# Are these pics "Phography" or Art?



## ottor (Apr 3, 2009)

New to photography, but I love "Post Processing".... Some folks have told me that this isn't photography anymore... kinna feel bad when they say that, because I still think it is... But - I can understand what they're saying.... I do a lot of cooking, and through all of the cooking process and seasonings, I still want to taste what a Steak tastes like in the end.. not have the "seasonings" be the major focus of the food... What do you think?














r


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 3, 2009)

Who's pictures are they?  Who's opinion matters?

Some may look at the first one and say its wonderful, but another could say that it is not art and in fact not even a very good picture to boot being over saturated and over processed and that the composition of the 2nd one is boring and again over processed to compensate for lack of proper composition.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Who's opinion matters to the one asking?


----------



## dcclark (Apr 3, 2009)

Yup, you've wandered into the realm of the _extremely_ subjective. Do you like them? Do you feel (honestly) that they have merit? Then who cares what they're called?

The only time I think that the photo vs. art problem will matter is if you want to enter a competition or gallery show which specifies "no processed photos". Otherwise, enjoy doing what you do, and keep doing it. 

Btw, I like it.


----------



## epp_b (Apr 3, 2009)

They're diseased is what they are.  Sorry, HDR just makes things look radioactive.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 3, 2009)

LOL @ epp_b

I don't like pickles by themselves but they're pretty good on burgers.

It really depends on the surroundings and circumstances.

I think that you'll find that your work will be appreciated to the level that it fills expectations.  If your viewer is expecting a photograph, digital art will likely leave them unfulfilled.  If you tell them that it's digital art up front then you are likely to have a much happier audience.

$.02


----------



## dEARlEADER (Apr 3, 2009)

Who cares what it is?

If you enjoy doing it then why restrict your creative flow by worrying about the opinions of others?

Photography as a whole is very broad and diverse..... do whatever makes you happy.


----------



## ottor (Apr 3, 2009)

epp_b said:


> They're diseased is what they are. Sorry, HDR just makes things look radioactive.


 
I'm sorry but ..... that's funny..


----------



## SrBiscuit (Apr 3, 2009)

dang....do we have to choose?....i vote "both".


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 3, 2009)

epp_b said:


> They're diseased is what they are.



 :lmao:
Never heard it put quite that way.


----------



## Chiller (Apr 3, 2009)

I dont know what it matters. If people like it, and it has some Wow, power, who cares what it type of image it is called. 
Be yourself, and do what you want.  That is what makes everyone unique. I dont want my pics to look like somebody elses, and if I take a straight photograph, and do no fancy arse stuff to it...fine...if I take a photo, and want to do something to...fine too. :mrgreen: It is my camera , my vision and my rules. :lmao:


----------



## blash (Apr 3, 2009)

Not to my taste, but if you like it, nothing else matters (unless you're trying to sell it).

/thread


----------



## Samriel (Apr 3, 2009)

Photography can be art, but not every photograph is art, or is even trying to be. If you are using your photographs as means of artistic expression, then YOUR interpretation is what's most important. Maybe it's not going to be called photography, maybe it's going to be called "an art piece made using a photograph" or similar, but what it's called doesn't really matter in my opinion. While nobody can deny that your images are photography, in the transition to digital which is happening at the moment, people are somewhat skeptical of accepting "too much" (varies from person to person) digital editing as part of the photographic process (for various reasons...). I can tell you that if you would've used film and managed to process your photos in the darkroom for the same effect, nobody would doubt that what you did was photography.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Apr 3, 2009)

Viewed on a 10' x 6' canvas, these may well indeed evoke a completely different response than what is seen on a 17" monitor.

Keep at it.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 3, 2009)

All depends.....What's ART?


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Apr 4, 2009)

Photography is a form of art.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 4, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> All depends.....What's ART?



It's a stylized form of communication.


Communication requires at least Two people.

So, if you're doing it for yourself, and alone, then what you are doing rhymes with relation














but isn't.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:











OBTW, if it makes you happy, do it.  Just don't let your ego get all balled up if people don't bow when you walk past.    (this is meant as a general statement and not pointed at anyone in particular)  ((really))


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 4, 2009)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Photography is a form of art.



No it isn't.
What you should have said was 'Photography can be used to _produce_ Art'.
Photography is no more a form of Art than anything else. Nor is it even an Art form. It's what you do with it that matters.
Painting can be an Art form but that does not mean that painting the walls of my living-room Dove grey is Art.

The crux of the initial question is not 'is it Art' but at what point does a photographic image stop being a photograph and become an image _based_ on a photograph?
There is no question that a 'straight' photograph with no manipulation is a photograph. But once you start digitally manipulating an image you move into a fuzzy grey zone outside of Photography proper.
How much manipulation - and of what kind - is permissible?
This is not a question that can be answered with any certainty but it has a lot to do with Photography's relationship with reality.
For example, once you remove an object from the image - or indeed add one that wasn't there originally - then the image could be seen as having ceased to be a 'perfect' representation of reality (and so is no longer a photograph) but has become a photo-montage instead. Although this does raise questions about the 'cleaning up' of blemishes like moles from a portrait.
Colour, contrast and similar are very much harder to pin down but a good rule of thumb would be that once the image stops looking 'natural' and looks manipulated then it has stopped being a photograph as such and becomes a photography based image.
It's a question that is worth thinking about - but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It's a pretty trivial point in the scheme of things and only really matters if you are stupidly obsessed with having clearly defined labels for what you do and what you produce.
I, for one, am not.
All that matters to me is: is it good or is it garbage


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 4, 2009)

"No it isn't.
What you should have said was 'Photography can be used to _produce_ Art'.
Photography is no more a form of Art than anything else. Nor is it even an Art form. It's what you do with it that matters.
Painting can be an Art form but that does not mean that painting the walls of my living-room Dove grey is Art."

You are of course correct Hertz (except that I was making a broad statement about art and not photography specifically ).  

I stand behind the sentiment as it relates to the OP however.  Ottor was speaking of a conversation between himself (?) and some friends of his and brought up emotional attachment and frustration with the way they felt about his work.  Sure signs of attempted communication in my book.  

If you want to go into whether or not the audience has to actually understand an artwork for it to be any good (not many people can truly appreciate a finely painted Dove Grey wall for instance) go ahead but I think that I'll give that one a miss.  :mrgreen:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 4, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> If you want to go into whether or not the audience has to actually understand an artwork for it to be any good...



Of course the audience doesn't have to understand a work to appreciate it - although this may be necessary to appreciate a work fully. That is not what Art is really about. What it _must_ do, however, is elicit a response. It doesn't matter if it is love or hate or any other emotion just so long as it is a reaction of some kind.
A work can truly be said to have failed as Art if it evokes no response of any kind in any one. But then, perhaps a lack of response is a response in itself...
As it happens, I love my grey walls. I call it _Bankers In The Mist_ and I'm putting it up for auction next month. All bids in cash, please. Buyer collects.


If anyone wants to get an understanding of what Art is - or isn't - then read up on the controversy surrounding Marcel Duchamp's _Fountain_.
It is a gents urinal and was first exhibited in 1917. When told by the exhibition organisers that he could not show it because it wasn't Art, Duchamp is reputed to have posed the following conundrum:
'It's in an Art gallery, it's signed by an artist and you can't p!ss in it. So if it isn't Art you tell me what it is.'
The argument has been raging ever since.
But Duchamp had a wicked sense of humour and I personally think that Art world just missed the joke.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 4, 2009)

I once left a toilet (a clean one) on the top step of the local college of art here.  As a donation of course.

As I understand it, they didn't appreciate it either.  The more things change... 

By the way, is Dove Grey a 13% Grey?  Keeping properly exposed in an upbeat fashion?  LOL  Good luck with the sale, I hope the housing market is better over there than here.

mike


----------



## Invictus (Apr 4, 2009)

ottor said:


> I'm sorry but ..... that's funny..



x2


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 5, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> I once left a toilet (a clean one) on the top step of the local college of art here.



I'm afraid that I shall have to mark you down for plagiarism.
And if you didn't sign it then it isn't art anyway.

I used to have a friend called Art. I ought to look him up as there are a lot of people around these days taking his name in vain...


----------



## ottor (Apr 5, 2009)

I think that my brief bout of frustration comes from the fact that I'm extremelly new to photography, and ... I have an "Art" backgound (Oil Painting).. In my simple opinion, a Photograph is capturing something, and Art is creating something.... Just kinna felt that my two displayed pictures were capturing something, and then altered a bit with "*PHOTO*shop"  However, after seeing some of the ideas presented here, I can see where they're coming from also.. I just wanted to take a photograph and have someone give me a good or bad review .. but I didn't expect to hear "Thats not a photograph anymore..."

Trust me - I'm not irrepairablly damaged ..  I just got to wondering, hence, the question.. 

Great replies !!

thanks,


----------



## m2v (Apr 5, 2009)

Trying to define photography, or art; or to draw a line between them will get anyone crazy.

However, I do want to believe that photography is creativity beyond just technical knowledge in operating the gears accurately.

Just do anything to please yourself. And if the work happened to please the audience, it's the most gratifying experience.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 5, 2009)

Hertz if it wasn't a urinal, it wasn't plagiarism.  Besides, I was simply donating materials.  

Rick, thanks for bring this up.  Things were getting boring around here.    

M2V, Photography, as Hertz kindly pointed out, is nothing more than making a real-time graphical representation.  It is personalized by making the representation illustrate you own point of view.  Communicating that point of view brings it into the realm of art.  The better you are able to communicate- the better the art.  And when you can communicate Your views and the emotions brought out by those views and even bring out associated memories from your viewers to support that point of view- then you get to capitalize the A in art.  (just like that guy Hertz knows )


----------



## flea77 (Apr 5, 2009)

I agree this is highly subjective, so I will add my highly subjective opinion:

A photograph starts with what is captured in the camera, be it film or digital. Any PP done to make it look more realistic, or more like the real world vision (including cropping, contrast, WB, removing items accidentally in the shot) still maintain the photography status. Once you do something that removes the realism, it is now a work BASED on a photograph and no longer actually a photograph.

In my very biased opinion, the two images at the start of this post are not photography at all, but they are based on photography. 

To me what the OP did was no different than if someone printed the photograph out, then grabbed some crayons and colored over the top. It used to be a photo, now it is not.

Allan


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 5, 2009)

Toilet. Urinal.
It's all sanitary ware. You are merely playing with semantics, sir.
What was done first in 1917 has often been copied but never equalled. :greenpbl:




			
				flea77 said:
			
		

> Any PP done *to make it look more realistic*, or more like the real world vision (including cropping, contrast, WB, *removing items accidentally in the shot*) still maintain the photography status.



Removing items from an image that were originally there stops the image from being a representation of reality because you are _altering _reality in retrospect. So one could successfully argue that any image so altered is no longer a photograph.
'Make it look more realistic'? A photograph is a 2-D representation of a 4-D world. How realistic is that?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 5, 2009)

Well Gee..... now that we have a definitive definition as to what Art is, what is reality???


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Apr 5, 2009)

Photo illustration is what we call them in the print/media world.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 5, 2009)

Wait a second Hertz, If the dictionary definition of art includes "the products of human creativity" Then wouldn't any photo not taken with a 50mm from viewing height be technically art? I mean we use lenses to distort perspectives, we use wide apertures to blur out objects, we get down on our knees all not because this is what we normally see the world from but because we are trying to create a picture from a subject using a bit of creative thinking and our gear.

How is HDR or darkroom effects any different than just using a 600mm lens, or a 10mm lens. None of that represents reality as we see it, and all has creative input.

I'd put it to you that Photography even Photojournalism is art. Case in point is the Time Life MLK assassination that was posted here a few days ago. It wasn't the event that spurred the emotions but the result of the creativity of the photographer in taking the photos. 

To the OP they are both photography and art, but more importantly they just look plain crap. (my opinion)


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Apr 5, 2009)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Toilet. Urinal.
> It's all sanitary ware. You are merely playing with semantics, sir.
> What was done first in 1917 has often been copied but never equalled. :greenpbl:
> 
> ...



Hertz is correct. We can't do anything unnatural or anything that can't be done in a traditional darkroom. Basically you can crop, burn/dodge/take out dust spots, adjust levels/contrast, etc. Anything more than that you're screwed if you get caught. Even burning too much is a no no. A few years ago it was revealed that a famous 9/ll photo had a super-burn and the guy who took it was ousted by the publication.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 5, 2009)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Removing items from an image that were originally there stops the image from being a representation of reality because you are _altering _reality in retrospect. So one could successfully argue that any image so altered is no longer a photograph.



You read two different ideas and swapped one for the other. I said anything done to make it look more realistic COMMA, more like the real world VISION (as in what you envisioned the photograph should look like). What that means TO ME, is removing the candy bar wrapper on the ground that you did not see, removing the one twig sticking out of someone's head, cloning out that bright red traffic light that somehow managed to shine through the trees etc. That does not mean moving the tree, cloning out a car or building, etc. You would not be altering reality in any significant manner.

To make this even more confusing, once again stating only my opinion, using makeup to cover a mole and taking a picture is a photograph, covering the same mole using photoshop.....well.....not so much.



Hertz van Rental said:


> 'Make it look more realistic'? A photograph is a 2-D representation of a 4-D world. How realistic is that?



Yes, and our vision is not reality either because we use depth PERCEPTION to perceive the distance between objects, and of course we only see the filtered or reflected light from an object, not the actual objects. So even our senses are not "realistic" now are they?:lmao:

Allan


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Apr 5, 2009)

flea77 said:


> You read two different ideas and swapped one for the other. I said anything done to make it look more realistic COMMA, more like the real world VISION (as in what you envisioned the photograph should look like). What that means TO ME, is removing the candy bar wrapper on the ground that you did not see, removing the one twig sticking out of someone's head, cloning out that bright red traffic light that somehow managed to shine through the trees etc. That does not mean moving the tree, cloning out a car or building, etc. You would not be altering reality in any significant manner.
> 
> 
> 
> Allan



It may not be "altering reality in any significant manner" but you still can't do it. If a post-it note is stuck on a window a block down from you subject and you clone it out, no one will likely notice, but it's changing reality and it's considered unethical. You could lose your job for even the tiniest thing like that.


----------



## flea77 (Apr 5, 2009)

Hooligan Dan said:


> Hertz is correct. We can't do anything unnatural or anything that can't be done in a traditional darkroom. Basically you can crop, burn/dodge/take out dust spots, adjust levels/contrast, etc. Anything more than that you're screwed if you get caught. Even burning too much is a no no. A few years ago it was revealed that a famous 9/ll photo had a super-burn and the guy who took it was ousted by the publication.



I agree, although I may take it a bit further, not just dust spots but that coke can in the leaves you did not see in the finder is fair game to me. 

Now wait just a sec, I was under the impression we were discussing photography in general, not specific to fields. In the photojournalism and/or scientific community there are a different set of rules. If I were shooting for the news I would strictly adhere to no alterations with the exception of increasing the viewability of the subject without changing any of the actual data there. In other words, cropping, levels, contrast, repairing flaws in the negative (dust/water spots) and that is it.

Allan


----------



## flea77 (Apr 5, 2009)

Hooligan Dan said:


> It may not be "altering reality in any significant manner" but you still can't do it. If a posted note is stuck on a window a block down from you subject and you clone it out, no one will likely notice, but it's changing reality and it's considered unethical. You could lose your job for even the tiniest thing like that.



No I would not lose my job and it would not be unethical as I am not a paid photographer and not in photojournalism. 

Allan


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Apr 5, 2009)

Working photographer or not. It's no longer reality even though it may fit your photographic vision.

EDIT: I should add that I have absolutely no issues with doing what you say. Make a photo a great photo. This is just reality vs. not


----------



## Chiller (Apr 5, 2009)

​


----------



## flea77 (Apr 5, 2009)

Hooligan Dan said:


> Working photographer or not. It's no longer reality even though it may fit your photographic vision.



Once again I preface this by saying IN MY OPINION, I disagree. The things I change in my photographs are nothing I could not have changed in the reality of the situation. I could have picked up the candy bar wrapper, and then in reality it would not be there. I could not however have moved the tree, a building, or a car (unless I had the keys). 

If you disagree, that is fine, we all have our different opinions and I have stated mine. I will continue to use these guidelines for my own photography, and use them to judge others as I see fit, whether or not others agree with me.

Allan

PS. So I assume by your comments when you have a photograph printed in a paper you insist that their four color presses are color calibrated as is your camera, monitor and printer? I also assume that you require them to print in at least 600dpi on high quality paper? I ask because the photos in all the newspapers I have ever read do NOT look realistic in the least, blotchy, colors off, low resolution which looks like grain that was not in the original "vision" at all.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 5, 2009)

Chiller said:


> ​


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 5, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Well Gee..... now that we have a definitive definition as to what Art is, what is reality???




Reality is the bill collector.  Or anything that takes you away from your life as you would _*prefer*_ to live it.  

The preference is what Photography is mostly about.  Opinions and desires.

Did you ever wonder why GAS was so insidious and so contentious?  

Opinions and desires, the stuff of dreams.


----------



## MrsMoo (Apr 6, 2009)

well apparently video games are art, so why cant photography be art too?


----------



## skieur (Apr 6, 2009)

I find it humourous that anyone would speak of photography and reality in the same sentence.  Framing is already adding or subtracting elements of reality from a scene.  Lenses distort perspective, distances, size, and camera location.  Film affects colour, contrast, and dynamic range.  Sensors and menu settings modify every aspect of the photo.  

Then of course, is reality what is in the scene, or what you see in the scene?  At ISO 1600, you can pick up objects in a photo that you were not able to see with your eyes when looking at the scene.  Has your camera distorted the amount of light really present in the scene?

The elements of design or composition determine whether a photograph is a work of art or not.  One photographer described the process of taking a great photo as subtracting or isolating the strongest compositional elements in a scene to create a visually effective work of art.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 6, 2009)

MrsMoo said:


> well apparently video games are art, so why cant photography be art too?




A paraphrased conversation between a photographer from the 1940's and an art gallery... "Sir, you seriously do not believe that your photograph could ever be art, do you?"

Man, we have not come very far in a long time, have we?   

In days where I see 200 pound bronze statues of bull testicles considered art and photography not being able to be considered in that genre... kinda concerns me... lol


----------



## Garbz (Apr 7, 2009)

I don't want my photos compared to b o l l o c k s (I can't believe that's censored on this forum) anyway


----------



## iheartphotos (Apr 8, 2009)

hey everybody! I've just seen some news on bbc.co.uk and bapla.com about a youth culture photography exhibition called Unordinary People at the albert hall in London in April / May. Could definately be worth a visit if your interested in the cultures that were present in the different decade of the 21st century.


----------



## Daki_One (Apr 8, 2009)

photography IS art. period. 

well, it is for me at least.


----------



## elctrcmotors (Apr 10, 2009)

Well, yes, the definition of Art varies from one person to the next. The definition I prefer is, something that is meant to highlight something of saliency in the environment or in a culture. It's something that someone deliberately creates or produces to show what they think is important for others to see or know about. 

Now, that is a pretty vague definition, but that's what I'm going by right now at least. By this definition, photography is art, because you don't photograph something unless you "see" that shot as being salient, important for others to see.



Samriel said:


> While nobody can deny that your images are photography, in the transition to digital which is happening at the moment, people are somewhat skeptical of accepting "too much" (varies from person to person) digital editing as part of the photographic process (for various reasons...).



Yeah, I agree, at some point people think that too much alteration takes it out of the "photography" category. 

But like it's been said, why does it matter what other people think?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2009)

:violin::coffee:


----------



## Gordie44 (Apr 12, 2009)

It's not so much photography as it is art. You should look into graphic design.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 13, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> :coffee:


Careful... coffee and popcorn gives you gas... LOL


----------



## table1349 (Apr 13, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Careful... coffee and popcorn gives you gas... LOL


ldman:


----------



## abraxas (Apr 14, 2009)

I had a dream about something like this.  Here's how it went;

Despite everything I've done and worked for I died in obscurity, and 20 years later nobody gave a ****.

So I figure, call it anything you want, have fun and enjoy a good life.

There were a few details, but that's the gist of it. Is it art?- It doesn't matter.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Apr 14, 2009)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Photography is a form of art.



I agree... :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 15, 2009)

First art and photography are not mutually exclusive.

What you have is art... and it's pretty good.  You may want to try to find subject matter that is more fitting of your stylized look, as I'm more impressed with your style then your subjects.


----------



## ottor (Apr 16, 2009)

djacobox372 said:


> First art and photography are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> What you have is art... and it's pretty good. You may want to try to find subject matter that is more fitting of your stylized look, as I'm more impressed with your style then your subjects.


 
Appreciate the comments ... what kind of subjects do you think would fit better with this style? I'd like to try something different... 

tks,


----------



## MrsMoo (Jun 14, 2009)

Daki_One said:


> photography IS art. period.
> 
> well, it is for me at least.




yeah me too, I was taught photography by an art teacher at school


----------



## eminart (Jun 14, 2009)

Ansel Adams sometimes spent weeks in the dark room working on a single image.  Today, the dark room is the computer.  There are many styles of photography.  Highly-processed is one of them.


----------



## Xristos48 (Jun 16, 2009)

Photography as art I would say. It can allow you to express yourself


----------



## Tasmaster (Jun 23, 2009)

If photography is art, are snapshots photography? :twisted:


----------

