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.
Art or Money?
(31 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
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
Posted 7 months ago # -
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/
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
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.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Very well said elvishefer. Best post yet.
Posted 7 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
