Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 8 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.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.
>
>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"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:

> [...]

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:

>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
>> reasons.
>
>
> There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.

Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)

>
>> 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.
>>
> This points to a Tom Hudson image in the "Breaking the Rules" mandate of
> the Shoot In, where half the image is very out of focus, and the colors
> pastel. Did you mean to point to your image in the same gallery, where
> the colors are way more pleasing??

No. While there's nothing wrong with the color palette in my shot, in
replying to Sid' post, I chose that photo as it has a pretty wide range
of blue in it for him to study. That part of it is oof is of no
consequence in that regard ... or any other regard for that matter.
There are probably many other examples in and out of the SI, but in
recent memory, that one sticks out.

My shot is more 'blotchy' in the color sense, less graduated than Tom's
shot.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
>>> reasons.
>>
>>
>> There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
>
> Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
>

I just went into it to meet girls......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

McLeod wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
> 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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> William Graham wrote:
>
>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>
>>>John McWilliams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
>>>>>reasons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
>>>
>>>Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
>>>
>>
>>I just went into it to meet girls......
>
>
> Me, too. It really pissed my wife off.
>

I noticed that someone posted "news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl".
Who was it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Paul Bielec wrote:

> I noticed that someone posted "news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl".
> Who was it?

eh? Me. Why?

By the way Paul, do you want to be a mandator?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- 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.

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

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" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 8 Jun 2005 10:35:01 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
<losttoy@gmail.com> in
<1118252101.618168.176190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

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" <losttoy@gmail.com>
:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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
>

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

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. 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.
This strikes me as mostly the need to say "something" but not even having
the language to discuss art - any art. Including photography.
BTW - I know I'm in the minority on hot rods, but I find them an
abomination from a design and aesthetic point of view. This does not mean I
wouldn't like to pilot one in a midnight drag race on Mulholland drive,
although I suspect that is mostly the lingering inner teen who wants the
chicks to see him as a truly cool dude.

--
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

"Dick R." <dickr@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11aei7tcuo87s95@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:02:31 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> 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. 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.

Personally, I've always thought photography was best as a literal
interpretation of whatever the camera saw. Everything else added that
doesn't enhance the realism is the "art" part and subject to
interpretaiton. I don't like garishly colour landscapes or abstracts.
They seem to be interesting for about 10 seconds. I'll never remember
them. But I will remember a well-done photo of something interesting.
-Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> 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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> 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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Roxy d'Urban wrote:
> I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
> hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
>

Sounds more like jealosuy to me ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
> <chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
> <1118228604.175364.208440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.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?

Dunno. Why don't you go ask the same question on a painting, sculpture
or weaving newsgroup, in a thread without the word "photography" in the
heading. That way you might be on topic.