Is The Art...?

L

Lawsyd

Messages
67
Edit My Images
Yes
...getting the shot correct at the time of shooting (i.e. with very little, if any, processing left to do), or is it taking an average photograph & then having the skills / software to process it heavily until it's 'correct'?

Just a thought - raised by my non-photographer wife - for a Monday morning.

Discuss nicely please.
 
IMO the 'art' is seeing that there is a picture to be made. How successfully you make it is down to technical ability, be that getting it right in camera, through processing, or a combination of both.

Edit - beaten too it!
 
Just to be picky.
'Correct' and 'Art' don't belong in the same question.

Correct is a technical aim that has nothing to do with creativity or art. Some camera owners get hung up on what they think should be 'correct'

And most photographers shy away from any ambition to create art. They're just happy creating images that they like, their friends like, or their customers are happy with.

On a craft level, it's unimportant to most photographers whether the final image is due to field craft or lightroom / darkroom skills.

On an art level, even less so. What matters is the final image and the concept.
 
In answer it's both.

But again, pedant head on - careful processing isn't undertaken because the shot isn't "correct". I do get fed up with that assumption. And all shots are processed, it depends if you want it undertaken your way, or that of your camera body. Which version would be "correct".
 
Last edited:
Art is a creative activity, the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, according to the Oxford English dictionary.

Getting is right in camera I suppose could be considered by some to be a technical art, for others processing the image, developing it if you like, has been considered a skill and part of the creative process since photography began.

The majority of photography is used in enhancing memories, a capture of a moment in time. That doesn't matter if it's 'arty' or not, it's the reminder of memories, be it personal, documentary, editorial, sports etc. With these it's the capture of the scene that's important.

Then there's the art scene itself, fashion, contemporary, advertising where more creative minds bear fruit.

There's no real answer as photography encompasses so many genres. What is correct is that the final image suits the purpose.
 
If one takes what appears to be the OPs intent in his opening post, the 'art' in this case is actually the craft of creating a decent photo - nothing to do with the other 'art' that causes some much debate.

Otherwise this:
odd jim said:
In answer it's both.

But again, pedant head on - careful processing isn't undertaken because the shot isn't "correct". I do get fed up with that assumption. And all shots are processed, it depends if you want it undertaken your way, or that of your camera body. Which version would be "correct".
Click to expand...
 
Good question! In my opinion, anything is allowed, as long as we are honest about it, especially in genres like nature or documentary photography. But I think it is never a good idea to waste time on trying to improve an average shot. In my opinion, if the content isn't there you can add as many Photoshop layers as you want, it's never going to be fundamentally much better.
Would you rather listen to an average composition played by a top musician on a Stradivarius, or to Bach's Goldberg Variations played "imperfectly" by Gould ? ;-)
 
If you can shrug off this argument & make reasonable pics you're probably heading in the right direction
 
Lawsyd said:
Fair point. If it read 'Is The Skill...', would it make more sense?
Click to expand...
The skill is in producing the image you envisioned.
Whether that's by planning a landscape shoot round the weather, or having the creativity to adapt to what you're faced with. Whether it's capturing a portrait or creating one.

Newbies and enthusiasts often focus on the technical questions, they're largely irrelevant to photographers.
Most telling is the fact that Ansel Adams is held in high regard by many. And to put it bluntly, he's overrated, a technician rather than an artist. He produced beautiful images, with no passion, he's obsessed rather than in love with his subject. It's gorgeous but creates no emotional attachment.
 
Phil V said:
It's gorgeous but creates no emotional attachment.
Click to expand...

Phil - I'd be interested to see what you thought of as a landscape image with emotional attachment. This isn't barbed in any way, but to me the idea of emotions being involved in landscape - other than observing beauty or corruption - doesn't line up.
 
Phil V said:
The skill is in producing the image you envisioned.
Whether that's by planning a landscape shoot round the weather, or having the creativity to adapt to what you're faced with. Whether it's capturing a portrait or creating one.

Newbies and enthusiasts often focus on the technical questions, they're largely irrelevant to photographers.
Most telling is the fact that Ansel Adams is held in high regard by many. And to put it bluntly, he's overrated, a technician rather than an artist. He produced beautiful images, with no passion, he's obsessed rather than in love with his subject. It's gorgeous but creates no emotional attachment.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I think thats a little harsh appraisal of Adams. I had the pleasure of tracing him around California a couple of years ago, from his Work in San Francisco to of course his studio and galley in Yosemite. Whilst he took great pains in producing his prints, the composition, subject capture was wonderfully evident which the processing enhanced.

Here's quite a good last interview with him.
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/art news/905N-000-001.html
 
ancient_mariner said:
Phil - I'd be interested to see what you thought of as a landscape image with emotional attachment. This isn't barbed in any way, but to me the idea of emotions being involved in landscape - other than observing beauty or corruption - doesn't line up.
Click to expand...
Salgado? (Not famed for landscapes, but there are plenty)
They're landscapes shot to tell a story greater than 'isn't this pretty'.

Though I'm far from an expert on landscape photography, his images move me and make me think.

I do like Adams' work, it's beautiful, but I find it soulless,
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Interesting. I think thats a little harsh appraisal of Adams. I had the pleasure of tracing him around California a couple of years ago, from his Work in San Francisco to of course his studio and galley in Yosemite. Whilst he took great pains in producing his prints, the composition, subject capture was wonderfully evident which the processing enhanced.

Here's quite a good last interview with him.
http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/art news/905N-000-001.html
Click to expand...
It could be harsh, I'm no expert!
But it does nothing for me emotionally, and most discussion of his work centres on the technical.
 
Phil V said:
Salgado? (Not famed for landscapes, but there are plenty)
They're landscapes shot to tell a story greater than 'isn't this pretty'.

Though I'm far from an expert on landscape photography, his images move me and make me think.

I do like Adams' work, it's beautiful, but I find it soulless,
Click to expand...

Having a quick browse (to make sure I knew what I thought he shot) I'd say that he photographed landscapes like he was taking a portrait, and it's almost as though he's not really taking a landscape photograph at all.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Having a quick browse (to make sure I knew what I thought he shot) I'd say that he photographed landscapes like he was taking a portrait, and it's almost as though he's not really taking a landscape photograph at all.
Click to expand...
Everyone concentrates on his landscapes, especially Yosemite of which he's well known, but Adams made his living for decades doing commercial work, photographing everything from corporate buildings to Boudin French bread, architectural interiors (including Yosemite’s Ahwahnee Hotel) and stuff for department store catalogs.

There's a poster in his darkroom in Yosemite that says: “Even Ansel Adams had to earn a living.”

He even wrote to a friend: "I have to do something in the relatively near future to regain the right track in photography. I am literally swamped with “commercial” work — necessary for practical reasons, but very restraining to my creative work." Sounds Familiar?

Even his commercial work has a great touch to it. Fiat Lux, for instance.

Ansel Adams Patent Leather Bar – Westin St Francis – San Francisco 1939


 
Lawsyd said:
...getting the shot correct at the time of shooting (i.e. with very little, if any, processing left to do), or is it taking an average photograph & then having the skills / software to process it heavily until it's 'correct'?

Just a thought - raised by my non-photographer wife - for a Monday morning.

Discuss nicely please.
Click to expand...

I'm an amateur and as I don't need to make a penny from my photography I get to decide if I care or not what other people think and mostly I don't care :D so I do exactly what I want. Sometimes I want to capture what's in front of me as accurately as possible and sometimes I don't and instead I want to create something different and sometimes I make multiple copies of a picture which may run from an accurate to an... er... not so accurate capture of the scene. Not having to earn money or care what others think is very liberating and very empowering :D

Back when I shot film I didn't manufacture the film or develop my pictures and other people therefore made decisions I had to then work with but these days I have far more scope to do what I want and express my technical prowess and artistic sides :D

I'm not sure that I ever believe that getting it right in camera is possible as even if I do nothing the decisions made by the sensor/camera manufacturer are imposed on me just as they were years ago by the manufacturer of the film I used and then there's the issue of deliberately getting it wrong in camera for valid reasons such as exposing to the right.

I enjoy it all :D I enjoy the process of taking a picture and the process of creating the final picture :D
 
woof woof said:
I'm an amateur and as I don't need to make a penny from my photography I get to decide if I care or not what other people think and mostly I don't care :D so I do exactly what I want. Sometimes I want to capture what's in front of me as accurately as possible and sometimes I don't and instead I want to create something different and sometimes I make multiple copies of a picture which may run from an accurate to an... er... not so accurate capture of the scene. Not having to earn money or care what others think is very liberating and very empowering :D

Back when I shot film I didn't manufacture the film or develop my pictures and other people therefore made decisions I had to then work with but these days I have far more scope to do what I want and express my technical prowess and artistic sides :D

I'm not sure that I ever believe that getting it right in camera is possible as even if I do nothing the decisions made by the sensor/camera manufacturer are imposed on me just as they were years ago by the manufacturer of the film I used and then there's the issue of deliberately getting it wrong in camera for valid reasons such as exposing to the right.

I enjoy it all :D I enjoy the process of taking a picture and the process of creating the final picture :D
Click to expand...


Closer to my own way of thinking than my original post, perhaps, suggests. Thank you.
 
It's far to easy to get hung up on the techical points, the rules of composition etc.

All that matters in the end is the final image. Did it meet it's requirements ;)
 
Lawsyd said:
Fair point. If it read 'Is The Skill...', would it make more sense?
Click to expand...
Skill, or as I would tend to say, craft, is distinct from art. It's confusing because historically the word 'art' was sometimes used to denote craft. But I suspect that you're talking about the import of both?

Byker28i said:
All that matters in the end is the final image. Did it meet it's requirements ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, but those requirements might not have been pre-ordained. The whole image-making process might've been a process of discovery ...
 
byker28i said:
All that matters in the end is the final image. Did it meet it's requirements ;)
Click to expand...
droj said:
Yes, but those requirements might not have been pre-ordained. The whole image-making process might've been a process of discovery ...
Click to expand...

It may, but if you consider that at the moment of decision to raise the camera, compose, press the shutter at that instant there's a creative thought to record that scene, that moment. Therefore there is a requirement to capture and produce an image recording based on that decision
 
Byker28i said:
It may, but if you consider that at the moment of decision to raise the camera, compose, press the shutter at that instant there's a creative thought to record that scene, that moment. Therefore there is a requirement to capture and produce an image recording based on that decision
Click to expand...
But photography is, or can be, more than just 'recording'. With film much can be done in the darkroom, and with digital much can be done in the 'lightroom', that can use and modify the recording and produce something new with a message of its own.

The assessment of the worth of any results is another matter!
 
droj said:
But photography is, or can be, more than just 'recording'. With film much can be done in the darkroom, and with digital much can be done in the 'lightroom', that can use and modify the recording and produce something new with a message of its own.

The assessment of the worth of any results is another matter!
Click to expand...

Exactly that, but then for the image to meet the requirement is also a subjective process. Did it record the moment as you wished, did you process it to produce the result you wanted, did you make a happy accidental discovery thet enhanced the image. Even if the image failed (and we've all had those that didn't turn out as expected) did we learn anything from the process.

The initial requirement may have been to reproduce an image representative of the scene we saw, or wished to create based on a preconceived idea, but those requirements may be 'adjusted' in hindsight after or during the process.
I guess I could rephrase this as, was the outcome successful, with 'the outcome' being as broad as possible :D
 
Phil V said:
The skill is in producing the image you envisioned.
Whether that's by planning a landscape shoot round the weather, or having the creativity to adapt to what you're faced with. Whether it's capturing a portrait or creating one.

Newbies and enthusiasts often focus on the technical questions, they're largely irrelevant to photographers.
Most telling is the fact that Ansel Adams is held in high regard by many. And to put it bluntly, he's overrated, a technician rather than an artist. He produced beautiful images, with no passion, he's obsessed rather than in love with his subject. It's gorgeous but creates no emotional attachment.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with your assessment of AA. Went to see his major retrospective wth many of his originals on display and was seriously underwhelmed. By comparison, going to see Salgado's work was utterly compelling. As was the man himself at his talk at the photography show recently. Also fully agree with you that technical questions are largely irrelevant to photographers .
 
Art is generally beyond me tbh. However an understanding of things technical, including the importance of light as well as the thirds rule, exposure etc can combine to produce a half decent image. Using editing software to create your final image can also help you learn how to get closer to what you want in camera too. Just my experience/opinion.
 
As this is about 'art' you have to ask yourself, who's the artist? You, or your camera? Therefore the process you took to obtain the end result is irrelevant.

All that matters is the final image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top