ago that you better have an agent or someone to get a show. There was no internet. You had the option of art shows or galleries. Art Shows were almost always juried and you were traveling 6 or more months out of the year.

    I'm not saying that it is impossible to understand. And others are right. Every time a new type of photography has come about, every generation of photographers have thought photography was doomed. With the advent of the Daguerreotype, one London Newspaper printed an article calling it the work of the Devil as no one could capture the image of man as man was created in the image of God. Prior to that, studios were far and inbetween. On top of that, photographers thought photography was dead… But here we are today… still wondering what will come next. So, when will the iPhone go out of style? What is next and when will our grandkids, great grandkids be having this same conversation?

  65. Though artists can be a temperamental bunch, I don't think that the greats would be criticizing each other the way the commenters are.

  66. Its virtually impossible today to be "of our time" unless you are born in a golden crib incredibly rich….most of the local guys doing incredible photography often get overshadowed by the "destinations" photographers

  67. I am sure my reaction will be as drowned out as a cute kitten photo is on Instagram, but I will add my voice to the discussion anyways. (1) in the beginning, Adams loved his subject. (2) he devoted himself to learning how to achieve his emotional response toward his subject on a photographic print, i.e. He developed his craft. (3) being a practical individual he supported himself by doing commercial photographic work until the 1950s. (4) when his artistic work became economically viable he found a way to make a living doing that. In our world of instant gratification one wants to be a famous photographer, we like taking pictures. To really do artistic work, follow Adams. Love your subject, develop your craft to transmit a conscious emotional message through your work. If the world discovers you, congratulations. If not, you have the honor of being an artist. You can of course be inspired by past artists, but aping their style will not make you an artist, find your own unique vision to communicate. The question "how can I become a famous landscape photographer" is a rather off question. A better one is "I really respond emotionally to the beauty of …., how can I get that emotion on paper, and now that I have the satisfaction of achieving that, how can I publish it to share with others."

    Be the artist first, famous second. It might be easy to take a "nice" photograph, and you might develop the knowledge and the craft to make it even nicer. To become an artist, let alone a famous artist, you have to think through an emotional response to your subject. Are you ready and able to do that?

  68. I know I'm a year late to the party however I'm very fond of the channel and ideas conveyed, this one in particular. This is something I've come to contemplate alot recently. Very well put together as usual!

  69. I work as a portrait photographer and the objections I get all the time (Actually an excuse because people think our product's too expensive) is that their kids all have iPhones and are taking pictures (pictures, not photos) all the time. My reply is always, "yes, but can you kids take professionally done, well lit and flattering portraits?"

  70. Yes. No. We can. We must. We should.learn.try .fail. Improve. What was good yesterday is still good today.we must push hard to get better for tomorrow.

  71. In 1983, Ansel Adams was asked "What else do you see coming in photography?" His response:

    "There’s no end in sight. Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics. Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again!"

    He said that in 1983, aged 81.

  72. "One of the big problems with modern art, is that it's a bunch of bullshit" – Pedro Meyer. IMHO, that sort of applies to modern photography, most of it, it's just a bunch of edits on PS and it's not a photography anymore, it's a digital composition. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean we should shoot film, or Daguerreotypes… it really doesn't matter what you use, remember, the camera is the sketchbook, "photography … has not changed, just the technical aspects" – HCB.

  73. Agreed Ted ….! A similar attitude is expressed to past sporting heroes – “If xxxx was playing today, he would get his ass busted!”
    Although ‘they’ were people of their time, but ‘they’ had tons of creativity and were innovative thinkers with originality in their art …. so, ‘they’ would definitely flourish, even in the world of digital imaging. However, always remember ….. ‘they’ have influenced the photography we practice today! Amen!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top