Photography

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Source, I'm not saying that the images that I have created are art - they're more exercises that will teach me about the technicalities of photography since I am still a learner. However, I do believe that photography CAN be an art form. Yes, ultimately they do capture reality, but at times, reality is perfect in that it is how life should be. The picture of the boy playing a trumpet is a good example. And a photographer CAN be an artist. He creates the image by seeing and thinking. The camera is simply a tool that helps him capture what he sees and thinks. It's just like a writer using a typewriter or an artist using a paintbrush.

There's an old photographic cliche that says something like "A camera does not a photographer make". It's certainly a valid point.

[RationalBiker]

Nikola,

I like your images. I also like to take photographs while hiking, though I may not go as far as saying I'm a mountain climber.

As to whether photography is an art, I have never worried much about it as a classification for my images.

There is something about photography that requires an eye, a talent so to speak. You can give anyone a camera, and they can take pictures, but not everyone can capture images that tell a story or evoke an emotion. When we look around, we usually see more than will fit in the frame of a camera. A good or great photographer will see the frame, the composition iniside the larger view (the angle, the subject, the background, etc.). He understands depth of field, which can be used to isolate a subject. He understands what images truly stir his emotions or incite him to think. As Tryp alluded to, a good photographer can catch a sense of motion in an otherwise still shot. Aside from all of these aesthetic qualities, the photographer has to understand how to use his equipment in a technical sense as well. Capturing light is not necessarily an easy thing. Simply put, one has to have an "eye" for photography. This is obvious in any number of books and publications, National Geographic being one of my personal favorites right now.

Artist or not, I see photography as a medium for expressing my emotional view of the world. Images can be bleak or they can be vivid and exciting. I usually look for positive, beautiful images. Images that to me go beyond simply documenting reality.

VES

[Betsy]

I'm rather confused as to whether photography can be an art. I know Ayn Rand said it can't be because it's showing reality as it is, not as it should be, yet the photo of the boy with the trumpet someone posted here is screaming in my mind "that's how it could be and should be!"

Ayn Rand defined art as "a selective re-ceation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgements."

She did not consider photography to be art because it was a reproduction rather than a re-creation of reality. That said, to the degree that photography shares qualities with art, i.e. to the degree that it is selective and the photographer intervenes in the mechanical process to create or change aspects of the finished work, then to that degree it is "artistic" -- i.e., like art.

There is an implicit mind-body dichotomy which leads many a craftsman to try to persuade people that what he is doing is really "art." In fact, an honest craftsman is a value and a pretentious artist isn't.

[Patrick]

Photo my wife took at the Japanese Garden in Portland, OR

[Patrick]

Some flowers

[Patrick]

Downtown Portland

[Patrick]

Downtown Los Angeles at night

[Prometheus]

Downtown Portland

That was exquisite!!!

dinesh.

[RationalBiker]

There is an implicit mind-body dichotomy which leads many a craftsman to try to persuade people that what he is doing is really "art."  In fact, an honest craftsman is a value and a pretentious artist isn't.

Well said Betsy. I hope it's clear that I'm not so hung up on how my effort is categorized as I am what it reflects of my view or my emotions, whether it captures a story, or makes one think. If asked to describe myself, I'd say I'm a photographer, not an artist.

VES

[Patrick]

Seagulls!

[Patrick]

Golden Gate

[DavidV]

Wow Patrick, those photos are fantastic! Thanks for sharing them with us :-)

This is from a ranch I go horseback riding at:

[RationalBiker]

I like the pic GC! Makes me think of the HBO series, Deadwood.

Also, the pic from Patrick that reminds me of an attack wing of aircraft.

VES

[RationalBiker]

He may not be the Turnip King, but he ruled our garden for a couple of weeks.

VES

[RationalBiker]

Past...

Present...

[RationalBiker]

Ambivalence...

VES

[pvtmorriscsa]

Howdy All,

Next year I will be marching north from GA to ME along the Appalachian Trail. I already plan to keep a journal of my 2000+ mile walk, but I would also like to keep a photographic record as well. Most of my pictures will be taken outdoors.

My question is, as a novie shutterbug; should I use a film camera, or a digital? My concerns are weight of the equipment, durability in the field, and cost. I would like to keep my purchase to less than $250 if I can. Any suggestions?

Sorry if this is off topic, but hey I would rather ask rational people, than take my chances with some salesman at a store.

[Betsy]

My question is, as a novie shutterbug; should I use a film camera, or a digital?  My concerns are weight of the equipment, durability in the field, and cost.  I would like to keep my purchase to less than $250 if I can.  Any suggestions?

I'd suggest a small digital camera that uses rewriteable and reusable media like compact flash or smart media. You should be able to get them used within your budget. You can take plenty of pictures and, when you get to a place that has a Kinko's or other computer access, dump your pictures onto a CD and mail it home.

[source]

Any suggestions?

I'd also suggest a digital camera. My favorite setting is 3.2 megapixels, ISO 200. (ISO 400 can mess up your photo and less than ISO 200 is hard on your batteries - needs a lot of light).

A lower number of pixels would do as well, unless you really need a high quality photo.

Some digital cameras come larger and heavier than film cameras, but they can still take up less space in your bag because the cards are much smaller (almost as thin as a piece of paper) and much more photos fit there in comparison to a film. Mine can hold 150 photos (at 3.2 mpx), while films can hold up to 36 photos only. The good part about digital cameras is that if you make an error, you can simply delete the photo and give it another try. On film cameras, you can only waste space by taking the shot once more, since no deletion is possible.

Well, good luck on your journey. Have fun and take a lot of good photos.

[RationalBiker]

pvtmorriscsa,

A good place to check out digital camera reviews is www.dpreview.com. Phil's reviews are top notch in my opinion.

Phil reviews virtually every digi-cam that hits the market.

They have forums there as well, but I warn you in advance, the signal to noise ratio is rather low.

I agree with other that you can get a good quality picture out of a 3.2 MP camera. Also, you will get more pictures for the same weight and load ratio than you would with film, plus the opportunity to review and discard bad shots.

My personal suggestion would be get one that accepts CF (compact flash cards) as that is fairly standard. Also, the larger the CF card you can afford to get, the more pics you can take without having to download them off camera. Alternatively, get 2 or 3 smaller ones so as not to keep all your eggs in one basket.

Several companies out there make durable all-weather cases, which I would also recommend.

VES

[pvtmorriscsa]

Howdy All,

Thanks for the good information. I am really in the dark when it comes to the whole arena of photography. The replies are both informative, and appreciated. Thank you.