I think there are quite a few images that have been posted to the APUG galleries that have qualities just as good or better then those of well known photographers. Photographs well worthy of discussion in this venue.
(As discussed in the sticky thread to this fourm, you must get the APUG member/photographers permission, otherwise the thread will be deleted)
One issue that has become apparent in other threads is that a lot of "baggage" comes with knowing about the photographer in question as well as being familiar with copious amounts of writing regarding that photographers supposed intentions.
With this image we have no pre-conceived ideas or notions as to the author's intentions. I selected it for that reason and because it is an excellent example of one extreme that can be achieved with a camera. The factual rendering of an abstract form. Except for the clue given by Matt in the title this is simply about light, dark and shape. The title allows one to recognize areas that appear to be folds in the metal, but we have no other clue as to size, depth, and surface.
One could say such an image is to simple because a facsimile could be made with canvas and paint. Yet the ability of the photographer to find the subject, see it and frame it is just as important a skill. That may be why someone such as Aaron Siskind was considered a peer among the great Ab Ex and Action Painters of the late 40s and 50s. He shared some of the same ideas and vision, just used a different tool, no less valid in producing art.
Like Blansky discussed in other posts, one can dissect the image and talk about the cropping or tonality that may or may not be present in the actual silver gelatin print. Some of those may be valid. I find a fascinating set of shapes, various weighting of tones, and areas of positive and negative space.
Then again, maybe this is simply to far a departure from what might be considered real photography for some. Love to hear some thoughts.