Art in Photography

Carl Ayling

Carl Ayling

Messages
3,925
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
Is there a place for artwork in photography or is that a marriage to be avoided? I quite like both (not proficient in either) and get immense pleasure from merging the two but it's not to everyone's taste. Should there be a place?

Frustration by Carl Ayling, on Flickr
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
There's a place in art for this; I'm not sure that photographers would think that there's a place in photography for it. You'll soon find that a vocal minority here (or non silent majority - I have no idea) believe that art has no place in photography. (Runs for cover).
 
StephenM said:
There's a place in art for this; I'm not sure that photographers would think that there's a place in photography for it. You'll soon find that a vocal minority here (or non silent majority - I have no idea) believe that art has no place in photography. (Runs for cover).
Click to expand...
Thank you Stephen. I get that impression too which although I understand, I find slightly bemusing. I suppose when one considers how long and hard the battle for acceptance of digital as a valid photographic form and the continuing debate (and in some sense resistance to) the use of software manipulation, maybe Phartography (as I refer to the combination) is a step too far for the moment.
 
You are the artist. Do whatever you want and don't be put off by anyone. What you are doing probably ceases to be a photograph and is now an image. But so what....you don't need the approval of anyone to do what you like and anything you enjoy as an artist should be encouraged.
 
Couldn't agree more.

What box people choose to place it in is entirely up to them. Do what you like.
 
Photography IS art. You don't have to make it look like a drawing, or a painting to be art. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing that, but you seem to have posted an image that LITERALLY blends "traditional" art craft with photography as an example. My point is, photography, done well, already IS art.
 
Thank you all. Photography is art of course - by definition, "painting with light". The other "traditional" art craft (as David so nicely described it) is another medium. Blending the two strains creates a hybrid form for which there is no legitimate (?!) home other than within the global "art" umbrella under which the two sit anyway. A question "Is Talking Photography restricted to photography in it's purest form to the exclusion of all other forms or does it embrace this hybrid in some way?"
 
Art is what exactly? What is to some isn't to others photos,paintings,statues or whatever some are good some are crap call it what you like, just enjoy what you do and who cares what anyone calls it.Some paintings go for thousands yet look like something a 5 year old painted yet some call it art because a certain person long dead painted it (who cares) , to me it's crap, some people have more money than sense so they call it art but is it? lol
 
Last edited:
"Publish and be damned" maybe and see what stirs eh! lol
 
petert said:
I think pp is over done all to often, why have a camera if you have you have to re touch everything in pp? What does it really mean? Crap camera, photographer or are things just going a bit ott? Are your pictures that bad you have pp all time? This forum seems obsessed with pp, I guess most people must spend more time pp than actually taking pictures, to me there's something wrong somewhere. Changing things on a computer certainly isn't art it's technology and cheating to an extent when you haven't actually taken the final product.
Click to expand...
I follow what you say but pp is now an accepted part of photography - most if not all professionals these days use it at least to some extent. Bit of a cheat I suppose compared to days of film when you relied solely on your own ability but like everything, it's there to be used. Digital photography itself was considered a cheat at one stage ... and I suppose video stills falls into that category now. My reliance on PP is reducing but I do so like to use it for blending different images and adding texture etc. which otherwise is problematical.
 
Last edited:
Carl Ayling said:
I follow what you say but pp is now an accepted part of photography - most if not all professionals these days use it at least to some extent. Bit of a cheat I suppose compared to days of film when you relied solely on your own ability but like everything, it's there to be used. Digital photography itself was considered a cheat at one stage ... and I suppose video stills falls into that category now. My reliance on PP is reducing but I do so like to use it for blending different images and adding texture etc. which is otherwise is problematical.
Click to expand...
I agree it's OK to an extent and maybe for a pro but I do think it's become obsessive with amateurs and unnecessary, just reading posts all they ask is has it been pp, cropped, lr, photoshopped, edited ? Etc etc gets a bit ridiculous imo what happened to the camera and you? Just delete if it's not right:)
 
Last edited:
petert said:
I agree it's OK to an extent and maybe for a pro but I do think it's become obsessive with amateurs and unnecessary, just reading posts all they ask is has it been pp, cropped, lr, photoshopped, edited ? Etc etc gets a bit ridiculous imo what happened to the camera and you?
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right Pete - some do seem overly absorbed with PP and worse still ill-considered conversions to HDR.
 
Carl Ayling said:
Yes, you're right Pete - some do seem overly absorbed with PP and worse still ill-considered conversions to HDR.
Click to expand...
Don't do hdr, GPS, or wifi all ridiculous on a camera imo just marketing crap. I love the d700 for one reason, it has no distractions no bells and whistles but it does one thing a camera should be all about, it takes great pictures no pp necessary if it doesn't come out right it's me so delete, simple ;-)
 
Last edited:
A good image is a good image - whether it has had a little or a lot of PP. A bad image is a bad image - whether it has had a little or a lot of PP. The right amount of PP is the amount needed to produce the image you wanted to create when you pressed the shutter, however much that is. If others don't like it doesn't matter if it says what you wanted to say.
 
Last edited:
But after pp you haven't taken it technology has,does that make a good photographer?
 
Last edited:
petert said:
But after pp you haven't taken it technology has,does that make a good photographer?
Click to expand...
And there was me thinking that a camera was a piece of technology...
 
Bythesea said:
And there was me thinking that a camera was a piece of technology...
Click to expand...
True but you control the camera and settings and with them should be able to create the image you want especially with still subjects, so then you go to pp and what have you created? A false picture,it may look great or worse depends on the eye of the beholder. What I'm saying is what we're seeing is less skill of photography and more of computer software which surely defeats photography
 
Last edited:
petert said:
True but you control the camera and settings and with them should be able to create the image you want especially with still subjects, so then you go to pp and what have you created? A false picture,it may look great or worse depends on the eye of the beholder. What I'm saying is what we're seeing is less skill of photography and more of computer software which surely defeats photography
Click to expand...
Hate to tell you this but your digital camera is a computer. The data it records is dependent on how the computer is controlled, just like any other computer in fact. It's the same with PP, it is the control of the computer that matters, or do you think that people just load in a picture and the PP is automatic.

Of course, we could always go back to analogue and use film, when there was no PP. Oh, hang on, there was. It's just that most people didn't do it themselves and left it to an automatic machine. Sound familiar?
 
Bythesea said:
Of course, we could always go back to analogue and use film, when there was no PP. Oh, hang on, there was. It's just that most people didn't do it themselves and left it to an automatic machine. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

I upgraded back to film about ten years ago. Sure, there is post processing involved. The difference is that people now have much easier access to processing which has the potential to be pushed much too far with great ease. In the darkroom, great things are possible - but they take a lot of effort which is beyond what most people are prepared to do.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I upgraded back to film about ten years ago. Sure, there is post processing involved. The difference is that people now have much easier access to processing which has the potential to be pushed much too far with great ease. In the darkroom, great things are possible - but they take a lot of effort which is beyond what most people are prepared to do.


Steve.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Processing these days is moving some sliders in lightroom. No skill, no effort... and because it's so easy, it's usually just too much too.
 
Steve Smith said:
I upgraded back to film about ten years ago. Sure, there is post processing involved. The difference is that people now have much easier access to processing which has the potential to be pushed much too far with great ease. In the darkroom, great things are possible - but they take a lot of effort which is beyond what most people are prepared to do.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Of course, but who is to say what is too far. It may not be what you (or I) like, but if the image is what the photographer wanted that's fine. I think most of the problems occur because most photographers do not have an idea of what they want when taking the shot in the first place.
 
In the example posted in the OP, I feel this is so far removed from photography that it could no longer have any connection with the genre as an art form.
It appears to be the same hand, just flipped horizontally with a few extra shards of broken pencil drawn? in to make it appear asymmetrical.
 
blakester said:
In the example posted in the OP, I feel this is so far removed from photography that it could no longer have any connection with the genre as an art form.
It appears to be the same hand, just flipped horizontally with a few extra shards of broken pencil drawn? in to make it appear asymmetrical.
Click to expand...
Ha ha Absolutely right of course - don't forget the (photographed) texture thrown in to complete the ensemble It is art, it was created ... from imagination (not much I agree). Equally, you can say that "Mother & Child (Divided) by Damien Hirst is just a cow sawn in half or "My Bed" by Tracey Emin is just an unmade bed but they are created and creation is art. (By the way, I don't like the former but the latter does strike an artistic cord in me).
 
Bythesea said:
Hate to tell you this but your digital camera is a computer. The data it records is dependent on how the computer is controlled, just like any other computer in fact. It's the same with PP, it is the control of the computer that matters, or do you think that people just load in a picture and the PP is automatic.

Of course, we could always go back to analogue and use film, when there was no PP. Oh, hang on, there was. It's just that most people didn't do it themselves and left it to an automatic machine. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
Well aware it's a computer but It doesn't take a genius to use either
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I'm gonna just sit back and watch this while the cricket's on, it should be fun....btw, good luck with this Carl!
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha .... Hopefully the cricket won't be on too long ... Finn for the win !!!!
 
Last edited:
Carl Ayling said:
Ha ha Absolutely right of course - don't forget the (photographed) texture thrown in to complete the ensemble It is art, it was created ... from imagination (not much I agree). Equally, you can say that "Mother & Child (Divided) by Damien Hirst is just a cow sawn in half or "My Bed" by Tracey Emin is just an unmade bed but they are created and creation is art. (By the way, I don't like the former but the latter does strike an artistic cord in me).
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying Carl but your OP questioned about art in photography, neither of the examples you mentioned are about photography.
Your example may well at some stage have been a photograph but it no longer resembles that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top