"I am not as impressed with the work of the photographer you cite. His work looks more like an "aspiring" photographer - a bit of this, a bit of that. No style, no sense of individual vision, but commercially quite capable."(posted 8260 days ago)We are, of course, at the mercy of Kodak's editors for which pictures of his we see. There a some that I don't think are particularly successful. However, there are quite a few that are very strong images. (And I would say those images do exhibit an identifiable style and vision.)
Of course, it should go without saying that his technique is both very contemporary and commercial. However, I don't understand why this should be seen as being either outright negative or at best irrelevent to the artistry involved. Michelangelo was a commercial artist who had to both go out and "sell" patrons on subsidizing his works and then produce ones that would make them feel their money was well-spent - and in most cases do so while adhering to the very specific dogma of the church.
Post-renaissance aesthetics and capitalism aren't foes - they are inseparable and incestuous.