is HDR "real" photography (Discuss)

[Village Idiot]

what are you thoughts?

Merriam Webster states that photography is:

the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

So if the person took the photos themselves, then yes it is photography.

 

[Browncoat]

I think there is a line between photography and art.

Taking a pictures at your child's birthday party is photography. Sure, you want to capture the moment and try to make sure that there is decent exposure so that your shots look okay. Taking that same camera and using perspective and interpretation is where photography becomes art. Maybe your child is taking a silent break by themselves, away from the party and you were able to capture a glimpse of silent reflection or even exhaustion in their expression.

HDR is no different. Any time creativity is injected into a scene, a simple photograph becomes art.

 

[Chris Stegner]

Are we REALLY having this discussion again?

 

[er111a]

interesting

 

[skieur]

HDR is only a photographic technique and like any other technique, its value is whether it contributes to the centre of interest and the overall visual impact of the image. If, it doesn't, then it should not be used.

Knowing the difference between the two is what makes the difference between a newbie and an experienced photographer.

skieur

 

[er111a]

mmhm

 

[MSnowy]

i believe it's photography, i look at it this way, a photo in it's true sense is to recreate an image as close as possible to what the natural eye sees, it becomes photography when the photographer influences the image in some way, ie: exposure ,color, filters etc. because as we know anyone can take a picture but a photographer creates art

 

[er111a]

i believe it's photography, i look at it this way, a photo in it's true sense is to recreate an image as close as possible to what the natural eye sees, it becomes photography when the photographer influences the image in some way, ie: exposure ,color, filters etc. because as we know anyone can take a picture but a photographer creates art

so true

 

[DScience]

Is my your lens as big as mine?

 

[er111a]

Is my your lens as big as mine?

haha wat

 

[syphlix]

if it comes out of a camera it's photography

 

[er111a]

any other thoughts?

 

[NateWagner]

I think there is a line between photography and art.

Taking a pictures at your child's birthday party is photography. Sure, you want to capture the moment and try to make sure that there is decent exposure so that your shots look okay. Taking that same camera and using perspective and interpretation is where photography becomes art. Maybe your child is taking a silent break by themselves, away from the party and you were able to capture a glimpse of silent reflection or even exhaustion in their expression.

HDR is no different. Any time creativity is injected into a scene, a simple photograph becomes art.

I would suggest instead of there being a line between photography and art, that photography and art are like two circles that at some point collide (we've all seen the mickey mouse diagrams) all images taken with a camera are photographs, but not all photographs are art.

Thus, it is not a line, so much as a convergence at some point. I do not think that photographs stop being photographs when they become art (in the example you gave).

btw. er1911a you don't really need to use verbal pauses, and listening acknowledgement on threads (such as, mmhmm)

 

[dyyylan]

i believe it's photography, i look at it this way, a photo in it's true sense is to recreate an image as close as possible to what the natural eye sees, it becomes photography when the photographer influences the image in some way, ie: exposure ,color, filters etc. because as we know anyone can take a picture but a photographer creates art

how is what the eye sees what is "real" ? We can only see a very small section of light, what a camera is able to record is different. What other animals are able to see is different.

If it comes out of a camera, it's photography. Just because it doesn't look "real" or how we expect to perceive things doesn't make it any less of a photograph. An HDR image is several photos combined to form one image that contains the range of many different exposures, often more than we can see with our own eyes. Just because the camera was able to capture more than we can see in our own eyes' "exposure" doesn't make it less "real" than if it was as limited as our own eyesight.

 

[Gaerek]

I think there is a line between photography and art.

Taking a pictures at your child's birthday party is photography. Sure, you want to capture the moment and try to make sure that there is decent exposure so that your shots look okay. Taking that same camera and using perspective and interpretation is where photography becomes art. Maybe your child is taking a silent break by themselves, away from the party and you were able to capture a glimpse of silent reflection or even exhaustion in their expression.

HDR is no different. Any time creativity is injected into a scene, a simple photograph becomes art.

I have to disagree. Why can't that picture of the birthday party be art? This has been the real question for a while. There are plenty of people who see Andy Warhol's Campbell's soup cans and think, "That's not art, he just copied a can perfectly!" Other's think it's beautiful art. I don't think it's as easy as to say "If you shoot this like this, it's art, but if you shoot that like that, it's not."

Why do people think that art requires pre-planning, a lot of thought, personal reflection, "perspective and interpretation" or any number of things. Why can't art just be something that is created because the artist wanted to create it?

It's funny because if a newbie posts a picture of a blurry scene in downtown New York, most people would say it's not art, and that it needs to be in focus, and <insert more technical "improvements" to the image>. Yet, would you think this photo is art? I mean, the lady is very blurry, it's not in great focus, and the composition could probably use some work and the background is very busy.

You really cannot define what art is, where it begins and end, or anything like that. If you start to define what exactly art is, it ceases to be art.