I have followed this forum for some time now. I started because I felt there were many members that have much knowledge about photography. What I simply can not understand are the people that are either snowflakes with delicate feelings or the one member that shall remain nameless (everyone knows who) that has appointed himself god of this site. As I get older I find myself becoming much less tolerant of such narcissistic behavior. The original post here was a wonderful tribute to Adams. To see one make this topic become a contest about who knows more and who is correct is incredibly childish. The subject of the eclipse also brought out such childish behavior that I found it quite amazing. I did notice that there seemed to be very few pictures posted of the eclipse. I wonder why? Could it be that the negativity that came out prior to the eclipse made most people simply not post? I thought this was a site that people could ask questions and get information on all things about photography without being attacked. Apparently not.
If I can find a way to completely block those few people I would again enjoy this forum each morning.

I have followed this forum for some time now. I started because I felt there were many members that have much knowledge about photography. What I simply can not understand are the people that are either snowflakes with delicate feelings or the one member that shall remain nameless (everyone knows who) that has appointed himself god of this site. As I get older I find myself becoming much less tolerant of such narcissistic behavior. The original post here was a wonderful tribute to Adams. To see one make this topic become a contest about who knows more and who is correct is incredibly childish. The subject of the eclipse also brought out such childish behavior that I found it quite amazing. I did notice that there seemed to be very few pictures posted of the eclipse. I wonder why? Could it be that the negativity that came out prior to the eclipse made most people simply not post? I thought this was a site that people could ask questions and get information on all things about photography without being attacked. Apparently not.
If I can find a way to completely block those few people I would again enjoy this forum each morning.

You had me until you used the term snowflake. The neocons have made "liberal" a dirty word. Now they have made "snowflake" a dirty word as well.
What the ....?

Regarding Ansel, he did lovely work. I think his portraits were exquisite. His landscapes were transformed in the darkroom. If you look at his landscape proofs right out of the camera they were pretty much snapshots before he did his burning and dodging magic when making prints. Regarding attributing photographs, who cares? Anything on the internet can be posted anywhere else on the internet by anyone. If it's on the internet it is available to everyone.

Regarding his personal life, that's also open to everyone. Many very talented people in all walks of life have had divorces, affairs, and unsatisfactory relationships with their kids. But many untalented ordinary people have had the same.

Anyway, it is a good discussion to pass the time.

O', I have a very good idea of who he was and most likely know as much if not more than you do about him, from the smallest detail to the largest and most well-know detail. For example, I know that his drive regarding photography caused him to die with no family in attendance and only his photography assistant to be by his side; I know that his constant striving in photography caused him to have a very unhappy marriage although he and his wife stayed together and that his children had little love for him; I know that he was a "ladies man," and loved alcohol and parties. I know that it is because of him that we all know photography as an art today and that if not for him and his incredible intellect photography might not be what it is today nor, most likely, would our technology in the art of photography be what it is. Other than Edward Stieglitz, Ansel Adams contributed the most knowledge and insight into photography and into placing it as an art than any other photographer of his day . I study him extensively and have learned much through this study about how to take a photo; I'm much more an f.64 type than a Pictorial type. I just wanted to check that this particular photo was in the public domain, as many are, since we are all, as photographers, concerned with that when a photo is posted, it would be good to say that in the post, attribution is usually good when posting a photo. I also wanted to know if there was an actual point, a discussion point, so to speak, not just a quote. I've read almost, have one more book to get, every bio written about him and his auto-biography and his letters and his photo technique books. Just now I'm finishing up the f.64 book, good read and includes a lot of information on the other photographers "in the day." In fact one of them, Walker Evans, currently has an exhibition at the San Francisco Modern Museum of Art for all the Northern California photographers on this site, it goes until February. Also getting to know Doreathea Lange better through books on her. It's too bad I don't have a better memory, darn! Do not assume, based on responses, what people might know or not know about a particular subject.