Where does photography end and art begin?

J

jankmarshall

Suspended / Banned
Messages
218
Name
Jan
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been taking photographs for just over a year now. When I transfer them to my computer I barely touch them other than to add a little contrast, sharpness and colour saturation. This is mainly because I dont have the skill or the software.

I get increasingly frustrated when I see photographs that have been so blatently altered that they dont resemble the initial image! I'm all for improvement but cant decide where improvement stops and it becomes a different image! Adding a totally different sky to a landscape for example.

I recently went to see my first photography competition and was surprised to see that the winning image was a set of three images put together in photoshop or some similar software. Please dont get me wrong, I accept that there is a lot of skill involved and the image was stunning, but is it photography or computing skill?

I'd be interested in others thoughts on this.
 
jankmarshall said:
I've been taking photographs for just over a year now. When I transfer them to my computer I barely touch them other than to add a little contrast, sharpness and colour saturation. This is mainly because I dont have the skill or the software.

I get increasingly frustrated when I see photographs that have been so blatently altered that they dont resemble the initial image! I'm all for improvement but cant decide where improvement stops and it becomes a different image! Adding a totally different sky to a landscape for example.

I recently went to see my first photography competition and was surprised to see that the winning image was a set of three images put together in photoshop or some similar software. Please dont get me wrong, I accept that there is a lot of skill involved and the image was stunning, but is it photography or computing skill?

I'd be interested in others thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

bite the bullet...a lot of photographs now are productions of digital darkrooms..i try to avoid the plethora of quick fixes and overkill

do your own thing and if you 'feel' the shot is right...leave it alone
if it aint broke..dont fix it

a good simple shot of life or a person is far more gratifying than great works of post processing..which do have their place in commercial terms..but not in the camera club...something is being covered up
 
Well to answer the question of whether it is photography or computer skills, t is a combination of both. Before digital, most of the post processing you see was done in the darkroom so not that much has changed. It has become a lot more accessible with the advent of digital, especially as it is a lot less messy and doesn't take up any space.

I see photography as a method of producing an image. The camera is a tool that is used as part of the process and if you are happy for the process to stop there then that is fine. If you want to move it on a bit and use the darkroom/computer to enhance that image further then that's fine too.
 
There was a post about on the `strobist flickr group. The OP was of the opinion that because he'd done his time on film and in the darkroom, the use of a digital darkroom, so to speak, isn't on a par and therefore cheapens and invalidates the whole idea of a photograph. It caused a right load of hoo-haa and me included, lambasted the OP for his views, rightly or wrongly.

However, i do appreciate that to some viewers, a digitally altered image, when presented as a blatant use of digital technology, can appear to be a step away from the traditional darkroom-produced work we see by the so-called 'master' like Adams et al.

Photography is totally subjective and personal and whether you like the use of digital processes you still have to acknowledge that digital is part and parcel of modern photography in the sam way that colour film was obviously a big shock to people raised on B&W stock...
 
B/W images are altered from reality, I don't hear anyone saying you should only shoot in colour.
 
fabs said:
I see photography as a method of producing an image. The camera is a tool that is used as part of the process and if you are happy for the process to stop there then that is fine. If you want to move it on a bit and use the darkroom/computer to enhance that image further then that's fine too.
Click to expand...

Well said that man:thumbs::thumbs:
 
All digital images are altered, wether it's by Nikon, Canon or whoever, it's all an interpretation of the scene you saw, each has it's own colour style and sharpening, and even if you shoot raw and open in photoshop what your seeing is somebody at adobes idea of what it should look like, if you alter the raw then it's your interpretation you are seeing.
Where does it end and art begin? buggered if I know.
 
fabs said:
I see photography as a method of producing an image. The camera is a tool that is used as part of the process and if you are happy for the process to stop there then that is fine. If you want to move it on a bit and use the darkroom/computer to enhance that image further then that's fine too.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
All photography is 2 dimensional, which is a pretty big departure from reality (as is the square frame around them) In that respect all photography is art, it's a personal expression/translation of your experience.

Some artists argued that photography wasnt art when i was first invented, and they had a point. Pictures could takes months, even years to complete and it took a lot more skill than point and shoot. There is some weight with this argument, ie, there are a lot more photographers now that cameras are so accesible than their are 'photo realistic painters'.

I suppose art, if you really want a definition and division from 'photography' requires more creativity (that is not giving creativity a higher value, just using it as a type of skill)
 
petersmart said:
I remember this discussion on Practical Photography over 45 years ago - and it still hasn't been resolved!
Click to expand...

So what were the points to debate, 45 years ago ?

was it ever about the definition of "photograph", what a photograph actually is, or was it always like it is now, about manipulation..
 
petersmart said:
I remember this discussion on Practical Photography over 45 years ago - and it still hasn't been resolved!
Click to expand...

Good !

That means art is not science......yet !.....although photography may be closer.

Infact i'd even go as far as to say that photography is a lot closer to science than art is.
 
There are just as intersting discussion on art forums as to when is it 'art' or just a pile of dirty bedlclothes. I have seen some amazing paintings that look like photographs, or even like real life. Whilst you admire the skill involved is it still art or why not just take a photograph. Who knows, at the end of the day it is what the buyer likes or gives the artist/photographer pleasure in producing the image.
 
A zoom lens is not a realistic interpretation of what we see either. Long exposures, HDR (whether subtle or not) macro............where do you draw the line.

I will shoot using the camera as a tool knowing what I want the end result from PP to be. It's all part of the process and some of it is in camera and some of it PP based. I'll deliberately shoot on an incorrect WB for instance when using flash, where does that one sit? Filters anyone?

Image creation is image creation whether it's hand tinting in the darkroom or using PP. :)
 
ArtyMan said:
at the end of the day it is what the buyer likes or gives the artist/photographer pleasure in producing the image.
Click to expand...

:agree: Nail on the head imo.

AliB said:
HDR (whether subtle or not)
Click to expand...

Well technically our eyes see in "HDR" compared to our cameras, our eyes see a greater range of darks and lights. "our eyes can see over a range of nearly 24 f-stops."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top