How well you interpret the scene, the subject and its minutiae of detail that 'speaks' or tells a story to the viewer; how effectively you bring it with and through the camera to be expressed on film and eventually, the finished print, is of far more importance than what and how it is printed (or what was involved in that printing), or assigning a flash, now uquitous moniker like "fine print", "fine art print" or "silver gelatin fine art print", among a host of glamorised (and clichéd terms). A print that does not ask the viewer questions, does not pique their conscience, does not arouse, excite or enthuse in any genre and is bereft of any meaning — like a piece of Mr Squiggle art — has failed, irrespective of what the photographer wants to call it.
A lot of Adams' work has had little to no impact on me. That includes the oft-talked about image of Moonrise over Hernandez NM. What is the message or the conversation — evoked or embedded, in the photograph.
Much of his work published in his three books came up sub-standard through the print process, rather than any perceived lack of technical proficiency of Adams. I know this because his works have been shown in Australia in the past, but still ... up against others like Rudman (e.g. Iceland: An Uneasy Calm) et al, the impact of Adams is low.
A lot of Adams' work has had little to no impact on me. That includes the oft-talked about image of Moonrise over Hernandez NM. What is the message or the conversation — evoked or embedded, in the photograph.
Much of his work published in his three books came up sub-standard through the print process, rather than any perceived lack of technical proficiency of Adams. I know this because his works have been shown in Australia in the past, but still ... up against others like Rudman (e.g. Iceland: An Uneasy Calm) et al, the impact of Adams is low.
