QUOTE(ebernie @ Sep 11 2008, 11:50 PM)
Well, yeah, they didn't have what we have today. But it still does not change the fact that the photos looks much better than what we churn out by the dozens everyday.
What's better? Frankly, I think it's the attention to detail, the thought that is put into each photo, the planning that goes into each of them. Sometimes it's the fact that they were brave enough to be there to take pictures (world war pictures for example). But ultimately I think it was because each photo had a story to tell, and they told the story really well. But really, I can't do justice explaining the pictures. Heck, I can't even remember the names of all the photographers I think highly off.
It's not really a fair comparison there.
Firstly, if you were a photographer *then*, it meant that your career somehow revolved around photography. Cameras were expensive and not widespread then. Cameras are so affordable *now* and having a DSLR camera in your hand *now* doesn't mean that you are a career photographer.
Secondly, you are comparing works of career photographers *then* to amaturish works that are all over *now*, for example to those posted in this forum. A right approach would be to compare what career photographers took *then* to what professional career photographers take *now*, not with LYN photographers. Who says career photographers *now* don't travel the world - to the furthest regions of the antartica, to the war torn African countries... you see those pictures still, just don't expect to find them here unless there's a Thom Hogan hiding among us somewhere.
Anyway, don't be so critical of LYN photogs. Even the photos we see in newspapers nowadays are crap, but they serve their purpose as an illustration. At the end of the day, everyone shoots what he/she enjoys.
Don't put a stigma that "shooting photos of models/girls are wrong"... look at shinchan and lotso's works - they shoot good model photos and are really out to improve their craft.