Why are all Macro shots in here of insects?

[simon ess]

I think you might have mixed your quotes up a bit Pooks.

At least I hope so.

 

[BillN_33]

I clicked every single thread for 2 pages... that's around 80 threads. If it wasn't a bug on a plant of some sort, it was the plant without the bug ...or maybe, as you pointed out... lizards on rocks occasionally.. although I saw none. I just don't get why it's not called a wildlife forum, and a sub forum of the larger wildlife forum. WIth such a heavy macro-wildlife content, it's a bit disconcerting when someone who assumed macro just means close up photography... of anything.... and finds just bugs... and just to keep you happy... the odd reptile

Surely you see my point?

I started a thread some time ago asking, (suggesting) to take out "wildlife" from the Macros section or at least have a specific "bugs" macro - as usual the mods poh poh'ed this …… but they always know best

cannot find the thread

also to discuss the definition of macro, micro, extreme macro and close ups - anything I take I include in "wild and free"

 

[Tintin124]

I guess it helps "being in" with "the in crowd" some.

Or maybe your images aren't interesting enough as stated by David.

Don't worry if you post and don't get a response straight away you will get a response. It happens to us all.

 

[Testudo Man]

Or maybe your images aren't interesting enough as stated by David.

Don't worry if you post and don't get a response straight away you will get a response. It happens to us all.

Whilst i dont post much on this forum, I am aware of just how the "mechanics" of a forum works...I understand it well enough, i know a large part of it is based on forum friends/web buddies an stuff...its cool.

 

[TimmyG]

I'd be interested to know if there would be enough content from inanimate object close-up photography to warrant a macro section at all if you moved wildlife macro out of the way.

To be honest Bryn, there are so many categories of macro photography you could easily break it into five or six sub forums/ Like you say though, how much activity would each one see?

The original question was around why there are so many insects on the macro section. The simple answer, as I see it, is it's probably the most fun subject matter to shoot! If you don't believe me, try it!

Anyway, your thread got a couple of responses didnt it?? Ive had 2 new threads up for approx an hour, and not one reply yet

Sorry Paul, I haven't actually looked at the macro section tonight. Will pop along shortly

 

[Testudo Man]

To be honest Bryn, there are so many categories of macro photography you could easily break it into five or six sub forums/ Like you say though, how much activity would each one see?

The original question was around why there are so many insects on the macro section. The simple answer, as I see it, is it's probably the most fun subject matter to shoot! If you don't believe me, try it!

Sorry Paul, I haven't actually looked at the macro section tonight. Will pop along shortly

Hey mate no worries, one response, or a hundred responses...it makes little difference to me...if the truth be told...i was kinda havin a laugh/friendly dig with what you quoted me on

 

[TimmyG]

I clicked every single thread for 2 pages... that's around 80 threads. If it wasn't a bug on a plant of some sort, it was the plant without the bug

Oh and I also think the macro section is probably one of the most active forums on here (perhaps some of the admins can confirm or disprove that statement with some stats). There is an exciting vibe to that area where people are keen to show off what they've found and share it with like minded individuals. Admittedly sometimes the standards may slip in the excitement to catch something "interesting." Personally I encourage that as I know that over time it will calm down a bit and focus will switch to crafting a more perfect image but I can appreciate the excitement of finding something new for the first time. It in no way should detract anyone from posting things other than bugs though! You'll likely receive some good feedback or help contribute towards the general improvement of all. We all like to see something different.

 

[StewartR]

For my part I almost exclusively shoot insects as i find them a fascinating subject. They are organic, and most man made subjects you can only magnify by so much before they become uninteresting. There is always something more to see when you get closer and closer with something biological.

That's a valid point. When I was doing my "household objects" project (post 22 above), I noticed that manufactured items tend not to have any visible structure below the scale of about 10 microns (0.01mm). Biological subjects obviously do.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Anyway, your thread got a couple of responses didnt it?? Ive had 2 new threads up for approx an hour, and not one reply yet
I guess it helps "being in" with "the in crowd" some.

??

Again why do you think cause you only saw bugs that is only thing people want to see that is a very narrow mindset.

Because that's all there is. If people had an interesting in looking at other stuff, they'd probably also shoot it.

Be the exception not the rule, maybe people are getting scared eg @tracybradbury but it's an unjust fear and not the section which is holding that type of photography back from the section. You don't know until you try.

If there was an interest in anything else, surely people would be shooting it already. To suggest that no one shoots anything else, just because no one posts anything else, kind of backs up my narrow mindset theory.

I think you might have mixed your quotes up a bit Pooks.

At least I hope so.

I used multiquote... not sure how that happened.

To be honest Bryn, there are so many categories of macro photography you could easily break it into five or six sub forums/ Like you say though, how much activity would each one see?

It's not about having the exact forum for the exact kind of photography, or we'd have 500 forums before long. However... with a forum like the portrait forums, it's kind of hard to get that wrong, no matter what kind of work you do. The people and portrait forums is predominantly pictures of kids, but kids are still people, so it still does what it says on the tin no matter how fed up you are of looking at images of other people's kids. However, macro photography isn't about one kind of subject matter yet despite this, it's almost exclusively wildlife... insect or plant predominantly.


You can do other things with it!!

A student from a couple of years ago did some interesting things with Macro by pushing it to the limits... he ended up using microscopes in the end.

Can't embed due to forum rules so clickety click!

 

[Tintin124]

??
If there was an interest in anything else, surely people would be shooting it already. To suggest that no one shoots anything else, just because no one posts anything else, kind of backs up my narrow mindset theory.

Nice paradox there David, again you paraphrase in the worst way possible I never said no one shoots anything else. In fact I'm trying to encourage people to show us something different and the fact is it is people holding back their photography from the section and not the section holding people back.

As for the link I don't see any story in that at all so it will never be great photography or push the boundaries as per your logic. But note a lot of those bits on that images are biological and not man made so surely it will be seen it once seen it all.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Nice paradox there David, again you paraphrase in the worst way possible I never said no one shoots anything else. In fact I'm trying to encourage people to show us something different and the fact is it is people holding back their photography from the section and not the section holding people back.

Self fulfilling prophecy then isn't it. If it's YOU who's trying to encourage other things, then why aren't you shooting it? Why wait for someone else to come along and do it for you? If you care.. then do something about it.

As for the link I don't see any story in that at all so it will never be great photography or push the boundaries. But note a lot of those bits on that images are biological and not man made so surely it will be seen it once seen it all.

Again... something that's not a bug (or conventional macro), and you dismiss it and find fault with it. Why not encourage it as you seem to be suggesting you are interested in doing?

It's entitled Fluid: The Fragility of Life. yes, it's biological in nature. I've never said it has to be non-biological. Biological doesn't mean bugs. Story? It's about us... the fact that we're predominantly fluid.. water... the very pre-requisite of life on this planet. It encompasses a wider concept than cataloguing a thing. I never said it was the best photography you'll ever see, but at least it has a concept, at least he's trying to innovate, and do something different with macro than shoot a bug on a twig. As a result you blithely denounce it with a statement like "It will never be great photography" as if you seem to have a formula by which you can measure whether a photograph is great. You're just measuring it technically, that's why. Although technically, it's far more accomplished than most macro shots I've seen. The technical lengths he had to go to in order to create it makes your average reversed lens shot of a bug on a twig pale in comparison.

. Still... I tried... guess if it's not a bug, or otherwise conventional photography it gets slated in here though. Why am I not surprised.

"OMG it's circular... I can't criticise it's composition!... how can I apply the rule of thirds to a circle!!... does not compute... does not compute.... LOL"

 

[Tintin124]

I'm not shooting it because I find it uninteresting (or have seen that there will be a down time with bugs so have time to try out the other merits of macro) it doesn't mean I can't view or enjoy other peoples effort in it, when I started in macro I shot screws and inanimate objects but batteries anything I could get my hands on, but as @TimmyG stated bugs are dynamic and you never know what you will find and what they will do as you get a lens close its as much the challenge as it is the photography.

I haven't found fault I was highlighting the irony that you are spouting. Also I had no idea of the title or the meaning behind the photography so viewed as just an image of biological mess left on man made objects.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The fact remains: You say you want to encourage others to shoot other things apart from bugs, yet you do nothing to encourage it yourself, and instead seem to want me, and others to do something on your behalf. Yet when I show you something different, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit neatly into what you think of as macro photography.

Limited mindset.

 

[Tintin124]

Limited mindset.

Couldn't disagree with you more, I haven't dismissed anything. You have presented something that seems to be in conflict with YOUR idea of a variety of ideas and great photography.

But saying that you can think of me what you like, I fully encourage people to show their work whether it is a bug or not and that doesn't mean I need to do it myself.

A question for you: To encourage people do you need to do what you want them to do?

 

[Ed Sutton]

To be honest Bryn, there are so many categories of macro photography you could easily break it into five or six sub forums

I reckon there should be fewer forums. Ditch the whole concept of 'genres' and have one big PHOTOGRAPHY forum. That way there might be a bit more cross-fertilisation and a bit more 'creativity' generated.

 

[BillN_33]

If we had just one "forum" maybe we would all look at everything posted and spend more time behind the screen

 

[Ed Sutton]

If we had just one "forum" maybe we would all look at everything posted and spend more time behind the screen

Do you look at every thread in this forum section?

 

[nass]

I suspect it's because many of us just do photography as a hobby, and the most accessible interesting macro subject available to most of us parttimers just happens to be the bugs in our back gardens . There are other interesting subjects though, snowflakes, mushrooms, but just speaking for myself household things line needle ends etc just don't do that much for me. To each their own, if you can make an interesting image out of the mundane all power to you!!

 

[TimmyG]

That's a valid point. When I was doing my "household objects" project (post 22 above), I noticed that manufactured items tend not to have any visible structure below the scale of about 10 microns (0.01mm). Biological subjects obviously do.

Thanks Stewart and, in light of further comments, I should point out that I don't consider macro shots of inanimate objects uninteresting at all. A good macro image is a good macro image and you have presented a great selection.

It's not about having the exact forum for the exact kind of photography, or we'd have 500 forums before long. However... with a forum like the portrait forums, it's kind of hard to get that wrong, no matter what kind of work you do. The people and portrait forums is predominantly pictures of kids, but kids are still people, so it still does what it says on the tin no matter how fed up you are of looking at images of other people's kids. However, macro photography isn't about one kind of subject matter yet despite this, it's almost exclusively wildlife... insect or plant predominantly.

You can do other things with it!!

I'm not quite sure of your point here. Are you saying I'm getting it wrong?

As for being able to do other things with macro, I am well aware you don't "have" to shoot insects or plants. When I first started experimenting with macro, I was mainly looking for household objects to shoot. Here are some examples:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8884490394/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8528637775/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timmygspics/8451067583/

There are plenty of other examples on my Flickr stream (although you might need to go back a fair few pages to find them, and you might get fed up of all the bug shots before you get that far). I now choose to shoot insects because I find it more challenging, even if it does limit my artistic interpretation (I've covered this already). It doesn't mean I will never shoot other objects with macro, just with the limited time I get to do photography I like to shoot insects.

A student from a couple of years ago did some interesting things with Macro by pushing it to the limits... he ended up using microscopes in the end.

Can't embed due to forum rules so clickety click!

It's good, I think I need a little more context for me to appreciate it fully. In particular what am I looking at and how was it shot? You really need to be using microscopes or at least microscope objectives to get up to 10X magnification and beyond. Again the techniques and skills required to do this are very different to what I use, but guess what the majority of those guys like to shoot

. Still... I tried... guess if it's not a bug, or otherwise conventional photography it gets slated in here though. Why am I not surprised.

"OMG it's circular... I can't criticise it's composition!... how can I apply the rule of thirds to a circle!!... does not compute... does not compute.... LOL"

I don't see any evidence of this and I think it's a very unfair comment.

The fact remains: You say you want to encourage others to shoot other things apart from bugs, yet you do nothing to encourage it yourself, and instead seem to want me, and others to do something on your behalf. Yet when I show you something different, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit neatly into what you think of as macro photography.

Limited mindset.

No, Bryn explained why he likes to shoot insects as I have I. It seems we are just not conforming to what you want us to shoot. I think you should re-evaluate your stance here.

Just read Bryn's follow up reply and he makes the same point.

I reckon there should be fewer forums. Ditch the whole concept of 'genres' and have one big PHOTOGRAPHY forum. That way there might be a bit more cross-fertilisation and a bit more 'creativity' generated.

If we had just one "forum" maybe we would all look at everything posted and spend more time behind the screen

I agree with the sentiment but doubt it would be feasible. While I enjoy looking and learning about all types of photography, sadly I don't have time for everything and prefer to focus on areas I am actively working on. For the time being this is mainly insects.

 

[Tintin124]

I wouldn't worry too much @TimmyG he edited post after I replied and also if he is caught out you just don't understand his humor, not only referring to this thread btw.

So take this all as a joke... ha ha ha blooming ha

Common sense has failed here so I shall move on.

And for the record I welcome all types of Macro photography some things will interest me some others won't but that is just life and those who know me I am very open to new ideas and new ways of thinking.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I agree with the sentiment but doubt it would be feasible.

It certainly wouldn't be feasible. The forum would be a behemoth!

 

[TimmyG]

I wouldn't worry too much @TimmyG he edited post after I replied and also if he is caught out you just don't understand his humor, not only referring to this thread btw.

So take this all as a joke... ha ha ha blooming ha

Common sense has failed here so I shall move on.

And for the record I welcome all types of Macro photography some things will interest me some others won't but that is just life and those who know me I am very open to new ideas and new ways of thinking.

Not worried, Bryn. I'm enjoying the discussion. It's good to challenge your reasoning for doing what you do, and we all seem to be largely arguing the same points. I think David is challenging us to push ourselves further, which is a good thing, but without really understanding that we already are. If the end result of that is a forum full of bug shots that others find boring to trawl through, then I'm not really bothered. I have an appreciation of the effort and skill that goes into those type of shots and at that level it's good enough for me. One thing that is very clearly evident from frequent posters to that area is progression (funnily enough there also seems to be a similar pattern in how people progress and I love it when someone makes the leap to the next level).

Ultimately it seems some think that the aim of "photography" is to present images that challenge your way of thinking, make you question society or basically have some kind of lofty statement to make about the photographer, viewer or subject. Sure I started out with that mentality but somewhere along the way I decided to stop worrying so much about that and to focus on improving my technique and shooting what I enjoy. Hopefully my work will show off my subjects in a good light and from time to time present myself and others with something they haven't seen before. In time I can build on what I have learned, and start to tell more of a story with my work, but I don't feel I have mastered the basics as yet. In the highly improbable chance of my work been shown in a classroom, or any of my words being quoted in discussion forums it will be a happy side effect of the work I am doing, rather than something I am striving to achieve. Thankfully this forum caters for both of us.

 

[DorsetDude]

It certainly wouldn't be feasible. The forum would be a behemoth!

A behemoth? David wont like that.

 

[Durbs]

The fact remains: You say you want to encourage others to shoot other things apart from bugs, yet you do nothing to encourage it yourself, and instead seem to want me, and others to do something on your behalf...

Could the same not be said for you?

You seem to be sitting on some academic high horse about what photography means to you and criticising various people for not shooting stuff you'd like to see, but haven't actually posted anything in the macro thread (or wildlife as far as I can tell) showcasing the concept you want to promote.
Instead you post a student's work, without context or title, and then get all shirty when people say they don't like it (Which is exactly what you're doing about bug shots).

This is a community forum, I would hazard most macro photographers / photographers with a new macro lens, walk out their house and find something small to shoot to nail their technique. Your average photographer won't walk out and think "how can I tell a story about this 2p coin I just found on the floor using my new macro lens?". An art student might think that, but art students think a photo of 2 blue buckets is art, so perhaps they're not the best judge of what the average person thinks.

I guess it comes back to the separation between "art photography" and, for want of a better phrase, "hobby photography". You personally seem to not like the latter category, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that everyone should start trying to shoot art.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I suspect ther are basically two sorts of people interested in taking photos.
The first is interested because they are simply fascinated by photography and then start looking for things to photograph.
the other set are people who are fascinated by a particular subject matter and choose photography as their medium to record it.
There is a third set who see photography as an art form but seem to have little interest in photography as such, and even less in their subject matter. But for whom artistc conception is everything.

To buy a particular lens with no particular interest in mind, is rather like putting the cart before the horse.
we all aquire odd and useful looking equipment whenever the opportunity arises, but most of it becomes a virtual doorstop.

 

[TimmyG]

Some of us are somewhere inbetween Jack of all trades master of none.

 

[Cobra]

OK Guy's watch the personal insults,
its not clever.
I've deleted one post. that should be enough right?

 

[LCPete]

Why not bugs there's a whole world out there of insects and small creatures
if you looked through the forum over a period of time you would see that there is a range of subjects and styles from various people
To be honest I remember you using the term birds on sticks referring to the bird section and I thought that it was a bit derogatory and referring to people shooting bugs on sticks is the same
There's a lot of wonderful macro photography being done of insects have a look you will be amazed
people photograph what they are interested in and with a lot of people including me it happens to be insects

 

[Steve T]

OK Guy's watch the personal insults,
its not clever.
I've deleted one post. that should be enough right?

Appologies.

Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I suspect ther are basically two sorts of people interested in taking photos.
The first is interested because they are simply fascinated by photography and then start looking for things to photograph.
the other set are people who are fascinated by a particular subject matter and choose photography as their medium to record it.
There is a third set who see photography as an art form but seem to have little interest in photography as such, and even less in their subject matter. But for whom artistc conception is everything.

.

So those that are interested in photography as an art form have no interest in photography? Care to explain that? Furthermore, can you explain the last part of that sentence? It seems to say that they also have no interest in their subject. Is that what you're suggesting? That people who think of photography as art have no interest in either photography, or the subjects they shoot? LOL How can you create art if you've no interest in your medium, or your subject?

I reckon there should be fewer forums. Ditch the whole concept of 'genres' and have one big PHOTOGRAPHY forum. That way there might be a bit more cross-fertilisation and a bit more 'creativity' generated.

^This.

It's all photography. Why separate pictures of thing A from pictures of thing B? Maybe just have "People", "Things", "Places" if you really must segregate. That's broad enough, surely.

 

[Carlh]

I've been away a while and when I saw this and started reading it, I think @Pookeyhead has got some things wrong, but only because David has only seen the bugs and not the other threads that have been posted, this is not having a go at David as I've seen some great threads and critique off David for my own photos in other sections, I totally respect David and his view on photography and his photographs, and have indeed learned a fair bit off him (as well as the other more resident members of TP).

I do think the "mates clique" statement is wrong, sure we have become very friendly towards each other in this section of the forum BUT - those who are friends are only because we all post and critique (honestly) against each others images - @Tintin124 , @Lez325 will give me a harsh critique as much as anyone would if its boring or composed incorrectly - they will tell me straight - as so will others, so I honestly don't think the matey-friendly stuff applies here.

We <all> share one common theme of interest and that is photography - I am friendly with most if not all users, regardless of how new or experienced they are and or how harsh their critique can be. We all have something to learn from each other, from the noob through to the most experienced.

Back, just 2 weeks ago, I posted a non-insect thread: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/screw-this.560541/
(I've been quiet due to birth of my 2nd child), otherwise I post almost every day if I can or at least a couple of times a week)
Even when all I have been able to photograph are dandelions or insects, I've tried to put a "spin" on them with a bit of processing to make them that little bit different - bugs do get boring (especially if its the same bugs) that I keep seeing
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...ient-colour-to-spice-them-up-a-little.560195/

I've tried to stop posting threads with "flies" in them, I must have photographed a hundred flies and I cant get much more interest out of them, for myself - though new users or users new to macro love to see them as they haven't seen them before, that close up. They are probably the most abundant insect that doesn't require you to get on the ground or climb into some bushes to get a photograph - they're around your house, trapped in the conservatory etc..

A week before the screw photograph, I posted up some macro cake-jam images
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/mmmmm-cake.559629/

Admittedly, I posted up some insects, water droplets and flower shots 3 weeks before the above post, but these were "test" shots using an idea someone else has posted, using a pringles tube diffuser
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...2-made-for-the-sigma-105mm-macro-lens.555402/

What I <love> about macro, is the diversity - it isn't just insects to post, but they are certainly the most challenging (they move and that is a challenge on its own to photograph - like stalking prey, literally) and most varied type of macro photography you can do. There are literally hundreds of thousands of species - if you think an insect is an insect, then the same could be said for a man is a man, a woman is a woman, a kid is a kid, that rules out all portraiture photography - but it isn't - its the lighting and technique used, hence the above thread concerns DIY home made diffuser and how good (or bad) the results can be. For insects, its not just the technique but also the species - admittedly, I haven't gone far enough with my macro insect-photography - Im still learning what type of bugs are what and not what they do, what process in their current-life they are at, i.e. pupae, infected with some fungus - its crazy interesting it really is. If Insect photography was concatenated into a book, say 500 pages, I'd probably still be on page 3 while even the more experienced would be on page 7 or 8 - I'm learning off them, they are learning off me even - because I've captured a bug in a state of its life that they've never seen before - its almost like a lottery and you never know what you're going to get. I implore you to give it a go, you might capture something none of us have ever seen before, adding to everyone's knowledge.

Back in the middle of August, I noticed a drop in insects from around where I live and created this
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...hen-the-bugs-disappear-for-the-winter.555145/

So we could build up a list of non-insect macro subjects that people can shoot when they're bored of shooting insects or when there are simply none around. Please feel free to check that one out David - it might spur you on to take some images - please post, your contribution is not only welcome but would be a refreshing set of images for the rest of us to see.

I'll be working through the list when I get some time as there were a load of subjects I had never thought of photographing. You will find a lot of people have contributed to that list too, people who normally photograph insects - so we do try to push what we do, just sometimes the time of the year means that bug shots are taken simply because its a fairly short period of the year that they are in abundance.

I love the bit where you have posted the biological photos - the photos themselves, ok, they're not super interesting as the biological part of it, as Bryn stated, once seen, thats it, we've seen it. Cells are cells (unless deformed or going through some process) - but I do like the environment and context that you were trying to get across - I will try and strive to do more research on insects when I next photograph them (probably in the spring, now) so I can give more of a story to my thread, to engage more users, like yourself). Thanks for that

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread, one that needed posting and probably we will see a very similar thread next year created by someone else when the insects are back. There will be non-insect macro photo threads in section, you just might have to go a bit further than a couple of pages to find them as this section does get a LOT of threads created.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Back in the middle of August, I noticed a drop in insects from around where I live and created this
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...hen-the-bugs-disappear-for-the-winter.555145/

I can't help but notice though.... only one person has done anything with the thread since August. I'm fairly certain that if I did deep enough there will things other than bugs... I'm just confused as to why anyone would have to dig so deep to find it. Macro is so broad, yet the content of the forum seems so limited.

 

[Carlh]

I can't help but notice though.... only one person has done anything with the thread since August. I'm fairly certain that if I did deep enough there will things other than bugs... I'm just confused as to why anyone would have to dig so deep to find it. Macro is so broad, yet the content of the forum seems so limited.

I think its literally because of the amount of insects available and how interesting it is. It would be good to have the sub-section and I think there would be more non-insect threads because people are <just> seeing the majority of threads being insect related, they're not taking the non-insect photos because they might think that there would be no interest, so dont bother posting, whereas you have rightly questioned this It does happen, just probably only 10% of the time compared to bugs. It is very addictive though - you really should have a go

 

[Ed Sutton]

I suspect ther are basically two sorts of people interested in taking photos.
The first is interested because they are simply fascinated by photography and then start looking for things to photograph.
the other set are people who are fascinated by a particular subject matter and choose photography as their medium to record it.
There is a third set who see photography as an art form but seem to have little interest in photography as such, and even less in their subject matter. But for whom artistc conception is everything.

It's quite possible to be interested in photography as a medium, a means of creating pictures, of making art, as communication of concept and as document - all at the same time. An interest in the technical side of photography in such a case is likely to be limited to a 'need to know' basis rather than a mastery of every technique. That doesn't mean they aren't interested in photography.

 

[BillN_33]

The weight of all the world's ants is greater than all the world's humans

and there aren't many big ants around

 

[TimmyG]

@BillN_33 Sadly that "fact" isn't actually true. Even more so with the massive human population growth over recent years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29281253

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It's quite possible to be interested in photography as a medium, a means of creating pictures, of making art, as communication of concept and as document - all at the same time. An interest in the technical side of photography in such a case is likely to be limited to a 'need to know' basis rather than a mastery of every technique. That doesn't mean they aren't interested in photography.

So those that are interested in photography as an art form have no interest in photography? Care to explain that? Furthermore, can you explain the last part of that sentence? It seems to say that they also have no interest in their subject. Is that what you're suggesting? That people who think of photography as art have no interest in either photography, or the subjects they shoot? LOL How can you create art if you've no interest in your medium, or your subject?

I was separating them into a group that are predominately conceptual artists, that happen to use cameras or photographic means to achieve their images . Conceptual art is by definition primarily concerned with the concept, and to a limited and subsidiary extent with the means. The concept may not even have a Subject. Many such artists do not even see the need to do any of the physical work at all, but leave it to helper technicians to create their vision for them.
I am not talking about people who see photography as an art, as the clearly do not, they see photography as a tool in the same way a painter sees a brush and paint as tools, who can equally use palette knives and found detritus to make their marks.

I would go so far as to say, that the conventual use of Photography rarely produces art. not that it can not.
Most photographs sold, as art, are little more than attractive or interesting pictures with little if any artistic content.
Artistic ability is rare in any medium, Photography no less.

The set of students micrographs that you showed earlier in the thread, could have been produced by any first year scientific or medical photographer, and with rather more skill.
Its art content is as little more than found objects.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

duplicate

 

[Ed Sutton]

I was separating them into a group that are predominately conceptual artists, that happen to use cameras or photographic means to achieve their images .

Which by definition means they are not 'photographers'. Unless your definition of 'photographer' is anyone who uses a camera to make photographs.

Isn't the majority of photography about depicting found objects (using 'objects' to cover anything depicted in a photograph)? That, is to me, what makes photography so interesting. It's ability to take the everyday, the banal, the overlooked and make it visually and intellectually interesting.

"Life is more creative than you. Spend some time looking around and it will give you images that you could never imagine yourself."
Kenneth Jarecke

'Art' and 'creativity' are two words so loaded that their use should be avoided wherever possible when discussing photography. I don't give a toss if photographs are 'art' so long as they're good pictures.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Which by definition means they are not 'photographers'. Unless your definition of 'photographer' is anyone who uses a camera to make photographs.

Isn't the majority of photography about depicting found objects (using 'objects' to cover anything depicted in a photograph)? That, is to me, what makes photography so interesting. It's ability to take the everyday, the banal, the overlooked and make it visually and intellectually interesting.

"Life is more creative than you. Spend some time looking around and it will give you images that you could never imagine yourself."
Kenneth Jarecke

'Art' and 'creativity' are two words so loaded that their use should be avoided wherever possible when discussing photography. I don't give a toss if photographs are 'art' so long as they're good pictures.

If you look at my first post which we are discussing in this exchange. Post #65
I never called any of my groups "photographers". I called them sorts of people interested in taking photos.
which is quite different, and akin to camera users by need rather than choice.
A photographer is primarily interested in Photography.