| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2012 08:53:42 AM · #1 |
Perhaps it is just me, and I dwell too long on rules and such, but I would like to hear other opinions on this thought.
I understand the need for the rule:
"include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry.
Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be
so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
and given the boundaries of the "competition framework" it is written about as well as it could be.
I know there are too many threads on what is "art" - but aside from post processing, the act of "snapping a photograph" is capture, not "creation as such" - differing from say, sculpture, which is for the most part, more "creation" than capture.
All that being said, isn't is a perfectly valid expression of photographic art to take a picture of the way light falls on a sculpture or oil painting or another photograph for that matter? And how is that any different than making a shoebox diorama on your own at home and then photographing it? or setting up some elaborate posed scene using materials and then taking a photograph? Rather than a sculpture or oil painting?
My point is, forget whether you recognize it as one or not, the photograph is a photograph no matter what is in front of the frame. It would be difficult, and time consuming, and near impossible to "judge" or "vote" if pictures of pictures were allowed, I understand, but its only because of this "contest" that they are not "as valid a form of artistic expression" no?
|
|
|
|
03/15/2012 08:58:29 AM · #2 |
| If Art requires "creation" most famous photographers were taking snapshots. |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 09:04:54 AM · #3 |
the point is you aren't allowed to photograph a photograph to give the impression you made the original. its all about deceiving the voters.
for instance:
this was created by taking a picture of a poster and applying blur to it. the voters thought the person who submitted the image took it and applied the tilt shift.
they have been other instances where people have taken an old picture, printed it out or put it on the screen and used it as a backdrop to to circumvent a date rules or to add context that wouldn't have been there without it. billbords are another, you can take a picture of a billboard, the the voters need to know its a billboard. the backdrop issue is a sketchy one.
you are allowed to take pictures of art, sculptures, becuase its obvious you aren't try passing the original art off as your own. paintings and photographs are different since one could take a picture and it not look like a painting or picture.
you can take a picture of a piece of art hanging in a gallery, but the voters need to see it's someone else art and you are photographing in in another context than the one it is attempting to provide on its own.
Message edited by author 2012-03-15 09:07:23. |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 09:20:29 AM · #4 |
To me, the capture's the thing. I feel that takes a lot more skill and knowledge of your camera to be able to adjust and catch life on the fly especially as these days I shoot a lot of wildlife. Generally you have only a very short time frame in which to get the shot. Say you're shooting a bird with lots of interesting tones, the light on it is good,it's fairly close and it's doing something interesting. Then suddenly there appears a bird that is contrasty, farther away but still in range to get something usable, backlit and a lot rarer than your current subject.
Well, you can't wait to see if the rare bird is going to hang around, come closer, or get into better lighting; it can leave at any moment. So if you can make all the necessary adjustments quickly without having to check, and get a good shot of such a tough subject before it leaves, all the more power to you.
In setups, you have all the control over lighting/bg/subject and the leisure of time to make adjustments to make the shot perfect. Of course there is a level of artistry that goes into lighting, model, angles etc, but you often have a generous time frame.
Also and strictly fwiw...I shot a couple of weddings this past year as 2nd photog, and feel that all that wildlife shooting was my biggest asset, even if in this case I was able to get the subjects to cooperate :-) If I were more of a studio person, I don't know if I would have been as tuned up and able to get as many keepers. |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 09:21:42 AM · #5 |
| I agree that photography is 'capture.' If there is any art in photography it is in the timing, picking the moment to make that capture. If there is any art in photography it is also in framing the shot, picking what does not appear in the viewfinder. The result is something you can't see by looking only with your eyes. For me, this is why a photograph of another photograph is technically the same capture as any other, it is not a good choice. |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 09:25:59 AM · #6 |
| I did not intend to put forward the proposition that "capturing" was anything inferior in terms of an art sense. I have the utmost respect for the people who know how to skillfully take a photograph, since it has eluded me. But isn't the power of Photography to be able to "include" alredy existing works of art or nature or anything, so easily? |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 09:30:59 AM · #7 |
I've found I prefer found shots rather than studio created. The key was realizing that the appeal to me of photography is exploring the world. Many of my keepers have been because I recognized the good light and the key moment when it was in front of me, and knew what to do.
Oddly enough, I have this nagging thought in the back of my head that if I were a "real" photographer, I would create them in a studio with models, because that's what real photographers do. I'm ok with being an imitative hack.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2012 10:19:13 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Oddly enough, I have this nagging thought in the back of my head that if I were a "real" photographer, I would create them in a studio with models, because that's what real photographers do. I'm ok with being an imitative hack. |
I prefer creating in a studio setting and exploring lighting setups as opposed to found shots. As to being a "real" photographer... well there are ones that do studio, fashion, landscape, travel, sports etc... Is one more "real" then another? |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 10:28:33 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
As to being a "real" photographer... well there are ones that do studio, fashion, landscape, travel, sports etc... Is one more "real" then another? |
No, of course not. Some of the best photographers here use only ambient light in the real world. Just some little voice inside says "if you were a REAL photographer, you would...". I ignore the voice because it's not what I like to do.
I also have no desire to be a a professional and earn my living this way, which also seems to be a common goal of "real photographers". Maybe if I could make my living like Graham Watson, and Graham would probably get fivish averages on DPC.
Message edited by author 2012-03-15 10:34:24.
|
|
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: 07/28/2025 07:02:24 AM EDT.
