Digital BW, The Print

> Not true at all.
> 
> Ansel learned, helped organize, and taught *a possible approach to 
a
> narrow range of photography.* There are/were many other "good
> photographers" (his equals) who didn't/don't: people like Henri
> Cartier Bresson, Joseph Muench, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon and,
> more recently, Sebastio Salgado...obvious examples.
> 
> Ansel was important as a teacher within one narrow genre, as
> important for his support of the Sierra Club and its members
> enthusiasm for the Sierra Nevada Mts and environmentalism 
generally.
> 
> He was very analytic, lacking broad interests and emotional
> complexity IMO. He didn't appreciate the excitement of his home 
town
> in his youth (San Francisco), the greatest music of his own youth
> (jazz), never explored color photography to anything like the depth
> of his peers.
> 
> He was a fine portrait photographer (IMO should have done more) and
> did good industrial work. He was very successful selling prints and
> reproduction rights, from the early Sixties (eg "Half Dome" Hills
> Brothers 5# coffee cans that seemed to grow marijuana seedlings in
> every kitchen window in Northern California).
> 
> >I know we are suppose to keep this civil-but- this is a really 
uninformed line of thought-who ever wrote this needs to go back and 
study history-

simply put- every photographer uses the "zone" system (since it is 
simply a lay persons version of sensitometery)_ some use it 
knowingly -others don't.