Should Digital Photography still be classified in the ‘Arts’

[Wirefox]

mmm. I can't help wondering who judges this stuff and on what authority. Rules and Art are a contradiction in terms. I still hold that photography can not be art if it is constrained by the 'popular' rule book. Measuring the effectiveness of art against technical bench marks of dos and do nots misses the point by a long long way. A camera has the ability to capture images faithfully but that is one small fraction of their artistic potential. If we strive for technical excellence measured against a traditional set of obscure rules, then growing prize vegetables for village fete competitions may be a cheaper option.

Steve

[Colin Southern]

This raises a great point. It seems there's a series of levels in the processing:

Honestly Rick, it's a "Pandora's box" if ever I saw one, with the lines between the categories you raise totally blurred. Case in point - for Cat #1, do you adjust an image so that it represents the scene the way it was, or the way you remember it? (they're different) - or the way you want to remember it? Cameras work differently to human eyes - so what if I HAVE to expose for a few minutes to get the shot with sufficient DoF and this inturn smoothes the water, which is not how it really was, but I had no other way of capturing it? What if I don't know how it really was because it was too dark for me to see? What if it changed while I was taking the shot?

The list goes on and on and on

Personally - having thought about this long and hard (whilst watching my favourite soap opera) - I've come to the conclusion that as artists, we can do what we like - the only "exceptions" are journalistic-type photography (and I guess others) where manipulation are a no-no.

Just my thoughts anyway

[Dave Humphries]

~ then growing prize vegetables for village fete competitions may be a cheaper option.

Is that with or without fertiliser?
If allowed, does it have to be organic?
Can we grow them into prize winning shapes by putting stockings or other bindings on them?

Should they be straight out of the ground?
Do you wash them?
Polish them?

Where ever you go, this debate continues, just with different 'rules' to be adhered to or broken ....

Ok, that's my devilment over for this morning

Cheers,

[RonH]

Did I start all this .
I must have been off my trolley ... but its fun

Seriously though, its interesting to read the many varied points of view with the passion of commitment or just humour. Thankyou to all for your inputs ... indeed we may not yet be finished We shall see.

Weighing up or whatever its politely called, I think that there is no case for a/some mini-comps with no or predefined PP. But if you disagree then follow Dave's 'how to' advice above and roll one.

One aspect of our 'club' has been well exposed to me and that is the good adult bartering with measured humour and with passion over what we are trying to acheive with excellence. I, for one, am pleased that I 'found you'. (All say aaaa )

Colin's comment above about doctor's and nurses (wasn't that what we played as kids? ) reminds me of the TV repair man who called to fix the telly. He whacked it on the side with a rubber hammer and then presented the bill for $100. When questioned about the cost of his repair he replied ... $1 for the use of the hammer and $99 for knowing where to hit it.

Goodnight ... but its only 1330 here

[carregwen]

What a lot of words for such a simple question.

If it costs a lot then it's art. Otherwise, it isn't.

You see those three 'roll-eyes' above? They are not art cos they are free...

[rick55]

Honestly Rick, it's a "Pandora's box" if ever I saw one, with the lines between the categories you raise totally blurred. Case in point - for Cat #1, do you adjust an image so that it represents the scene the way it was, or the way you remember it? (they're different) - or the way you want to remember it? Cameras work differently to human eyes - so what if I HAVE to expose for a few minutes to get the shot with sufficient DoF and this inturn smoothes the water, which is not how it really was, but I had no other way of capturing it? What if I don't know how it really was because it was too dark for me to see? What if it changed while I was taking the shot?
The list goes on and on and on

Personally - having thought about this long and hard (whilst watching my favourite soap opera) - I've come to the conclusion that as artists, we can do what we like - the only "exceptions" are journalistic-type photography (and I guess others) where manipulation are a no-no.

Just my thoughts anyway

No argument, Colin. If your goal is to "give someone much the same experience I had when I looked on this scene," that may take HDR, merging for extended DOF, panoramas, etc., etc. This seems to me to be the most fundamental art of photography: the ability to put something on a 5x7 or 8x10 or some piece of flat media, and have the viewer see what was there. But maybe I'm like the art critics who tell a Jackson Pollock he isn't allowed to do abstract until he masters realism.

But as long as you're not pretending the photograph isn't something else (which are covered by the exceptions you mention), the sky's the limit. If someone enjoys the feeling they get when they look at the image, who cares if they'd recognize the scene if they went there in person, or recognize the model if they met the person?

Cheers,
Rick

[Shadowman]

A good debate should always be encouraged. An off topic subject but the use of colored pencil has also been denied the respect of traditional art forms (charcoal, oil, water color) so it shouldn't be a surprise if photography suffers the same criticism. So it's no surprise that photo manipulation would receive the same treatment from traditional photography enthusiasts. Digital photography continues to be held as a less than pure format. One outcome of digital photography that I noticed at my introduction to the format and continues to hold today is digital cameras produce colors that are too darned vivid. Perhaps that is because some of my earlier experience of film photography was grainy images.

No argument, Colin. If your goal is to "give someone much the same experience I had when I looked on this scene," that may take HDR, merging for extended DOF, panoramas, etc., etc. This seems to me to be the most fundamental art of photography: the ability to put something on a 5x7 or 8x10 or some piece of flat media, and have the viewer see what was there. But maybe I'm like the art critics who tell a Jackson Pollock he isn't allowed to do abstract until he masters realism.

But as long as you're not pretending the photograph isn't something else (which are covered by the exceptions you mention), the sky's the limit. If someone enjoys the feeling they get when they look at the image, who cares if they'd recognize the scene if they went there in person, or recognize the model if they met the person?

Cheers,
Rick

[Colin Southern]

reminds me of the TV repair man who called to fix the telly. He whacked it on the side with a rubber hammer and then presented the bill for $100. When questioned about the cost of his repair he replied ... $1 for the use of the hammer and $99 for knowing where to hit it.

"As a trained professional I know when to hit it - where to hit it - and just how hard to hit it"!

[carregwen]

... reminds me of the TV repair man who called to fix the telly. He whacked it on the side with a rubber hammer and then presented the bill for $100. When questioned about the cost of his repair he replied ... $1 for the use of the hammer and $99 for knowing where to hit it.

I'm having a problem with my PC. Making a ghastly noise, but it's intermittent. Thought it was the fan so got that replaced. Still making a noise. It must be the hard-drive!!! The PC is on lease and goes back in 8 weeks - I don't want to have to rebuild it just for two months.... so .... I keep thumping it... (excuse me)... right, where was I?

[carregwen]

"As a trained professional I know when to hit it - where to hit it - and just how hard to hit it"!

Easy. Hit it hard. Hit it often. Hit it where the bugger hurts!

[Donald]

Easy. Hit it hard. Hit it often. Hit it where the bugger hurts!

But, as someone from a social work background, I feel you should discuss its feelings first. Does it think it had issues in its background or maybe manufacture, that predispose it to this sort of behaviour and does it not feel that perhaps some cognitive-behavioural therapy might help it to explore its deeper feelings and the underlying reasons as to why it behaves in the way that it does.

If that doesn't work .... then hit it.

[carregwen]

But, as someone from a social work background, I feel you should discuss its feelings first. Does it think it had issues in its background or maybe manufacture, that predispose it to this sort of behaviour and does it not feel that perhaps some cognitive-behavioural therapy might help it to explore its deeper feelings and the underlying reasons as to why it behaves in the way that it does.

If that doesn't work .... then hit it.

There are only three possible explanations for what you said there...

1. You live in the wrong part of Scotland (???)
2. You have discovered your 'feminine side' before the male menopause.
3. You just read an article in the Saturday Times on psycho-theraputical approaches in a modern, post-industrial, caring-sharing Britain.

Gotta go, the PC needs a good kicking.

[arith]

'Is digital photography still art', I didn't know it ever was. Duffy said he regarded photography as a craft, which for the most part it is; the wedding photographer has to in my view take pics your average 'Eastenders or soap washed' public find attractive and how many choices do you have with composition keeping the bride and groom in every shot.
However some and at least one in this place are artists, but I don't think using program mode on the camera and then some prescription processing is either a craft or artistic, it is just pointing a camera. cheers

[Shadowman]

Arith,

I think it could be argued that art is in the eye.... you know the rest. Although the concept may not be original but if a photographer recreates the Mona Lisa on film or digital media and the viewer sees the same beauty that was captured by Da Vinci then can we deny that individual's interpretation of art, especially if they had not seen or known of the original. I know the debate will start again as we deny the artistic merits of sofa art or images created by elephants armed with a paint brush, but what it boils down to is that a photographer can create an artistic image even if he does so with a point and shoot. It is up to that photographer to align all the elements of their composition to present to the viewer his or her own interpretation of a given image.

'Is digital photography still art', I didn't know it ever was. Duffy said he regarded photography as a craft, which for the most part it is; the wedding photographer has to in my view take pics your average 'Eastenders or soap washed' public find attractive and how many choices do you have with composition keeping the bride and groom in every shot.
However some and at least one in this place are artists, but I don't think using program mode on the camera and then some prescription processing is either a craft or artistic, it is just pointing a camera. cheers

[arith]

I think it could be argued that art is in the eye....

Too right; I'm not concerned with scene preservation, in fact as I get better I will move further and further from reality. I don't care if you don't recognise the scene because for the most part you won't have even been there anyway.
To me art is something that invokes a feeling and a photograph taken on holiday to preserve a scene is completely different to a landscape or portrait which invokes feelings.
It might be that the compact camera photographer takes the trouble to look, has an ability to recognise just what is needed and how effective that is but; is still in servitude to a programmers ideas of what makes a good photo and light.

[eNo]

The OP's question(s)/thought(s) seem to assume that once the shutter has been pressed, photography ends. Find Ansel Adams' grave and tell him that. Be prepared for some rolling. The computer is akin to the dark room, where Adams and many of his contemporaries spent extensive time completing their vision for, yes, their artistic photographs. If Adams were with us today, you can bet he would be using the best technique, equipment and post-processing available to him, because that is exactly what he did with what he had at hand during his career. A point one must consider is that artistry cannot be cleanly separated from craft and skill of usage of all tools available to execute artistic vision. The computer and associated software are simply that, tools in the hands of the artist's hands.

Personally speaking, I have found that my most artistic and impactful photographs were executed when I started gaining more digital darkroom skill. Do I have certain standards, like no significant and/or deceptive deviation from the original scene I captured? Yes, but all this is a matter of, yet again, artistic interpretation, and who is to say that the very act of framing a shot isn't in effect a original-scene-distorting event?

I will not make this a general statement, because I know many approach this matter from a diversity of perspectives. But I sometimes get the impression that some who disdain post-processing are justifying their lack of desire to want to put in the work to achieve full artistic expression. That said, and having done it myself, there is nothing wrong with grabbing a few shots and leaving them be. Family gatherings and birthday parties are two occasions when I often capture RAW only to do a straight JPG conversion. OTOH, if I want a shot like this, I don't know how anybody could get it straight out-of-the-camera.


Nikon D700 & Tamron 28-75 @f/11: 5 vertical panel stitch with lots of PP for B&W conversion... and I mean LOTS of PP. Should I be ashamed of this shot, or should anyone say it's not art because I've spent hours achieving my pre-visualization in front of a computer? Say yes, and I got a big beef with ya.

[RonH]

The OP's question(s)/thought(s) seem to assume ...

No assumptions were made but its good to read passion

[eNo]

No assumptions were made but its good to read passion

There may be some passion, but if that's all you see, I think you are missing some of the rationale and facts behind what makes photography an art form. BTW, I didn't want to assume myself, hence the use of the word "seem."

[RonH]

There may be some passion, but if that's all you see, I think you are missing some of the rationale and facts behind what makes photography an art form. BTW, I didn't want to assume myself, hence the use of the word "seem."

Have a nice day