Where has the art gone?

You have made a judgement about someone based on totally insufficient evidence. You've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.

Photography has done what the Soviets did to painting and sculpture. Its all mass produced mediocre tedium now. Just about everybody with a cellphone can now take quite acceptable images. Show me a photo taken with a disposable compact and one taken with a Leica M4P and I can show you the Leica image is better. Show me a picture from a cellphone and one from a DSLR and I can't demonstrate a difference unless we start applying lengthy lists of criteria which are of little interest to the vast majority.

The pictures I liked most in these forums for a VERY LONG time!

Thank you!

(Bookmarked)

I think that having no limitations is sometimes detrimental to the creative process.

I've seen it in photography and other hobbies. For example nowadays music production software has become so powerful that any dude with a laptop can make music that sounds pretty "professional". The situation that followed is that there are more songs made now then ever, probably also more good songs than ever, but it is buried in the flood of mediocre stuff.

I think this primarily applies to people who haven't learned the fundamentals. In photography the fundamentals would be not only technical aspects of exposure but also framing, composition, getting the right topic, conveying emotion etc.

Modern cameras and PP are so powerful that it is too easy for a lot of people to create visually nice images with no depth in them.

From my own experience I'm grateful that I did photography on film and a good quality point and shoot camera before I got my DSLR. Obviously with limited DR, high iso and no shallow DOF you can't fake it too much. In fact even now it is sometimes too tempting with the DSLR to concentrate on the technical stuff, but at least it is in the back of my head that I want to do something else..

I agree with you sentiment regarding a greater emphasis on the artistic nature of photography. I would say it is brilliant but that would be self-serving since I touched on this issue in a previous post:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51452650

I proposed a forum specifically centered on art in photography with threads that would discuss composition and lighting as well as techniques and approaches (such as your brilliant preparation). That did not go very far at all.

One thing I am not clear about. Is this a statement concerning the members here or are you targeting all photographers across the board? I do find that many members are devoted to certain types of photography, such as images of birds, that do not necessarily involve art (although I wouldn't want to define art) but does involve expensive equipment to get a good, clear shot. To the extent that photographers are after a specific result, then focusing on the equipment that helps them get that result makes sense. How many people are actually taking pictures out of artistic ambition? I would not know but I would guess far fewer than those who are after it more as a craft. Isn't it more popular to live in the area of the known than to venture into the more mystical world of inspiration?

beakerztoyz said:

I think I understand what your talking about, when you get to a certain stage of camera then the diffrences can be minimal or maybe what i mean is they could all do that with a good photographer. Case in point I just got a nikon p600 last month its a good enough camera that I shots that never worked with my old camera now turn out nicely. I just basically leave it where it picks its own stuff and i just snap other than the long zoom shots I would Imagine that all dslr's, expensive mirrorless and other high quality camera's could take at least as good if not much better technical pictures in the right hands. So once you reach a certain stage of camera the gear can become less relevant.

The thing that seperate's it for me is the composition, while there are some types of pictures that just are and always be pictures, there are some types of pictures like the ones you posted that become like works of art and it's all about the composition. It seems to me that some people can compose artworks out of the simplest things and others wont ever grasp it or see the same things so they stick to the more technical aspects.

Click to expand...

While your points are somewhat true, in this context here, they are not applicable. Lets look at what has been shown as samples to support the OP's claims: A girl laying on a horse, a bird sitting on a piece of wood, and some landscapes. Sure, I could have done that with a 40yo camera and manual focus. So what. Not everybody chooses to limit their subject matter to such easy to handle shots.

So of course if we are talking art that doesn't move and allows planning to whatever degree we wish, yea the camera is less a factor. Take photos with fast sports and action, even street photography of random subject matter and things change. Speed and versatility become just as important as anything else.

If I want a shot like the one below, gear matters. It doesn't have to be the absolute newest body, but if the camera isn't up to the task, it aint happening.

tbcass said:

You have made a judgement about someone based on totally insufficient evidence. You've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

Click to expand...

Yet im not the one judging the artistic measure of masses of people who I have never met.

Pantyhose Bandit said:

Photography has done what the Soviets did to painting and sculpture. Its all mass produced mediocre tedium now. Just about everybody with a cellphone can now take quite acceptable images. Show me a photo taken with a disposable compact and one taken with a Leica M4P and I can show you the Leica image is better. Show me a picture from a cellphone and one from a DSLR and I can't demonstrate a difference unless we start applying lengthy lists of criteria which are of little interest to the vast majority.

Click to expand...

You are limiting the subject matter to a very specific avenue. You have to, bc a smart phone is incapable of doing many things a DSLR can do. For one, DOF control is crap, AF tracking is crap, and there is only one FL in most. No WA, no telephoto, and with such a tiny sensor things like DR suffer horribly.

Show me something other than an evenly lit non moving subject and I can spot the phone pic every time.

You have to remember that this is primarily a gear-related site so most of the discussions & enthusiasm will be around specs & features, chasing the newest camera, and complaining when it isn't exactly the camera that someone wanted.

Mark

Great topic. Personally, I think that there are few "artists" trying any expressive medium, but everyone can have confidence in his expertise when it comes to megapixels and gear. I believe this is what puts dSLRs into the hands of so many people who never really take very good pictures with them, but they have the security "My pictures must be good because I have...(this brand...this lens...this many megapixels...)". It is also easier to judge others (and there's a lot of judgment here!) on technical matters than it is on principles of design and composition.

I like that (2013) idea for a forum with more abstract, less representational, images. And I really enjoyed the photos in this thread. (Couldn't disagree more about "wanting to see the faces" in the green hill one. For me, what I love about it is the scale that dwarfs the people, turns them into design elements and makes you wonder what they look like, who they are--but it doesn't really matter. More like reading a novel than non-fiction. JMO, but I could definitely see that hanging in a gallery).

That's the thing about art, we all "know it when we see it", but we may not agree with each other. But everyone can agree that 20MP is more than 12MP or that a Canon 70D is a more powerful camera than an SX700. It's easier to feel like an "expert" when you talk about photo technology than it is on photo art.

1.) Did you even read up on Ansel Adams and his darkroom equipment?

2.) Skaters, tennis players, painters, and photographers all depend on skill--and good equipment.

3.) This is not that type of a site. I post at 500px and others as well, but that's just a vanity display. You don't learn anything. The art in photography is a lonely business.

Personally, I fell it is pretty strange to not post any photos here, not enter any contests, and in general, not participate in the artistic side of this site while making posts wondering where the art has gone (yes, your posted photos are great, but that's after the fact.)

Seek and ye shall find.

tko said:

1.) Your personal photographic examples, please.

2.) Did you even read up on Ansel Adams and his darkroom equipment?

3.) Skaters, tennis players, painters, and photographers all depend on skill--and good equipment.

Personally, I fell it is pretty strange to not post any photos here, not enter any contests, and in general, not participate in the artistic side of this site while making posts wondering where the art has gone.

Seek and ye shall find.

Click to expand...

The OP posted a couple samples early on in the thread. They're quite good.

I find it weird when a digital photo "wants" to look like a painting. That's like going backward because by definition, painting is the process or art of using paint, in a picture, as a protective coating, or as decoration while digital camera is advanced technology.

I think a digital photo that mimicks a painting is a copycat, non original, not a real painting.

Please show some "unique art" that's done with digital gears. Beside, art is relative and subjective. Any person who goes to the same place can take exactly the same photo with whatever camera that he has. In other words, what you can do, anyone else can do the same. Your kind of "art" isn't anything special.

Here's the closest I've come to "art" recently:


Cold morning fog, Butte, Montana

which is pretty much a snapshot from my backyard, playing with a new camera (LX100) and worked very little in Lightroom, which is also new to me. I like it because it's a color image that appears to be B&W, indicated by the flare that I left in.

It also reminds me of another, similar "art" shot I took in winter nearly 50 years ago when I was just beginning to be interested in photography as something more than snapshots of friends and pets. That connection to a long-ago moment in my life is what makes it special to me, and if other people like it, fine, if not, that's OK too.

yardcoyote said:

Beautiful work. I can tell because the images have about 6 characteristics that I normally don't like in other people's photographs, but you manipulate them so masterfully that the results are intensely pleasing. We all like "the kind of thing we like", but when we like something else, well ...

jeepers.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Just for interest, the top photo was taken with a D700 and the other with a D610

Cheers

rxb dc said:

Beautiful work Seoul survivor ! Frameworthy.

Now just imagine how much better it would be at 50mp and 15 ev DR Just kidding

--
Safety Warning: Bad taste unmitigated by moderate skill

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Just for interest, the top photo was taken with a D700 and the other with a D610

Cheers

Pedagydusz said:

The pictures I liked most in these forums for a VERY LONG time!

Thank you!

(Bookmarked)

--
Antonio
http://ferrer.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

No, thank you.

The top photo was taken with a D700 and the other with a D610

Cheers

nikonson said:

I find it weird when a digital photo "wants" to look like a painting. That's like going backward because by definition, painting is the process or art of using paint, in a picture, as a protective coating, or as decoration while digital camera is advanced technology.

I think a digital photo that mimicks a painting is a copycat, non original, not a real painting.

Click to expand...

I realize that the "what makes it art" is a whole long philosophical conversation. To make it easier, I'll talk more about what is considered art. The type of photography that's considered art... the stuff that hangs in galleries, museums and such doesn't tend to "look like paintings" as you say. That's a very dated view of what kind of photography is considered art. Nowadays many or even most of the artistic photography that's produced looks like photography and not painting. Artistic photography long ago developed it's own kind of aesthetic that's very much it's own thing, separate from the other arts.

As long as there's been cameras there have been folks using the stuff who are far more interested in the gear than the nature of the art form that can be created with said gear. This is not a new phenomenon. Look at any old photo magazine and you'll see the same kind of tech talk and same kind of very plain, cliche photographs that aren't meant to showcase and kind of artistic vision... They're more meant as a testament to the quality of gear and the technique of the person using it.

This forum is but just one place where folks go to talk about and look at photgrahy. if you get away from this site to other places on the net an in reality, you'll see that there are plenty of photographers who are just as interested in the art part of the equation as they are in the gear. I'm on Flickr and I see a lot of work, discussions etc that's more along these lines. It's all there if you care to look for it it.

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

Montana Floozie said:

Here's the closest I've come to "art" recently:

Click to expand...

Love it.....great shot. Is it early morning or late afternoon?

Montana Floozie said:

Cold morning fog, Butte, Montana

which is pretty much a snapshot from my backyard, playing with a new camera (LX100) and worked very little in Lightroom, which is also new to me. I like it because it's a color image that appears to be B&W, indicated by the flare that I left in.

It also reminds me of another, similar "art" shot I took in winter nearly 50 years ago when I was just beginning to be interested in photography as something more than snapshots of friends and pets. That connection to a long-ago moment in my life is what makes it special to me, and if other people like it, fine, if not, that's OK too.

Click to expand...