Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Do You Really Believe Its The Photographer And Not The Equipment
Page <<first <prev 19 of 24 next> last>>
Oct 13, 2019 19:33:57   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.
 
Abo wrote:
First you say; "The photographic process is a technical one (hopefully, everyone agrees)"

Then you say; "I divide the class into two areas" one of them being "artistic"...

Crikey, with modern cameras and cell phones, as you allude to in your post,
getting the "technical aspect" (very) right
can be just a matter of pointing the camera at anything and pressing a button...
A skilled handler could probably train a chimpanzee to do that.

If the chimp took a shot with a Phase One on full auto, CHG Canon
would try to sell it for $500,000.
First you say; "The photographic process is a... (show quote)


If a chimp took one it would go for a lot more than that.

Reply
Oct 13, 2019 19:50:36   #
jdedmonds
 
joer wrote:
Mostly what one hears from photographers, i.e., pro, enthusiast and neophytes, is that the equipment doesn't matter; its the photographer.

Then one has to ask, how many cameras, lenses, flashes, accessories, etc., do you have? Or what cameras or equipment do you lust after?

I think the evidence suggests that gear does matter, although it may not be most important. A skilled lumberjack with an axe will not compete with a man/woman who knows how to use a chain saw.


I've heard 50% the photographer, 40% the glass, 5% the camera and 5% luck.

Reply
Oct 13, 2019 19:56:12   #
DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina
 
frankraney wrote:
If a chimp took one it would go for a lot more than that.


Many yrs ago, there was a female elephant who became well known for painting on canvas. Don’t recall what the mkt was for her work.

Reply
 
 
Oct 13, 2019 22:12:53   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.
 
DeanS wrote:
Many yrs ago, there was a female elephant who became well known for painting on canvas. Don’t recall what the mkt was for her work.


A lot!

Reply
Oct 13, 2019 23:25:36   #
Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina
 
Joe Rosenthal would certainly agree with the luck part. His shot of the second flag raising on Iwo Jima is certainly one of the most famous and popular shots of all time.

jdedmonds wrote:
I've heard 50% the photographer, 40% the glass, 5% the camera and 5% luck.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 07:53:39   #
MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"
 
Photography, as an art form, is in the same realm as any other art form. The only difference is a greater degree of technology required. Ceramic artists deal with a lot of chemistry in thier glaze formulas, Architects must know load strength, building materials, etc., every art form has it's own technology that the artist must work with, just some art forms are higher tech than others.
As for the chimp with the camera, you could certainly TRY to sell the image for big $. There have been a few cases where some animal is given paint and a canvas then the resulting image is deemed "Art", it's a gimmick, it it really art? that leads to the ultimate question; What is Art? Answer: In the thousands of years man has been making art, no one has a definitive definition. What I understand from my 60+ years working with art is that art happens in a context, it happens relative to the world in which it is created and it must be viewed with that in mind. A piece of art is not an isolated entity, nor is a photograph, it has to do with the world in which it came from. In a sense art is a reflection, when you look at the history of the world, for the most part, you are looking at the history of art because it is one of the few things that can last for thousands of years. What we know about the roman empire comes from the art that survived.
Sorry about getting on my soapbox, I just get annoyed when someone thinks that photography is not an artform because even a chimp can press a shutter button; that same chimp can slap paint on a canvas as well. oops there I go again....

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 15:25:23   #
Abo
 
frankraney wrote:
If a chimp took one it would go for a lot more than that.


Possibly some klutz would; a piece of burnt toast sold for $28,000 in 2004.

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2019 16:05:30   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Abo wrote:
Possibly some klutz would; a piece of burnt toast sold for $28,000 in 2004.

That actually was a grilled cheese sandwich, supposedly with a likeness of the Virgin Mary on it, that was sold by a probably over the top religious woman with issues and purchased by a casino wishing to use it for publicity which they apparently got. This of course is assuming that the story is true in the first place. But this strange incident has nothing to do with either art and art prices or the main subject of this thread. it is instead one of those bizarre stories that we often read about that makes us roll our eyes and shake our heads in disbelief. Unless, of course, one is willing to believe that the Virgin Mary will make her presence known in a grilled cheese sandwich.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 16:11:42   #
srt101fan
 
mwsilvers wrote:
That actually was a grilled cheese sandwich, supposedly with a likeness of the Virgin Mary on it, that was sold by a religious zealot and purchased by a casino wishing to use it for publicity which they apparently got. This of course is assuming that the story is true in the first place. But this strange incident has nothing to do with either art and art prices or the main subject of this thread. it is instead one of those odd stories that we often see happening that makes us roll our eyes and shake our heads in disbelief. Unless, of course, one is willing to believe that God will make his presence known in a grilled cheese sandwich
That actually was a grilled cheese sandwich, suppo... (show quote)


Pity that some people would seem to want to dismiss the whole art world because of a few excesses. Kinda like dismissing sports because of obscenely high salaries?

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 16:43:37   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
srt101fan wrote:
Pity that some people would seem to want to dismiss the whole art world because of a few excesses. Kinda like dismissing sports because of obscenely high salaries?

Obscenely high salaries are certainly correct. The greatest baseball stars of the 50s 60s and 70s made at most a tiny fraction of the salaries going even to mid-level players today, and that's taking inflation into account. When I was just out of college and working as a buyer for a department store chain in New York City I ran into someone who was working as a shift manager in the winter months on one of the floors of our warehouse. In the spring and summer he was utility outfielder for the Boston Red Sox, but he did not make a high enough salary to sustain him in the offseason. I unfortunately do not recall his name. That was around 1968 or so.

In the early '60s at the height of their careers Yankees Mickey Mantle, Rodger Maris, and Bob Cerv were roommates living in a middle-class apartment house in Queens New York. Similar level players today now live in their own multimillion-dollar highrise penthouses in Manhattan.

Today the basic salary for a rookie in the major leagues is $550,000 a year. Even taking inflation into account, that would be about equal to what Mickey Mantle earned when he was at the high point of his career, which was $100,000 a year. And the best players today make around 60 times that basic $550,000 a year!

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 16:50:17   #
Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina
 
The highest paid Pittsburgh Steeler in 1972 made $22,000. IIRC Terry Bradshaw sold used cars in the off season his first few years... Catfish Hunter started the whole free agency circus we have today in the 1970s...

mwsilvers wrote:
Obscenely high salaries are certainly correct. The greatest baseball stars of the 50s 60s and 70s made at most a tiny fraction of the salaries going even to mid-level players today, and that's taking inflation into account. When I was just out of college and working as a buyer for a department store chain in New York City I ran into someone who was working as a shift manager in the winter months on one of the floors of our warehouse. In the spring and summer he was utility outfielder for the Boston Red Sox, but he did not make a high enough salary to sustain him in the offseason. I unfortunately do not recall his name. That was around 1968 or so.

In the early '60s at the height of their careers Yankees Mickey Mantle, Rodger Maris, and Bob Cerv were roommates living in a middle-class apartment house in Queens New York. Similar level players today now live in their own multimillion-dollar highrise penthouses in Manhattan.

Today the basic salary for a rookie in the major leagues is $550,000 a year. Even taking inflation into account, that would be about equal to what Mickey Mantle earned when he was at the high point of his career, which was $100,000 a year. And the best players today make around 60 times that basic $550,000 a year!
Obscenely high salaries are certainly correct. The... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2019 18:12:13   #
Grizzly Loc: USA
 
"fine tools make for great craftsmanship"

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 19:28:05   #
MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"
 
From "art" made by a chimp with a camera to the present salary level of top athletes, what a thread!!!!

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 23:01:07   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
MrMophoto wrote:
From "art" made by a chimp with a camera to the present salary level of top athletes, what a thread!!!!


This was kind of a silly thread to start with, so I guess anything goes.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 23:52:51   #
pila
 
Yup

Reply
Page <<first <prev 19 of 24 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.