| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2005 02:05:42 PM · #51 |
In my mind the thing that separates photography as art from photography as craft is more about intent and results than it is about editing tools and techniques used.
The photographer working to create is an artist. He trys to create something that was not in existence before, a work of art. He may start with a photographic image, but then he tries to "enhance" it, to make it better than the original. And he may introduce whole elements or mere nuiances that were not there to begin with, all with the intent of improving upon the appearance of what was before the camera, and making it more pleasing, or more impactful, to his viewer. He does not desire that his viewers react the same way that he did to the ogiginal scene as it was before he captured it.
The photographer working to reproduce is a craftsman. He trys to capture and relay the essence of what is before the camera as accurately as possible. He may use the same editing program as the artist but he seeks to refine his image with the intent of making it more closely mirror reality. He does desire his viewers have the same reaction as he did, to see what he saw; perhaps with a hope that their reaction also includes the impression that the photographer has conveyed the scene faithfully.
Some of what we very inclusively call photographs embrace only one of these genres and totally exclude the other, but I'd venture that most include elements from both sides. Although I prefer to practice one, I do not put it above the other. However, I do find it insulting when my preference is ascribed to ignorance.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:08:54 PM · #52 |
Wow, coolhar that was very good. I agree with you 100%.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:16:52 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
here is one that I found (Joey's picture is a pure coincidence):
I wonder how the original looks like.
The skin of the zebra is strange, also the grass (cloning?). Not my type, but I do not want to offend people. I agree with robs, I am here to learn, so as many of us. |
I think what you might take into consideration here is that the image was shot through a fence. How would the score have been had the fence still been seen? I don't think you can blame the photographer for trying to appeal to his/her audience. The voters vote high the images they like. Its like positive reinforcement. Why underprocess something you know will be killed by the voters?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:22:33 PM · #54 |
My point is that words have defined meanings. If we all start making up our own meanings for things then we can no longer communicate.
The argument of "what is art" and therefore "what is an artist" has been going on for centuries. It's pretty clear cut though as the word has been defined for us to use.
Trying to compare craftsman to artist is a ridiculous argument because a craftsman by very definition is an artist.
It's when people put there own personal preferences on something and then deem it as "art" worthy or not that is insulting. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:34:59 PM · #55 |
That is where I think people can get seduce easily using software able to overuse 'special effects' functions, or (over) enhance colour. I just picked the above picture because it represents what I do not like in photography. I would not have shot this picture, just because of the fence. If I do not like the way the photo looks like, I will not keep it.
I am just a beginner in photography, so having this discussion help me a lot. Looking at some pictures in this website gives me en exhausitve piece of information.
The pictures that I shot so far are not great, there is almost no post treatment. I think one fundamental element in photography is light, its orientation, and the way light interacts with the object/person/landscape that you want to shoot. Learning is a long process.
The General E's pictures are not my type either. Specially pic 2,3 and 5. Just a question of preference.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:36:41 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
... It's when people put there own personal preferences on something and then deem it as "art" worthy or not that is insulting. |
That's only insulting if your value system puts art above craft.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:44:48 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by megatherian:
... It's when people put there own personal preferences on something and then deem it as "art" worthy or not that is insulting. |
That's only insulting if your value system puts art above craft. |
are you reading my posts?
Originally posted by megatherian:
a craftsman by very definition is an artist |
It is insulting because people use their own preferences to redefine words because the subject "isn't good enough" in their eyes to meet their own over inflated definition of the word.
I'm always up for a good debate but this is just going around in circles and convoluting this thread, so I am respectfully bowing out of it. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:46:40 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
....He does not desire that his viewers react the same way that he did to the ogiginal scene as it was before he captured it... |
I think that is a great way of stating the different view points. I guess that while I appreciate the art form, I am more comfortable in the craft form for most of my photographs. That would explain why I somehow feel let down when I see the post-processed image was further away from the pre-processed image then I would like. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:50:46 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
The General E's pictures are not my type either. Specially pic 2,3 and 5. Just a question of preference. |
Note that these are all entries from a year-and-a-half ago or more -- nobody liked them much then either : )
Lately, many of my images are minimally processed.
But it depends on the subject -- for those particular shots, over-processing was probably the best option -- I'll see if I can track down the originals for those for comparison. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 02:56:33 PM · #60 |
Megatherian, regardless of what the dictionary says are possible or accepted uses of the term "art" (for example, we often hear the term "the healer's art" applied to doctors), this perennial discussion is centered around one specific concept of "Art" with a capital "A" as something distinct from "craft". So, in terms of this discussion, YOU are the one that's trying to redefine the term.
The question, in the abstract, is "when does a thing stop being craft and become Art?", and more specifically "can photography even BE Art?" There are those who say that when an image is manipulated, for example, it may become Art but it is no longer "photography".
It doesn't do any good at all, in terms of this discussion, to try to neutralize the "art" label to a generic, all-encompassing definition, IMO.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:04:25 PM · #61 |
here is one of my picture:
No PP except unsharp mask (100%, 0.3, 0 ).
I just position the light such a way the backgound was black.
//site.voila.fr/rogerwaters/apple.jpg
Message edited by muckpond - changed large image to link. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:17:09 PM · #62 |
I assume this was jpeg. What were the camera settings?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:18:56 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Megatherian, regardless of what the dictionary says are possible or accepted uses of the term "art" (for example, we often hear the term "the healer's art" applied to doctors), this perennial discussion is centered around one specific concept of "Art" with a capital "A" as something distinct from "craft". So, in terms of this discussion, YOU are the one that's trying to redefine the term.
The question, in the abstract, is "when does a thing stop being craft and become Art?", and more specifically "can photography even BE Art?" There are those who say that when an image is manipulated, for example, it may become Art but it is no longer "photography".
It doesn't do any good at all, in terms of this discussion, to try to neutralize the "art" label to a generic, all-encompassing definition, IMO.
Robt. |
Ok, so you ask "when does something stop being craft and become Art?" - become what? "Art"? Capital or not what is "Art"? How can we possibly aswer a question if we can't even agree on what the words mean we are talking about.
So ok, maybe I don't understand. You tell me what "Art" is (with a capital "A").
Intent has nothing to do with it. Many people said Mapplethorpe's work was not Art while other's said it was brilliant Art. Some people say the new corvette is a work of Art whereas it was designed to be a car.
I'm not trying to redefine Art just trying to take your restrains off of it which are based upon your personal opinion.
Otherwise how could we ever answer the question "when does something stop being craft and become Art?" - Art according to who's criteria? |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:24:13 PM · #64 |
I do not use RAW (NEF) format.
here are the parameters.
Nikon D70
2005/12/06 18:27:05.2
JPEG (8-bit) Fine
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Lens: 18-70mm F/3.5-4.5 G
Focal Length: 46mm
Exposure Mode: Aperture Priority
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1.30 sec - F/20
Exposure Comp.: -0.7 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 200
Optimize Image: Custom
White Balance: Incandescent
AF Mode: Manual
Flash Sync Mode: Not Attached
Color Mode: Mode IIIa (sRGB)
Tone Comp: Medium High
Hue Adjustment: 0°
Saturation: Normal
Sharpening: High
Image Comment:
Noise Reduction: Fixed Pattern
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 15:24:41.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:27:21 PM · #65 |
What is the following:
Optimize Image: Custom
What were the settings for that?
It looks like you used the medium high tone compensation as well.
Also, high sharpening.
You've applied in camera what a lot of people prefer to use computer software to apply.
To me you've just moved the PP up a step.
edit: I'm not trying to nitpick, just point out that what is being applied in camera here can also be applied in computer software. Both are post processing.
The camera does not take a picture in jpeg. The camera processes the data captured by the sensor to produce the jpeg output based on the parameters set.
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 15:31:56.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:33:46 PM · #66 |
| Optimize image only affects things when using the digital vari-programs (setting the dial to outdoor, portrait etc) and it adjusts color balance, sharpness, saturation, hue etc. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:37:47 PM · #67 |
Thanks for answering my questions.
It looks like you're happy with what you can achieve with the processing parameters provided by the camera.
These parameters can also be taken too far. Try pushing the saturation or the contrast and see what comes out. It could be interesting.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:39:57 PM · #68 |
On the Nikon D70, (I guess it is also true with other brands), custom means that it is just a type. There are pre-made optimization (contrast, sharpening, etc..) that I can choose, but I always pick the custom mode. I do not consider my setting as PP work since I select it before I shot the picture. I think there is a relative difference using the properties of the camera and the software. Nevertheless, I use quite often the unsharp mask function, but not abundantly.
Maybe I want to minimize all PP with photoshop. So, the source picture (original) is as close as I wanted to be. I think there is a big difference.
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 15:41:24.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:43:14 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
On the Nikon D70, (I guess it is also true with other brands), custom means that it is just a type. There are pre-made optimization (contrast, sharpening, etc..) that I can choose, but I always pick the custom mode. I do not consider my setting as PP work since I select it before I shot the picture. I think there is a relative difference using the properties of the camera and the software. Nevertheless, I use quite often the unsharp mask function, but not abundantly.
Maybe I want to minimize all PP with photoshop. So, the source picture (original) is as close as I wanted to be. I think there is a big difference. |
Do you set them and forget them or do you think about them for if not every shot but every group of shots taken under the same conditions?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:45:23 PM · #70 |
These parameters can also be taken too far. Try pushing the saturation or the contrast and see what comes out. It could be interesting
Sure that is the reason why I shot at least a few pictures first. I finally picked the one that I like the most.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:53:52 PM · #71 |
Do you set them and forget them or do you think about them for if not every shot but every group of shots taken under the same conditions?
here are the functions that I do not change:
JPEG (8-bit) Fine
Image Size: Large (3008 x 2000)
Sensitivity: ISO 200 (most of the time, I use the lowest ISO)
Optimize Image: Custom
Color Mode: Mode IIIa (sRGB) (I like to have deeper colour, so I chose this mode)
Tone Comp: Medium High (generally medium high or high)
Sharpening: High (I like sharp pictures)
here are the functions that I do change
White Balance: Incandescent (depends on the type of light (natural light, lightbulb, etc...)
AF Mode: Manual (most of the time, I use AF)
Flash Sync Mode: Not Attached (I rarely use the built in flash)
Hue Adjustment: 0° (I will have to play more with the hue saturation, as I mentioned, I am just a beginner)
This depends on the camera (but I can desaectivate the noise reduction when I want).
Hope that will answer your question
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 03:56:49 PM · #72 |
Optimize image only affects things when using the digital vari-programs (setting the dial to outdoor, portrait etc) and it adjusts color balance, sharpness, saturation, hue etc.
I do not think this statement is true. I never use the vari-programs except for A and S. If I change the custom mode, I am able to see the difference.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:02:29 PM · #73 |
What I'm seeing is that the same tone curve and sharpening is applied to all shots.
I must be a control freak as the tone curve and sharpening I apply differs from shot to shot. Sometimes I don't apply any at all. Most of the time, I'm only applying curves (usually in the RAW conversion only) and then highlight/shadow.
Even though most of the shots I apply highlight/shadow to are inappropriate for a graduated ND filter at time of shooting I still need to start checking the exposure difference between highlights and shadows before shooting and decide to use the grad ND then. This would eliminate some of the PP. Not the RAW conversion, just the Photoshop stuff.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:17:24 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Optimize image only affects things when using the digital vari-programs (setting the dial to outdoor, portrait etc) and it adjusts color balance, sharpness, saturation, hue etc.
I do not think this statement is true. I never use the vari-programs except for A and S. If I change the custom mode, I am able to see the difference. |
You're right. I pulled out my Magic Lantern Guide and turned to the wrong page. The Digital Vari-programs override the custom setting. Using custom is the only way to get the camera to use the color mode II (Adobe RGB).
Custom allows you to adjust Sharpening, Tone, Color Mode, Saturation and Hue when NOT using the digital vari-programs (including auto) |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:21:08 PM · #75 |
Something I've always wondered is whether the camera settings do the exact same thing Nikon Capture does to RAW photos?
If I use Noise Reduction in the camera is it the same thing as NOT using noise Reduction in the camera and doing it in Nikon Capture? Nikon Capture seems to have all the same options as my camera... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 03:48:48 PM EDT.
