Photography: Artist vs technician

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.

For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.


Art can be learned in my experience (if you want to). At least it gets
better with practice and more exposure. Take a class or read some books
on art appreciation, composition, color, etc. Some might say that ruins
a person's natural instincts but some art teachers can critique a
budding artist's work without crushing their individuality. Most artists
come from a family with artists in it so they grew up thinking that way.
It's not magical and can be learned to an extent.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

McLeod wrote:
On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, "Chadwick"
wrote:

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.

And don't forget it also attracts collectors and gearheads who love
to
have the latest and greatest neck jewellry.

Sheltered life that I lead, I just learned "BlingBling".

--
Frank ess

On 8 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain"
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.

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

Read what you wrote above, and think about it.
The answer, it should be obvious, is "yes".

--
Big Bill
Replace "g" with "a"

"Paul Furman" wrote

Art can be learned in my experience (if you want to). At least it gets
better with practice and more exposure.

Pun?

--
Mark

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

Tony top-posts:

Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.

I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
or is not good. Do you?

They see a picture by
Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
the sharpest focus possible.

Well, is the subject in or not in focus? It matters to some people.
Alot of people, actually.

I recall there some kind of gallery or show a while back consisting of
out of focus images? It was no doubt a sensation to the art
cognescenti, all of them doubtless agog thinking "Wow! We can put on a
show of complete crap and the witless sycophants will just lap it up!"

I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.

So what should they be discussing?

This strikes me as mostly the need to say "something" but not even having
the language to discuss art - any art. Including photography.

The "language to discuss art" is called "English", or "Spanish",
"Esperanto" or even "Loglan". What you are confusing with "language"
is the pseudo-newspeak, post-modern claptrap that sounds more like
bilge from a marketing department that is over-dosing on selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors than any serious attempt to communicate.

"Yes, when Cartier-Bresson released the shutter, at that moment he
captured the quintessential faux-reality of the dominate
corporate-government-military white-anglo saxon colonial mega-complex
of the era. The lack of clear focus is not a technical flaw, it is a
profound statement of the sociological fog-of-consciousness that still
infects the body-politic to this day -- cf. gay marriage. We can
display this image, you can look at it, but the emotional impact can no
longer be hermeneutically vocalized. Heidelberger was right!!!"

Mike Henley wrote:

[...]

Say ... from which context-free grammar generator did you obtain that
output?

One of the odd, almost ethical, questions that I find myself faced
with is whether to use a polarizing filter or not. The effects can be
dramatic, for instance in this photo

An interesting question. To my mind the point is to take a picture that
captures your gut feeling or the mood of the place, or part of it. On that
basis your fantastic beach may have come out with a wishy washy burnt out
light blue sky (ok I know it can't be blue AND burnt out) and lifeless
foliage. It may be more accurate, but not so near the thing that impressed
you about the place.

I'm not saying I can do that.


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Tony" wrote:

Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
the sharpest focus possible.


What is even worse is when some technicians look at Cartier-Bresson's
work and pronounce that it succeeds because it complies with the
"Rule" of Thirds, or some other stupidly simplistic specification for
composition that just happens to be their flavour of the month/year.

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.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

I prefer to get as near to your final result (that you see in your minds
eye) with the camera & then use PS to get the last drop of sparkle from a
shot.

On 8 Jun 2005 15:37:12 -0700, wrote:
Tony top-posts:

Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.

I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
or is not good. Do you?

I often find interesting new perspectives in the prose of
people who have dedicated lots of time to thinking and learning
about art.

I don't defer to their judgement nor abandon my own. But I want
to hear what they have to say.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall