Technical over Art? :: Discuss

[mortovismo]

Art over technical IMO

Artistic pictures don't always have to be technically sound.
Technically sound pictures have to be always artistic.

Again IMO

 

[skieur]

Art over technical IMO

Artistic pictures don't always have to be technically sound.
Technically sound pictures have to be always artistic.

Again IMO

Yes, they do, because technical weaknesses distract the viewer's eye from the visual intent and subject of the artist.

skieur

 

[mortovismo]

Art over technical IMO

Artistic pictures don't always have to be technically sound.
Technically sound pictures have to be always artistic.

Again IMO

Yes, they do, because technical weaknesses distract the viewer's eye from the visual intent and subject of the artist.

skieur

I disagree. There are varying degrees of technical weakness. People will find fault in anything if they look hard enough for it.

 

[usayit]

skieur that wasnt the photo I was pointing out..... its too easy to find fault and dismiss.... even successful and accomplished photographers.

As we discussed before..... you see photography as such a hard cold definite that it sucks the life out of it. thus agree to disagree and rather than argue, I simply would rather just point out differences.

mortovismo... nice to see someone on similar wavelengths

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

the visual intent and subject of the artist.

What if the intentions of the artist are not what you are assuming?

 

[reedshots]

A technically accurate photography should include correct lighting, exposure, and composition (rule of thirds) that is to be TECHNICALLY accurate the artistic aspect of a photograph is the bending of the rules. Blurred back/foreground, intentional shadows, visible motion and so on…. With good lighting artificial or natural and most of today’s cameras set on AUTO will produce a properly exposed shot with little effort on the operators part.
IMO the artistic part of photography is in the eye of the operator/viewer of the photograph.
If I shot a moving (25 mile hr) car in auto I would most likely get a correctly exposed shot of a car on the street with maybe slight blur to the back ground and tires but if I set the shutter speed say one or two stops slower than the camera would than I would have a far different shot. Same with aperture and close shots, camera on AUTO I would most likely get the bride and grooms hands as well as the remaining parts of the shot is focus, but if I set the aperture a stop or two wider now that is artistic.

 

[Forkie]

A technically accurate photography should include correct lighting, exposure, and composition (rule of thirds) that is to be TECHNICALLY accurate the artistic aspect of a photograph is the bending of the rules. Blurred back/foreground, intentional shadows, visible motion and so on…. With good lighting artificial or natural and most of today’s cameras set on AUTO will produce a properly exposed shot with little effort on the operators part.
IMO the artistic part of photography is in the eye of the operator/viewer of the photograph.
If I shot a moving (25 mile hr) car in auto I would most likely get a correctly exposed shot of a car on the street with maybe slight blur to the back ground and tires but if I set the shutter speed say one or two stops slower than the camera would than I would have a far different shot. Same with aperture and close shots, camera on AUTO I would most likely get the bride and grooms hands as well as the remaining parts of the shot is focus, but if I set the aperture a stop or two wider now that is artistic.

I'm not sure I've got this right, but are you saying that a photo taken on Auto is not artistic, but if you alter the aperture a couple of stops away from what the camera would've chosen, that makes it artistic?

 

[skieur]

Art over technical IMO

Artistic pictures don't always have to be technically sound.
Technically sound pictures have to be always artistic.

Again IMO

Yes, they do, because technical weaknesses distract the viewer's eye from the visual intent and subject of the artist.

skieur

I disagree. There are varying degrees of technical weakness. People will find fault in anything if they look hard enough for it.

I don't think that you can indirectly blame the viewer for spotting the technical weakness of the shot...as in "People will find fault in anything if they look hard enough for it."

Yes, there are varying degrees of technical weakness and they all detract from the photo. How much they detract, depends on how easily and how quickly the viewer/customer spots the technical weakness.

skieur

 

[skieur]

the visual intent and subject of the artist.

What if the intentions of the artist are not what you are assuming?

The intentions of the artist are to a certain degree irrelevant. The photo MUST stand on its own. To put it another way, if the viewer does NOT see the intentions of the artist, then the photographer has failed to communicate his intentions, so his photographic skills are weak.

skieur

 

[skieur]

A technically accurate photography should include correct lighting, exposure, and composition (rule of thirds) that is to be TECHNICALLY accurate the artistic aspect of a photograph is the bending of the rules. Blurred back/foreground, intentional shadows, visible motion and so on…. With good lighting artificial or natural and most of today’s cameras set on AUTO will produce a properly exposed shot with little effort on the operators part.
IMO the artistic part of photography is in the eye of the operator/viewer of the photograph.
If I shot a moving (25 mile hr) car in auto I would most likely get a correctly exposed shot of a car on the street with maybe slight blur to the back ground and tires but if I set the shutter speed say one or two stops slower than the camera would than I would have a far different shot. Same with aperture and close shots, camera on AUTO I would most likely get the bride and grooms hands as well as the remaining parts of the shot is focus, but if I set the aperture a stop or two wider now that is artistic.

You have totally misinterpreted the artistic aspect of photography. It has nothing to do with bending rules at all. Take a look at a number of websites such as www.photoinf.com to get a clearer idea of composition from the articles. The articles are not all excellent but they will give you a starting point.

skieur

 

[MichiganFarts]

The intentions of the artist are to a certain degree irrelevant. The photo MUST stand on its own. To put it another way, if the viewer does NOT see the intentions of the artist, then the photographer has failed to communicate his intentions, so his photographic skills are weak.

skieur

What if the viewers viewing skills were weak?

 

[mortovismo]

I guarantee you there is an inadvertently under exposed photograph hanging in a gallery somewhere as we type.

 

[djacobox372]

Lack of technical skill can limit artistic expression, but it's also true that many people allow the technical aspects to distract them from mastering less technical things like composition, mood, and style.

I've always found that the best "artists" are those that are so technically proficient with their tools that they don't even have to think about them anymore--leaving themselves open to concentrate on the other things.

 

[skieur]

The intentions of the artist are to a certain degree irrelevant. The photo MUST stand on its own. To put it another way, if the viewer does NOT see the intentions of the artist, then the photographer has failed to communicate his intentions, so his photographic skills are weak.

skieur

What if the viewers viewing skills were weak?

That was very possible 30 to 50 years ago, but today with HD, wide screen, panorama shots in the gigapixel range, and 3D format visuals on screens at 50" or more at home, as well as I-MaX in theatres, that premise is extremely unlikely. Moreover there are also more people around now with some experience in art, photography, and/or video and television... I have all of the above.

Of course, as a photographer with any skill, you MUST be able to easily recognize whether the viewer has been able to pick up a technical weakness or not. If you deny a technical weakness to a viewer with an undisclosed visual background, you will look like a **** incompetent

skieur.

 

[skieur]

I guarantee you there is an inadvertently under exposed photograph hanging in a gallery somewhere as we type.

Oh, probably, but that does not make it a great photograph and how many viewers will ignore it as they pass by? I have been in galleries and seen it happen.

skieur