foxfirerodandgun wrote:
???? Does not compute.
If you were going to take art lessons from somebody,
wouldn't you want to know that they were a good artist?
What are Mr. Peterson's qualifications, beside having written
photography self-help books?
If you say "he takes good pictures" -- how do you know? Have
you ever seen one of his original prints? And did it ever occur
to you that it may not be your opinion that matters --or that of
Amazon book buyers -- but rather the educated opinions of art
historians, art critics, gallery owners, photo editors, print collectors
photo conservaors and museum curators?
These are the people whose trades it is to appraise, authenticate,
conserver, analyze, consign, buy or sell top-quality photographs.
Who is a good photographer is their area of expertise.
Ansel Adams, wrote some very good books--but he also was the
most succesful fine art landscape photographers who ever lived.
His work is in the permanent collections of doezens of museums,
including MoMA and the Smithsonian American Art Institution.
His original prints now sell in the neighborhood of $20,000 - $29,000.
That's what I mean "qualifications". Or consider this:
Michael J. Langford wrote 17 books about photography,
including the two standard college textbooks --Basic Photography
(1965) and Advanced Photography (1969)-- which went through
innumerable editions and are still in print.
He started at age 16 as a photographe'rs apprentice, then served in
the photography section of the RAF. Then he worked as a press
photographer and industrial photographer, before settling on teaching--
eventually becoming a fellow of the Royal College of Art, where he
taught for 30 years as tutor, senior tutor, department head, and finally
course director. He was made an honorary fellow of the Royal
Photographic Society.
That is also what I mean by "qualifications". Not a person's
self-promotion, but their promotion by others in the field.
Does that "compute"?