Interesting article!

There is, "taking a picture" and, "taking an artistic picture". One is a snapshot, almost a reflex action with little thought to the end result. And the other is an image that is thought out before the shutter button is pressed. The quality to some degree is irrelevant, it is more the content of the shot. IMHO.
 
give people the means to take photos and they will.. hardly earth shattering.. the death of art doubtful.. its the old post modernist conundrum ..
 
Last edited:
I always tell my mates that they don't take photographs on their phones, they take 'snaps'.

It doesn't have quite the 'arty' feel, but I explain that snaps are taken and photographs are made. So if you think about creating an image it's a photograph, if you just pick a camera up and point it, it's a snap. BTW, that's the same thing whether it's an Iphone or a D800, there are people who shoot photographs on an Iphone, and people who only ever create snaps with tons of gear, vice versa.
 
I don't think anything has really changed, just the numbers have got bigger. (both in ways of looking at them & the numbers taken)

I have recently been going through my dads old photographs and although they meant something to him, most don't mean a great deal to me.
 
Phil V said:
I always tell my mates that they don't take photographs on their phones, they take 'snaps'.

It doesn't have quite the 'arty' feel, but I explain that snaps are taken and photographs are made. So if you think about creating an image it's a photograph, if you just pick a camera up and point it, it's a snap. BTW, that's the same thing whether it's an Iphone or a D800, there are people who shoot photographs on an Iphone, and people who only ever create snaps with tons of gear, vice versa.
Click to expand...

This basically sums it up for me :thumbs:
 
No idea what the argument is here. Of course it is the democratisation of photography. That doesn't mean the photography is any good though. The public gets what the public wants. **** is still **** though, no matter how many people are producing that ****.

The one thing that is certain is that this generation seems convinced that good photography means running it through some kind of post process, and the camera is merely a capturing tool that requires no skill to operate. That's fine... that will continue to happen too, as cameras get more and more easy to use. As Zack Arias said though, "Your camera doesn't have a Richard Avedon button on it, does it".

Idiots will continue to completely miss the point and think that good photography comes from apps and post processing. Fine by me... it means there are fewer and fewer real photographers who could compete with me. ... and other idiots will continue to like the kind of crap that apps produce, and they'll continue to sell that crap to an audience who would never buy my work anyway. It will keep them out of my hair. I feel sorry for you guys shooting wedding and social portraiture, as you're going up against the idiots.

What goes around, comes around. I can remember having similar conversations in the 80s regarding cheesy effects filters, and coloured grads, and all manner of other trends that amateurs produced copious amounts of. The difference is back in the film days, pretty much all amateurs knew what they were doing (at least technically).. because they had to know (film takes no prisoners and there was no post processing to bail you out), but today... everyone's a photographer. You can get acceptable, but formulaic results without any knowledge or talent whatsoever.... so it's just worse now. Plus... whereas you used to only get annoyed by the crap images in photo magazines... now there's no escape. Everyone's a photographer.

Let the world shoot itself into a maelstrom of mediocrity.... I couldn't give a damn. There will always be a demand for highly creative, innovative imagery. That however, does not come from running your crap photos through Instagram or whatever the latest piece of rubbish Nix software are peddling these days. It comes from creativity, innovative ideas, and craft - There's no app for that though :)
 
Last edited:
I completely disagree with the assertion that the modern digital camera takes better photographs than those of 30 years ago.

Tell That to Ansell Adams.

Also, tell that to Frank Meadows Sutcliffe. (my favourite photographer of all time).

Modern cameras make the taking of good photographs easier, but it still takes great skill, and often a litle luck, to take a truly great photograph.

I'm often dismayed that these days, that any photograph which isn't perfectly sharp, is slightly under or over exposed/saturated. This misses the point of photography completely. A great photograph captures a moment in time, which might otherwise be lost.

It doesn't matter how technically excellent a photograph is, it's the subject matter, and a little bit of composition that does the trick for me.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
One of the things that modern easy-to-use cameras do is open up photography to people for who it has previously been closed due to the required technical expertise. There are more, better artists coming along who would not have otherwise considered using a camera.
Click to expand...

Disagree completely. Any accomplished, talented and in-demand photographer these days will still be technically accomplished and knowledgeable. Opening up photography to those who didn't have the skill back in the film days just results in the glut of crap we have to put with now.
 
Seems to me there are really two different issues here, the shift to digital and the shift to phone camera's with "easy" apps.

I think you could argue the former whilst it has led to more crap has also made it significantly easier for more people who are so inclined to improve their photography due to the faster response and lower cost of shooting/post processing. I'm not really sure you can point to many positives when it comes to the latter though. Phone camera's and aren't really offering anything that didn't exist in the past, there just offering the ability to not bothered with a specialist device for photography whilst losing a lot of functionality.

Is someone who "can't be bothered" to bring along a camera really likely to pay much attension to their photography? it seems unlikely to me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Guardian article.............

None of this changes anything so far as I'm concerned. Talented photographers will still require vision, creativity and an innate understanding that images are a communication medium. It's all very well Nick Knight using an iPhone, but it sends a weird message. It makes people think that you can be Nick Knight if you have an iPhone. The reason Nick Knight can take great images with an iPhone is because he's a talented photographer. Even if the iPhone is taking away a great deal of technical control, he still understands how it works, and can therefore still predict what he needs to do. He still needs to light the scene, and he still shoots in a studio that allows him to control that light.

The bottom line however... is this: People take photographs, not cameras. No matter how much automation you pile into the process, there will still be nothing to automate the creative process. To quote Zack Arias (for the second time in this thread), "Your camera does not have a Richard Avedon button on it, does it?". It doesn't. There's NOTHING that automation can do to make you more creative... literally nothing. You think that HDR shot you just did makes you creative?... that landscape that you ran through SilverFX? Forget it.. it hasn't nor will it ever.

All automation does is allow more people to take photographs, more reliably. There's nothing to suggest those photographs will be better. By better, I mean valid as creative endeavours. It's easy for complete beginners to create sharp, well exposed photos now, but does that mean they're great images? A crap photo is still a crap photo regardless of its technical merits.

It really is a pointless, and stupid debate. Did the invention of the word processor mean anyone could now write a novel, just because they suddenly had the ability to neatly format text, and produce technically perfect spelling and grammar through use of spell checkers? Of course not... so why do people think having a completely automatic camera that takes the technical know-how away will make them a photographer?

Let them carry on being fooled as far as I'm concerned. Let them all relentlessly pour ever increasing amounts of crap into the pool that is democratised photography. All it means is that there are less people to compete with those who still understand what makes a great images. Nick Knight using an iPhone is NOT evidence that that's all you need at all. Quite the opposite. The fact that he can do what he does with an iPhone is a very lucid demonstration of exactly why it's NOT technology that creates great images.

There's more to photography than cameras anyway. You can't automate lighting, and great lighting is important in great photography.

Creativity, originality, lighting, story/meaning and inventiveness is what makes great photography: None of that can be automated. Great photographers are educated, broad-minded creative people who have something to say, not mindless idiots pointing their devices at the landscape and Hoovering up as many photons as possible to then run through some prescriptive digital process... they're artists.

More power to the digital revolution!! It means talented photographers will proportionately become more rare, and therefore more appreciated.

Keep snapping away Joe Bloggs.
 
Last edited:
It's as Ansell Adams' quote in my forum signature below: "The camera takes the photo, but the photographer makes it" - Ansell Adams, 1902-1984

I would not wish to deny anyone the pleasure of taking and sharing images, be they 'snaps' or 'photographs'. A friend of mine takes what I think are excellent photos on her iPhone and it's what's convenient for her. But she has a natural talent and what's called 'the eye'.

Each to their own and there's no need to poo-poo other people's efforts or their enjoyment. It's too easy to be snobbish about photography.

Now I better read the article :D
 
I have now read the article and come to the conclusion that photography means different things to different people.

Just follow your heart and do what you enjoy without over intellectualising about it - It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Not being snobbish. I'm suggesting that all these debates about whether this technology or that will be the death of photography are pointless, for precisely the reasons you say above: That people will just shoot what they want without intellectualising about it. They always have. They did in the days of film too. However... creative people will be creative no matter what equipment you put in their hands, but no matter how much technology you place in the hands of uncreative people, they'll still be uncreative. So how is this the death of photography as an art form? Those that don't "intellectualise" about it are probably not producing art anyway, so who cares?

I remember similar debates when auto-focus first reared it's head... "It's the death of photography!!... the great unwashed can now take pin sharp photos". Then the same when digital arrived. Now again with Phones.... it will be the same when light field equipment makes it's consumer début in around 5 to 10 years.... then when some weird, holographic neural implant jiggery pokery appears in 100 years time.

It's all nonsense. Creative people will be creative with it and produce art. Non creative people will still use it to take selfies and images of their food.. or kids, or water drops, or shots of Durdle Door.

The end.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Not being snobbish. I'm suggesting that all these debates about whether this technology or that will be the death of photography are pointless
Click to expand...

....David, I wasn't singling anyone out or accusing you of being snobbish. I was merely offering my observation that some photographers can be somewhat snobbish and there is no need to be.

I agree that these debates about the death of photography are pointless - It's exactly what I mean when I say don't intellectualise about it. :)
 
Bit of a moot point seeing as the majority of the population couldn't tell a great photo even of it punched them in the face.

Idea conception, location, and required lighting are all taken into consideration without even picking a camera up.

Its the photographer that makes the image, the camera just takes it.
 
There an interesting comment in one of those links:

"...People are taking lots of pictures but nobody's looking at them..."

I think that's quite a poignant factor in this debate; there is no need these days to question whether or not to take the image because the media is cheap, instant and reusable, everything film isn't. You can take an image on a phone or on a compact with wi-fi/sharing options and get it out there to whoever you think is watching in mere seconds I personally don't see an issue with that. But there are without doubt, lots of images that get shared but no one takes any notice of them. The world is flooded with images.e

However, it's no different to say, Polaroid, or when you could pick up a bunch of process-paid 35mm role for dirt cheap. People back then took photos that quite possibly never saw the light of day to people other than the photographer. But there were obviously fewer people with access to the technology and a network of friends and acquaintances was based around physical interaction. These days, pretty much everyone has a phone with a camera built in and they see that as a green light to go snapping... and they don't have to be in someone's company to share a photo with them.

To me, one of the biggest disadvantages of everyone having access to a camera and the chance to show people their photos is not the automated, "look at me, I'm an artist" processing, but the fact that when they do pick up a 'proper' camera and start to believe they are thinking like a photographer, they still apply the same characteristics; just look on this forum's image sharing section and you'll see someone has camped out at a particular point on a race track and just rattled off frame after frame of a procession of cars whizzing by. They then just post them all up and sit back, wiring for the plaudits to roll in. Where the editing skill in choosing the best shots? Where's the priced in that one shot that stood out? We sees it in the 'Transport' section; someone take a few 'moody' shots of a mate's semi-racey car and all the shots are uploaded. Which was the shot you were most proud of? Why not just post that shot? Things are not helped when the thread descends into a car appreciation thread, as opposed to one about considered, quality photography.

This is what's turning me off forums and other image sharing sites that were bastions of quality imagery, not quantity. Instagram is great, it's more than just a way of taking a photograph, but people need to remember that the same rules don't have to apply to everything...
 
Another interesting article on the subject, pointing out that people were bemoaning the death of proper art due to those pesky photographers over a hundred years ago. Quill makers were presumably just as upset when nibs came along.

(A couple of, umm, interesting bits from the article seems to have Niépce inventing the daguerreotype(!), and celluloid film being invented by someone called George Eastment, but there you go).
 
antihero said:
Idea conception, location, and required lighting are all taken into consideration without even picking a camera up.
Click to expand...

....And sometimes (more often in my case), the potential for a great photo is firstly recognised and the camera quickly grabbed hold of, all in the same spontaneous moment - All without time spent pre planning.

Of course, not every shot comes out as being great but enough do to encourage more picture taking and enjoyment.

It's why I like to have a true compact (now a RX100 II) in a pouch (holster?) on my trousers belt at all times. Reach for your gun!!

Some folks use an iPhone for this but I prefer to have more control over the result.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Disagree completely. Any accomplished, talented and in-demand photographer these days will still be technically accomplished and knowledgeable. Opening up photography to those who didn't have the skill back in the film days just results in the glut of crap we have to put with now.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. For the first time in photography's history people can focus on the creativity rather than the technicalities. Not everyone is a technical craftsman or has a brain that can work in technical or scientific ways, yet sometimes these pure-creatives can take the most wonderful, resulting photographs that are absolutely loaded with feeling and expression.

Making photography more accessible to those interested in it as a vehicle for expression rather than as a technical exercise can only result in good things happening with the medium.
 
antihero said:
Bit of a moot point seeing as the majority of the population couldn't tell a great photo even of it punched them in the face.
Click to expand...

Neither can most people who claim to be photographers. Learning what makes a great photo in one of the various canons is an academic exercise that requires lots of study and learning.

Knowing if a picture moves you or not is a completely different matter.
 
CharlotteM said:
Completely disagree. For the first time in photography's history people can focus on the creativity rather than the technicalities.
Click to expand...


In a way, this is what I'm saying... I'm just coming at it from the other direction. I'm saying that adding automation doesn't result in a creative image... merely allowing people to take technically adept images doesn't mean they are good photographs, creatively. Every single post I've made in this thread is saying that creative people will always produce creative images no matter what they use. By default... creative people who have no technical skills will fair better under such a climate, and I'd agree with that entirely, but I'd be inclined to think that creative people have always found ways to express themselves regardless.. I doubt they've all been sat there waiting for technology to liberate them in some way.


CharlotteM said:
Neither can most people who claim to be photographers. Learning what makes a great photo in one of the various canons is an academic exercise that requires lots of study and learning.

Knowing if a picture moves you or not is a completely different matter.
Click to expand...


This^^

Knowing what makes a good photo doesn't require a photographer, and precisely why when you de-intellectualise the process, you descend into mediocrity and pretty pictures.


[edit]

That's not to say that you need to be an intellectual to create interesting imagery.... some people feel it at an instinctive level, and are just naturally able to use images to communicate well... they may not just be able to vocalise exactly why. Some people just have talent.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
There an interesting comment in one of those links:

"...People are taking lots of pictures but nobody's looking at them..."

I think that's quite a poignant factor in this debate; there is no need these days to question whether or not to take the image because the media is cheap, instant and reusable, everything film isn't. You can take an image on a phone or on a compact with wi-fi/sharing options and get it out there to whoever you think is watching in mere seconds I personally don't see an issue with that. But there are without doubt, lots of images that get shared but no one takes any notice of them. The world is flooded with images.
Click to expand...

....That is indeed very poignant and it so happens that I was thinking this while soaking in the bath this morning - It seems to have reached a saturation point.

What prompted my idle thoughts was the fact that I have recently indulged myself by spending a shedload of dosh on my first DSLR plus lenses etc (although I have taken photos for over 50 years) and my pictures only get seen on facebook and a few special interest internet forums. However, I still enjoy photography and love it when someone else likes one of my shots as it's always encouraging.

Professionals need not have such concerns, although I think that depends on their area of activity.
 
CharlotteM said:
Neither can most people who claim to be photographers. Learning what makes a great photo in one of the various canons is an academic exercise that requires lots of study and learning.

Knowing if a picture moves you or not is a completely different matter.
Click to expand...

....I do not agree at all with your words as I have highlit in bold. Whether unintentionally or not, I think you are making it sound as if a "great" photo can only be the result of some academic and scientific study or exercise. Where's the artistic in you? Photography can be Art as well as Science.

If a picture moves you emotionally on any of a variety of levels, then I think it's a "great" picture. That's what pictures do... They communicate.
 
CharlotteM said:
Completely disagree. For the first time in photography's history people can focus on the creativity rather than the technicalities. Not everyone is a technical craftsman or has a brain that can work in technical or scientific ways, yet sometimes these pure-creatives can take the most wonderful, resulting photographs that are absolutely loaded with feeling and expression.

Making photography more accessible to those interested in it as a vehicle for expression rather than as a technical exercise can only result in good things happening with the medium.
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
RedRobin said:
....I do not agree at all with your words as I have highlit in bold. Whether unintentionally or not, I think you are making it sound as if a "great" photo can only be the result of some academic and scientific study or exercise. Where's the artistic in you? Photography can be Art as well as Science.

If a picture moves you emotionally on any of a variety of levels, then I think it's a "great" picture. That's what pictures do... They communicate.
Click to expand...

It was in reference to your word 'great'. A 'great' photograph, painting, sculpture is one that is considered important or distinguished in some way. It is not an individual's emotion that determines something being 'great', it's the result of discourse.

There are plenty of works of art, for example, that move me on an individual level. That I connect to emotionally in some way. However they're rarely considered 'great' works of art. There are established methodologies for looking at works of art (including photographs) and each methodology has it's 'greats'. The Arnolfini Portrait for example is held up as a 'great' work of iconographic study for example. 'Greats' emerge over a period of time and with much scholarly review.

'Liking' a photograph is not the same as it being 'great'. 'Great' is not the same as it being 'artistic' or 'scientific'. 'Great' is a word in the English language that is used to describe things that have 'made it' within society.

David Beckham is a 'great' footballer. No one would deny that. But just because your mate is the best in his team at Sunday league, does not make him a 'great'. However it doesn't mean you're not allowed to appreciate his skills. Photography is the same.
 
This debate has been going on forever, every time there is a significant technological development, and it's as irrelevant now as always. And I'll admit that it used to bother me, a very long time ago when I was keen to be an 'artist' and not just a snapper (yes, I was a student!). Then I realised that sometimes I did make art, and sometimes I didn't, and the difference was a simple one - if I put time and thought and effort into a photo, then it was art; and when I didn't, it wasn't. That does not mean that when I tried hard it was good art or that anyone would necessarily like it, but at least it was occasionally worth a second look as sometimes/maybe viewers would get from the image something of the work I put into it.

That Diesel campaign mentioned, shot by Nick Knight (a fabulous artist by any definition) on an everyday iPhone, using ordinary people as models. But they didn't just use any iPhone owner, they used Nick Knight with his expensive studio and five-figure day rate. There's your answer. The clever thing about that campaign is they've put the story out and got a heck of a lot of valuable publicity for free.
 
Last edited:
CharlotteM said:
It was in reference to your word 'great'. A 'great' photograph, painting, sculpture is one that is considered important or distinguished in some way. It is not an individual's emotion that determines something being 'great', it's the result of discourse.

There are plenty of works of art, for example, that move me on an individual level. That I connect to emotionally in some way. However they're rarely considered 'great' works of art. There are established methodologies for looking at works of art (including photographs) and each methodology has it's 'greats'. The Arnolfini Portrait for example is held up as a 'great' work of iconographic study for example. 'Greats' emerge over a period of time and with much scholarly review.

'Liking' a photograph is not the same as it being 'great'. 'Great' is not the same as it being 'artistic' or 'scientific'. 'Great' is a word in the English language that is used to describe things that have 'made it' within society.
Click to expand...

....Thanks for explaining that, Charlotte - It's appreciated :thumbs:

Yes, I accept your definition of "great" as being as widely praised and accepted as good taste within society. However, I don't always agree with what society thinks - Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. Were the early Impressionist painters considered great in their early days?

It's perhaps the 'scholarly review' which I find difficult to accept - For me it smacks too much of the intellectual who over thinks everything and, I'm sorry to say, is often (but not always) snobbish.
 
CharlotteM said:
For the first time in photography's history people can focus on the creativity rather than the technicalities. Not everyone is a technical craftsman or has a brain that can work in technical or scientific ways, yet sometimes these pure-creatives can take the most wonderful, resulting photographs that are absolutely loaded with feeling and expression.

Making photography more accessible to those interested in it as a vehicle for expression rather than as a technical exercise can only result in good things happening with the medium.
Click to expand...

....For whatever it's worth (diddlysquat!) I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, Charlotte.
 
RedRobin said:
It's perhaps the 'scholarly review' which I find difficult to accept - For me it smacks too much of the intellectual who over thinks everything and, I'm sorry to say, is often (but not always) snobbish.
Click to expand...

So you think someone who has studied is snobby? Someone who has completed a degree? Because I am just a first year undergraduate yet I practice scholarly review.

We praise scientific intellectuals (for example) and yet we think that those who choose to study art are snobbish (or as more often said pretentious)?

Would you say that a person who works in a scientific laboratory or engineers car tyres was an intellectual who overthinks everything? It's just a different subject. The desire to learn and to understand is the same.
 
CharlotteM said:
So you think someone who has studied is snobby? Someone who has completed a degree? Because I am just a first year undergraduate yet I practice scholarly review.

We praise scientific intellectuals (for example) and yet we think that those who choose to study art are snobbish (or as more often said pretentious)?

Would you say that a person who works in a scientific laboratory or engineers car tyres was an intellectual who overthinks everything? It's just a different subject. The desire to learn and to understand is the same.
Click to expand...

....No, you misunderstand what I mean by the term 'intellectual', or perhaps I have not explained myself clearly enough. However you do seem to be polarising my words.

There is a difference between those who intellectualise or over analyse art in a way which is sometimes pretentious and those who diligently study either art or scientific subjects. It's only those artists who are pretentious who encourage the view that art is pretentious. There is much snobbery amongst some scientists as well.

My daughter has recently completed university with a BA First Class Honours, so draw your own conclusion - I greatly respect someone's desire to learn and understand.

Perhaps it begs the question whether photography is an art or a science. For me it's an art and camera controls are equivalent to paint brushes. You can analyse the paint chemistry until the cows come home but I don't see the point - You'll miss seeing the wood for the trees.

Art is quite different from science and is primarily emotional. Finished artworks don't need too much intellectualising over. All in my opinion.

I guess that we are all different individuals and some view photography purely as a science. We seem to have meandered away from the original topic - Is it time to post Mr Hitler?

So, in an effort to keep Mr Hitler in his box, people will use any machine at their disposal to take snaps/photos and there is nothing wrong with that. Besides, it's evolution and nothing we can do about it if we don't like the trends.
 
Last edited:
what do you mean by art.. it seems like you assume its a given
 
Last edited:
mik0m said:
what do you mean by art.. it seems like you assume its a given
Click to expand...


What do YOU mean?


RedRobin said:
Perhaps it begs the question whether photography is an art or a science.
Click to expand...

Regardless... it should still be studied as both. It seems acceptable to study it as a science and get as geeky as you like in a scientific way. You can debate and be as pedantic as you like in here regarding lenses and f-stops and other technical matters, and no one accuses you of being snobby. The opposite is true: You are admired, and often revered for it. The minute you apply the same rigour to photography as an art form, and all of a sudden you're being elitist :)

Charlotte makes a good point. No one accuses scientists of being snobbish. Brian Cox is a good case to discuss: He's actually quite disparaging to those of the stupid persuasion, and has absolutely no hesitation in saying that anyone who doesn't agree with science, or believes in mysticism or religion, is an absolute idiot. He does this publicly and unashamedly, yet we still don't think he's a snob. He's young (actually 45.. but looks young), cool, and has a Manchester accent... so he can't be snobby, surely! Not lovely cheeky chappy Brian... LOL. Yet if anyone in here behaves the same way regarding art, and you're labelled as a complete snob and total elitist. What gives?

In answer to your question Robin... photography is both art and science, and academic rigour in the study of both aspects should actually be undertaken if you ask me: They're two sides of the same coin. I have done so all my life, and given the fortunate position of both being a professional photographer, and a professional educator, I kind of know a think or two here. The best photographers fully engage with both. My best students fully engage with both. If you think about it, why should that be a surprise to anyone?

In reality though, most people will happily engage with the scientific aspects of photography; They'll spend hours reading, watching videos and practising.. hours and hours every week. Suggest they study it as an art based subject however, and they look at you as if you've just grabbed hold of their genitals.

No one would be surprised if a painter can speak confidently and intelligently about art, yet when a photographer does, they get treated differently.

You either agree photography is art... shut up, and study art.... or GTFO and carry on taking snap shots and treating it as technical subject only. One or the other, but you can't turn your back on studying photography as an art form, and then pretend it's art only when it suits you.. and on your terms, depending on what you personally think is art :) That makes you an idiot. This is what happens though; People who never go to an art gallery, read a book on an art based subject, and couldn't name more than a couple of artists, or even photographers for that matter, suddenly have an opinion on what constitutes art. Well.. you're not qualified to do so if that describes you in any way.
 
Pookeyhead said:
In answer to your question Robin... photography is both art and science, and academic rigour in the study of both aspects should actually be undertaken if you ask me: They're two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

....I wholeheartedly agree :thumbs:

I do all I can to use the technical (science) side to further the aesthetic appeal (art) side of every picture I take and make.

It's actually the technical aspects which I have more to learn from because, at the risk of sounding arrogant etc, I have 'the eye' naturally and from many many years of being a professional graphic designer and art director (of pro photographers in absolutely all the camera formats) < That doesn't mean I never take bad photos!

Whenever I hear the word "intellectual" I, probably wrongly, assume a large dollop of the pompous and pretentious. When it comes to pure art, I think that some people do over think it by concluding that the original artist had intentions which were in reality far from their mind.

I do not think you have to be 'qualified' to have a valid opinion on art, or to know the names of who the cognoscenti consider to be 'the greats' in their field. Afterall, that side of it is emotional communication and no-one has exclusivity on that.
 
Just something else to add to this thread and that is that digital cameras have massively reduced amount of time it takes to get to grips with the basics of photography. The immediacy of the feedback means that the number of hours required to master the important technical stuff can be ticked off in a considerably shorter time-frame than that of learning through film. We now have much more demonstration-based learning than was possible before, where the production cycle was intrusively lengthy. The brain still has to learn how to see and capture stuff but the 10,000 hours are much more densely packed than they used to be.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Just something else to add to this thread and that is that digital cameras have massively reduced amount of time it takes to get to grips with the basics of photography. The immediacy of the feedback means that the number of hours required to master the important technical stuff can be ticked off in a considerably shorter time-frame than that of learning through film. We now have much more demonstration-based learning than was possible before, where the production cycle was intrusively lengthy. The brain still has to learn how to see and capture stuff but the 10,000 hours are much more densely packed than they used to be.
Click to expand...

....This is true, Chris, but the sheer volume of electronically controlled options which modern digital cameras offer is at first sight very daunting. They have their own learning curve, as I am currently finding!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top