It sounds as if Ctein probably has a lot more than 100 fans. By tomorrow the rest of them probably will have logged on.
Okay. I'll concede that what we're talking about is a subjective thing. I happen not to think Ansel Adams is that great a photographer. He certainly was a master of his equipment, materials, and darkroom -- probably the best printer of his day. In the sixties I used to go into the mountains west of Colorado Springs with a view camera and walk around with a Weston Master, getting zone readings. In the darkroom I'd mix a separate batch of developer for each sheet of film -- or sometimes for more than one if several had a similar zone spread. I made good prints; not as good as Ansel's, but good enough: the best I could do under the circumstances. During the same period I did a lot of street photography with three Leicas -- rolling my own cassettes from 100 foot rolls of Ilford HP-4 and developing in four-roll tanks in the kitchen. Now, the carefully zoned rocks and stones and trees are long gone but the street shots live on. After a while rocks and stones and trees lose their interest but people never do.
To me, Walker Evans was a better artist than Ansel Adams. At the top, along with Evans I'd include Eugene Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Robert Frank and Steve McCurry. At the next tier I'd include Paul Strand, Dorothea Lange, Garry Winogrand, Gene Smith, Andre Kertesz, Robert Doiseneau, Brassai, Manuel Alvarez Bravo... I'd put Edward Weston somewhere in between since for the most part he photographed rocks and stones and trees and peppers, but sometimes also people.
So there you have it. I guess that's why we disagree. To me, photographing rocks and stones and trees is a cop out. The human condition is what cameras are for. Landscape is for painters.