The many SOOC threads here and on the rest of the web had me thinking. Seems to me that the real argument is Photographer v. Artist. Which, in my opinion, is a false dichotomy. But that is just my opinion. What, for you, changes something from a photograph to an image? And why does it matter?
I don't think it matters. Everyone has a different perspective and world view on just about everything. Art is very personal and subjective, something that brings tears to one person is brushed aside by another. That is the fun and joy of both art and photography or photography as art.
@lilbudhha If we're getting down to the nitty gritty of it! I think for me, a person takes a photograph, but creates an image. I suppose in a way it comes down to the consciousness of the photographer as well: if they're aware of what will be created when they push the button, they're more conscious of the whole process.
I think it's like one person taking a photo of their dog, and another waiting for the dog to be composed properly in shot and looking up at the camera in a cheeky way!
The intent of the photographer plays a role...for me anyway :P If I go out to work and need to reference something for later, I'll take a plain old PHOTO of it. If I take my camera out with me to some fields containing derelict buildings and interesting landscape photo opportunities, I'm intent on creating an IMAGE.
Edit - to answer the 2nd question - As a viewer I can only guess at the creative intention of the photographer by looking at the photo itself (unless it's accompanied by a written explanation or explanatory context), but I know I prefer to see a well crafted photo of two people exchanging glances over a train station rather than someone's snap of their kids standing in front of the train station sign! It matters to me that they took the effort to make something worth looking at for more than 5 seconds. I'm as guilty as most for taking pictures and then looking back and thinking 'Crap...that's a really dull picture!' *delete*
@lilbudhha If I understood you correctly, then I agree that Photographer vs. Artist is a false dichotomy --- photographers ARE artists! :) What sets them apart from people who just shoots an image is their creativity for visual representation; their ability to present something ordinary into something interesting through their lenses.
In a way, I do like SOOCs because I like the idea of 'getting it right the first time' without Photoshopping too much (or at al). It's a real challenge and a test of technical skill. But I am not against Photoshop either because I use it a lot too and if I want to present good pictures or display a certain mood or drama through my photographs, then a bit of tweak here and there is necessary. :)
@lilbudhha I would say the difference between photographer and artist is that between artisan and artist. Like the difference between a furniture maker and a sculptor or a journalist and a poet, the tools are the same but it is the meaning invested in the result that makes the difference. And just as you can have skilled furniture makers and poor sculptors or talentless hacks and masterful poets, photographers and photographic artists are found at both ends of the talent spectrum and everywhere in between. Also, just as some furniture can be art and some journalism poetry, there is no neat divide between photography and photographic art.
Good subject. Have you ever had one of these types of conversations? You are staring intently at something while formulating how to photograph it. The person next to you is asking what are you staring at. They want you to just take the picture. You try to explain what it is you see. Maybe it's isn't making sense in words even to you. The other person doesn't see it and never tries to see it. It is what changes the photographer into the arttist. The image is the medium in which they work, like paints.
For most of us, the artist comes with time and patience. It's persistance to learn the craft while conveying something more than what is obvious. That can happen at any level from choosing a camera to printing the photograph.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I think it's like one person taking a photo of their dog, and another waiting for the dog to be composed properly in shot and looking up at the camera in a cheeky way!
The intent of the photographer plays a role...for me anyway :P If I go out to work and need to reference something for later, I'll take a plain old PHOTO of it. If I take my camera out with me to some fields containing derelict buildings and interesting landscape photo opportunities, I'm intent on creating an IMAGE.
Edit - to answer the 2nd question - As a viewer I can only guess at the creative intention of the photographer by looking at the photo itself (unless it's accompanied by a written explanation or explanatory context), but I know I prefer to see a well crafted photo of two people exchanging glances over a train station rather than someone's snap of their kids standing in front of the train station sign! It matters to me that they took the effort to make something worth looking at for more than 5 seconds. I'm as guilty as most for taking pictures and then looking back and thinking 'Crap...that's a really dull picture!' *delete*
In a way, I do like SOOCs because I like the idea of 'getting it right the first time' without Photoshopping too much (or at al). It's a real challenge and a test of technical skill. But I am not against Photoshop either because I use it a lot too and if I want to present good pictures or display a certain mood or drama through my photographs, then a bit of tweak here and there is necessary. :)
For example, Steve McCurry vs Arnold Newman.
For most of us, the artist comes with time and patience. It's persistance to learn the craft while conveying something more than what is obvious. That can happen at any level from choosing a camera to printing the photograph.