Robert Budding said:
This is simply not true. Have you looked at Adams' early work? It really is quite good. And he shot it before delving into the zone system.
Robert
His early work was quite good and yet he was dissatisfied with it. By my personal standards, his early work was freaking briliant. But not by his standards.
His self appraisal ( not mine ! ) was that it was lacking. See his Letters, his Autobiography. He needed something to ( he felt ) to fulfill his gifts, and to be able to do what his friends could do... he knew how Weston worked, and could not get the results he wanted with Weston's approach. He knew how Strand worked, and could not get the results Strand got, with Strand's aproach. Stieglitz, same. He worked out the way he could get the results he sought, and analytical and methodical approach, for he recognized he was a methodical and analytical man.
But he was also a passionate man, and had no interest in making empty, virtuoso images.
This passion was the root of his development over the years of his technical approach to serve his Visualisation, and why he put the practise of Visualisation at the rock of the Zone System.
The recognition of his strengths and shortcomings, and the dedication to bridge them in his technique, to me is the great achievement of Adams the teacher. It were as though Weston had perfect pitch, could play by ear a tune he had heard only once, and had built up a superbly expressive technique to support his gifts.
Adams had to read music, think it all out, and practise. And THEN he could perform as he wanted. That is the point. And Adams' had the generosity to document all this, and share it.
I'm carefully relying on Adam's primary sources for these attributions.
Go past Minor's house in Arlington and say 'hi' !
d