It has occurred to me lately there is a large body of excellent work by modern photographers that is technically and often artistically superior to many or most of the past masters. There is also a large body of work that is a waste of valuable silver however that is not the thrust of this post. Ansel Adams and Edward Weston are superb photographers but I'm able to look at a lifetimes work. And the same goes for any of the pioneers. If the tables were altered and both these photographers were in there 20's and just starting out now and posting to the galleries etc would they really make it today? How would their work be received here in the critiques gallery by all the experts on APUG? I use these two photographers only because they are so often the benchmark for conversation based on a lifetime of work. It is my opinion based on the body of work from a broad collection of current photographers they would be competing with that their style of work, Adams and Weston, would not stand out, the subjects are classed as "cliche" and they aren't famous, by toaday's standards if they are just coming on the scene. It is purely hyperthetical I realise but the darkroom is occupied and I'm just wondering.