Inspired by a post made by Greg in GB's "Composition and Rules, etc". GB posted a link to a photographer named garry winogrand, I really liked his work and googled him and found my way to a website dedicated to the masters of photography. a big list. I didn't get through them all. but.. honestly, a lot of the work if it was posted in the critique forum, i would've said, u need to do this and that etc. without knowing this is considered a great work of art by a master photographer..
i don't know that thought alone got me thinking, maybe i should rethink the way i see and look at photographs.
A lot of it was b&w, street scenes. Are they amazing because they are older photos? I mean, nowadays, with digital u can fire off a thousand photos and search through them and just pint point the ones u like. back in the days, u'd have to be more careful and only the masters would get great photos considering the amount of shots that were taken?
Some of the shots were landscapes. like this one by Joel Meyerowitz
I can just imagine the critique this would get here.
Don't wanna go on too long. I hope you get my point. Am I seeing things wrong? maybe need to think on a higher level? i don't mind that. I'm in a very beginner level. or is this just outside of what we can learn and it's just a matter of who gets in to that 'league' of masters and who doesn't. And maybe those that have some superb work can sneak in not so great work solely based on the name they've built up for them selves.
I'm sure this topic has come up before somewhere. If there are any other threads, feel free to point me to them.
Also, who is your favourite photographer of all time? I love browsing photography work
I love Adams, but that's very easy choice. I like a little of everyone of them also.