Bob Walkden wrote: > > This is, I believe, at least partly a well-deserved corrective > to the semi-religious and thoughtless fawning of some of his fans, and > to the tradition he spawned, probably unwittingly, of treating > negative and print quality as important ends in themselves,
But the negative and the print certainly are important ends in themselves. (I, for one, am quite weary of the incorrectly exposed and sloppily printed notions of some who would call themselves "artists.") And if you've never seen an Adams print in the flesh on photographic paper, it's hard to appreciate the significance of the process. But once you stand there in front of it, you understand. His composition was certainly very good, but his mastery of technique was his art. And I don't think anyone ever did that better. That certainly commands a high place in the history of photography. Paul Stenquist - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
