Photography: Artist vs technician
 

Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

- Siddhartha

I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

"Siddhartha Jain"
.com...
Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

- Siddhartha

Cameras wrote:
I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

I guess some people are attracted to photography as a creative medium,
and view fiddling with the dials and software as a means to an end. At
the extreme end of that scale are those who take stunning pictures with
a pin hole camera, or the Cartier-Bressons who just point and shoot.

Equally, I'm sure plenty of people get a kick out of tweaking an image
in Photoshop and making a presentable image from a previously
uninspiring picture; improving, or rescuing a shot. They are probably
also interested (and can quote) the various characteristics of
different filmstock, lenses and camera settings. They view the camera
as a technical piece of equipment and as much a joy to use, as it is to
actually view the pictures afterwards. These are the photographers who
will take a meter reading, set the camera manually, bracket and ensure
they used the right film for the conditions - or have already switched
to digital.

I suggest that there is a sliding scale and most of us are somewhere in
the middle, attracted by both "painting with light" and the "gadget
bag" to different degrees.

Siddhartha Jain wrote:


rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo for
printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the image
completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you like.


So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in

Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
reasons.

IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll begin
to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
pleasing image.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings?

IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
they don't want to be considered artzy. :)

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

I've been a professional photographer since 1966. Only when I discovered
Adobe Photoshop did I truly feel I was creating my best possible images. I
feel I am now a complete artist ... capturing the image and then completing
it in Photoshop. It is a lot more rewarding than just sending my work to the
color lab.

Craig Flory

On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
in
.com wrote:



Cameras wrote:
I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

[snip]


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On 8 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
in
.com wrote:

Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

I wonder if someone, starting perhaps with an Adams, might consider
landscape photography an opportunity for *artistic* (even *ARTISTIC*)
expression.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours.

Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
indigo.

I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Alan Browne wrote:
Siddhartha Jain wrote:


rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not
too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes
and
architecture more.

The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo
for printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the
image
completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you
like.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different
sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work
in

Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
reasons.

IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I
can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography
because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often
some candid portriats.

Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll
begin to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a
very
pleasing image.

It pleases me not. Breaks _that_ rule, for me.

Do you remember a thread about "The genre of photography you like
least"? I thought there were some fine insights there.

--
Frank ess

Frank ess wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Siddhartha Jain wrote:


rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not
too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes
and
architecture more.

The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo
for printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the
image
completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you
like.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different
sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work
in

Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of
varying
reasons.

IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I
can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography
because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often
some candid portriats.

Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll
begin to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a
very
pleasing image.

It pleases me not. Breaks _that_ rule, for me.

Do you remember a thread about "The genre of photography you like
least"? I thought there were some fine insights there.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...99ba123ab69e6d
or
http://tinyurl.com/9ztdv

--
Frank ess