Quote Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
I don't get why modern young aspiring photographers should care about Capa, Adams, Stieglitz or whoever ruled in the last century or even care about how a darkroom works and how to make archival FB silverprints. They learn the trade, use of digital cameras and PS techniques from modern "photographers" who themselves only barely know the traditional techniques. when talking HDR this and that, strobism and multilayering (or what ever these all sharp insect shots are called) there is not much sence in refering to historic masters and how they squezed a 7stop ranging subject into a 4stop paper without loosing the slightest tonality. They learn from Hobby and Mcnally and other masters of this current era. They look at images posted on the web where they are readily available and why should they care what us old farts think.
Best regards
I'm not sure how much this post was tongue-in-cheek, but to the extent that it's serious, I think you're conflating technique (which of course is often highly specific to materials and workflow) with artistic concerns (which mostly aren't). The OP and most of this thread were, I think, talking mainly about the latter.

That said, I think if I were going to send an aspiring photographer forth to learn about the artistic uses of lighting, the first name I pulled out wouldn't be a photographer, it'd be Goya. Apart from techniques, I'm not sure there's any special reason why photographers should be privileged over painters in the *artistic* education of an aspiring photographer; composition is composition whether it's rendered in silver or oil or pixels, right? But you never hear photographic educators complaining that their students have never seen a Renoir.