I post process therefore I can't take a good photo.

[Overread]

Why would you agree with that? When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no? Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it? That would be weird.

So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.

Nope - - it depends what the person holding the camera wants from the photo and I am sure that few((er) photographers only stick to one type of shooting.
I do all 3:
try to recreate what I see with my own eyes:
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/... works/British Wildlife Centre 2/IMG_1344.jpg
mostly what I got in camera and sort of similar to what my eyes saw - though with some contrast and saturation added

try change what I see to something different using the camera settings
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/yorkshire 2/IMG_1073.jpg
(taken in very late evening long after sunset - so very little light around - even for my eyes)

and also alter what I get in the camera in editing to alter the view to something that I find more pleasing
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/insect 6/IMG_0060a.jpg
fake HDR used on this one

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Why would you agree with that? When you are choosing the settings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no? Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it? That would be weird.

So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.

Reading that really shocked me. Do you honestly believe that the only purpose of a photograph is to accurately record what you see? I browsed some of your work and I can see that this is your style. There's nothing wrong with that. Your shots all use very small aperture and you don't try to make "art" out of anything. But you have to realize that very many photographers do not shoot like this.

EDIT: and by the way, do you notice how in your shots, you use your flash? That's manipulating the scene and making a visual choice. You are shooting images which are modified through your actions. You're doing this and not even realizing it.

 

[Lacey Anne]

Why would you agree with that? When you are choosing the seetings for your camera, you're trying to determine what your camera needs to be set at in order to properly expose the sight you see with your eyes, no? Do you try to set your camera up so that it captures it differently and, therefore, manipulates it? That would be weird.

So I don't think that you're choosing to manipulate it-you're taking on the challenge of recreating it as you see it.

He would say it because it's true. When I open my aperature up to acheive a bokeh, is that what my eyes saw? No. I don't see in bokeh. I wish, that would be awesome... Anyway, right there, I've changed the image. When I shoot a photo at night and do a long exposure, once again, I've manipulated the image to allow more light than my eyes see. When I took photos of our zoos light and I stopped down my aperature to get a starburst, once again the image was altered. Do you see a pattern? Photography is about more than capturing exactly what you see the way everyone else sees it. It's about creating the image YOU see and sharing it with others. It's your own unique perspective on life and the world and a glimpse inside the head of the artist.

 

[table1349]

He would say it because it's true. When I open my aperature up to acheive a bokeh, is that what my eyes saw? No. I don't see in bokeh. I wish, that would be awesome... Anyway, right there, I've changed the image. When I shoot a photo at night and do a long exposure, once again, I've manipulated the image to allow more light than my eyes see. When I took photos of our zoos light and I stopped down my aperature to get a starburst, once again the image was altered. Do you see a pattern? Photography is about more than capturing exactly what you see the way everyone else sees it. It's about creating the image YOU see and sharing it with others. It's your own unique perspective on life and the world and a glimpse inside the head of the artist.

That is where the difference between taking pictures (capturing the moment) and creating the most pleasing photograph come in to play. A simple example, you need to take a photograph of some sort of award or recognition. To get a proper exposure you need to add you own light, in this case a portable flash unit. You have an ugly background to your photo. Set a shutter speed of 1/60th and get a proper exposure of the subjects and light up the ugly background as well, or set a shutter speed of 1/250th and get properly exposed subjects with a dark, but now much more pleasing background.

That is manipulation and it renders stsinner's assumption as false as he is assuming that the purpose of the photograph is to capture exactly what the photographer sees. Did you see star trails? Did you see the star pattern of the lights at the zoo?

If you use the functions that you camera provides you, then you can see bokeh when you stop down. Learn to use the DOF preview buttion. It takes practice but it has been done for years and is a helpful skill to develop.

 

[pm63]

I also strongly disagree that the purpose of photography is just to capture what the eye sees. Faithful reproduction may be neccessary for scientific work or digitising (e.g. paintings) but not in artistic, creative photography. More often than not, we try to make the scene look better than it is in real life.

 

[stsinner]

I also strongly disagree that the purpose of photography is just to capture what the eye sees. Faithful reproduction may be neccessary for scientific work or digitising (e.g. paintings) but not in artistic, creative photography. More often than not, we try to make the scene look better than it is in real life.

I think you're confusing photography with art or maybe graphic design.

 

[pm63]

I think you're confusing photography with art or maybe graphic design.

So photography to you is not an art? To me, it is. I don't want to go further down that route because that is an endless discussion in itself.

I am not "confusing" it with anything, and the graphic design part implies I 'make' my shots with digital manipulation (I only do basic adjustments, as that is all I know). Just because my view of photography differs from yours, it is not incorrect. If you think all that there is to photography is attempting to reproduce a scene exactly as you saw it, my friend, you and I are on different planes. To me, photography is about making a scene look interesting or better than it was through careful use of lighting and composition, among other elements. A photograph can make a scene so much more exciting and vivid than it was in real life. To each his own, I suppose. Lifelike reproduction is not exactly my goal, though it may be yours.

 

[Judge Sharpe]

I agree with both sides- I think that the question is, how do we see?
Monet painted what he saw, in his own way of expressing it. That is the essence of photography- the expression of what our eyes behold. My wife looks at me and I am the same slim well built stud she married 37 years ago. Even if she takes a photo of me she sees what SHE sees.
I can not say how you perceive an object nor can you describe it as it exists, only your sense of it. Think of the discussions we have on here- some perceive beauty, some would suggest changes. We manipulate the image to bring it to our own ideal.
I do not know what you see as red.
My eyes translate the wavelengths to a certain nerve function that I recognise as the colour known as red. I can no more say that the particular brain translation of the nerve impulses that occur in my brain are the same as yours than I can say what you think of as pretty girl or a handsome boy. So with a camera, I record what I want the image to be, because that is my reality. If I drew it that would be my reality, but you would not be able to tell what it is. Our equipment has certain limitations that we must accommodate, hence the f stop and shutter speed, film size or sensor pixels.
The uncertainty principal states that any thing you do to an object changes it, so you can never have an exact record of what it was before you interfered. This includes burning its image on a recording media.

My 2 cents, which may not be worth as much today as yesterday.
Judge Sharpe

 

[stsinner]

Maybe I'm just boring. That could be. But if I see.. oh, a horse, for instance and I think it would make a beautiful photograph because there are snow capped mountains behind it, I take the picture. I've never once looked at something that begged to have its picture taken and thought, "Wow.. That would be a beautiful shot if only it had some contrast and saturation adjustments and a little dodging of the shadows and burning of the sky...." I thought it was beautiful when I looked at it, so I took its picture for posterity. Of course I could just be saying this because I suck at Photoshop.

And to answer your question, no, I do not consider photography an art. I consider it a hobby-one that some people get paid for. I think it is art when you start manipulating the pictures and adding your own touches to it. But the textbook definition of photography-depressing the shutter release on a camera, is not art any more than my son building a Lego Star Destroyer is art.

Funny thing-as I've been mulling this over in my head how some of you are dead-set on taking the reality out of the image and "making it your own," I can't help think of my uncle who was a painter. His favorite subject was country stuff-you know, barns and deer.. Now, what he would do is take a photograph and fold it very symmetrically over and over so that the picture then consisted of a number of squares when unfolded. Then he would pencil these same squares on his canvas before he began.. He would then begin to recreate the photograph on his canvas one square at a time. His goal was to paint a picture that when you held up the photo next to it looked as much like the photo as absolutely possible. He wanted to create a painting of his own that looked just like the picture.. The more it looked like the picture, the happier he was with it. Almost the inverse of many opinions in this thread... He was considered a good painter when you couldn't tell the painting from the original, but it seems you're considered a good photographer when you make photos "your own," meaning they look nothing like the original photograph.

 

[Overread]

building with lego is an art!
its certainly not a science though there is (like in a lot of art) hard science behind the creation.
Photography is an art form - this is something that you really can't argue against. As a whole its seen as an art and in that you have your realistic shots that are hardly edited - your slightly adjusted shots - your HDR - your abstract - your photo collages - the whole lot.

Its different things to different people and its impossible to say that it should only be one thing or another. Also there is far more to photography than just pressing the shutter - there is framing the shot, choosing which parts are to be and not to be in the shot; choosing the settings (Even if the camera picks for you- that is still a choice that you have made); the lighting availble at the time as well as what editing is applied to the shot.

 

[stsinner]

I'll concede that some pictures, once hung on the wall, become art. I think that the pictures that are so good, composed so right and exposed so well are just the result of someone mastering their hobby, not becoming an artist.. Someone that you would call an artist, I would simply call a good photographer. It's not meant as an insult or to diminish anyone's skill in any way-I just have a different word for it than some. I've never heard of a photographer being referred to as an artist. If there is a beautiful picture on the wall and a name in the lower corner of the person who shot it, I don't think anyone would call that the "artist's" name. I think it would most likely be referred to as the photographer's name.

 

[fwellers]

Learn to use the DOF preview buttion. It takes practice but it has been done for years and is a helpful skill to develop.

Don't want to derail this conversation, as it's been an interesting and informative read for a beginner like me. But my boss who got me into photography says he'd love to understand how to use the DOF preview. I tried and get the same results as him, which is, at higher fstop numbers it just darkens the image you see. How does one use that information to accurately predict the DOF ?

Thanks,
floyd

 

[Overread]

are you then saying that photos posted on the internet are not a form of art?
I think you are working yourself into a corner with this viewpoint that you have. Photography is an art form (heck if you want more proof its listed as an art at universities - unless one is studying the theory behind photography - ie the science of light) though art takes a lot of different forms.
Though you yourself are not going very arty with your shots - ie editing and boosting contrast and other things beyond the natural - you are still performing art - you are choosing what to include in the frame - you are choosing to create an image form what you have seen and in the end creative activities are an art form.
With the lego example you son could make the star destroyer from the manual guide with the lego - there is then skill in following the manual, but not really artistic ability since your son is making no choice on the final image - a bit like painting by numbers. However make him make a star destroyer from scratch and an aspect of art will be added *though chances are scale aspects will be thrown out the window )

 

[Overread]

Don't want to derail this conversation, as it's been an interesting and informative read for a beginner like me. But my boss who got me into photography says he'd love to understand how to use the DOF preview. I tried and get the same results as him, which is, at higher fstop numbers it just darkens the image you see. How does one use that information to accurately predict the DOF ?

Thanks,
floyd

Personally I have never found the depth of field preview button to be any use myself either - I also cannot read what the camera is showing me and with digital if I have time to press and consider the depth of field in an image I should have time to shoot at a range of settings and then see how things look on the computer. If I am pushed for time I have to go with experience and my gut feeling (As well as lighting availble).
Also the button - at least on Canon DSLRs - is in a horrid position that I cannot comfortably use when handholding the kit - which means it has to be on a tripod anyway

 

[Garbz]

I'll concede that some pictures, once hung on the wall, become art. I think that the pictures that are so good, composed so right and exposed so well are just the result of someone mastering their hobby, not becoming an artist.. Someone that you would call an artist, I would simply call a good photographer. It's not meant as an insult or to diminish anyone's skill in any way-I just have a different word for it than some. I've never heard of a photographer being referred to as an artist.

This is weird.

For the earlier question why do I believe in manipulation due to the camera? Because I do star trails, long exposures, black and white, I push things brighter than the eye can see, and I shoot into a sun in a way that would blind you if you tried to do it in real life.

Also you are officially one of only 3 people I know who don't consider photography art. The other two one works for the newspaper, and the other at a quick snap portrait place in a supermarket booth. I am not sure on your outlook or why you started photography or what even tickles your fancy for photography, but for me and many of us it is the creative outlet, the infinite possibilities of playing with lights and angles.

The one thing which clearly defines it as art in my eyes is an example from a photography book I own (can't quote title since I am out of the country atm). What they did is give 10 photographers an identical wooden doll and told them to photograph it. The 10 results were not just different pictures, but different concepts and insights into the minds of the photographers. The pictures displayed their moods and ideas very creatively.

Also:

Dictionary Definition:
Art: noun: A product of human creativity.

Therefore if the camera is able to manipulate reality through exposures times, apertures, and magnification then the images it produces relies on the creativity of the person using it. If you can't call photography art, then the only thing you can call art is a painting.