More on photo quality

Reading your latest response, I believe we're on the same page. I take my photography very seriously as well . . . despite it only being a hobby. I count myself as a photographer and deny anyone's attempt to proclaim me an artist.

Regards!
--
William Wilgus
 
I guess you haven't read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

... just because something can be mass produced, or is viewed as just functional by some, should not preclude it from being art. Art doesn't have to be lazy and just sit there hoping someone will appreciate it, nor does it need to jump in your face and say, "Look at me, I am art!"
A photograph is merely a permanent record of an image. Therefore, if a photograph is 'art' then the object(s) that created the image is / are art as well, and we know that is not true. Q.E.D.

Of course depending on the objective, an altered photograph may or may not be 'art'.
Respectfully submitted

--
William Wilgus
 
I guess you haven't read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

... just because something can be mass produced, or is viewed as just functional by some, should not preclude it from being art. Art doesn't have to be lazy and just sit there hoping someone will appreciate it, nor does it need to jump in your face and say, "Look at me, I am art!"
The whole world is art. Didn't you know?

Dave
A photograph is merely a permanent record of an image. Therefore, if a photograph is 'art' then the object(s) that created the image is / are art as well, and we know that is not true. Q.E.D.

Of course depending on the objective, an altered photograph may or may not be 'art'.
Respectfully submitted

--
William Wilgus
 
In other words, if you stood in front of her painting, you would "feel' the place, whereas my photograph, or ANY photograph, merely "records" it, and records in a flat tasteless manner. And while no doubt someone else could do a better job of photographing that corner, it's not a good subject.. :) No photographer would even try.
Now ... maybe her painting catches the scene better than your photo. Its even quite likely - if she is good. And maybe this particular scene is almost impossible to make a good photo of, without extensive image manipulation. This just shows the limitation of photography. The actual subject and the lighting situation is important for the possibility to make good photos.

You earlier showed an image of your four dogs. It was not a good image. It was full of distracting elements. A good painter could have used that image and made a fantastic painting I assume. And --- maybe some Photoshop wizard could have done that also.

But ... some images are definitely art. Some years ago I was at an exhibition of platinotype images made by Irvin Penn. They were both extremely recording and also art, absolutely art. This or next weekend I shall look at images by Edward Burtynsky ( http://fotografiska.eu/Museet/Utstaellningar/Burtynsky-OIL ). I think I am going to call those recording images art - we will see.

EDIT:

I have to add though. Some great photography might not be art. I really like Ansel Adams great photos. But are they art? I dont get the feeling they are. I like them because they are decorative. But they really dont tell me anything.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
In other words, if you stood in front of her painting, you would "feel' the place, whereas my photograph, or ANY photograph, merely "records" it, and records in a flat tasteless manner. And while no doubt someone else could do a better job of photographing that corner, it's not a good subject.. :) No photographer would even try.
Now ... maybe her painting catches the scene better than your photo. Its even quite likely - if she is good. And maybe this particular scene is almost impossible to make a good photo of, without extensive image manipulation. This just shows the limitation of photography. The actual subject and the lighting situation is important for the possibility to make good photos.
The above sounds like your hedging.... :)
You earlier showed an image of your four dogs. It was not a good image. It was full of distracting elements. A good painter could have used that image and made a fantastic painting I assume. And --- maybe some Photoshop wizard could have done that also.
The earlier post of two dogs was a good photo. :)

I posted the one of three (not four) to give an example of something that no one has ever (or will ever) photograph. Since it's "unique" I was mocking "unique." :D
But ... some images are definitely art. Some years ago I was at an exhibition of platinotype images made by Irvin Penn. They were both extremely recording and also art, absolutely art. This or next weekend I shall look at images by Edward Burtynsky ( http://fotografiska.eu/Museet/Utstaellningar/Burtynsky-OIL ). I think I am going to call those recording images art - we will see.
I like these shots. Very well done. Excellent.

And?
EDIT:

I have to add though. Some great photography might not be art. I really like Ansel Adams great photos. But are they art? I dont get the feeling they are. I like them because they are decorative. But they really dont tell me anything.
Everything that a painter does is described as "Art." We might all call it bad art, we may trash it, but it's still art.

Now I admit, that I have a problem with the whole concept of "If you put a frame around it, and call it art, it IS art." But the primary reason I have a problem is that these so called works of art show no knowledge of the craft involved in making art.

There are many schools of art that I hae no use for because of personal taste, but I woud be the first to admit that these works are art. What I like or dislike is not a criteria for defining art. Now, this last paragraph of yours is in contradiction to your entire point of view. If photography is art, then it's art And every photograph is an example of art. Might be bad art, might be good art, but remains art.

Dave
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Sandy

The trick is to show the 4 good ones, and hide the 460 dull ones....
The problem is the selection. Some photogs like (and are proud of) all the images they take and have a problem with selecting the best ones. Some of them restrain themselves from posting. For others it is just natural reflex to dump everything from the hard drive on Flickr, PBase and link it from the forums. Not every visitor have time and endurance to sift through multitude of images, some of them looking like copies of another, but the "credential" is there for all to see. Rest don't seems to matter much.

Cheers

Richard
 
There are some very, very few very, very good ones, there is a bunch of good ones (mostly overrated by the forum members) and then there is common stuff (also overrated by the forum members).
If all would be very very good to your standards, they would be just average by definition...
If you are really interested in outstanding photography then you shall go elsewhere.
Where shall I go, for example?
(I don't remember your pics, are they outstanding?)
 
I think a large part of the problem is that, as we all know, Sigma has always been the red-headed illegitimate child in the camera family.

Since the very beginning, when claims went out about Foveon versus Bayer imaging, it was seen as a challenge at best and an insult to all other cameras at worst. As a direct result, there's been a bunker mentality here amongst those who chose to go with Sigma, and for very good reason.
There is no difference because every amplifier fulfills the Hifi standards and therefore transistor is better than tube as Bayer is better than Foveon
It reminds me of the days when sports cars were a new thing here in the USA, and drivers would wave to others driving the same make of sports
xactly, it is hard to make pictures with a technology which was not planned to be of use, though the principles behind seem to be close to natural within the first glance...

wolfgang
--
"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough"

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com
--
...conservative is not the opposite of progressive...
 
Now, this last paragraph of yours is in contradiction to your entire point of view. If photography is art, then it's art And every photograph is an example of art. Might be bad art, might be good art, but remains art.
I dont think its a contradiction.

Not all paintings is art. Painting a wall is not art.

Not all photography is art. Taking a photo af a nice view is not art. Its just plain documenting.

What causes the contradiction is that some (most?) people refuse to choose. They think everything that fulfils a simple criteria is or is not art. That simplification is what causes the problem.

But its actually so that art is something you choose. You dont call a nice looking chair (or an ugly one) art. But ... somehow that chair may become art ... if you add something. Bolt it to the bottom of a pool and take an image of it with an underwater camera. Quite unexpected. Would you call that art? Some would - I am sure of.

And this is why (IMHO) the discussion what is art is so difficult. Because we have different views. Some think there are simple definitions. Some thinks its a matter of language semantics. Etc, etc, ...

But its quite obvious really. Its a matter of choice. Its not language semantics and there are no simple rules. Therefore the discussion never ends.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
There is no difference because every amplifier fulfills the Hifi standards and therefore transistor is better than tube
WOA! Now I am not one of those that buys low oxygen square cables to get better sound. I dont believe in the golden ear high end mumbo jumbo.

But - I can tell you - not all amplifiers are equal. Yes - the speakers are more important - but the amplifier has to be able to drive the speakers.

And if they are equal - why would any one then be better?
as Bayer is better than Foveon
This I dont get at all.

Actually - I think you are joking.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
If all would be very very good to your standards, they would be just average by definition...
Hmmm ... I see what you mean. But .... I think you misunderstand what I wrote. The word average MIGHT mean that it is in the middle of some kind of scale of goodness. Thats was not my intention to say. I meant that it had no extra interesting values.

Its perfectly theoretically possible that all photographers on this planet would be so good that every photo was an extra ordinary experience to see. Then all images would be way above average.

OK - I am not very good at English. You might find me a better word than average. Ordinary?
If you are really interested in outstanding photography then you shall go elsewhere.
Where shall I go, for example?
Lots of places. I dont save links.

You can start by googling extraordinary or outstanding photography. You will find something.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
As a photographer, you're certainly an artist, Chuck; but I don't believe your wonderful photos qualify as 'art'. If they did, then every photo you ever shot would have to be considered art as well---even the ones of the lens cap! Further, every photo that John Doe took of Aunt Minnie and Uncle Fred would have to be considered art too! We know that's not the case.
Again, only the person creating the art can define it as "art". It is up to others to define the validity, quality or impact only.

So, I could declare one of my images as art, and present it as art, but that would have no effect on anything else I've shot, since not everything someone who defines themselves as an artist does is art.

And for the record, though I've produced a fair amount of what I call art over the years, I've never used a camera to primarily create any of it, other than as a means to create photos to refer to when creating a piece using other media.

--
"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough"

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com
 
Sandy

The trick is to show the 4 good ones, and hide the 460 dull ones....
The problem is the selection. Some photogs like (and are proud of) all the images they take and have a problem with selecting the best ones. Some of them restrain themselves from posting. For others it is just natural reflex to dump everything from the hard drive on Flickr, PBase and link it from the forums. Not every visitor have time and endurance to sift through multitude of images, some of them looking like copies of another, but the "credential" is there for all to see. Rest don't seems to matter much.
Good point. I definitely fall into the "dump everything" category, since that's what my customers, and potential customers, need to see. Anyone going in there to see only good images is going to be very disappointed, or bored to death, .... maybe both. Maybe I need to post a warning.

"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough"

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com
 
Now, this last paragraph of yours is in contradiction to your entire point of view. If photography is art, then it's art And every photograph is an example of art. Might be bad art, might be good art, but remains art.
I dont think its a contradiction.

Not all paintings is art. Painting a wall is not art.
Unless your name is Michelangelo?

Yeah Roland, the three coats of paint I plastered up in my apartment is not art, but this guy I just mentioned... :)
Not all photography is art. Taking a photo af a nice view is not art. Its just plain documenting.
Photography is always documenting. And as part of the craft we learn how and when to do this documenting.
What causes the contradiction is that some (most?) people refuse to choose. They think everything that fulfils a simple criteria is or is not art. That simplification is what causes the problem.

But its actually so that art is something you choose. You dont call a nice looking chair (or an ugly one) art. But ... somehow that chair may become art ... if you add something. Bolt it to the bottom of a pool and take an image of it with an underwater camera. Quite unexpected. Would you call that art? Some would - I am sure of.
Yes, I'm sure some would. Just as some would call art, anything you stick a frame around. In fact there are entire books written to justify the idea that anything you stick a frame around is art. I've read such books, and the authors should have paid me for finishing them.
And this is why (IMHO) the discussion what is art is so difficult. Because we have different views. Some think there are simple definitions. Some thinks its a matter of language semantics. Etc, etc, ...

But its quite obvious really. Its a matter of choice. Its not language semantics and there are no simple rules. Therefore the discussion never ends.
All well and good Roland, but Photography, by my definition at least, creates nothing, and documents everything.

Dave
 
And what about the objects that create paintings and sculpture?
I took the following shot yesterday. Nothing wrong with it. A snap shot. Vaguely blew the highlights. Not much happening...

And I got around to processing it an hour ago. Is it "Art?" No. I was going to delete it, when I thought about this thread... :)

And what if I took it seventy five years ago? Man, I could set my own price. The critics would rave...

On the other hand, if I was a decent painter I could paint some apples and oranges, and whether you liked it or not, it's art "

I recorded this shot, but an artist can make the fruit live. Whereas, even a great photographer couldn't do much better with this scene then I did.

Care to take a look at Audebons work? :)



Dave
 
everywhere you see pictures of any subject.

Nudes for example, I think I have seen anything and it is plain boring, the poses are a repetition, the light is a repetition etc. Just the models are different.
Same goes for Babies, Flowers, Weddings nearly anything

Same goes for Landscapes, Bryce Canyon, antilope etc. You see thousands of pictures of it and it is boring in 99.99%

In my opinion that is the real problem, that the eyes are getting tired of the endless repetition and the flood of pictures.

Meanwhile I have the imagination that only super high processed and manipulated pictures are something special. But than I ask me is this really still photography or computer art?
 
All well and good Roland, but Photography, by my definition at least, creates nothing, and documents everything.
You have made your choice then. But its your choice. And that was my point.

Now - I think you are too definite in your choice.

Of course, if you take your camera for a stroll and take whatever nice pictures you see. Then I fully agree. Thats documentation.

The border (IMHO) to art is approaching when you start planning and staging your images. Also when you do advanced Photoshopping.

Two examples would be the chair in the pool and a "still life" photo. You arrange some fruits etc in a way you find interesting and the document your creation. Even some food photography is in that category. Which, of course, results in another question: is a plate with food masterfully arranged art? It can be IMHO. The main reason for that arrangement is to please you and not to feed you.

And I think thats possible the best definition of art. Something where you put some labor in order to please the eye as the main motivation. Not documentation. Not eating. Not sitting. Not a tool. But - the prime motivation is to please (or displease depending on what you want) the eye.

I can give yet another example. Several years ago I saw some fantastic photos. It was sport photos. Sport photos are mainly for documentation. But those were different. The photographer had a special camera. It was a large format camera with a narrow slit curtain shutter. The slit moved very slowly and took several seconds to expose the image. But each part of the image had a short exposure so even fast moving athletes were sharp. I remember clearly one of the images. It was a basket player. Basket players can jump high and just put the ball in the basket. And so he did in this photo. But - as the shutter moved very slowly, his feet were still standing on the floor and his hands and the ball was in the basket. And his legs body and arms were like snakes that stretches from the floor in an undulating way. Just magic! A labor to please the eye. Art!

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top