>>3663643> my photography professor always dismissed [Ansel Adams]There's kind of a progression with Adams.
First, you think he's great because everyone's heard of him. His photos are the gold standard for black and white landscape photography, they're everywhere, they're instantly recognizable, etc.
Then, you think he's a hack. You get it in your head that he's only famous because of branding, that his fans must just be fans because he's famous. You might also hear them say "He shot all of his famous photos in Yosemite. Any photographer could get beautiful landscapes in Yosemite"
Then, as you get a lot more skill at composition and develop your eye, you realize that no, Ansel Adams was actually REALLY FUCKING GOOD. Maybe you even take a few levels in landscape photography and learn how hard it is to get landscapes that truly convey the majesty of even the most majestic landscapes. Yes, he was also great at marketing himself, but that motherfucker had the chops to back it up.
/p/ tends to be in camp #2 (with every photographer of note, not just Adams) because they've learned the technical aspects of photography (if that) but haven't learned the artistic aspects. They look at Adams work and think "Pfft. I could do that." And then they don't do that, because obviously they can't because they're not nearly that good, and mostly they don't even take pictures. They'll go out at noon and take a picture of a waterfall right off a paved path and think to themselves "See? Anyone can do it", but their shot is shit, and they'll *know* their shot is shit, but they won't see why Adams' shots are better. Sounds like your photography professor was in that camp too.
tl;dr: Tell us who the horse fucking chick was.
