Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

"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

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.

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:43:57 -0700
In message <kbudnWvfDZsD-zrfRVn-pg@giganews.com>
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

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

What the heck is "BlingBling" ?

Is it related to "BitchSlap" ? (A term I've been understanding better
every day for several years now... ;^)

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:43:57 -0700
> In message <kbudnWvfDZsD-zrfRVn-pg@giganews.com>
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>> Sheltered life that I lead, I just learned "BlingBling".
>
> What the heck is "BlingBling" ?
>
> Is it related to "BitchSlap" ? (A term I've been understanding
> better
> every day for several years now... ;^)
>

1. bling bling
n. synonym for expensive, often flashy jewelry sported mostly by
African American hip-hop artists and middle class Caucasian
adolescents.

v. to "bling-bling;" the act of sporting jewelry of a highly
extravagant gaudy nature.
n. "Man, I gots tha bling-bling, yo."

v. "Damn Johnny, you sure be bling-blinging it tonight!"

http/www.mtv.com/news/articles/1471629/20030430/bg.jhtml?headlines=true

If I recommember correctly, the context was Upgrading Cameras as
adornments for neck-hanging.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

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

On 8 Jun 2005 15:37:12 -0700, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> 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

 

[Guest]

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mike Henley wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> Say ... from which context-free grammar generator did you obtain that
> output?

This output: "[...]"?

I don't recall obtaining that output. 😛

Would you like to point out precisely what you're talking about?

 

[Guest]

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

RichA wrote:
> 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
>
To me, the 'art' part is not in manipulation of the image after taking
the picture, but in selection of camera angle, composition, lighting,
and other factors. 99% of my pictures simple record a piece of reality,
as nearly as possible. That is not to say I don't try to make sure that
the image recorded is showing what I felt was the reason for taking the
picture.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Dick R. wrote:
> 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.

I disagree here, and this is something that I've read books about
lately; as I said in my other post in this thread, art had been
formalised since antiquity and it has its conventions and language, and
those from a background of "fine arts" are well versed in them. What
you're referring to as being in the eye of the beholder is more
accurately referred to as "taste". Someone knowledgeable in "fine arts"
will appreciate the artistic merits of a piece or art, not matter what
his tastes are. The chances are though that the more you know about
fine "art", the more "refined" your taste becomes. To use the wine
analogy again, if you're knowledgeable enough about wine you'll
appreciate the subtleties in the taste of a "fine wine", and appreciate
it as a no-mediocre-thing and the work of a master winemaker, whether
you like its taste or not.




> 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?)

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
> >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
>

It doesn't differ at all.

A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
may be something in there somewhere - but where.

The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
capture it in their chosen medium.

David

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 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? 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've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.

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.

Am I weird?

--
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

 

[Guest]

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

Roxy d'Urban wrote:
> On Wed, 08 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? 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've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
> have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.
>
> 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.
>
> Am I weird?
>
Yes.
I have numerous photographs made by others in my home. Else I wouldn't
have records of the family and friends as they grow up... I value those
records.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

"David Hare-Scott" <false@apocrypha.com> wrote:

>It doesn't differ at all.
>
>A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
>these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
>cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
>communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
>may be something in there somewhere - but where.
>
>The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
>capture it in their chosen medium.


Agree 100%.

Of course there is a wide range of visionary abilities, just as there
is a wide range of technical abilities. Not every great artist is
both a great visionary *and* a great technician.

I suspect that a good many great artists have (had) great vision but
only moderate technical ability. I also suspect that few, if any
great artists have (had) only moderate vision but great technical
ability.

To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
compensate for a lack of vision.

 

[Guest]

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

In rec.photo.digital Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

: To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
: compensate for a lack of vision.

And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.

While I do believe in the "I know what I like" viewpoint, I try not to
belittle some other image that may not be to my taste, as there will
likely be someone who will like it. If nobody else, the person who
produced it.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 

[Guest]

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

Tony Polson wrote:
> "David Hare-Scott" <false@apocrypha.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It doesn't differ at all.
>>
>>A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
>>these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
>>cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
>>communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
>>may be something in there somewhere - but where.
>>
>>The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
>>capture it in their chosen medium.
>
>
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> Of course there is a wide range of visionary abilities, just as there
> is a wide range of technical abilities. Not every great artist is
> both a great visionary *and* a great technician.
>
> I suspect that a good many great artists have (had) great vision but
> only moderate technical ability. I also suspect that few, if any
> great artists have (had) only moderate vision but great technical
> ability.
>
> To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
> compensate for a lack of vision.
>
>
You describe the difference between 'art' and 'craft'. One can
certainly learn 'craft', but 'art' comes from some other part of the brain.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> : To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
> : compensate for a lack of vision.
>
> And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
> in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
> capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
> ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
> producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
> many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
> of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
> Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
> some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
> the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.
>
> While I do believe in the "I know what I like" viewpoint, I try not to
> belittle some other image that may not be to my taste, as there will
> likely be someone who will like it. If nobody else, the person who
> produced it.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>

Viewer response is often the point of art. I know of a statue outside a
chapel that is a rather abstract piece, and when people see it for the
first time, they look at the statue, look up, and then comment on how
ugly the statue is. But they had the response the artist intended. I
know, because I discussed it with the artist. Very few people LIKE the
statue, but almost everyone responds to it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> "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.

Cite examples?


--
-- 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.

 

[Stacey]

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

Siddhartha Jain wrote:


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

Sure, you only have to read the posts here to see that.

Some people are solely into the technical side. They do mostly "test shots",
study the results with a microscope and seem mainly interested in measuring
the measurable aspects of their results. If you look at their work, mostly
seems to be buildings and other man made objects. These also seem to be
people in the IT world or similar professions.

Others seem to look more at the "total image" and ignore many of the small
details (technical aspects?) as long as they aren't distracting. They seem
to shoot a wide variety of subjects and focus on the ends rather than the
means.

Neither one is 'right' just different goals.

--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

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

On 9 Jun 2005 01:27:43 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
<chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
<1118305663.564735.314730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>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.

I guess by your notion I should find a "photography compared to
painting and sculpture" group. You made an assertion about
photography, I was trying to suggest that it was not particularly
about photography, but about most arts. Except for the verbal arts
(poetry, fiction, but not theater), all art has a technical side.
Photography does not straddle that boundary since all of the arts have
science on their "side". A photographer (still and movie) has to
understand the camera and the film, a sculpture has to understand
clay/bronze/marble and the kiln and so on. A painter has to understand
paint and canvas and brushes. Etc.


--
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?)

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:37:44 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "David
Hare-Scott" <false@apocrypha.com> in
<sdTpe.11232$F7.4666@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message
>> >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]

>It doesn't differ at all.
>
>A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
>these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
>cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
>communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
>may be something in there somewhere - but where.
>
>The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
>capture it in their chosen medium.

And some of us have a vision of vision, but lack both the vision and
the technical ability. I love photography, I like taking pictures and
the more I take, the more I like looking at the great ones (there was
a great pre-War exhibit of German photography that just closed). But I
just am not any good. Oh well. Maybe in 20,000 picture or so I will
learn.



--
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?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:37:44 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "David
> Hare-Scott" <false@apocrypha.com> in
> <sdTpe.11232$F7.4666@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote in message
>>>> 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]
>
>> It doesn't differ at all.
>>
>> A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere
>> virtuosity, these may be interesting but never grab you. An
>> astounding visionary who cannot control his (brush, camera, violin,
>> chisel,..........) cannot communicate, you come out of the gallery
>> shaking your head thinking there may be something in there
>> somewhere
>> - but where.
>>
>> The great artists are those who have both the vision and the
>> ability
>> to capture it in their chosen medium.
>
> And some of us have a vision of vision, but lack both the vision and
> the technical ability. I love photography, I like taking pictures
> and
> the more I take, the more I like looking at the great ones (there
> was
> a great pre-War exhibit of German photography that just closed). But
> I
> just am not any good. Oh well. Maybe in 20,000 picture or so I will
> learn.

I have the same feelings much of the time, but then ...

I was tempted to name my photography concern "Blind Pig Images".

--
Frank ess
"Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then"
-H. Strange, hog poler _extraordinaire_

 

[Guest]

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

Ben Rosengart 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.

Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
"English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
characters that don't even exist.

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

A position I respect. I was ranting mainly about "Tony's" "anti-art"
nonsense. I suspect he is confusing "anti-art critic" or "anti-art
writer" or "anti-content free prose" with "anti-art".