Adams heavily manipulated his pictures during printing. They where no more real than a digital picture. The big difference is that that skill was no wide spread back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
Part of what made the 'great' photographers was not only their skill in using photography as an art form, but the fact that the pictures they took were "real" and not photoshopped. This skill took years, in some cases lifetimes to master. Artists like Ansel Adams took their pictures, at great personal risk, in adverse conditions - and got it 'right' the first time. They didn't know if they got their picture 'right' until they got to the development lab. This meant that for every 'great shot' they got, there were several opportuntities that were lost forever. IMHO, one of the trademarks of good art is that you can't mass-produce it. Sure, you can mass-produce the result; but you can't mass produce the creation.
Would you like some mustard to go with that baloney?
Quote:
With digital photography - you can take 100's of photo's of any given moment; you can salvage or create any variation you want with software. Literally, anyone can mass produce almost any shot - as the art learned by the masters has been compressed into a simple filter that anyone can use.
Nope, great shots require amino that can compose a unique and endearing view. Not everyone is capable of that.
Quote:
Thus, what was once an artform that demanded a thorough understanding of focal length, exposure, aperature settings, focal lenghts of lens and various development techniques - has all been boiled down to clicking on a button.
Again more BS!
Quote:
Thus, I submit that you are mistaken - we have removed the 'artistic' element from photography and replaced it with commerially available 'creation' filters that anyone with the interest, can master within hours.
Yeah OK! If you believe that anybody can create pics that standup to the test of time relying on "filters" in a point and shoot you are grossly out of touch. A good artist could but a no talent would have to rely on luck.
Part of what made the 'great' photographers was not only their skill in using photography as an art form, but the fact that the pictures they took were "real" and not photoshopped. This skill took years, in some cases lifetimes to master. Artists like Ansel Adams took their pictures, at great personal risk, in adverse conditions - and got it 'right' the first time. They didn't know if they got their picture 'right' until they got to the development lab. This meant that for every 'great shot' they got, there were several opportuntities that were lost forever. IMHO, one of the trademarks of good art is that you can't mass-produce it. Sure, you can mass-produce the result; but you can't mass produce the creation.
With digital photography - you can take 100's of photo's of any given moment; you can salvage or create any variation you want with software. Literally, anyone can mass produce almost any shot - as the art learned by the masters has been compressed into a simple filter that anyone can use. Thus, what was once an artform that demanded a thorough understanding of focal length, exposure, aperature settings, focal lenghts of lens and various development techniques - has all been boiled down to clicking on a button.
Thus, I submit that you are mistaken - we have removed the 'artistic' element from photography and replaced it with commerially available 'creation' filters that anyone with the interest, can master within hours.
Nonsense.
Just because there are automated procedures and tools available, this is no less an artistic process.
Not all digital photographers use photoshop, just as not all film photographers use auto focus. The tools that are available to an artist do not negate the art.
Or whatever chapter leads to liquidation of the company.
I'm not trying to be cruel here but it is pretty clear from the GM/Chrysler fiasco that things need to run their course. Now I have friends and neighbors that work or use to work at Kodak so I know full well the frustration this will cause, but Kodaks time is over. As a company it needs to die so that the talent caught up in that business can become productive again. Long term it does more harm than good to protect failing companies.
Make no mistake this means even more people will loose their jobs. That is certainly not good these days but neither is having all that talent tied up in a non productive company like Kodak. Believe me there are some very capable people still working at Kodak.
As to the management team, well what can we say. The current team will likely get it's share of blame, but honestly there has been a management revolving door at Kodak since the advent of Digital. It probably isn't fair but this team gets to carry the weight of the pervious screwups on their shoulders. I find it a bit funny when you look around town and find that many businesses that where "let go" in the 80's and 90's are doing very well. Like it or not the previous management teams restructured the company around failing businesses. It is probably the single greatest example of failed planning in recent memory.
Photography is a craft, not an art form. I'm continually amused at the hubris of those photographers who wish to call themselves artist. You produce nice pictures that you can't produce any other way except with someone else's technology, and yet you wish to take all the credit.
Kodak has a life still in the computer to plate business since it acquired CREO, but it's really had it's hat handed to it by Fuji and HP in the plate and digital press business. To get back, it needs to better leverage its expertise in work-flow software and plate imaging. There is no reason why it can't, since it owns the best front end, use its brand to regain prominence in the rest of the digital arena. If current management can't do it, the B.O.D. needs to replace them with those who can see the forest for the trees.
Kodak made photography. Turn down your internet sarcasm for a moment and recognize that a king is dying.
Good point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
True photography is an art form that has been killed by technology...
A little respect for a company that is passing, that harmed no one - yet brought happiness and preserved memories for generations isn't that much to ask.
For me, in photography, true art has nothing to do with technology. It's not like the camera is taking the picture; you are. You create the art. What do you think, Phil Collins sounds different when playing on someone else's kit? No, it's not the drum kit that creates the music; the drummer is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
IMHO, I believe Kodak leadership was so arrogant at the superiority of film over the early digital photography; they believed that digtal photography would "never" over-take film. While they were correct, in the early digital photography quality (pixelated, poor color quality) - the fact that they could not imagine the digital age coming quickly, should serve as a harsh reminder to other companies. Kodak's arrogance killed them.
This is where I'm fascinated by Westinghouse. Did you know that in the 1800's Westinghouse was a rendering plant, that made candles? Their claim to fame was that their candles were 'flicker-free'; and then the lighbulb was invented. Instead of concentrating on making better candles - Westinghouse managment had the forsight to embrace the new technology, and quickly made a name for themselves as a premier supplier of lighting products. Westinghouse today, makes thousands of products, each embracing technology - and Westinghouse is extremely rare in this accomplishement. Kodak had their "Westinghouse" moment - and failed to adapt, and like the dinosaurs - is facing extinction.
Excellent point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Adams heavily manipulated his pictures during printing. They where no more real than a digital picture. The big difference is that that skill was no wide spread back then.
Well, Adams tried out all different kinds of chemical compositions in order to recreate the image he had seen out there. True, one could compare it to todays workflow with a digital picture manipulated in Photoshop. Except I have never seen a 'great photoshopped picture', but oh so many great prints from Ansal Adams. Really love his work!
?If you?re not willing to cannibalize yourself, others will do it for you,? said Mark Zupan, dean of the University of Rochester?s business school.
Steve Jobs is quoted as saying basically the same thing in the book (Steve Jobs). Jobs points out that "other companies" where product lines rule are unable or unwilling to fully support new products that threaten an existing cash cow. He could have been speaking about Kodak. Kodak was making tons of money with film. While there were no doubt some in the company saying "we have to invest in digital, promote digital; film is the past." there was lots of pressure to maintain the status quo. Too bad for Kodak (and good for us) that other companies had no such disincentives to change the marketplace.
Jobs said (essentially) we can't worry about whether the iPad will canibalize sales of MacBooks; better that that having someone's else tablet do it. In retrospect it's obvious that Kodak should have taken the same attitude in the 1990s: "Ok, it sucks that the film market is going to be decimated, but we can't survive by ignoring that reality."
The part that doesn't make me at all sanguine about Kodak's post-bankruptcy future is that they are betting on "printers and ink" as their future. I don't know about you, but in the Facebook age, is printing all that relevant any more? Young people don't print pictures (at least no where near as much as their parents and grandparents do/did).
?If you?re not willing to cannibalize yourself, others will do it for you,? said Mark Zupan, dean of the University of Rochester?s business school.
Steve Jobs is quoted as saying basically the same thing in the book (Steve Jobs). Jobs points out that "other companies" where product lines rule are unable or unwilling to fully support new products that threaten an existing cash cow. He could have been speaking about Kodak. Kodak was making tons of money with film. While there were no doubt some in the company saying "we have to invest in digital, promote digital; film is the past." there was lots of pressure to maintain the status quo. Too bad for Kodak (and good for us) that other companies had no such disincentives to change the marketplace.
Jobs said (essentially) we can't worry about whether the iPad will canibalize sales of MacBooks; better that that having someone's else tablet do it. In retrospect it's obvious that Kodak should have taken the same attitude in the 1990s: "Ok, it sucks that the film market is going to be decimated, but we can't survive by ignoring that reality."
The part that doesn't make me at all sanguine about Kodak's post-bankruptcy future is that they are betting on "printers and ink" as their future. I don't know about you, but in the Facebook age, is printing all that relevant any more? Young people don't print pictures (at least no where near as much as their parents and grandparents do/did).
Nice post. Going to read that Washington post post now.
I agree, print is so much less relevant now. And as a consequence to digital, it can be appreciated so much more now. I have my best shots printed, and frame them. I change the pictures every now and then, and every time I have friends over for dinner they appreciate it. As great as the iPad is, nothing beats print - to me. And well, apparently all my dinner friends.
There's much bigger world out there than Facebook leads you to believe. Printing, particularly variable digital printing but also conventional printing, is still a very important and lucrative business.
For me, in photography, true art has nothing to do with technology. It's not like the camera is taking the picture; you are. You create the art. What do you think, Phil Collins sounds different when playing on someone else's kit? No, it's not the drum kit that creates the music; the drummer is.
Excellent point!
Well, Adams tried out all different kinds of chemical compositions in order to recreate the image he had seen out there. True, one could compare it to todays workflow with a digital picture manipulated in Photoshop. Except I have never seen a 'great photoshopped picture', but oh so many great prints from Ansal Adams. Really love his work!
Like I said, hubris.
So now you're equating a photog to a musician eh? Whatever. If it wasn't for technology you'd still be chiselling symbols onto a clay tablet. Yes Adams made nice pictures, but he didn't take the raw picture, his camera did. He simply couldn't have done it without a device. The same goes for chemistry. If someone else didn't invent the tools for him to use, he'd have nothing. That makes him nothing more than a highly skilled craftsman with an eye for pretty pictures.
I recently had some photos printed at Pro Photo Supply in Portland, Or. They have a Kodak printer that uses a chemical process with the image generated by lasers. I have to say - thanks to the great efforts of the staff - I came out with absolutely stunning prints (11" x 17"), Particularly beautiful were the shots of black friends in Colombia. The dark skin tones are so subtly shaded and warm.
As a long time photographer I would be saddened if Kodak were to fail to reorganize itself. It would be a real tragedy.
For now: Thank you Kodak for this and many, many more tools for my art.
I doubt it was a Kodak printer. It was probably a Durst or Lightjet printer running Kodak paper/film.
Or whatever chapter leads to liquidation of the company.
I'm not trying to be cruel here but it is pretty clear from the GM/Chrysler fiasco that things need to run their course. Now I have friends and neighbors that work or use to work at Kodak so I know full well the frustration this will cause, but Kodaks time is over. As a company it needs to die so that the talent caught up in that business can become productive again. Long term it does more harm than good to protect failing companies.
I think you've undermined your own argument with your examples. Both GM and Chrysler have emerged from Chapter 11 as profitable companies. Granted, with government investment, but private equity infusions can have the same effect. I don't know what Kodak looks like on the other side of bankruptcy but to say that they should not take advantage of a tool that so many others have used successfully is not so much cruel as unusual.
So now you're equating a photog to a musician eh? Whatever. If it wasn't for technology you'd still be chiselling symbols onto a clay tablet. Yes Adams made nice pictures, but he didn't take the raw picture, his camera did. He simply couldn't have done it without a device. The same goes for chemistry. If someone else didn't invent the tools for him to use, he'd have nothing. That makes him nothing more than a highly skilled craftsman with an eye for pretty pictures.
Yes, comparing. Meaning to say that the tool doesn't matter. Case in point: is this a good picture?
Doesn't matter if you like it, but is it good? Caption reads:
"Photo resolution is VGA (0.3 megapixels) taken with a cheap Nokia 2630. Taken at Pearl Farm, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao City, Philippines"
Camera doesn't matter, imagination does. Sure, Adams needed a camera. But he could create what he wanted with any camera, advanced or not.
Doesn't matter if you like it, but is it good?Sure, Adams needed a camera. But he could create what he wanted with any camera, advanced or not.
Two comments:
1. No, it is not a good picture. The more I look at it, the more irritating it becomes. It has multiple elements that compete with each other. What draws the viewer's attention here? The sea grapes that dominate almost half the frame in the lower right foreground? The rocky shoreline? The bay? The promontory beyond the bay? The horizon and sky? What purpose is served by including the bush on the left or the rock pile in the lower left? As a composition, it's a just a jumble. A pretty location and a nice day, a snapshot, but nothing more. Expand this VGA image by as little as 100%, print a copy and look at the jaggies.
2. Ansel Adams used different cameras and different photographic processes, depending on the images he visualized and wanted to communicate. No single camera or technology, including digital, is suited for all purposes. By contrast, do you think this is a good picture, and do you think it can be reproduced with "any camera"? Which of these pictures makes you catch your breath when you look at it?
Comments
Part of what made the 'great' photographers was not only their skill in using photography as an art form, but the fact that the pictures they took were "real" and not photoshopped. This skill took years, in some cases lifetimes to master. Artists like Ansel Adams took their pictures, at great personal risk, in adverse conditions - and got it 'right' the first time. They didn't know if they got their picture 'right' until they got to the development lab. This meant that for every 'great shot' they got, there were several opportuntities that were lost forever. IMHO, one of the trademarks of good art is that you can't mass-produce it. Sure, you can mass-produce the result; but you can't mass produce the creation.
Would you like some mustard to go with that baloney?
With digital photography - you can take 100's of photo's of any given moment; you can salvage or create any variation you want with software. Literally, anyone can mass produce almost any shot - as the art learned by the masters has been compressed into a simple filter that anyone can use.
Nope, great shots require amino that can compose a unique and endearing view. Not everyone is capable of that.
Thus, what was once an artform that demanded a thorough understanding of focal length, exposure, aperature settings, focal lenghts of lens and various development techniques - has all been boiled down to clicking on a button.
Again more BS!
Thus, I submit that you are mistaken - we have removed the 'artistic' element from photography and replaced it with commerially available 'creation' filters that anyone with the interest, can master within hours.
Yeah OK! If you believe that anybody can create pics that standup to the test of time relying on "filters" in a point and shoot you are grossly out of touch. A good artist could but a no talent would have to rely on luck.
Part of what made the 'great' photographers was not only their skill in using photography as an art form, but the fact that the pictures they took were "real" and not photoshopped. This skill took years, in some cases lifetimes to master. Artists like Ansel Adams took their pictures, at great personal risk, in adverse conditions - and got it 'right' the first time. They didn't know if they got their picture 'right' until they got to the development lab. This meant that for every 'great shot' they got, there were several opportuntities that were lost forever. IMHO, one of the trademarks of good art is that you can't mass-produce it. Sure, you can mass-produce the result; but you can't mass produce the creation.
With digital photography - you can take 100's of photo's of any given moment; you can salvage or create any variation you want with software. Literally, anyone can mass produce almost any shot - as the art learned by the masters has been compressed into a simple filter that anyone can use. Thus, what was once an artform that demanded a thorough understanding of focal length, exposure, aperature settings, focal lenghts of lens and various development techniques - has all been boiled down to clicking on a button.
Thus, I submit that you are mistaken - we have removed the 'artistic' element from photography and replaced it with commerially available 'creation' filters that anyone with the interest, can master within hours.
Nonsense.
Just because there are automated procedures and tools available, this is no less an artistic process.
Not all digital photographers use photoshop, just as not all film photographers use auto focus. The tools that are available to an artist do not negate the art.
I'm not trying to be cruel here but it is pretty clear from the GM/Chrysler fiasco that things need to run their course. Now I have friends and neighbors that work or use to work at Kodak so I know full well the frustration this will cause, but Kodaks time is over. As a company it needs to die so that the talent caught up in that business can become productive again. Long term it does more harm than good to protect failing companies.
Make no mistake this means even more people will loose their jobs. That is certainly not good these days but neither is having all that talent tied up in a non productive company like Kodak. Believe me there are some very capable people still working at Kodak.
As to the management team, well what can we say. The current team will likely get it's share of blame, but honestly there has been a management revolving door at Kodak since the advent of Digital. It probably isn't fair but this team gets to carry the weight of the pervious screwups on their shoulders. I find it a bit funny when you look around town and find that many businesses that where "let go" in the 80's and 90's are doing very well. Like it or not the previous management teams restructured the company around failing businesses. It is probably the single greatest example of failed planning in recent memory.
Kodak has a life still in the computer to plate business since it acquired CREO, but it's really had it's hat handed to it by Fuji and HP in the plate and digital press business. To get back, it needs to better leverage its expertise in work-flow software and plate imaging. There is no reason why it can't, since it owns the best front end, use its brand to regain prominence in the rest of the digital arena. If current management can't do it, the B.O.D. needs to replace them with those who can see the forest for the trees.
Kodak made photography. Turn down your internet sarcasm for a moment and recognize that a king is dying.
Good point!
True photography is an art form that has been killed by technology...
A little respect for a company that is passing, that harmed no one - yet brought happiness and preserved memories for generations isn't that much to ask.
For me, in photography, true art has nothing to do with technology. It's not like the camera is taking the picture; you are. You create the art. What do you think, Phil Collins sounds different when playing on someone else's kit? No, it's not the drum kit that creates the music; the drummer is.
IMHO, I believe Kodak leadership was so arrogant at the superiority of film over the early digital photography; they believed that digtal photography would "never" over-take film. While they were correct, in the early digital photography quality (pixelated, poor color quality) - the fact that they could not imagine the digital age coming quickly, should serve as a harsh reminder to other companies. Kodak's arrogance killed them.
This is where I'm fascinated by Westinghouse. Did you know that in the 1800's Westinghouse was a rendering plant, that made candles? Their claim to fame was that their candles were 'flicker-free'; and then the lighbulb was invented. Instead of concentrating on making better candles - Westinghouse managment had the forsight to embrace the new technology, and quickly made a name for themselves as a premier supplier of lighting products. Westinghouse today, makes thousands of products, each embracing technology - and Westinghouse is extremely rare in this accomplishement. Kodak had their "Westinghouse" moment - and failed to adapt, and like the dinosaurs - is facing extinction.
Excellent point!
Adams heavily manipulated his pictures during printing. They where no more real than a digital picture. The big difference is that that skill was no wide spread back then.
Well, Adams tried out all different kinds of chemical compositions in order to recreate the image he had seen out there. True, one could compare it to todays workflow with a digital picture manipulated in Photoshop. Except I have never seen a 'great photoshopped picture', but oh so many great prints from Ansal Adams. Really love his work!
?If you?re not willing to cannibalize yourself, others will do it for you,? said Mark Zupan, dean of the University of Rochester?s business school.
Steve Jobs is quoted as saying basically the same thing in the book (Steve Jobs). Jobs points out that "other companies" where product lines rule are unable or unwilling to fully support new products that threaten an existing cash cow. He could have been speaking about Kodak. Kodak was making tons of money with film. While there were no doubt some in the company saying "we have to invest in digital, promote digital; film is the past." there was lots of pressure to maintain the status quo. Too bad for Kodak (and good for us) that other companies had no such disincentives to change the marketplace.
Jobs said (essentially) we can't worry about whether the iPad will canibalize sales of MacBooks; better that that having someone's else tablet do it. In retrospect it's obvious that Kodak should have taken the same attitude in the 1990s: "Ok, it sucks that the film market is going to be decimated, but we can't survive by ignoring that reality."
The part that doesn't make me at all sanguine about Kodak's post-bankruptcy future is that they are betting on "printers and ink" as their future. I don't know about you, but in the Facebook age, is printing all that relevant any more? Young people don't print pictures (at least no where near as much as their parents and grandparents do/did).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...29P_story.html
?If you?re not willing to cannibalize yourself, others will do it for you,? said Mark Zupan, dean of the University of Rochester?s business school.
Steve Jobs is quoted as saying basically the same thing in the book (Steve Jobs). Jobs points out that "other companies" where product lines rule are unable or unwilling to fully support new products that threaten an existing cash cow. He could have been speaking about Kodak. Kodak was making tons of money with film. While there were no doubt some in the company saying "we have to invest in digital, promote digital; film is the past." there was lots of pressure to maintain the status quo. Too bad for Kodak (and good for us) that other companies had no such disincentives to change the marketplace.
Jobs said (essentially) we can't worry about whether the iPad will canibalize sales of MacBooks; better that that having someone's else tablet do it. In retrospect it's obvious that Kodak should have taken the same attitude in the 1990s: "Ok, it sucks that the film market is going to be decimated, but we can't survive by ignoring that reality."
The part that doesn't make me at all sanguine about Kodak's post-bankruptcy future is that they are betting on "printers and ink" as their future. I don't know about you, but in the Facebook age, is printing all that relevant any more? Young people don't print pictures (at least no where near as much as their parents and grandparents do/did).
Nice post. Going to read that Washington post post now.
I agree, print is so much less relevant now. And as a consequence to digital, it can be appreciated so much more now. I have my best shots printed, and frame them. I change the pictures every now and then, and every time I have friends over for dinner they appreciate it. As great as the iPad is, nothing beats print - to me. And well, apparently all my dinner friends.
For me, in photography, true art has nothing to do with technology. It's not like the camera is taking the picture; you are. You create the art. What do you think, Phil Collins sounds different when playing on someone else's kit? No, it's not the drum kit that creates the music; the drummer is.
Excellent point!
Well, Adams tried out all different kinds of chemical compositions in order to recreate the image he had seen out there. True, one could compare it to todays workflow with a digital picture manipulated in Photoshop. Except I have never seen a 'great photoshopped picture', but oh so many great prints from Ansal Adams. Really love his work!
Like I said, hubris.
So now you're equating a photog to a musician eh? Whatever. If it wasn't for technology you'd still be chiselling symbols onto a clay tablet. Yes Adams made nice pictures, but he didn't take the raw picture, his camera did. He simply couldn't have done it without a device. The same goes for chemistry. If someone else didn't invent the tools for him to use, he'd have nothing. That makes him nothing more than a highly skilled craftsman with an eye for pretty pictures.
Really?
Did you mourn this much when they put a bullet in 8-track tapes?
but i did enjoy my kodak video cameras, especially the water proof one i bought for my daughter that lasted 1 month...
I recently had some photos printed at Pro Photo Supply in Portland, Or. They have a Kodak printer that uses a chemical process with the image generated by lasers. I have to say - thanks to the great efforts of the staff - I came out with absolutely stunning prints (11" x 17"), Particularly beautiful were the shots of black friends in Colombia. The dark skin tones are so subtly shaded and warm.
As a long time photographer I would be saddened if Kodak were to fail to reorganize itself. It would be a real tragedy.
For now: Thank you Kodak for this and many, many more tools for my art.
I doubt it was a Kodak printer. It was probably a Durst or Lightjet printer running Kodak paper/film.
Or whatever chapter leads to liquidation of the company.
I'm not trying to be cruel here but it is pretty clear from the GM/Chrysler fiasco that things need to run their course. Now I have friends and neighbors that work or use to work at Kodak so I know full well the frustration this will cause, but Kodaks time is over. As a company it needs to die so that the talent caught up in that business can become productive again. Long term it does more harm than good to protect failing companies.
I think you've undermined your own argument with your examples. Both GM and Chrysler have emerged from Chapter 11 as profitable companies. Granted, with government investment, but private equity infusions can have the same effect. I don't know what Kodak looks like on the other side of bankruptcy but to say that they should not take advantage of a tool that so many others have used successfully is not so much cruel as unusual.
Like I said, hubris.
So now you're equating a photog to a musician eh? Whatever. If it wasn't for technology you'd still be chiselling symbols onto a clay tablet. Yes Adams made nice pictures, but he didn't take the raw picture, his camera did. He simply couldn't have done it without a device. The same goes for chemistry. If someone else didn't invent the tools for him to use, he'd have nothing. That makes him nothing more than a highly skilled craftsman with an eye for pretty pictures.
Yes, comparing. Meaning to say that the tool doesn't matter. Case in point: is this a good picture?
Doesn't matter if you like it, but is it good? Caption reads:
"Photo resolution is VGA (0.3 megapixels) taken with a cheap Nokia 2630. Taken at Pearl Farm, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao City, Philippines"
Camera doesn't matter, imagination does. Sure, Adams needed a camera. But he could create what he wanted with any camera, advanced or not.
Case in point: is this a good picture?
Doesn't matter if you like it, but is it good?Sure, Adams needed a camera. But he could create what he wanted with any camera, advanced or not.
Two comments:
1. No, it is not a good picture. The more I look at it, the more irritating it becomes. It has multiple elements that compete with each other. What draws the viewer's attention here? The sea grapes that dominate almost half the frame in the lower right foreground? The rocky shoreline? The bay? The promontory beyond the bay? The horizon and sky? What purpose is served by including the bush on the left or the rock pile in the lower left? As a composition, it's a just a jumble. A pretty location and a nice day, a snapshot, but nothing more. Expand this VGA image by as little as 100%, print a copy and look at the jaggies.
2. Ansel Adams used different cameras and different photographic processes, depending on the images he visualized and wanted to communicate. No single camera or technology, including digital, is suited for all purposes. By contrast, do you think this is a good picture, and do you think it can be reproduced with "any camera"? Which of these pictures makes you catch your breath when you look at it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ad...nake_River.jpg