no question Photography is an art but when you show someone your pictures then the first then that they would say "you must have an expensive camera there is not trick but use expensive camera you are good to go" ;););)
no question Photography is an art but when you show someone your pictures then the first then that they would say "you must have an expensive camera there is not trick but use expensive camera you are good to go" ;););)
Remember, expensive cameras have their own mind. They give you advice, tells you what to take when to take how to take. and if they don't like to pictures, they won't show them to you in their LCDs. More expensive camera you get more intelligent camera you own. I heard about EOS-1Ds Mark II cameras actually can get you breakfast early in the morning and turn on your shower water before you go into the bathroom to take a shower.
Then you're free to continue wallowing in confusion.
And you, single handedly proved my point with this statement.
Yes, he is free to continue to believe what he chooses to believe...
But, to call that confusion is ignorant.
It is not for one person to choose the belief of another. And that is all a thread like this is doing. It is giving people a forced belief of something.
Life in itself is subjective... it will never mean the exactly the same to two people. Labels, and restrictions, all they do is stump the creative energy of people. Limiting the natural desire to create and explore and share.
That, my friends is my point... it is not for us to discuss and persuade what is or is not, it is for us to create and share those things we enjoy.
For some, it is rebuilding a car, painting a picture, photography a blade of grass, building a sand sculpture on the beach, flying a kite, dancing naked with the windows open, skipping to work, whistling in the dark, the heat of a debate, it is a million things that make people smile; and there is no one in this world or anywhere that can tell me what to smile or not smile to.
Is Photography Art? That is up to your personal view to decide... but in the mean time.. you should go create some.... art that is.
Is painting a portrait more difficult than shooting a portrait?
Yes, painting a portrait of a person is much much more difficult than taking his photo. And making a photo look very good in post processing is GENERALLY easier than painting someone.
And this is what I wished to tell you, that though post processing a photo may be art in its own sense, it is no where close to making a portait or realistic painting (which is usually much much more dofficult to do).
I do agree with you that photography and post processing are also art, but saying that they same as as painting is not okay in my thinking. Because I know by experience that it takes a determined effort to paint someone.
(further for making this clear, if you go and read my very first post in other thread, the last line was (something like), I understood what you wished to say (though I did not agree that it is same as painting).
(actually this is the whole reason I spend time with photography, because this I could manage to do, even if I am busy, but for me to find time to do painting is very difficult, because of time and effort it requires).
See that is the thing. I have a friend that is a very good sketch artist and painter. I have seen him sit in a coffee shop and sketch a girl in 10 or 15 minutes and it turned out fantastic.
If I were to set up my lights, define my composition, meter the lighting, take test shots, get her in position with final look ready for the session and then shoot it will have taken me at least 2 hours to get the shot then I need to take it into photoshop and edit the image lets say for another hour. I now have 3 hours getting a portrait where my friend had it in 15 minutes.
Seems the photography was harder and more involved.
On the flip had I given my camera to my friend the sketch artist he would have laughed as he is not a photographer and does not posses the skill set necessary. As well I don't have the skill set necessary to do the sketch.
To me one is not harder than the other just a different means to an end.
Equating "difficulty" with "artistic value" is a fairly ridiculous concept anyway. If you do that, you basically are saying that a Robert Motherwell abstract is not "art", as compared with, say, a Rembrandt. And of course many would say that, and have said that :-) But where would you draw the line? Is a painting by Grandma Moses (a revered American primitive) less worthy of the title "art" because she has no concept of how to render perspective? Or because her "technique", as far as the mixing of colors and laying them down on the canvas, is less demanding than Rembrandt's?
It's a ridiculous way to pass judgment, this idea of scoring artistic value based on degree of difficulty.
I am reminded of what Avedon once said: The art of seeing is the beginning of Art...
That's what we all have in common, or strive to have: a particular vision. Without this unique vision, this sense of a "goal", as it were, there cannot be art. But how the vision manifests itself, in what form or in what medium, is not a defining characteristic of "artfulness" in my mind, at least.
Art is something that happens. It\'s a process not an object. So, the moment of taking a picture is art, or can be. The resulting photograph is a memento of that moment of Art. If the photo then causes a moment of Art for you, then you might call the photo \'Art,\' you might not.
If I were to set up my lights, define my composition, meter the lighting, take test shots, get her in position with final look ready for the session and then shoot it will have taken me at least 2 hours to get the shot then I need to take it into photoshop and edit the image lets say for another hour. I now have 3 hours getting a portrait where my friend had it in 15 minutes.
Seems the photography was harder and more involved.
I suspect that just means you need to practice more.
Art is something that happens. It\'s a process not an object. So, the moment of taking a picture is art, or can be. The resulting photograph is a memento of that moment of Art. If the photo then causes a moment of Art for you, then you might call the photo \'Art,\' you might not.
Art is something that happens. It\'s a process not an object. So, the moment of taking a picture is art, or can be. The resulting photograph is a memento of that moment of Art. If the photo then causes a moment of Art for you, then you might call the photo \'Art,\' you might not.
ROFL
YES art is like a sneeze or an orgasm or a hiccup or a fart. Exactly.
Art is something that happens. It\'s a process not an object. So, the moment of taking a picture is art, or can be. The resulting photograph is a memento of that moment of Art. If the photo then causes a moment of Art for you, then you might call the photo \'Art,\' you might not.
ROFL
YES art is like a sneeze or an orgasm or a hiccup or a fart. Exactly.
If I were to set up my lights, define my composition, meter the lighting, take test shots, get her in position with final look ready for the session and then shoot it will have taken me at least 2 hours to get the shot then I need to take it into photoshop and edit the image lets say for another hour. I now have 3 hours getting a portrait where my friend had it in 15 minutes.
Seems the photography was harder and more involved.
I suspect that just means you need to practice more.
It definitely is. I tend to think photography is beyond art. A good artist can create anyting that comes to mind, but for a photographer life is more difficult. You want a bee on a flower? Well go out and find one. Make sure the light is good. Right equipment, right timing.. so much work ;-)
just because a colorblind person thinks bananas are red doesn't mean it is. but then again, maybe everyone else really are the colorblind ones. :-D i think they look blue by the way,,
