Other than whatever floats your boat, I think one should master the technique that best expresses his/her vision so that it is second nature. Then concentrate on the content of the image. I know it is popular to have a "body of work" but a number of varying views of the same subject can at times be boring.
I think this comment reveals more about Erwitt's biases than about the value of either Adams's or Frank's art. Adams persued technical perfection and Frank didn't. It's true--you can't substitute technical quality for a lack of vision. Is Erwitt suggesting that this is what Adams did? I don't buy that. If Adams's photos were merely demonstrations of technical prowess, they would have disappeared decades ago.
I think this comment reveals more about Erwitt's biases than about the value of either Adams's or Frank's art. Adams persued technical perfection and Frank didn't. It's true--you can't substitute technical quality for a lack of vision. Is Erwitt suggesting that this is what Adams did? I don't buy that. If Adams's photos were merely demonstrations of technical prowess, they would have disappeared decades ago.
I think this comment reveals more about Erwitt's biases than about the value of either Adams's or Frank's art. Adams persued technical perfection and Frank didn't. It's true--you can't substitute technical quality for a lack of vision. Is Erwitt suggesting that this is what Adams did? I don't buy that. If Adams's photos were merely demonstrations of technical prowess, they would have disappeared decades ago.
Some writers have perfect grammar and structure, but it's all useless if the writer has nothing to say. Some musicians play on key and have perfect notes, but they might not be playing music. The craft should serve the art. The Impressionist were consider sloppy painters, but now they're revered. I agree with Jim Roher. You can't compare Adams with Frank. There are a lot of photographers that are slaves to technique and materials instead of serving art.
I imagine that Robert Frank is more likely to have negatives developed in god-knows-what and frankly he doesn't care, because it's the photo that matters.
I don't think you can judge Robert Frank's photo the same way you judge Ansel Adams' photo. For landscape picture, technical perfection is very important, but for journalistic work, content is everything.
Don't you just hate it when you print a high contrast picture, with the intention to suppress all shadow detail, and you show it to somebody, the first response you got is "I wish there are more shadow detail". I am sure those are the comment that will drive Ellior Erwitt crazy too.
But ultimately, I thought the whole point here was the picture, not the darkroom. An argument that could be crystallized in a Frank vs. Adams comparison.
I don't think you can judge Robert Frank's photo the same way you judge Ansel Adams' photo. For landscape picture, technical perfection is very important, but for journalistic work, content is everything.
Don't you just hate it when you print a high contrast picture, with the intention to suppress all shadow detail, and you show it to somebody, the first response you got is "I wish there are more shadow detail". I am sure those are the comment that will drive Ellior Erwitt crazy too.
But ultimately, I thought the whole point here was the picture, not the darkroom.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?