On the bookcases behind me in my study I have a couple of AA's books; The Camera, The Negative and The Print as well as a battered copy og Examples;: The Making of 40 Photographs. He produced some wonderful images, exposed in the wilderness but made in the Darkroom.
Really? Ansel Adams as the poster boy, pun intended, of the true, unmanipulated image? Don't misunderstand, his photographs are beautiful and magical, but he spent an enormous amount of time and work postprocessing those images. Of course, that was in the days before Photoshop, when dodging and burning were done with wands, cutout masks, and light, instead of the click of a mouse, and Adams was a master at those techniques, and use them on most or all of his famous images. We won't ever know what Ansel Adams' photography would be like if he had access to the powerful digital editing and compositing tools we have today.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”
"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art"
"A photograph is not an accident – it is a concept"
And my personal favourite:
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways"
The issue isn't that the pictures have heavy manipulation its the outright hogwash that gets peddled with it
as I said before trey ratcliff is completely open about how much he manipulates the images he has tons of fans No problem there he makes art lot of people like it he is honest and has integrity, and while there is heavy manipulation in his images i am pretty sure he doesn't go altering scale and aspect of objects or introducing items or compositing various shots taken elsewhere, His work is more of a photograph than the peter lik stuff.
As a picture quite a lot of peter lik's stuff is aesthetically pleasing but they are not photographs in my opinion
they are digital art. Notice I used the word Picture not photo, Calling himself a master photographer is a misnomer where the stuff he produces has gone well out of the bounds of being photography. I think digital art would be the most appropriate description.
He really should ditch the nauseating diatribe too.