A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Photography: Artist vs technician



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 8th 05, 04:30 PM
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mr. Mark wrote:
"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.


Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.

I come from a fine art background but also shoot a lot of pictures for
technical documentation of various plant species. That's what I love
about photography is the blend of art & technique & good results can be
achieved at either extreme.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
  #12  
Old June 8th 05, 04:38 PM
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For myself I use photography to record the life that my wife and I
lead, sort of acting like a photojournalist. There is still an art
aspect to the photography since a lot of what I am after is capturing
the mood of where we were and what we were doing. My goal is to have
photographs that bring back the memories of where we have been and what
we have done. This changes how you take photos in a number of ways,
the trip becomes as important as the destination. We travel a lot by
motor home, I like to capture the whole of each day, what was the
weather like in the morning, where did we stop for lunch, what was the
scenery like along the way.

Because I am documenting our lives I don't do as much Photoshoping as
some people do, I know people who have added a nice blue sky with a few
fluffy clouds to a photo that was taken when it was gray and overcast.
I don't have a problem with them doing that if it makes them happy
but it would ruin a photo for me. I will do a fair bit of dodge and
burning, to bring out detail in the shadows for instance. In this case
it is trying to get the photo to look like I remember seeing it.

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
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image...8/original.jpg the sea and
sky were not really those colors, the polarizing filter made them look
better then in real life, except that at the time I was wearing
polarizing sunglasses and so the photo is what I saw at the time. I
try to get some photos with and without the filter so I can view it
both ways.

Scott

  #13  
Old June 8th 05, 05:57 PM
deloid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
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



As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.

My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.

I love the convenience and quality of digital photography but dislike it's
current use in that too much can be changed in the computer beyond sharp
masking, contrast, saturation. I dislike the commonly done alteration of
group photos whereby a smiling face is taken from one shot then superimposed
on a better shot. The photo, for me, is no longer real...it is not a
documentation of a time or place. Interestingly though, and I don't know
why, but I don't mind my alterations when I paint. Perhaps I know that oil
painting is not a true document of reality but an acceptable depiction of
altered reality.

I now use digital for snapshots and my old medium format, 35mm stuff for the
more serious documentation that I consider "historical art". I don't change
my digital photos significantly.

That said, you will find many points of view on this subject and I do enjoy
a good photograph despite the methods used. If the photograph is digital
though, I don't trust it's reality...it is more like a painting or "digital
art".

Dean


  #14  
Old June 8th 05, 06:30 PM
Siddhartha Jain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

deloid wrote:
As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.

My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.


Uh Oh!! I think you've opened a pandora's box as to what is *reality*.
One might argue that using a faster film is a *breach* of reality.
While some might argue that the PP that how a technician interprets
colours while printing colour negative film is alteration of reality.
Also, the colours captured on film are function of the chemical used
and the colours/light captured on a CCD/CMOS are a function of the
various algorithms used by the manufacturer (even RAW images). So PP or
no PP, an image is the photographer's interpretation of reality, IMHO.

- Siddhartha

  #15  
Old June 8th 05, 06:35 PM
Siddhartha Jain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Silberstein wrote:
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.


What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )


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?


Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I
moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours
looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference
unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth
of colours eludes me.

- Siddhartha

  #16  
Old June 8th 05, 06:45 PM
Siddhartha Jain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul Furman wrote:

Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.


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.

- Siddhartha

  #17  
Old June 8th 05, 06:57 PM
Don Stauffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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? 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

Absolutely, and this has nothing to do with digital. In the film days,
some folks did all their work in camera, used a commercial printer.
Others labored long in their darkroom doing much of their art there.
One can be artistic in darkroom or at computer, just as others are more
artistic with camera and seeing.
  #18  
Old June 8th 05, 07:27 PM
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
wanted.
What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
flames on the cutaway fenders.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"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



  #19  
Old June 8th 05, 07:49 PM
Matt Silberstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 8 Jun 2005 10:35:01 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
in
.com wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:
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.


What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )

Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
males. That said, this is a trainable talent. Go shopping for paint
for a room and start paying attention to the slight differences. You
will learn to distinguish them. Learn some language and you will do
better.

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?


Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I
moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours
looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference
unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth
of colours eludes me.


The more you do, the more you be able to do.


--
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.
  #20  
Old June 8th 05, 08:38 PM
Dick R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tony wrote:
Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
wanted.
What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects. In many ways they
sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
flames on the cutaway fenders.

Hey Tony,
I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
the technical expertise to make a great photo.
Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)

Take care,
Dick R.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? William J. Slater General Photography Techniques 9 April 7th 04 04:22 PM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief In The Darkroom 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash John Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 April 7th 04 05:33 AM
Study Photography in Venice Venice School of Photography General Photography Techniques 0 February 13th 04 07:17 PM
Aerial Photography from Alaska, Yukon Territory & beyond PNW Photographing Nature 0 December 1st 03 12:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.