Is there a break between photography and art?
Dec 1, 2017 13:07:04 #
I have taken photos for years and while cameras have progressed with new features and functions to capture better images, the software used to enhance photos has also progressed. If you get a true definition of photography it speaks of capturing light reflecting of of subjects etc. I am curious how real photographers (I don't qualify) feel about the separation of the 2 areas (camera versus software). If you take a photograph and then use software to alter shadows, change colors or remove items from the image. Do you consider the altered image the result of good photography or an item of art made or created from a photo you have taken? If art, what is the point of separation?
Dec 1, 2017 13:10:13 #
Country Boy wrote:
I have taken photos for years and while cameras ha... (show quote)
My finished photograph is my work of art. How and what steps I go through to get the effect my eye saw is part of creating my image.Ansel Adamas was a master at manipulating the image in the darkroom. If he were alive today he would LOVE ADOBE Photoshop and lightroom.
Dec 1, 2017 13:14:31 #
Everybody will, without a doubt, have very different opinions. I feel there are many uses for photography. The two main ones being documentation and creating something beautiful. If you're doing documentation (Real Estate, criminal investigation, etc.) then no changes are allowed beyond what's needed to show the scene/item.
In creating something beautiful then all tools at your disposal are perfectly OK. Cameras, artificial lighting, Photoshop, etc. - anything the artist wants to use is OK and it's till photography if the camera started the process.
In creating something beautiful then all tools at your disposal are perfectly OK. Cameras, artificial lighting, Photoshop, etc. - anything the artist wants to use is OK and it's till photography if the camera started the process.
Dec 1, 2017 13:20:05 #
jayluber
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
I’ve been following several photo personalities on line. I’ve come to realize that SOMeTIMES they are more LR and PS master artists than photo takers. As I watch them take a mediocer photo, add sunset, change colors, replace sky etc. And wind up with beautiful final “photo”. I’ve come to distinguish between photos and art. Not sure where the red line is.
Dec 1, 2017 13:20:40 #
Country Boy wrote:
I have taken photos for years and while cameras ha... (show quote)
In my opinion, photography is art. Would you rise in the morning and not groom yourself, clean yourself, and put on clean clothes? Post processing is simply grooming what is already there and making the image the best it can be.
Dec 1, 2017 13:27:34 #
Another raging topic in Photography. Photography and Art are in the eye of the beholder. If you like the image, and derive something from viewing it, who cares?
Dec 1, 2017 13:27:39 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
Photography is the process. Art, if it is indeed deemed to be art, is the end result.
Dec 1, 2017 13:33:50 #
Easy to separate the two. Look at the front of the camera. If it says Nikon, you're creating art.
Dec 1, 2017 13:54:05 #
jayluber wrote:
I’ve been following several photo personalities on line. I’ve come to realize that SOMeTIMES they are more LR and PS master artists than photo takers. As I watch them take a mediocer photo, add sunset, change colors, replace sky etc. And wind up with beautiful final “photo”. I’ve come to distinguish between photos and art. Not sure where the red line is.
I am not so certain that there is a red line! When an artist depicts a scene, he/she tempers what is painted by their personal tastes, the mood they are in and add whatever else comes into play in order to satisfy what they deem to be a "finished" painting. Often times, they go back and revisit a painting and create it again based upon many factors: a new technique the wish to try out, a mood change, etc. So, how does this differ from what a photographer does during PPing his photos? In short, I see no difference: "All roads lead to Rome". In this instance, the "finished product". Regards, Stan
Dec 1, 2017 13:59:19 #
No, there is no separation other than intent. If an object is made with the intention of being Art then it is Art.
Dec 1, 2017 14:12:34 #
OddJobber wrote:
Easy to separate the two. Look at the front of the camera. If it says Nikon, you're creating art.
Ha, ha, good one.
Dec 1, 2017 14:18:51 #
Country Boy wrote:
I have taken photos for years and while cameras ha... (show quote)
This has been a topic of controversary for decades. There was a time, not so longago when photos were banned from museums because the were not art. Now that is not a problem. But the question is What is Art? Answer-It depends. Answer-whatever somebody thinks it is So, who is that somebody? Again it depends. There is no art critic in the sky who determines what is or is not art. A long time ago an .italian guy, Mike Angelo painted ceilings for people who couldn't read, so they would understand creation. Today his work is regarded as great art. But at the time it was just a pretty picture on the ceiling. So is photography art? I like to think all of my work is art, but people arn't breaking down my door to admire my photos. So if you, or anyone else thinks photography is art great. But I think Art is a guy who lives next door. (sorry about my lame attempt at humor).
Dec 1, 2017 15:14:39 #
All I know, is that when it is time for us to hang "art" in our coffee shop, my husband asks me if I have found a "photographer" or an "artist" to hang....not because of the medium but because "artists" are much harder to deal with (attitude-wise) than "photographers" LOL - You can take it for what it's worth (I agree with him ;)
Dec 1, 2017 15:36:39 #
Thanks for the comments, I am getting a much wider view of photography than I had before. I never considered the dark room tech a photographer although he/she may have been. However in this new digital arena the software clean up is becoming just part of the process it appears. I do agree that intent probably gets factored in but my red line is getting very faint. I think you are all correct from your point of view and there has not been a response I would argue with!
Dec 1, 2017 16:21:34 #
If you use the camera and make a photograph it's photography is an art
If you create an image using software alone without a camera it's also art but not photography.
So if you make a photograph then alter it using software then it's also art but it's not purely photography.
If you create an image using software alone without a camera it's also art but not photography.
So if you make a photograph then alter it using software then it's also art but it's not purely photography.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.