digital photography, still art?

[denvermax]

so im a fairly new photography, ive only been at it for about a year now. i use a digital camera and it kind of grinds my gears when people say digital photography is not art. i mean yes, it may not cost oodles of money and lets face it 90% of people that think they are "artsy" by using film probably dont develop the negatives and make the prints themselves. so two out of the three steps in producing a photo they probably dont actually touch. appature, shutter speed, iso.. all that stuff must be taken into consideration when taking digital photos. not to mention you still have to have some sense of composition. so for all you wienbags that think your soo fancy.. go analog baby, your sooooo post modern!

thats my rant, discuss.

 

[TBaraki]

The same level can be acheives via a digital medium, film, charcoal, oil... The medium doesn't determine the artistic value of a work.

That being said, the accessability of digital photography allow many people to take photographs, be they artistic works or otherwise. to me, that is one of photography greatest assets. It can be an archival tool, a documentary tool, or an artistic medium. The only difference is the application of whatever technology you choose to use.

 

[Torus34]

At the end of the day, this discussion will rest on the definition of what Art actually is.

As a start, I remember someone defining Science as the attempt to define outer reality and Art as the attempt to define inner reality.

 

[denvermax]

art is so subjective its a waste of time to try to define. i know what i like, and so do you.. we might not like the same things but to totally discredit someones work as not being art is dogmatic and narrow-minded.

 

[fmw]

Don't confuse the worth of an image with the technology used to record it.

 

[LaFoto]

Denvermax, you might want to browse the forum with the help of the search function for similar discussions that we already had in the past, and you will find all the answers already. And all the controversy of the question "What is art?"..................

 

[Dylan]

I agree the medium is irrelevant. I feel that composition is more important in determining if a picture has artistic merit. Since art is such a subjective subject it’s not worth quantifying it more than that.

 

[jdunphy]

Here's a mildly rantish reply...

While I was in college I didn't take any photo classes, but a number of other Art and Design classes. I spent countless hours creating every aspect of a drawing, painting or design. I controlled each detail and reworked things numerous times. I rarely created art in those classes. I would spend hours on something that was nothing more than a study or an exercise. And yet sometimes I was able to put something more into this work. I was able to work in my expression and my emotion, and it showed.

In your rant you complained that some film shooters don't do their own developing and printing. I contest that you're missing the point. Art isn't about the work that goes into the print. For me it's more about the mindset that goes into the work. I spend very little time post-processing my work. I try to keep my images fairly representational of what I saw through the viewfinder.

My point is that you seem to have a rather narrow view of what people do behind a camera. Maybe you're just a troll and you're trying to draw out a response like this. If that's the case, oh well. If that isn't the case, why do you feel the need to one-up film shooters?


p.s. -- I shoot digital.

 

[LaFoto]

I don't feel our new member denvermax is really doing that, J, i.e. "one-upping" film shooters. I much rather feel he is a bit miffed with how those who take digital photography (like many of us here do these days) are not being taken seriously, least of all by those who still use film. (This must have been his experience...).

And what he says is that the majority who shoot film but later have it developed and printed in a lab actually only have to wait for a little longer to get the feedback of their work but don't actually do ever so much MORE than those who take digital photos and have their instant gratification.

Yet he seems to feel that those who still use film feel superior to those who use a digital camera as their medium to create photography.

And he is unhappy about THAT. Calls it arrogant ... while the difference actually is marginal between those who carry their rolls of film to the drugstore and have it developed by a machine to later collect the prints and those who take digital photos.

Those who DO the work in their own darkrooms can actually be more creative in the processing of their films and their printing out the photos, and there is some handicraft involved in that, more than in planning a photo, taking it, and having it developed. I think that is what he is saying.

Why would those who express themselves via digital photography need to have anyone look down on them, he seems to wonder, since the process of creating the frame is much the same as that for those who use film.

And in that I would say he is right.
Of course the number of people who even more freely and easily snap away digitally than they ever would have when film development and printing still were additional costs has risen MUCH ... but those who do plan their pics, and do think about why they chose this aperture over any other or this exposure over any other, and why they compose like THIS and not in any different manner, still CREATE something (I am too shy to call my work "art", but ... you know: create something) ... no matter if the end result was produced via film or a sensor chip in a digital camera.

I think that is his point.

 

[jdunphy]

Good points, LaFoto. I get what you're saying.

 

[Don Simon]

No one so far has responded by suggesting that digital photography is less of an art form than its film equivalent. Because none of us think that. It's been a long time since I met someone who claimed that film was inherently better than digital. Which is why this confused me...

so for all you wienbags that think your soo fancy.. go analog baby, your sooooo post modern!

Interesting I think it's fair to say the majority of people here, in fact the majority of people on pretty much any photography forum these days, are now shooting digital; many only shoot digital and some have never even used a film camera in their lives. Now when people post asking for recommendations about cameras, they don't even need to specify that it's a digital camera they want. Digital is ubiquitous in personal, commercial and art photography. So I don't really see how you could feel looked down on by some kind of elitist film mafia.

IMO the people here who use film and prefer using film are more likely to admit to being old-fashioned than claim to be "post-modern". In fact the idea that shooting film is something people do just to be different, seems to suggest that there's something inherently wrong with not wanting to use digital all the time, that there simply couldn't be a good reason for using film; it seems a very snobby attitude in itself.

I shoot digital because it gives me results sooner, and it makes economic sense to me, but also because I like the images it produces and because Photoshop allows me to have a lot more control over the final print than I have with film. But sometimes I shoot film. I shoot colour print film because it has much more exposure latitude than digital, and again because I like the images it produces. I shoot black and white film because an 'analog' black and white silver print is much more pleasing to my eye than a colour image converted to grayscale and printed on colour paper with a colour printer. I like the grain, I like the tonal range... strangely enough, wanting to be arty or post-modern isn't a factor in that.

Seriously, no one here has suggested that film makes inherently better art than digital sensors. People do make claims for digital being a better medium than film and vice versa, but I can't remember the last time anyone claimed one makes better art than the other. Anyone who does is in an incredibly tiny minority, so why would you feel threatened?

 

[toastydeath]

I have noticed that, in any profession, hobby, or art, that those who would speak down at people utilizing different technology or advances in their feild are usually incompetent when viewed in the context of the amount of experience those people usually have.

In photography, a person who has spent years learning the technical aspects of film only to fail artistically would very easily feel fear or jealousy over someone who just picked up the latest digital camera six months ago, yet is producing more interesting work than they ever did, or ever could.

 

[denvermax]

Here's a mildly rantish reply...

While I was in college I didn't take any photo classes, but a number of other Art and Design classes. I spent countless hours creating every aspect of a drawing, painting or design. I controlled each detail and reworked things numerous times. I rarely created art in those classes. I would spend hours on something that was nothing more than a study or an exercise. And yet sometimes I was able to put something more into this work. I was able to work in my expression and my emotion, and it showed.

In your rant you complained that some film shooters don't do their own developing and printing. I contest that you're missing the point. Art isn't about the work that goes into the print. For me it's more about the mindset that goes into the work. I spend very little time post-processing my work. I try to keep my images fairly representational of what I saw through the viewfinder.

My point is that you seem to have a rather narrow view of what people do behind a camera. Maybe you're just a troll and you're trying to draw out a response like this. If that's the case, oh well. If that isn't the case, why do you feel the need to one-up film shooters?


p.s. -- I shoot digital.

wooaahh. one up? not at all. im simply sayin i hate it when kids say digital photography is not art because its not film. there are many kids like that, and i've even seen a few on this fourm. i really dont know how you got my trying to one up anyone out of that.

 

[Don Simon]

Sounds like we got the wrong impression. But I think it might have had something to do with this...

so for all you wienbags that think your soo fancy.. go analog baby, your sooooo post modern!

Like I said in my earlier post, that seems to be suggesting that people only use film to try to look arty or cool. It doesn't allow for the fact that there are good reasons for using film instead of digital (and vice versa). Honestly I don't remember seeing anyone on this forum saying digital photography is not art or is somehow less of an art than film, which is why I didn't really understand where you were coming from.

 

[LWW]

At the end of the day, this discussion will rest on the definition of what Art actually is.

As you wish:

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

and by that definition it is art.

What it isn't is PHOT-O-GRAPH-Y, or writing with light.

LWW