Well, since everyone seems to be pussy-footing around making any snide remarks here, allow me to take the bait:
Exactly! The hand of man always is what makes good landscape.
Rubbish. The truth is, any evidence of man in a landscape ruins it. The only tolerable evidence of man would be in a city
scape ... where buildings, skyscrapers, city lights, etc. are the main focus ... or perhaps a farm
scape where the "peaceful farm" is the story. Those are totally different genres IMO.
But in a straight land
scape shot (note the word "land"), any evidence of man is an automatic delete of the file (unless it is minor enough to where it can be "healed" out of the final image).
I guess that makes the majority of Ansel Adams' landscapes crap.
You said that, Pop, not me. But I do think a lot of Ansel's stuff would have been better with the hand of man included. If you want to do great landscape you can do worse than to learn from Turner and Constable.Correction
: that's exactly what you said, Russ (well, you implied it, technically). In fact, you went on to confirm your implication by stating how Ansel's work would have been better
with "the hand of man" in there, as if you're in a position to judge one of the great masters of the genre. No disrespect, Russ, but judging by your last effort
at a landscape, I seriously doubt your qualifications to judge anyone's landscape work, let alone that of Ansel Adams.
Stick to street stuff, Russ, because you're very good at that