Photography is art.

GGrass,
A lot of what you posted is street photography and some of it was simply urban/city stuff. I never was really aware there was a difference until I posted some shots I took a while back in a street photography section of a site where I was immediately informed that Street Photography should have human elements. If a person is not the subject or the subject is not accompanied by a person, a lot of people won't call it street photography, they'll just call it city or urban. Whether this is legitimate or not, I'm not entirely sure, I'm just repeating what I was told by multiple people.

I also agree with you that it's a little frightening taking out your camera in public to simply take photos of people. It's stressful until you overcome the fear (I still haven't). I always worry about how they are going to react. Are they going to be happy I took the picture, not care, try to make me erase it, or what??? I know my rights when it comes to photography, but I'm still a respectful person so I don't like to cause confrontation.

Lastly, I disagree about digital photography being free. You have the cost of your computer (which is kind of like your darkroom), you have the cost of software (more so like your darkroom), you have the cost of storage (if you're not backing up your photos to multiple drives and places, you risk losing them forever), and then you have the cost of digital keep up (film cameras had keep up too, but not like digital). Digital cameras tend to have more problems than film (shutters dying fast, electronic malfunctions, etc...). So you may not be paying for film or darkroom chemicals anymore, but you're definitely paying for all the means to process, store, and share your photographs. Not to mention the initial bulk investment you make when you buy your camera and lenses. Photography definitely isn't free in any of its mediums.

 

@ColtClassic

Is that the Olympus XA you told me about a while back? I'm definitely looking into something more compact than my little Canonet Rangefinder (which I love to death despite it's all auto mode). I've considered the Ricoh GR1, but because of price and reputation, they're not cheap. Like $200+ I thought about the Minolta Tc-1, but it's even more expensive than the Ricoh. A small compact with decent optics and a relatively cheap price is what I'm looking for. How is the Olympus's optics?

 

i think photography is art, but I don't think it requires talent.


Pressing a button and having an expensive camera is not talent.

I'm a musician and it took me years to be able to play what I can today.... anyone can take a picture of something with the right set up, now WHAT you take a picture of is a little different... but you don't control that at all, you don't create what you take a picture of.. you just find it and take a picture.... idk it's not the same feeling as "creating" something, but graphic design and photoshop is a whole new level... much more talent required in that. Being able to take a picture is one thing, but to recreate a picture in photoshop is mind blowing....

IDK if someone drew an amazing picture and no one gets to see it, and someone else takes a PICTURE of that someone's art, and THEY get famous because of it? To me that makes no sense, obviously the artist deserves the credit, they created the painting.... Of course this is an example, I don't think this has actually happened.

 

Photography in itself is not art. When I think of "artist", I think of somebody who ultimately creates something. With photography you do not create anything, you merely capture a picture of an already existing thing. You can spend a day waiting for the perfect moment to get a shot, or you can fuck with lighting all you want... but in the end you're still taking a picture of something that already exists. You're not actually creating anything, just sharing it.

Now if I make a mix CD and play it for friends... am I an artist? Is my mix CD a piece of art (not the music on it, mind you.. just the CD)? No, it's simply a way of sharing a preexisting thing.

Photo editing and the like is art.. but simply pointing a camera at something and clicking a button in itself is not art.

And don't think I'm some outsider just looking in who doesn't understand photography. I've taken photography classes, I've studied it in my free time, I've invested in cameras and equipment, and I've taken plenty of shots. It's a hobby that I don't really fuck with anymore because I've kinda gotten out of it, but I used to be pretty into it. However I wouldn't have ever described myself as an "artist", just a photographer.

 

You create a photo.

It's an expression.

It's a perspective of an individual.

How can you say it's not art?

 

When is perspective and expression in itself art? Those are things that people can use to inspire and aid them in the creation of a piece of art, but that's it.

I could agree that something in a photo is art, depending on the photo.. but the picture itself isn't art because it's simply reshowing something that already existed. You shoot a photo but you don't CREATE it like a painter creates a painting or like a musician creates a song. You merely capture it

Like I said before though, I dig photography. I love it in ways... I'm not trying to undermine photography or anything.. I just don't think it's an art in itself.

 

Honestly, with the Olympus it's not even about IQ, but more or less the fact that it will always be with you and WILL get you the shot. That being said, the image quality is fine, and for an 8x10 will be sufficiently sharp. But really, sharpness doesn't mean much when you can say that you got the shot. I have cameras that are sharper than me Oly, but it is the camera that ends up eating twice as much film because it is my go-to body.

35mm lens, 3 focus setting (scale focus), and automatic exposure (which is fine for black and white). Also, you can fool the ISO settings when you know the meter won't quite read it right. I'm talking about the Olympus XA2, by the way, the XA is an actual rangefinder with AV mode. The interface is different between the two, the XA2 is more of a point and shoot but with scale focus and the XA is a legitimate pocketable rangefinder.


And what you said about Digital actually being financially consuming is really right - Your beloved DSLR won't be worth shit in 20 years if it will even be around. Digital is so new that people have barely started to realize how much more "disposable" the format is. We'll still have our AE-1's in working condition and more well into this century, whereas the whole digital format will probably make some kind of jump that will make previous sensors/file types "obsolete" (because you know, somehow it just became useless when before it was making perfectly normal images)...

 

Music is similar. You're nothing special if you can play music others have created. Sure, you can play a Jimi Hendrix song, that's cool, but can you ultimately create something like that yourself? Can you make music that people will think is great and associate with your name?

All art is the same. ANYONE can learn to play a cool song from tabs. ANYONE can learn to take a "good" photo. ANYONE can learn proper strokes and composition for painting. However, none of them will become known or respected unless they develop their own style. It's the years of developing your own style that makes your photos really stand out. Now someone can't go to Yosemite and take a good landscape photo without someone associating it with Ansel Adams. No one can do the minimalistic portraits on an offish white backdrop without being reminded of Richard Avedon. No one can take that deeply shadowed or contrasted street photo without someone mentioning Henri Cartier-Bresson. See what I'm getting at? Artists of all mediums become known because they create or add on to a particular style. If they don't, they blend into the wood works regardless of how proficient they are. So while anyone can take a "good" photo. Not everyone can take, "THAT" photo, if you get where I'm coming from.

 

While I was just sitting here, I looked into the Olympus XA and XA2 on Ebay. They were incredibly cheap. $14.95, $10.00, etc... People want nothing for them. So I think I'll end up buying one or maybe even both models eventually. They definitely beat the price of the Ricoh and other compacts I've looked up. I've realized how much I enjoy having my Canonets around. Both are loaded up with Tri-X and then I have my digital. So I take shots on my digital that I'm concerned with sharing and getting instant feedback on, and I take most of my personal shots on the Canonet. Another film camera loaded up with film would be great. I think I'll load one up with Tri-X, One with Fuji Velvia, and another with Portra (or more Tri-X).

Definitely. My Canonet was made in the late 60s and it is still working perfectly fine. The leaf shutter works well, the focusing is still smooth and accurate, and the light meter is still working as well. Hard to complain at a camera that is over 40 years old and still working fluidly. Especially when my D80 is only 6 years old and has already needed to have the shutter replaced. Longevity is definitely not something digital cameras can pride themselves on. Not only because of the hardware, but also because like you mentioned, the technology. New sensor technology is constantly being developed.

 

You're right.

Photography takes talent. Pressing a button is not a talent.

Photography, when approached from a place of competency, is something that involves many variables and requires lots of decisions to be made.

If you ever have the pleasure of talking to an experienced photographer (30+ years in the business) maybe they will tell you exactly what they go through to make a photograph. It is not simply "Oh wow, amazing things are happening all around me, maybe I will pick up a camera and point it at the pretty stuff". Photography as an art form requires many choices once one is really aware of all of the control they have over an image. Approaching photography from a stylistic standpoint can actually be daunting at times just because of the drastic effect 1 choice can have on an image's overall mood or message.

You know, as a musician, that whatever note you play in relation to other notes will become an ingredient or element of a song. Then you think about the velocity of each note, their sustain, the general rhythm of the piece and how the spacing of the notes affects this. You begin to think about how the other musical parts interact with each other as a whole and how the song develops as a singular thing.

Photography is, for the most part, is like music. It can be very complex or very simple. It goes as deep as you are willing to take it.

I used to be pretty clueless about music, but have recently been learning about mixing and the intricacies involved and it is overwhelming. I felt the same way when I was first leaning about photography. Just because someone only knows simply of something does not mean that it is simple.

Pick up a photography book...

 

its just as easy for a photograph to be art as it is for it to not be art. for example, while the result may have some artistic quality, a microscope photo used to count "x" items or whatever is clearly photography and clearly not art.

so i still stand on my opinion, that while photography can be art as an end result, it has to be pursued as an artistic en devour. its not art by default.

 

[quote name='"GGrass"']

He can say it's not art because he doesn't think it's art.

Enough on what is art for a moment.

What is 'photography'?

Is it just pointing and pressing the button?

Or does it include the act of photoshopping afterwards?

Or does it also have be printed on paper?

If you take shit load of pictures but the pictures are all in your thumb drive, is it still considered 'photography'?[/quote]
I think photography is just the act of taking pictures. No photoshopping or anything like that. Just the point and click part, including whatever needs to be done in between.

It doesn't really matter if it's digital or on paper.

Anything after the clicking of the 'take photo' button is something other than photography. Editing and such is very much an art in my opinion

 

I'm pretty sure I would consider dark room time and editing to be part of photography.

Although it goes unseen, time spent in the darkroom is where a large percentage of creative choices are made and where the final image can be completely altered from the negative.

 

Every dude with a slr is an artist these days.

Arts dead, for the most part.

 

graffiti is alive in the north ^^