EddyinGa
Leading Member
Is the art in what the photogrher does with the camera?
Or, what the photographer does with the editing software?
Or, what the photographer does with the editing software?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The art of digital photography
- Thread starter EddyinGa
- Start date
tombell1
Veteran Member
--
Tom Bell
Dartmooor
Devon
UK
Tom Bell
Dartmooor
Devon
UK
timo
Veteran Member
eastsaltwater
Veteran Member
But I think the primary emphasis is on the shot itself. Tho a good argument can be made for a 50/50 split.
east(no real definitive answer I think)saltwater
east(no real definitive answer I think)saltwater
speedie
Leading Member
Post-processing has existed through all times. The only difference is that today even the novices can afford to do it....
When it comes to skills and techniques I guess a novice can take a picture that pros will never be able to reproduce, even after heavy PP.
sh
--
Darren M
Veteran Member
the first few times it was brought up. However it is now ten years later and it is now one of the most tired debates on the net. Give me a Canon vs. Nikon (or Pentax, of course) argument anytime.
--
http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
Have camera, will travel
--
http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
Have camera, will travel
It is only art if the viewers perceive it as art and that has nothing to do with the process whatsoever.
--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim
Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed
'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'
EddyinGa
Leading Member
While it may be an old argument for you, it is not for me.
Four weeks into digital photography and three weeks into thiese forums, I have many questions. And.....This was one of them.
I'm certain that there are a number of people who, as I am, are new to digital photography and have many of the same questions.
As far as arguments between, Nikon, Canon and Pentax is concerned, I like those as well. Although, IMO, Pentax, as they did with my first round of photography 25 years ago, still leads the pack.
Four weeks into digital photography and three weeks into thiese forums, I have many questions. And.....This was one of them.
I'm certain that there are a number of people who, as I am, are new to digital photography and have many of the same questions.
As far as arguments between, Nikon, Canon and Pentax is concerned, I like those as well. Although, IMO, Pentax, as they did with my first round of photography 25 years ago, still leads the pack.
My 2 cents worth:
I asked myself this same question about a year ago when I got my Pentax DS - but still have a 645 film camera - never have used it enough to justify what I have invested in it - but still an excellent camera.
After many years of taking pictures with ME super and the 645, I decided to take a photography course(shortly after getting the DS) to learn the darkroom (film) and to get more professional instruction in general. We did both darkroom with chemicals and digital darkroom for those using newer cameras. Getting to the point -- this last Sunday, I met up with the teacher of the class who had recently sold all her darkroom equipment. The other instructor at that college recently purchased an Epson 4800 printer for himself, to also get away from the chemicals he has used for 40 years.
Katrin Eismann (Photoshop guru - published several photog/photoshop books) said something similar in one of her books -- she has gone totally digital - got rid of all film equipment.
As much as I enjoyed learning the chemical darkroom, I really like the digital darkroom capabilities we amateurs have. Much safer, quicker, etc.
IMHO, the arguments made regarding whether or not it is or isn't photography if you start tweaking things in the computer vs. tweaking things dodging,burning,masking, etc in the old darkroom --- is just that: arguments for people who enjoy the arguments. Myself, I prefer to create an image that I find enjoyable, regardless of the tools/techniques I find helpful. If others enjoy it also, great! If not -- still great!
Just my opinion -- no arguments please!
-)
John
I asked myself this same question about a year ago when I got my Pentax DS - but still have a 645 film camera - never have used it enough to justify what I have invested in it - but still an excellent camera.
After many years of taking pictures with ME super and the 645, I decided to take a photography course(shortly after getting the DS) to learn the darkroom (film) and to get more professional instruction in general. We did both darkroom with chemicals and digital darkroom for those using newer cameras. Getting to the point -- this last Sunday, I met up with the teacher of the class who had recently sold all her darkroom equipment. The other instructor at that college recently purchased an Epson 4800 printer for himself, to also get away from the chemicals he has used for 40 years.
Katrin Eismann (Photoshop guru - published several photog/photoshop books) said something similar in one of her books -- she has gone totally digital - got rid of all film equipment.
As much as I enjoyed learning the chemical darkroom, I really like the digital darkroom capabilities we amateurs have. Much safer, quicker, etc.
IMHO, the arguments made regarding whether or not it is or isn't photography if you start tweaking things in the computer vs. tweaking things dodging,burning,masking, etc in the old darkroom --- is just that: arguments for people who enjoy the arguments. Myself, I prefer to create an image that I find enjoyable, regardless of the tools/techniques I find helpful. If others enjoy it also, great! If not -- still great!
Just my opinion -- no arguments please!
-)John
Darren M
Veteran Member
I am sorry, I reacted too harshly. Unfortunately, this topic is the specialty of trolls and that has clouded my judgement and shortened my temper.
--
http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
Have camera, will travel
--
http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
Have camera, will travel
EddyinGa
Leading Member
No problem. It was not an attempt at trolling.
Yes photography is an art form and knowing your tools and aquiring skills is, as with other art forms, ia significant part of the equation. Can't put a percentage on it though.
When friends view and like my photos I usually get the comment "You must have a really good camera" to which I now usually reply "Yes, and Michaelangelo had some fantastic paint brushes when he painted the Sistine Chapel". Usually shuts them up and educates them a little.
--
Cam Evans
When friends view and like my photos I usually get the comment "You must have a really good camera" to which I now usually reply "Yes, and Michaelangelo had some fantastic paint brushes when he painted the Sistine Chapel". Usually shuts them up and educates them a little.
--
Cam Evans
Darren,
If your post was in response to my post,my apologies and please let me clarify. I did not find your comments "too harsh". In fact, what caught my attention was your comment " most tired debates " that made me think of all the back and forth comments/arguments that I have read here. As much as I enjoy a good constructive conversation, I also get weary from time to time with subjects that really don't help me improve my images. Not suggesting that such conversation is misplaced, just agreeing that I also get tired of some topics.
But if we were all the same, this would be a very dull world.
BTW, I think this Pentax forum continues to get excellent references from the other camps because of the respect that members here have for other people. Just wish the whole world could "play nice".
John
If your post was in response to my post,my apologies and please let me clarify. I did not find your comments "too harsh". In fact, what caught my attention was your comment " most tired debates " that made me think of all the back and forth comments/arguments that I have read here. As much as I enjoy a good constructive conversation, I also get weary from time to time with subjects that really don't help me improve my images. Not suggesting that such conversation is misplaced, just agreeing that I also get tired of some topics.
But if we were all the same, this would be a very dull world.
BTW, I think this Pentax forum continues to get excellent references from the other camps because of the respect that members here have for other people. Just wish the whole world could "play nice".
John
LuzArt
Veteran Member
I still see digital photography as photography. To me, using the digital format allows for a much faster turn around in seeing images then processing them and basically having far more control than we had/have with film. Of course those who home-processed B&W images hand their hands into it all along, but now there's an even broader array of possibilites across colour and B&W.
Anyone can PP to their hearts content, but if the artistic value isn't in the capture, ie the actual "photography" side of the product, then it's kinda not art for me.
I'm probably not making a lot of sense at this late hour, after 10 hours at work. But in the end, i don't see myself delving too much into serious post-processing. Mastering the captures and using my eye to it's potential is my goal. I think that aside from honing my current skills and methods in post-processing, i'm pretty much doing all i need to do to images after the capture.
Ben
--
Anyone can PP to their hearts content, but if the artistic value isn't in the capture, ie the actual "photography" side of the product, then it's kinda not art for me.
I'm probably not making a lot of sense at this late hour, after 10 hours at work. But in the end, i don't see myself delving too much into serious post-processing. Mastering the captures and using my eye to it's potential is my goal. I think that aside from honing my current skills and methods in post-processing, i'm pretty much doing all i need to do to images after the capture.
Ben
--
K1000Photographer
Veteran Member
This is true but not all viewers will consider the same thing as art. Some will say that photography is not art, since it does not entail the work and creativity of painting or other forms. IMHO, it is art and the creation of the final image uses both camera and PP. For me, even a multi shot combination picture is only half PP. Planning and getting the shots are still half the work.
the first few times it was brought up. However it is now ten years
later and it is now one of the most tired debates on the net. Give
me a Canon vs. Nikon (or Pentax, of course) argument anytime.
--
http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
Have camera, will travel
'This is more serious than I thought.....but it is still fun!
http://www.pbase.com/rupertdog Take a look- It's Free!
Ivan Glisin
Leading Member
A photographer is invited to a dinner party. He decides to bring some pictures he recently took to share with the guests. At seeing them, the hostess exclaims:
"These are beautiful pictures. You must have a great camera."
A little chagrinned the photographer says nothing. The guests (photographer included) enjoy a magnificent meal. Just before the photographer leaves for the evening, he seeks out the hostess to thank her for her hospitality and the wonderful meal:
"That was a fantastic dinner," he says. "You must have some great pots."
"These are beautiful pictures. You must have a great camera."
A little chagrinned the photographer says nothing. The guests (photographer included) enjoy a magnificent meal. Just before the photographer leaves for the evening, he seeks out the hostess to thank her for her hospitality and the wonderful meal:
"That was a fantastic dinner," he says. "You must have some great pots."
Ivan Glisin
Leading Member
...while art is in the eye of the beholder: no particular technique or procedure could possibly guarantee some creation would (or would not) be percieved as an art.
-= Ivan =-
-= Ivan =-
coleviolin
Veteran Member
... in whatever the photographer sees.
--
Lipo
--
Lipo
I kinda agree Ben and in my earlier post, I digressed from the specific question of what part of the process is "art".
On further reflection, I think both processes could be considered "art" or at least "artistic". I also think the tools/methods used in post processing require a certain amount of artistic ability - or at least a good eye, to generate a piece of art - and more than just a "retouching" skill set that was an entire industry in the film days (some would argue that "retouching" was an art form of its own). I don't think that merely acquiring the computer skills needed, will necessarily allow someone to post process a poor capture into a really nice piece of artwork. But someone with artistic ability could conceivably "save" a less than desirable shot with post processing, what with all modification tools that are available.
No disagreements about the artistic ability to get a great capture that requires little if any post processing. To me, the main difference is that a skillful photographer with artistic talent, will be much more efficient in producing great artwork than the pixel peepers. I just recognize that both could conceivably arrive at similar successful/enjoyable results.
If someone looks at your image and says "great picture or photo" -- then looks at my post processed version and says "great painting" -- then I would agree, I went too far. But if they like both, I say let them enjoy. Isn't that why we create art?
John
On further reflection, I think both processes could be considered "art" or at least "artistic". I also think the tools/methods used in post processing require a certain amount of artistic ability - or at least a good eye, to generate a piece of art - and more than just a "retouching" skill set that was an entire industry in the film days (some would argue that "retouching" was an art form of its own). I don't think that merely acquiring the computer skills needed, will necessarily allow someone to post process a poor capture into a really nice piece of artwork. But someone with artistic ability could conceivably "save" a less than desirable shot with post processing, what with all modification tools that are available.
No disagreements about the artistic ability to get a great capture that requires little if any post processing. To me, the main difference is that a skillful photographer with artistic talent, will be much more efficient in producing great artwork than the pixel peepers. I just recognize that both could conceivably arrive at similar successful/enjoyable results.
If someone looks at your image and says "great picture or photo" -- then looks at my post processed version and says "great painting" -- then I would agree, I went too far. But if they like both, I say let them enjoy. Isn't that why we create art?
John
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum