I agree with David. Sure, there is some good work in there, but some of it is just plain boring. And while I like Shelby Lee Adams work a lot, I don't think the images in the book are not the best examples of what he does. Moreover, Adams is a consummate printer, but the images in the book were anemic and lacking in contrast.
Originally Posted by David Brown
The work on pages 32-35 was an especially egregious example of what I didn't like about the selection. The first two images are dramatic landscapes, but turning the page reveals a dramatic and unexpected shift in style. The remaining images (nudes with some kind of lens distortion) are interesting and well done, but the jarring shift is style struck me as incomprehensible. First, it represented poor editing. But more importantly, the photographer was selected for an excellence award. My question is - - - Why? Based on which body of work? Landscapes or distorted nudes?