Very well said elvishefer. Best post yet.

I try to take as much pleasure as I can from shooting. If I can take some pics to help someone out, I'll do it. If someone tries to pay me for it, I'll take the cash. I'm thrilled if other people like my photos. Sitting here at my computer and looking at the prints on the walls, I'd say that ultimately I do it for the selfish pleasure of looking at my photos and reflecting on some of the best moments of my life. Photography is a technical skill that can't be perfected, but I'll pursue it to the grave. I love it.

Quote:

"I wouldn't even try to separate shooting from processing.

I would try to master both.

My best,

Mike"

+1......

Some of us on the forum grew up with film and were also privileged to process the film, and then produce in the darkroom what we thought we saw when we shot the image. This to many of us is photography. Very rarely, I will have an image in the computer I am fully satisfied with. I am always looking at what is in front of me and then seeing what might be done to improve it.

And, I see my self as a "snapshot" photographer. I like available light and in particular those situations where the venue is difficult and challenging. But in the field, I am always thinking about how this may be processed in the "darkroom". In the days of film, I shot Plus-X at ASA 80 and short processed in D-76 1:1, printed on #3 contrast paper. It was a complete process from start to finish. Today is no different except my "darkroom" is in my computer.

My goal in every photo is to make it look like anyone could do it. Yet, to have a high level of technical quality present. I did this for money many years ago...today...a different situation as I explained above. But, each photo is looked at as art in my book.

I agree, but is this prosess the craft or art of photography? I say it falls into the craft folder. Its not untill you do this sort of stuff does it become art. http://maggietaylor.com/

earthsea said:
Is it not an art-photograph only when the photo taken is manipulated in some way ie; In software programmes or in the darkroom?
Lets say I take a picture of a really amazing sunset for example, or capture an athlete in an expressive pose, blow it up and print it on canvas without any software enhancements, are these then works of art? Are they not just captured moments in time regardless of how they look? They might look really cool images but I don't think it is art. If they are works of art then that surely makes the really amazing sunset or athlete in the expressive pose a work of art not the photograph. I think 'Art' is an over cooked term used to often these days.
If however the photographer has applied his or her interpretation by enhancing or manipulating the image in some way and the photograph is different from the subject, only then I think it can be put in the art folder.
Lets say I created a painting, a work of art, then I photographed it and had prints made on canvas for sale of the painting with no software adjustments. Are the prints works of art too, or is this for money?
Does not a photograph only enter the art folder when it has had software manipulation and not when it has been shot? If the image is sold after the manipulation prosess then it goes in the art/money folder.

Hi,

I'm not sure you're for it or against it, but either way, the darkroom process (digital or otherwise from Ansel to today) has _always_ been a part of making a photograph.

I wouldn't even try to separate shooting from processing.

I would try to master both.

My best,

Mike

Is it not an art-photograph only when the photo taken is manipulated in some way ie; In software programmes or in the darkroom?
Lets say I take a picture of a really amazing sunset for example, or capture an athlete in an expressive pose, blow it up and print it on canvas without any software enhancements, are these then works of art? Are they not just captured moments in time regardless of how they look? They might look really cool images but I don't think it is art. If they are works of art then that surely makes the really amazing sunset or athlete in the expressive pose a work of art not the photograph. I think 'Art' is an over cooked term used to often these days.
If however the photographer has applied his or her interpretation by enhancing or manipulating the image in some way and the photograph is different from the subject, only then I think it can be put in the art folder.
Lets say I created a painting, a work of art, then I photographed it and had prints made on canvas for sale of the painting with no software adjustments. Are the prints works of art too, or is this for money?
Does not a photograph only enter the art folder when it has had software manipulation and not when it has been shot? If the image is sold after the manipulation prosess then it goes in the art/money folder.

Well, I would hesitate before I called my photography 'Art' but I do enjoy Landscape. Often it is just being out there pre sunrise and witnessing the beautiful light on the land or water, or seeing an animal at a time it least expects to see a human. I feel like for a fleeting few moments I am privaliged to be allowed into its world.
So, my photography is for fun, but at 54 I am thinking there is more to life than working and it is time I got out and saw the world with my camera, all I need is to figure out a way to earn a crust. Ahhhh dream on.......

A mix. I enjoy photography for the art, but I do what I consider non-artistic work for clients.

Mike Gunter said:
SkinBrit nailed it where I failed.

Nice.

+1 (million).

That's how you sell the art and get the this stuff done the right way round isn't it?

That's also the hardest of things to do...

SkintBrit said:
Definately money. Am I the first one to say it? The trick is to get the client to fall in love with your art!

Hi all,

That's the rub...

I love all my children and grandchildren (though there are a couple that need some sanding around the edges).

SkinBrit nailed it where I failed.

I can't call what I do much of anything but what I like to do. For someone to become infatuated with it is another matter.

My best,

Mike

Definately money. Am I the first one to say it? The trick is to get the client to fall in love with your art!

Great posts, everyone. One thing that stands out to me in all of the posts is our enjoyment to create pictures.

Like Mike, I am "somewhat retired"

I try to produce high quality work
and that, for me, means some fairly expensive equipment

So its a mixture

I do some commercial stuff, illustrating web sites, which pays for most things

I sell prints of my landscapes but this really only pays for the materials and some beer money

I would like to have my work in some local galleries and they understandably, are only interested in pictures that will sell

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

I'm at the end of my road, so I do what I want, but I'd be the last to call it 'art', I might call it curley, larry, or moe, and see which one sticks.

My best,

Mike

I love it!

Bit a money for me - trying to mix it more though. Funny how work gets in the way of what you want to do.

Art for me mostly.

I have a full time job not related to photography so photography is pretty much my creative outlet. Maybe someday in the future I'll be able to turn it into an early retirement income option ahaha.

Like Mike, I am toward the end of my careers, so my photography is just for fun. Art or Money? Actually, neither, although leaning toward art. I take photos to document things - places I've been, things I see that are interesting to me, etc. Also, like donaldejose, I do a lot of event photography, for free, for friends ... and somehow I seem to have way too many friends that need free photo work.

since i'm (another person who is) not a working professional, i do it for the art.

i would think the people making 6 figures doing commercial photography or whatever put their artistic talent to make their level of work making photos worth the salary they earn. they may be making money but their art still shows. at least thats the way i see it.

Hi,

I'm at the end of my road, so I do what I want, but I'd be the last to call it 'art', I might call it curley, larry, or moe, and see which one sticks.

My best,

Mike

For me, I do it for the art of it. I enjoy trying to create a look in the photo instead of just photographing exactly what I see. I once read a passage somewhere that said something like "don't let your camera be an expensive Xerox machine." I try not to. Lately I've been fortunate enough to be able to shoot portraits of people I know and I'm doing it gratis. But it's win-win; they get pictures and I gain experience. If I make a little money down the line then that'll be the cherry on the cheesecake.

Actually neither. Most of my photos are shot as a free service to others to give them a permanent record of important events in their lives. I don't really enjoy doing this type of photography but I do it for people I know just because I can. Lots of my friends and relatives have great photos they would not otherwise have.

Postman said:
Considering I've only been taking photographs for a little over a year, I'd do it for the love of taking pictures - so I guess I'd vote art.

However, I would equally love to be able to make money and earn a living doing something I also love, wouldn't everybody?

+1 Same goes for me.

At the moment, I'm like postman, mostly shooting for myself and trying to get some exposure for my work. Maybe at some point in the (hopefully near) future whe I retire, there will some money in it.

framer said:
Having worked for most of my life for art galleries, I can say I've seen way too many artist and photograhers getting into a rut. They find something, style, subject that sells and they beat it to death. They become driven by what sells more than creating new and better art IMHO.

It can even become a commodity.

framer

It can indeed. I spent a year doing over-cooked HDR (as did many others, even if we don't want to admit it), as punters were buying them. It paid for a D7000 body (as well as a few other things too!), so while I don't feel guilty about doing it, my artistic self was less than satisfied. The big lesson I learned was while you can always do the stuff that sells to death, you also need to go out and get those early morning landscapes, portraits, etc that you personally love too.

There is no shame in doing work for the money, its just less satisfying (unless you are getting paid for what you love to photograph) is all.

I would love to make money from my photos or at least be self-sustaining. But my fear would be having something I practice for the sheer joy of capturing an image turn into work or rather a job, and nobody likes those. I'd hate to lose the fun in exchange for the money.

I enjoy photography for the art, but money could be in the future (if anything is ever worthy of being paid for)???

But I shoot what I like and for myself...if the paycheck comes in later it will be because someone liked my style or shots and not because I took it for anyone or to please anyone buy myself. This is one reason I have been reluctant to shoot portrait sessions or anything.

Oh yeah I never plan on shooting to make a living. If anything I would just like the money to pay for more photography stuff...maybe a little extra money. Or something that could eventually keep me busy/provide when I retire (in another 250 years :)