Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
I think there are far too many landscapes shot in the tripod holes of those who came before, although it's getting harder to find places that have not been shot before.
This is one of those things that amuses me in landscape photographers. The fact they feel they need to travel the globe in search of landscapes that have not been made. While I love to travel and shoot, my best images are made in my own backyard and it is these that sell the most. I mean no disrespect to the Michael Kennas, Rolfe Horns or Josef Hoflehners out there as their work is quite beautiful, but I think photographers like this have also become a dime a dozen group and I have a hard time getting excited about any of it anymore. So do collectors if sales are any indication. It has become painfully obvious. There are too many shooters looking at the Michael Kenna business model and thinking they too can do it. They aren't looking to make great work, they're looking to make a living... to be famous. To me that is all bull&%$#. I think people need to look inward rather than outward to make their images great.

As for listening to galleries about what to make at what sizes, this I have found to be useless as well. It's like making a painting to match a couch IMO. It is no longer your art when you listen to other's marketing desires. Hell... I know photographers that will get a "wish list" from their poster reps and actually go out in the world, spend tons of money and time to go to these places and shoot! This in my mind is commercial assignment photography, not art. More art light. Just as bad as being caught up in the technical process is getting caught up in the current landscape race. Learn to consistently pull great images in your own backyard and then you'll have something. Not that going to China, Japan (2 current hotspots I attribute to Kenna wannabes) OR Iceland, etc are not fun and rewarding places to make photographs, but they certainly are not going to make you good photographers.
Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
I don't want to denigrate those that shoot with huge banquet cameras, but most of the work that I have seen done using a gigantic camera tends to be very static and have average lighting at best...
Sorry, but this is a petty, blanket statement IMO and I am sick of this argument no matter who brings it up. Just as much... even more crap is made with smaller cameras.

My advice to people is not to worry about what sells. Look inside... find yourself as a photographer and THEN worry about what sells. I have been at this a long time and my experience is like that baseball flick... "If you build it, they will come."