Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Cameras wrote:
> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
> etc.

Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

I guess some people are attracted to photography as a creative medium,
and view fiddling with the dials and software as a means to an end. At
the extreme end of that scale are those who take stunning pictures with
a pin hole camera, or the Cartier-Bressons who just point and shoot.

Equally, I'm sure plenty of people get a kick out of tweaking an image
in Photoshop and making a presentable image from a previously
uninspiring picture; improving, or rescuing a shot. They are probably
also interested (and can quote) the various characteristics of
different filmstock, lenses and camera settings. They view the camera
as a technical piece of equipment and as much a joy to use, as it is to
actually view the pictures afterwards. These are the photographers who
will take a meter reading, set the camera manually, bracket and ensure
they used the right film for the conditions - or have already switched
to digital.

I suggest that there is a sliding scale and most of us are somewhere in
the middle, attracted by both "painting with light" and the "gadget
bag" to different degrees.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:


> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
> architecture more.

The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo for
printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the image
completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you like.

>
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in

Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
reasons.

> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
> I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> portriats.

Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll begin
to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
http/www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
pleasing image.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
>
>> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not
>> too
>> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes
>> and
>> architecture more.
>
> The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo
> for printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the
> image
> completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
> counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you
> like.
>>
>> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different
>> sides
>> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work
>> in
>
> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
> reasons.
>
>> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I
>> can
>> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography
>> because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often
>> some candid portriats.
>
> Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
> contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll
> begin to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
> http/www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
> is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a
> very
> pleasing image.

It pleases me not. Breaks _that_ rule, for me.

Do you remember a thread about "The genre of photography you like
least"? I thought there were some fine insights there.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>>
>>
>>> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not
>>> too
>>> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes
>>> and
>>> architecture more.
>>
>> The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo
>> for printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the
>> image
>> completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
>> counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you
>> like.
>>>
>>> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different
>>> sides
>>> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work
>>> in
>>
>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of
>> varying
>> reasons.
>>
>>> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I
>>> can
>>> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography
>>> because I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often
>>> some candid portriats.
>>
>> Begin examining your photos more carefully, shoot for colour, tone,
>> contrast, shapes, lines, shaddows, highlights ... etc. and you'll
>> begin to see colour differently. One of the recent shootin shots:
>> http/www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
>> is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a
>> very
>> pleasing image.
>
> It pleases me not. Breaks _that_ rule, for me.
>
> Do you remember a thread about "The genre of photography you like
> least"? I thought there were some fine insights there.

http/groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/397428190eeb1548/a599ba123ab69e6d?q=least+like+genre+photo.digital&rnum=1#a599ba123ab69e6d
or
http/tinyurl.com/9ztdv

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

For myself I use photography to record the life that my wife and I
lead, sort of acting like a photojournalist. There is still an art
aspect to the photography since a lot of what I am after is capturing
the mood of where we were and what we were doing. My goal is to have
photographs that bring back the memories of where we have been and what
we have done. This changes how you take photos in a number of ways,
the trip becomes as important as the destination. We travel a lot by
motor home, I like to capture the whole of each day, what was the
weather like in the morning, where did we stop for lunch, what was the
scenery like along the way.

Because I am documenting our lives I don't do as much Photoshoping as
some people do, I know people who have added a nice blue sky with a few
fluffy clouds to a photo that was taken when it was gray and overcast.
I don't have a problem with them doing that if it makes them happy
but it would ruin a photo for me. I will do a fair bit of dodge and
burning, to bring out detail in the shadows for instance. In this case
it is trying to get the photo to look like I remember seeing it.

One of the odd, almost ethical, questions that I find myself faced
with is whether to use a polarizing filter or not. The effects can be
dramatic, for instance in this photo
http/www.pbase.com/konascott/image/44510148/original.jpg the sea and
sky were not really those colors, the polarizing filter made them look
better then in real life, except that at the time I was wearing
polarizing sunglasses and so the photo is what I saw at the time. I
try to get some photos with and without the filter so I can view it
both ways.

Scott

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

deloid wrote:
> As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
> I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.
>
> My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
> original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
> subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
> historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
> photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
> the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
> manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.
>

Uh Oh!! I think you've opened a pandora's box as to what is *reality*.
One might argue that using a faster film is a *breach* of reality.
While some might argue that the PP that how a technician interprets
colours while printing colour negative film is alteration of reality.
Also, the colours captured on film are function of the chemical used
and the colours/light captured on a CCD/CMOS are a function of the
various algorithms used by the manufacturer (even RAW images). So PP or
no PP, an image is the photographer's interpretation of reality, IMHO.

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> >that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
> >IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> >at the most identify 5-6 colours.
>
> Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
> Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
> indigo.

What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )

>
> >I am attracted to photography because
> >I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> >portriats.
>
> Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?

Ohh yes!! I can. I immiediately found a difference in colours when I
moved from the kit lens on my 300D to a Sigma 24-135mm. The colours
looked deeper and more saturated. But I can't tell this difference
unless its too pronounced. Very subtle changes in saturation or depth
of colours eludes me.

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
>
> Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
> about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
> that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
> insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
> 'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
> were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
> good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.
>

Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.

For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
> I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> portriats.
>
> - Siddhartha


As a B&W photographer (35 years) and as a writer and artist (oil painting),
I have strong personal feelings about the new age of photography.

My individual preference is the art of the capture of a real event. The
original composition, subject and lighting are most important to me and the
subsequent printing is perhaps only 10% as important. I like the concept of
historical documentation in the frame of photography thus I dislike
photomanipulation that disturbs the trust of the viewer. Of all my prints
the ones I dislike the most are my youthful ventures in darkroom
manipulation (adding clouds etc) which breached reality.

I love the convenience and quality of digital photography but dislike it's
current use in that too much can be changed in the computer beyond sharp
masking, contrast, saturation. I dislike the commonly done alteration of
group photos whereby a smiling face is taken from one shot then superimposed
on a better shot. The photo, for me, is no longer real...it is not a
documentation of a time or place. Interestingly though, and I don't know
why, but I don't mind my alterations when I paint. Perhaps I know that oil
painting is not a true document of reality but an acceptable depiction of
altered reality.

I now use digital for snapshots and my old medium format, 35mm stuff for the
more serious documentation that I consider "historical art". I don't change
my digital photos significantly.

That said, you will find many points of view on this subject and I do enjoy
a good photograph despite the methods used. If the photograph is digital
though, I don't trust it's reality...it is more like a painting or "digital
art".

Dean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills we
> wanted.
> What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
> photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
> don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects.

For once I am agreeing with Tony, perhaps I should be concerned!

But I think it's entirely true that most texts on photography, and
discussions by photographers, are very, very poor on "art", and by
"art" I do *not* mean "artzy", far from it; too many people, especially
amongst photographers, seem to have the naive misconception that "art"
is something you do whimsically, with a twist of the waist and a mess
in the mind, but that bastardization is far from the truth. In fact,
"art" has been formalised since antiquity and refined over the
millenia, and it could easily take a lifetime to get familiar with; it
is literally a discipline, in that it requires immense discipline.

I think in photography it would be useful to distinguis between the
"craft", and the "art". The "craft" is all issues of equipment and
"technique", particular to photography, but photography really has *no*
"art" that should set it apart from drawing, painting, sculpture,
architecture, cinematography or any visual medium; "art" is just "art",
and to be illiterate in it, and too many are, won't be changed by a
practice of the "craft" of photography, however long or frequent,
regardless of how many cameras you own or years you've used them for.

Those who come from a background of "fine arts" though, the formally
trained ones at least, and their texts, seem rich on the "education" of
art. The best photographers I have seen are those who come from a
background of painting, drawing, sculpture, architechture or so on, not
.. Their "art" may not be obvious to all. And here it is useful to
distinguish between "art" and "taste"; like I said before, "art" is a
language that has its conventions and formalities, and though you may
"break the rules", it's usually evident when an "artist" "breaks the
rules" that they are quite familiar with them, rather than when someone
who is clueless about them does it, which, unfortunately in common
misconception, they usually have no rules to start with yet they want
to "break the rules"! "Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
"art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.

I could've perhaps written more about this but I've just become
distracted and my train of thought interrupted, and I have to go.

Regards.







> In many ways they
> sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
> Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
> flames on the cutaway fenders.
>
> --
> http/www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
> > post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
> > results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
> > and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
> > rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
> > much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
> > architecture more.
> >
> > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> > that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
> > IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> > at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
> > I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> > portriats.
> >
> > - Siddhartha
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote

> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings?

IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
they don't want to be considered artzy.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>>that attracts people with different leanings?
>
> IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
> group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
> photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
> own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
> expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
> they don't want to be considered artzy.

Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.

I come from a fine art background but also shoot a lot of pictures for
technical documentation of various plant species. That's what I love
about photography is the blend of art & technique & good results can be
achieved at either extreme.

--
Paul Furman
http/www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I've been a professional photographer since 1966. Only when I discovered
Adobe Photoshop did I truly feel I was creating my best possible images. I
feel I am now a complete artist ... capturing the image and then completing
it in Photoshop. It is a lot more rewarding than just sending my work to the
color lab.

Craig Flory

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
> post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
> results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
> and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
> architecture more.
>
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
> IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
> at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
> I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
> portriats.
>
> - Siddhartha
>
Absolutely, and this has nothing to do with digital. In the film days,
some folks did all their work in camera, used a commercial printer.
Others labored long in their darkroom doing much of their art there.
One can be artistic in darkroom or at computer, just as others are more
artistic with camera and seeing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
>
>> rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
>> much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
>> architecture more.
>
>
> The photo editor can be applied to prepare a mostly unchanged photo for
> printing (cropping, levels, resize, USM) or to transform the image
> completely and merge with other images. It's the end result that
> counts, not the steps in the middle. Do it as rich or lean as you like.
>
>>
>> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>> that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
>
>
> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
> reasons.

There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.

> One of the recent shootin shots:
> http/www.pbase.com/shootin/image/43718075
> is an example where colour takes on a major role in making this a very
> pleasing image.
>
This points to a Tom Hudson image in the "Breaking the Rules" mandate of
the Shoot In, where half the image is very out of focus, and the colors
pastel. Did you mean to point to your image in the same gallery, where
the colors are way more pleasing??

--
John McWilliams

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118252755.592266.304920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>> Something I found interesting is a guy on one of these groups talking
>> about how his does simply documentary street scenes, with the intent
>> that they be valuable historical documents of life in our time. He was
>> insistent that there was no art to it, he simply picked a
>> 'representative scene' and strove for perfect technical capture. They
>> were quite nicely composed. The boring technical approach can produce
>> good art in fact. The art was in the honesty and care.
>>
>
> Yes, this is what I think I do. When I am behind the camera I am
> striving for technical accuracy in focus and exposure. So much so that
> my whole thought process is occupied with the technicality of taking a
> photograph. Ofcourse, I do fuss around composition but there is a
> certain something that seems to come some other photographers very
> naturally but doesn't seem to come to my brain.
>
> For example, me and my friend were taking some photographs of an old
> lady feeding stray dogs. My friend got several nice shots of the lady
> and some more shots around of people. And all I got was some odd shots
> with not so great expressions. Most of the time I was either late to
> shoot or my exposure was wrong. On the other hand, I was sitting on the
> beach with the sun setting and I got some good shots. Or, I was on the
> beach and my friends were in water playing and I got some really good
> shots of them. Just wondering if there is really a difference in the
> way our brains work or its just a mental block of some sort.
>
> - Siddhartha
>
My brother-in-law used to live in a Bay Area town that had a lot of old
Victorian homes. He proposed to the city council that they finance him to
photograph all the homes in town, documentary style, and make up a book that
could be kept in the city hall for its historical interest. He presented
them with a few samples to give them an idea of what they would get. They
turned him down, citing a lack of funds, but I thought that it was a good
idea for any town that had a lot of architecture of historical significance.
It would also amount to a lifetime's work for a photographer if the town
were large enough.......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:d87kb5$p66$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> > John McWilliams wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> >>> Of course. People are drawn to photography for thousands of varying
> >>> reasons.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are 3,893 reasons so far documented.
> >
> > Two more were added last week. Please do keep up! ;-)
> >
>
> I just went into it to meet girls......

Me, too. It really pissed my wife off.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
<chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
<1118228604.175364.208440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>Cameras wrote:
>> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
>> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
>> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
>> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
>> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
>> etc.
>
>Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
>Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
>recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
>that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

[snip]


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 8 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
<losttoy@gmail.com> in
<1118215001.686984.311410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
>post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
>results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
>and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
>rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
>much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
>architecture more.

I wonder if someone, starting perhaps with an Adams, might consider
landscape photography an opportunity for *artistic* (even *ARTISTIC*)
expression.

>So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
>IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
>at the most identify 5-6 colours.

Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
indigo.

>I am attracted to photography because
>I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
>portriats.

Can you tell the difference between saturated and washed out color?


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.