Railway Station Entrance

[William W]

Another way of looking at this in another way is to ask the question; "has digital photography raised the standards?".

To a large degree, I would have to respond with a resounding YES!. There are certainly many more mediocre images posted on social media, but if I look at what photographers are creating today when I compare back to work done 10 - 15 years ago, the quality (and implied standards) have certainly gone up. Our cameras, lighting equipment, post-processing software, etc. and our skills to use them have gone up. So have the expectations of what a good image is...

I reckon the breadth and depth of what we (well most of us) now define as "Photography" as increased many times over.

This is one of the main issues: some folk, such as Donald, the ex-Press Photographer, want to keep the definition of "Photography" confined to very strict rules and procedures, all the time and for every "image".

Others choose to be more flexible and, on the spectrum of definitions move towards the middle ground and some take an anything goes extreme approach.

I think the important point for all is to clearly articulate our definition, when we are discussing: my view is Photography has a place on the Art Spectrum, and as such, in general terms, if a camera or like device is involved, then the end result should be termed a "photograph".

Additionally, I think: 'artist's intent'; 'purpose'; 'client'; 'end use'; are all important aspects to consider and will (should) result in differing definitions of what is acceptable, or not.

For example, I read Tyler's commentary not as one of being inflexible: rather that he articulated his Artist's Intent clearly and because of his (passionate) stance on Artist's Intent, he is justified in not accepting others' definitions.

I have found it always interesting to discuss this topic under the banner of where folk place "Photography" on the Spectrum of Art. I have found folk that have a view such as Tyler's prefer water tight definitions along that spectrum, also folk like Donald, the ex Press guy, tend to be technical folk and as such prefer water tight rules, not necessarily placing "photography" on the Spectrum of Art, at all. The same result, different pathways.

Maybe Tyler likes Scotch Whisky too - so we might all agree on that.

WW

[William W]

Let me know the next time you're in Scotland . . .

Thank you, Bill

Off topic - a wonderful element of Scotland (as I understand, never been there) is that there are 7000 times more brands and blends of Whisky than I have access to here.

regards

Bill

[tybrad]

Maybe Tyler likes Scotch Whisky too - so we might all agree on that.

WW

[Wandjina]

With the advent of the mobile phone and digital cameras, it would seem that everyone is a photographer. Some of us who are Club photographers accept the challenge of taking photos within the rules set by FIAP, the PSA and others for topics such as Photojournalism, Travel and Nature as mentioned by Manfred in an earlier post.
I have had long discussions with a photojournalist who is adamant that photos should not be edited. He wants to portray an accurate account of what he saw. He is also restricted by time and has to send his image quickly to the news outlet with no editing. So the "in camera" image has to be properly composed, exposed etc.
At the other extreme; I have entered images in various Australian national portrait competions with minimal success. On researching the top place getters, I find they are usually graduates from the various Art schools around the country. They have taken up the camera and Photoshop as their artistic outlet rather than a paint brush and palette. They choose to work way outside "the square."
There is no right or wrong ... just a wide open field!