Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?

[madlights]

Since I've got a digital camera...I've spent the first year or two learning how to use Photoshop, and the rest of the years learning when not to use Photoshop...and how not to. If that doesn't make any sense...I'm still figuring it out too.

[sean_mcr]

Makes sense Barri

When you have the time, please read this article

(on tricks and fakery in a photo )

"You might think it small-minded or narrow of me to say that the use of some kind of trick in one picture can cloud my view of other, different pictures that weren’t made with any such tricks. But that’s like saying that a man telling a lie on one day doesn’t affect your perception of everything else he says, every other day:"

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-i-hate-infrared.html


Cheers

[pinemikey]

Photography is not an art; Photography is a vehicle, it's not a destination; Some people are capable of using photography to create art but photography is nothing by itself. A photograph simply describes an event or place and its success depends on the photographers insight; That's where the art lies and both photoshop and the darkroom have been used to replace insight with contrivance.

It''s like trying to describe bad porn, it's not always easy to explain, but you know it when you see it

I suppose we should chuck it in then.

If photographers, and I mean people who use a camera, were to listen to your belittling words, they would all have to give up...as the true artists have already been identified or in line to be identified by a close minded group of "experts" who do nothing but constantly compare photos to those of the "masters". Oops, you don't live in Paris, so those images just can't be art. I also guarantee that the images in these art books have been tweaked to the nth degree for publishing. Publishers are such true beacons of what is art, right?

Art is subjective to the individual.

Just about all your "art" is by revisionist minded committee. If it's in a dusty book then it's art. The best photographer in the world may be some guy in the Australian outback with a twenty year old Pentax. I'm willing to bet a stack of dry coffee table photo books that your "masters" probably would look in disdain at their photos being thrust up on a pedestal by the "true" purveyors of what is and what is not art. You people always point to the works of the masters as examples of their true talent. I wonder how many images were vetted before the art was discovered. I'm sure Henri Bresson and Ansel Adams took **GASP** some lousy pictures too. I can imagine Mr. Bresson looking down from somewhere on high and saying, " They like THAT one? Oh well, there's no accounting for taste."

You need to lighten up. Art is not necessarily about some existential lifelong journey through time and space to a sort of art nirvana with a smiling Buddha with a polaroid. Maybe it's about being happy with what you are able to achieve with the equipment (camera AND computer) you have.

[soenda]

To answer the OP's question, I have to say that sometimes I take a photo intended to represent what I saw as closely as possible. Sometimes I take photos to be background elements for digital artworks. I use a photo processing editor---Paint Shop Pro---with both kinds of shots. The processing enables me to come closer to the real life image, as well as to go as far as my imagination will take me.

Here's how I see it. Photography can be approached as both (or either) an art and as a craft. In photography, those who work toward the most faithful, life-like reproduction of a scene are likely to be practicing the craft. Those who work toward interpretation and self expression seem to be engaged in art.

I believe that most people can learn most crafts by having good teachers and practicing hard. And that some artists may be effective at evoking feelings, but they may have a tenuous grasp on the craft.

For those of you who are stymied in acquiring PhotoShop, please let me recommend Paint Shop Pro. It's a fraction of the price and does almost everything that PhotoShop can do. If now you are doing all your adjustments in-camera, then the things PSP cannot do are unlikely to be terribly important to you. They tend to be subtleties that go well beyond most people's day to day processing. And currently PSPx2, the most recent version, costs $54 new or $50 used at Amazon.

[moffetb]

In photography, those who work toward the most faithful, life-like reproduction of a scene are likely to be practicing the craft.

I think this phrase and thinking doesn't give enough credit to those people who are trying for a life-like, faithful reproduction. It seems to imply that there is no art, except by manipulation and interpretation of the photographers mind. I know you gave yourself an "out" by saying "likely".

[madlights]

Interesting points of view. To me anything can be an art. Photoshop can be...painting, cooking, raising kids, being a motorcycle racer, being a photographer. the particular point of view that I've come to myself, is that in using "gimicks" which some of aren't really gimicks, using filters to bring out sky, using processes to get tones I like, using the DOF or even blown out highlights to isolate the subject...to crop out distractions (but to be aware when taking the pic to try and remove them) To get something that "feels" real to me...I don't give a hoot. I've seen WAY overshopped stuff...we all have. Don't think Photoshop creations are invalid as "art" but maybe it's more painting than photography and maybe personally I have other preferences now, but can appreciate it for what it is (or isn't) I think honesty is in the intent 'more' than in the process when it comes to defining what photography is...but the process can be overdone (and I've overdone it sometimes) or way too obvious also. If I could get to the point where my intent could be made without doing any processing maybe I could meet Buddha with his Polaroid ..but if I see something I can make 'feel' more real with a red glass filter when shooting film or "in camera BW", to darken blue in a sky or pop the clouds, to make it "feel" like it really was or how it really felt at the time - probably would. I've been working a long time on a photoshop "action" to as closely as I can mimic Tri-X and how it converts color(and not be obvious), because I like the look of it...and because it gives me sort of a standard to shoot 'to'. I think I see what Sean and others mean that too many people are using really obvious crutches maybe to substitute for content and intent...although I've seen large abstractions, photographed or painted and don't know what the hell they are...but they appeal to me just for the beauty in them..maybe the colors...form etc. I also see what Mike means that it's really hard to define what "art" is or isn't...and who or what defines it. Just know how I feel right now...might feel different in 2 months. Not trying to cop out - just how I feel/think...how do we define seeing? Or the differences in how each of us feel about it and what we've seen? I do agree that art has certain standards as does photography...but in the end is in the mind of the viewer...I'm sure no expert...just my view. I know that most photographers don't drop off their pics at Walmart...and Ansel Adams used filters (especially in his earlier works)...Some successful film photographers have used cross-processing...combining negatives..masking, burning...etc. Maybe the thing is, is being discrete.... Good thought provoking post and discussion.

[sean_mcr]

Mike

I never take a photograph with art in mind. I make no claims of art in my own photographs. Photography has given me a lot and I have given a lot to it, and yeah I care deeply about it and that will never change.

Ansel Adams loved those mountains more then he loved taking photographs of them. He simply used photography to point to something that he felt was of importance and value, something that he knew and understood. That more then anything else is at the heart of good photography and good photography doesn't have to be art to be good;

I'm really not trying to get on your goat (as us Irish would say)

"I'm not an artist, I'm a human being"

I'm sure you can guess who said that

Keep shooting

Sean

[djwixx]

When did everything become so contrived? I've been put off photography because of a spate of anonymous comments I received essentially questioning why I bother. I bothered at the time because I enjoyed it irrespective of whether it was technically great or artistic or showed any merit. Now I find myself questioning the merits of every shot I take or even the scene I'm witnessing and whether the effort is worth it as it's likely already been done, or someone could else could do better. Why am I now questioning whether there should be an appeal to anyone else but me!!!??? Given the limited mindset of some I wonder how you become 'that' photographer without the steps required to get you there. Ultimately even the great photographers had to learn some of their craft along the way! I for one need to stop analyzing the whole thing and just get out there and take pictures, accept that the ultimate appeal may simple be to me and start making it fun, again if only for me.

Sean - I like the quote at the end of your posts (I think), but I have to question it. I can define depth of field, but how the hell do you define depth of feeling? It strikes me as another great line to quote, but when you ultimately analyze it means nothing and gets us back to the point that everything is simply subjective and what appeals to me may not appeal to you.

[pinemikey]

Mike

I never take a photograph with art in mind. I make no claims of art in my own photographs. Photography has given me a lot and I have given a lot to it, and yeah I care deeply about it and that will never change.

Ansel Adams loved those mountains more then he loved taking photographs of them. He simply used photography to point to something that he felt was of importance and value, something that he knew and understood. That more then anything else is at the heart of good photography and good photography doesn't have to be art to be good;

I'm really not trying to get on your goat (as us Irish would say)

"I'm not an artist, I'm a human being"

I'm sure you can guess who said that

Keep shooting

Sean

The fact is, Sean, I think your photos are great and would like to attain that level for myself....but, Geez you just come across in this forum as a wet bag of cement! It is thoroughly depressing reading your take on photography and makes me want to put the gear up in the closet. You come across as "What's the point?" Marvin, the paranoid Android from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. An encyclopedic knowledge of all things photographic but extremely depressing..ie What the "masters" ate for breakfast before toddling off with the rangefinder for that "ultimate" photo. Oh, now that I have the "ultimate" photo, I may as well jump off the cliffs of Dover as I'll never get here ever again.

Again, you need to lighten up. There are more than a few photographers on a given day balancing their motivations on the head of a pin that may need a helping hand in the right direction instead of a push over the cliff.

[dang]

I'm not sure everyone finished reading the entire article Sean pointed to, since in the end he comments about his opinion evolving:
"photography is essentially harmless and aesthetics are not intrinsically a moral issue, and therefore people should do any bonehead thing they please as long as they're not hurting anyone."

It's hard to argue his point on this, since we're not forced to view anything, by anyone. It's a simple matter to click, and leave.

As far as the "Past Greats" I doubt seriously they considered themselves as great. Ansel Adams spent his time documenting a region he loved, which eventually brought attention to it, helping in it's preservation. As already pointed out in most things you'll read, he indeed burned in skies or dodged areas to help enhance the photos look.

There were many "Great" photographers who came from the depression area, assigned to document impoverished conditions in various areas. Their works were used to influence social plans the government wanted implemented. The photographers were screened, hired and paid by a government funded program because they had a basic understanding of what it took to make a technically correct, and general esthetically pleasing photo. They were also willing to exploit the face of homelessness & hunger in a manner to further the cause. Much of "Greatness" is acceptable, due to our exposer to it over time. There were probably other photographers of their day which were better, but lacked the opportunity of being sponsored or ability to support themselves in their venture. There's also luck involved at times too, which allowed an otherwise average eye to capture a special moment. How many photographers found themselves in the limelight, because they luckily click the shutter at an opportune time? Does a photo of Jack Ruby ring any bells?

When did everything become so contrived? I've been put off photography because of a spate of anonymous comments I received essentially questioning why I bother. I bothered at the time because I enjoyed it irrespective of whether it was technically great or artistic or showed any merit. Now I find myself questioning the merits of every shot I take or even the scene I'm witnessing and whether the effort is worth it as it's likely already been done, or someone could else could do better. Why am I now questioning whether there should be an appeal to anyone else but me!!!??? Given the limited mindset of some I wonder how you become 'that' photographer without the steps required to get you there. Ultimately even the great photographers had to learn some of their craft along the way! I for one need to stop analyzing the whole thing and just get out there and take pictures, accept that the ultimate appeal may simple be to me and start making it fun, again if only for me.

Sean - I like the quote at the end of your posts (I think), but I have to question it. I can define depth of field, but how the hell do you define depth of feeling? It strikes me as another great line to quote, but when you ultimately analyze it means nothing and gets us back to the point that everything is simply subjective and what appeals to me may not appeal to you.

As far as anonymous comments, they're not worth the "screen ink" used to view them. If I have something to say, I may do it privately, but you'll know I said it. When I do offer criticism, it's in hope of helping someone improve. If you allow someone unwilling to identify themselves to beat you down, then they've accomplished what they set out to do. Dave, I think you have the right idea. I've always felt the only person I was competing with, is me. Being accepted by others, isn't something I'm concerned with, the goal is to be accepted by me. I'm not a "real" photographer, and have no aspiration to be. But it doesn't mean I haven't any goals.

As others have said, we've all posted images that weren't great. Sometimes to learn, sometimes because it has meaning to us personally. It's all about our personal goals, feelings, or just pure stupidity. Just as long as it doesn't hurt anyone...

[sean_mcr]

DJwixx

I hope Eugene Smith's own photograph explains his quote better then I ever could.

Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath by W. Eugene Smith, Minamata, 1972


(I would hope that the use of this Image comes under fair use, but I'd be more then happy to take the fall in order to promote it)

It is straight photography, it's art and a powerful reminder to anybody that doubts what photography is capable of. Christ, not many reach it, but it's got to be worth knowing that it can be done.

Mike,

I hear you bud, really I do

You know how clumsy I am with words

All's that I can say is that however good or bad my photographs are, I can only say that I owe a large debt to photography and photographers and I try to pay that debt as best I can, but often come up short. It's very gracious of you to say what you said, I hope that we might both take something away from these debates


Dang,

You'd make a good diplomat

You know, despite my thoughts on photoshop or darkroom trickery, I've always managed to overlook Lange removing the thumb from the Migrant Mother on aesthetic grounds. It's still one of the most Important photographs ever taken


Cheers, guys

Sean

[djwixx]

DJwixx

I hope Eugene Smith's own photograph explains his quote better then I ever could.

Absolutely - the photograph does say it all. But how many people would genuinely experience a moment like that? Given that the shot was posed, I wonder if there was more depth of feeling to the viewer than the photographer, which most would argue is the point of a photograph? I think my point is the same - how do you define depth of feeling? Wanting to take a photography is a feeling, but how deep is that feeling? How does a macro shot, a nature shot, a local newspaper journalism shot qualify with that same depth of feeling, yet they are all photographs taken by a photographer, again depending on how you qualify a photographer?

I see what your point is and if you read my previous response in this thread I believe I made a similar point, obviously far less eloquently Again, how do I become that photographer without the obvious mistakes of the journey along the way?

P.S. I'm enjoying this discussion and find it insightful, so please don't take anything I'm saying as an attempt to be contrary - it's merely an exchange of opinion. At the end of the day, the whole subject is...........................subjective, so opinion, right, wrong, or simple opinion will vary wildly.

[prinothcat]

... A photograph simply describes an event or place and its success depends on the photographers insight; That's where the art lies and both photoshop and the darkroom have been used to replace insight with contrivance. ...

Well said.

[prinothcat]

Flickers two billionth photo http://flickr.com/photos/88646149@N00/2000000000/

and quite frankly it does nothing for me... but that's only my opinion.

[dang]

Dave, partial quote:
"Wanting to take a photography is a feeling, but how deep is that feeling? How does a macro shot, a nature shot, a local newspaper journalism shot qualify with that same depth of feeling, yet they are all photographs taken by a photographer, again depending on how you qualify a photographer?"

Excellent point, Dave. Though there's not an easy answer, I feel anyway....

Macro photography most often falls short in some regards, even with the convenience of digital. There's many good macro photographers on the net, but way more who never consider what goes into making a "good photograph." Seldom, is the "rule of thirds" considered, much less general placement of subject & use of "free space."

For those who enjoy insects, unless they're willing to use captured, cold or dead specimens, it's not possible to follow rules for every shot. I could easily improve my portfolio if I were willing to capture & kill, but I find the occasional "good shot" more rewarding by sticking with my personal standards. It's also difficult, unless you have an open, natural area to work in, to make the best use of natural light. So there has to be compromise for various types of photography. For macro the one rule which should never be broken though, is to be sure the subjects in focus, and showing detail.

Landscape has it's own standards too. "Rule of thirds" should be applied, but it's not to say it can't be broken and still have a good shot. But here again, area being worked in has much to do with making photos which catch the eye of "The mass." Most times, what does catch the eye is that which isn't common. And with the billions of photos we're exposed to on the net, it's more difficult than anytime in history to "stand out" from the crowd.

I really feel this has much to do with the original comment of the thread. Experimenting is "key" to honing skills today. The Computer Darkroom offers greater manipulation choice than we ever had using film. And it's just as necessary to learn it's use, as learning the controls of a camera.

"The Rules" were the first thing learned when I started out, but today, that's not necessarily the case. Rules are made to be broken, but having the proper foundation to "work from" should be taken more seriously. And I think, this is what Sean is expressing. The problem is, words can't speak the volume of visualization, as demonstrated with Smith's photo. But as Dave points out, how often does one genuinely come upon a situation like it? Perhaps, this is a starting point to where the line between photography, and art is crossed? No, manipulation isn't new, but there are times when it's not acceptable. This is where I feel documentary comes in, and it's standards should be of the highest: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

Regardless of one's thoughts concerning such things, the only way to improve, is to keep shooting. Often, it's when we feel we've exhausted the photo possibilities of a subject, we find a "new eye" which embraces what we've missed. If anyone asks, "why bother?" Simply say:

"Because it's there."