Yeah, I'd agree with that, and in general he might well have gravitated to most of the same techniques as Adams if he'd had the materials. I still get very different artistic voices from them, and I tend to think Adams deserves credit for the cultural birth of that pristine-grand-landscape gestalt in photography, even if he *did* reuse O'Sullivan's tripod holes to do it. (Indeed I think it speaks quite well of both of them that they could tell two different stories about the same raw material.)AND if osullivan
was shooting dry plates instead of wet plates, he probably would have been using the system a lot of people used to manipulate
a negative at the taking stage to get a full scale negative, which adams renamed the zone system, and people mistakenly think he invented.
Agreed. I think we got here from someone's suggestion that St Ansel sprang fully formed from the brow of an activated silver-halide grain, or something, which might be a *tiny* bit exaggerated.getting back to the questions though, neither adams nor osullivan were shooting in a vacuum. they were both professionals, and well connected ....
and would have easily known what others were up to, whether those others were dead or alive ...
I don't think anyone learns in a vacuum, but I do think canons tend to be overrated.