Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: When is a Photograph a Cheat?  (Read 33751 times)

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2011, 05:23:56 pm »

I agree with you that many people could master the basic mechanics of photography, but that's only requirements and not sufficient to make great photos, not to speak of art. The selection of the scene, light, composition and post processing really makes the difference and that's not mechanics and most never master it no matter how much they try.

Well said, Hans.



.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2011, 01:22:41 am »

Actually, the photos of my friend's work I don't really consider "art" either (except for the Indian); I was just showing the incredible detail of his work.
Make up your mind Jack, first you present it as art, now you say it isn't

Kenny just constantly draws and paints, both professionally and recreationally, and he happened to be working on these the last time I stopped by. Most of his actual professional work is by private contact.
Let's just agree that you don't know WTF you're taking about, and have you sit down and be quiet on this. And let's just say that a person who needs to "trace" his work doesn't get hired by many of the top sports professionals in the world to do personal portraits in their homes ... nor get hired by the Mayor of Daytona Beach to paint a 12' high, 150' mural all across the main show room of the Daytona Beach International Speedway's museum
Make up your mind Jack, first he only "executes his art" in his private home, now he sells it by private contract and does big commercial murals. Only thing I was saying is that he better gets permission from the photographer who's work he is copying if he uses his product commercially. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is okay to disagree on a topic. It is not okay to make disparaging (and totally inaccurate) remarks about another person when you know absolutely nothing about either the subject or the individual.
Sorry for hitting a nerve there, while my statement may be inaccurate it was absolutely not disparaging.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
    • My Flickr page
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #62 on: September 06, 2011, 07:10:52 am »

I think that it is impossible to determine if it is easier to produce a great painting, or a great photograph.  It depends on the individual person trying to do either.  Some people can produce paintings that are awe inspiring works of art, and do so without much effort, thought, training, or preparation.  To them, it is very easy and they may not be able to imagine why everyone can not do the same.  Other people, can capture images with a camera that are awe inspiring works of art, and do so without much effort, thought, training, or preparation.  To them, it is very easy and they may not be able to imagine why everyone can not do the same.  Each person is an individual, with different talents and skills.

It also is relative that some people are seemingly incapable of having an open mind.  Some people seem to be incapable, or unwilling, to respond to posts in a mature, thoughtful, open-minded, and considerate way.  These people seem to believe that their own opinion is the only correct one and possibly could have their own personal problems, and mental/emotional handicaps that lead them to try to make themselves look superior by putting others down.  All of the above is relevant and not meant to offend anyone in particular....but, if you feel offended, then you should take a long hard look at yourself.

If you need me, I will be in front of the mirror.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 12:47:31 am by Bryan Conner »
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #63 on: September 06, 2011, 08:34:20 am »

Make up your mind Jack, first you present it as art, now you say it isn't
Make up your mind Jack, first he only "executes his art" in his private home, now he sells it by private contract and does big commercial murals. Only thing I was saying is that he better gets permission from the photographer who's work he is copying if he uses his product commercially. Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop trying to bait me into an infinite digression of petty arguments, Pegelli. It is not a matter of me "making up my mind," it is a matter of you making up one false accusation after another in order to perpetuate a contentious atmosphere.

Talking about permission wasn't the "only" thing you said; you have repeatedly crossed the line of polite debate by making continual insinuations that Kenny "traced" his work, which not only is childishly preposterous on your part, but it means you are being intentionally disrespectful and deliberately argumentative. Now you are trying to be petty and argumentative yet again by quibbling over whether Kenny does "private" or "commercial" work. He does both genius. If you want to question whether he does both, why don't you take your doubting self over to the Daytona Beach International Speedway (arguably the most famous race track on the planet), and go into their museum, and check out the massive mural covering the inside ... and see whose signature is on the wall. Then take a trip to to the Boxing Hall of Fame and see how many of his works hang there. After you complete this effort, I will then give you a list of the leading sports figures for whom Kenny has done private work as well, but that is neither here nor there. The simple fact is, ALL of my friend's work is of the kind of technical skill that few people have it in them to equal.

However, since some members of this forum wanted to split hairs about "artistic merit" versus "technical skill," I reasonably had to admit that the Jimi Hendrix (while technincally outstanding) is pretty sterile. The Tyson portrait, again while technically-excellent and somewhat colorful & artistic, is still of an ugly subject IMO

Within the context of this kind of hair-splitting, I personally favored the Indian portrait as "art," because of the rich textures, and because I know Kenny was experimenting for an "authentic, oldstyle look" in this particular portrait, by doing his work on a piece of linen cloth for an aged effect. Thus I think it is more of an "artistic portrait" than the other two, but it really doesn't matter, because all of the works are technically outstanding. However, none of this has to do with the point, which is the simple fact that drawing these images with such precision is light years harder to do (and requires much more skill to do) than merely "snapping a photo" of these same subjects.

That was the only point I was trying to make here and it reflects my sincere belief. Others may believe differently, no big deal, so I can understand debating some of the complexities it takes to produce great photos versus great paintings. What I can't understand are the sour attacks and insinuations.




Sorry for hitting a nerve there, while my statement may be inaccurate it was absolutely not disparaging.

I agree that you are sorry, Pegelli, but not in the apologetic sense. You were not only being totally inaccurate in your petty statements, but you were being intentionally disparaging as well.

There is no need for me to respond further to you, since you are not trying to have a conversation here, you are just trying to have me field your petty accusations, which I am not going to do anymore.

Jack



.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #64 on: September 06, 2011, 01:19:06 pm »

Stop trying to bait me into an infinite digression of petty arguments, Pegelli. It is not a matter of me "making up my mind," it is a matter of you making up one false accusation after another in order to perpetuate a contentious atmosphere.

I'm not baiting you, and if you can't bear the truth about the inconsistency of your arguments it doesn't help to get mad.

I'm not making false accusations and anyone reading the thread above will see that.

As I said I'm sorry I hit a nerve but if you keep lashing out very impolitely without any reason I will stop here
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #65 on: September 07, 2011, 02:49:15 am »

However ... it is still an easier bargain than painting from nothing.
I made no mention of this discussion in my post, intentionally.  I only discussed the challenge of getting the average Joe to realize post processing of images is something that every image needs to go through (without it as the article pointed out they won't look like the scene at all), and using tools to enhance and improve the image should be considered artistic license, not something to be scorned or looked down on (unless you are representing to the viewer absolute realism such as in photo journalism).

But trying to compare the difficulty of two art mediums seems a pointless discussion, as the visual results are what counts and not how long it took to create or how long it took to acquire the skills to create. To be considered an artist probably only requires some viewers appreciate your work as an art form.  certainly there are different levels of that appreciation, and some may worry about "legitimizing" themselves as artists ... in fact most photographers are frustrated because it seems the "art world" in general doesn't consider photography a legitimate art.  Funny, because if an "artist" takes a lousy picture of some place, then paints the scene (a great many artists paint from photographs, some even tracing outlines via projection),  adding anything they want and removing anything they want they may create a beautiful painting and because it's a painting, it's art.  If I make the effort to take a beautiful photograph of the same place and then enhance it so it is visually stunning using post-processing tools, I'm a cheat, and I'm not an artist.

Back to my point, as to whether it is harder to paint than it is take a picture, that seems sort of an irrelevant discussion (no disrespect, I do see where you might be coming from).  But to gain the skill to excel at photography at the highest level, which takes considerable practice and mastery of several areas of a craft is no easy task, and indeed I see many try that don't do very well.  I also know many people that can "paint", but I wouldn't call them artists.  There is an inherent creative spark that is required to elevate ones work to that level ... images that inspire awe and amazement in viewers, be it with a brush or with a camera.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 02:55:34 am by Wayne Fox »
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #66 on: September 07, 2011, 01:57:48 pm »

I made no mention of this discussion in my post, intentionally.  I only discussed the challenge of getting the average Joe to realize post processing of images is something that every image needs to go through (without it as the article pointed out they won't look like the scene at all), and using tools to enhance and improve the image should be considered artistic license, not something to be scorned or looked down on (unless you are representing to the viewer absolute realism such as in photo journalism).

Oh, well, I thought you were making reference to what prompted my original post. My original post was to DChew for the specific statement he made, "I don’t think the art of photography is any easier.  I made the comparison to an oil painter with a magic “undo” brush.  It is not any easier to create the art, but the magic brush makes it much easier to experiment and to practice."

I simply thought this was a self-contradiction. Because of things like "undo," "reversable color sliders," etc., in point of fact this is precisely why photography is easier to work with as an art form than painting. Heck, a good photographer can take, adjust, and post-process hundreds of images a day ... while a painter can barely get through one complicated piece a week, if he's lucky.

I do see your point, though, and I don't mean to imply that there is "no" difficulty or skill level that needs to be gained in photography, far from it. The best photographers need to develop complex lighting skills, an innate perspective and capturing skills, as well as a degree of post-processing skills that most people will never even fathom. But my own original point was, that it's still easier to create "art" with a camera and Photoshop than with a blank canvas, colors, and a brush. And the very fact that a top photographer will come back from his photo shoot with hundreds (or even thousands) of images ... while a painter will still be working on the very first piece of work he started with ... is pretty much proof positive of which form of art is "easier" to create.




But trying to compare the difficulty of two art mediums seems a pointless discussion, as the visual results are what counts and not how long it took to create or how long it took to acquire the skills to create. To be considered an artist probably only requires some viewers appreciate your work as an art form.  certainly there are different levels of that appreciation, and some may worry about "legitimizing" themselves as artists ... in fact most photographers are frustrated because it seems the "art world" in general doesn't consider photography a legitimate art.

I am not sure if it's a pointless discussion, Wayne, precisely because you just finished saying that the art world in general doesn't consider photography a legitmate art form. Why do you think that is Wayne? Could it be that this "general view" makes my point, rather than makes what I said pointless? The very fact that there has been an inherent lack of respect for a photographer's "finger push" to create his work ... when compared to the time, effort, and skill a painter must employ ... is the point, I would think.

And yet, having said this, let me argue the other side of the coin ... for, as a developing photographer myself, I also understand that there is a whole lot more to taking a good photo than what the Average Joe understands. For this reason, I completely disagree that photography is "not" an art, I am quite well aware that photography is an art (at least in some cases), an art that I personally enjoy, love, and have quite a bit of fondness for. But a form of art that, while there are skill levels that need to be mastered, is still easier to master than painting.




Funny, because if an "artist" takes a lousy picture of some place, then paints the scene (a great many artists paint from photographs, some even tracing outlines via projection),  adding anything they want and removing anything they want they may create a beautiful painting and because it's a painting, it's art.  If I make the effort to take a beautiful photograph of the same place and then enhance it so it is visually stunning using post-processing tools, I'm a cheat, and I'm not an artist.

Interesting points, Wayne.

Let me respond with a couple of beliefs:

1. I think it is perfectly okay for a painter to use a photograph for reference, but IMO any painter who "traces lines" from that photograph is a no-talent cheat IMO. (Why? His skill did not create the image.);
2. Because of the above, I don't think "post-processing a photo" as an art-form can be held in the same regard as creating a work of art, from scratch, by hand. (In point of fact, you basically just admitted that it is not held in as high a regard by the general art community.);

And yet I still think photography is both a legitimate and worthy form of artistic expression ... for those who can't paint

Don't get me wrong, I love photography, and I respect every photographer who has more experience than I do and who has learned his craft well. I also love looking at other people's photos and creative vision, because they inspire my own. And I realize that I have a long way to go to being able to achieve all of the results I want to achieve in my own efforts. And yet, despite these sincere feelings and convictions on behalf of photography, no "great photograph" will ever earn my deepest respect and admiration in the way that a great painting will.

In other words, if we can step back from the trees so that we can see the forest, Ansel Adams (as popular as he may be to other photographers) will never command the level of overall respect and admiration from the public as DaVinci, Picasso, Michelangelo, etc. Never in a million years. Why? Because the average person "with a good camera" knows he can come a lot closer to taking photos like Ansel Adams ... than the average person "with a brush and a canvas" knows he will ever get to painting works of art like Michelangelo, Picasso, and DaVinci, that's why. This is an innate knowledge that people simply have.

In fact, our forum moderator Michael previously scoffed at the a priori aspect of it all, but I believe this truth is a priori! Again, this is why, if you ask the average person about Ansel Adams ... 95% of them will say, "Ansel who?" ... while pretty much every literate person on the face of this earth knows who Michelangelo is. There simply is an innate respect for the Master Painter that the "master photographer" will never have ...

IMO, denial of this fact isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.




Back to my point, as to whether it is harder to paint than it is take a picture, that seems sort of an irrelevant discussion (no disrespect, I do see where you might be coming from).

Well, I certainly don't mean any disrespect to you either Wayne (or any other photographer, including my own aspiring self). I merely wanted to make a quick comment to DChew about what he said, regarding a matter that I thought was pretty self-evident, but apparently it has hurt a lot of sensitive feelings on this subject. Sometimes that's the way it goes though ...

I think there are a couple of things being muddied here, namely the appreciation for beauty and the skill it required to capture that beauty.

If I take a beautiful photograph, I think I can rightfully appreciate the beauty of the image. And if the shot took some skills to acquire & process (that the average person might not be able to appreciate), I think my peers will appreciate both the beauty as well as the skills it took to take the shot. But maybe my lack of post-processing didn't allow the shot to be all it could be.

Case in point: I recently took a pretty cool and well-composed photo of an old truck ... but my post-processing skills (and artistic vision) were severely limited and so the image I posted was quite ordinary "as is." However, three of the members here liked my basic image and, with their own post-processing knowledge and artistic vision, transformed my original shot into 3 different "works of art," each of which had a totally different look and feel to it, all off of the same original image. And I truly did enjoy all 3 "artistic interpretations" of my original core image ... all of which were rendered by the 3 members in a FAR better manner than I could render them myself ... and I completely understand and respect the fact that all 3 of these fellows expressed better artistic vision than I had, as well as possessed more post-processing skills to realize their vision than I had.

And yet I still don't think any of these men "moving sliders" and "applying layers" to the original image, through Lightroom and Photoshop, could compare skill-wise to the ability to actually draw/paint the image, from scratch, by hand. They are simply two totally-different levels of talent and difficulty.




But to gain the skill to excel at photography at the highest level, which takes considerable practice and mastery of several areas of a craft is no easy task, and indeed I see many try that don't do very well.  I also know many people that can "paint", but I wouldn't call them artists.  There is an inherent creative spark that is required to elevate ones work to that level ... images that inspire awe and amazement in viewers, be it with a brush or with a camera.

I agree with this, and I personally enjoy all forms of creative expression, nature photography in particular, and I am always trying to do better and learn more in my own abilities as a photographer. Hell, I don't even think about painting most of the time, I am simply obsessed with photography and enjoy looking at (mostly nature) photos immensely.

I just wanted to make a little comment here ... but, unwittingly, I wound-up opening a Pandora's Box of feelings and beliefs on what appears to be a very touchy subject ... for photographers

Cheers!

Jack



.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 02:04:55 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #67 on: September 07, 2011, 10:57:45 pm »


I am not sure if it's a pointless discussion, Wayne, precisely because you just finished saying that the art world in general doesn't consider photography a legitmate art form. Why do you think that is Wayne?


The discussion to me is pointless because it's been discussed for many decades, there is nothing new and everything there is to say has pretty much been said in a thousand different ways, and while I made the comment, don't read between the lines that I actually care, because I don't.  If you do care, then you can go ahead and beat your head against the wall to feel legitimate like hundreds of photographers before you.  Personally I just do my thing because some will feel it's art, some won't and nothing I can do or say will change that so why lose any sleep or time worrying about it.

Nothing against those that do worry about it, I'm just not one of them.
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #68 on: September 08, 2011, 04:29:13 am »

Jack

I think you are flogging a dead horse here.  I can see exactly where you are coming from - but can't agree with your way of thinking.  As wayne and other have said it's all been debated before and trying to categorise what is and isn't art, and which is more difficult, is pointless.
The painting by your friend of Jimmi Hendrix I would not call art because it is an exact copy of someone else's artwork.  True he is a great craftsman in making such a remarkable copy, but it doesn't for me make him an artist (that is not to say he isn't).  I also cannot understand your scathing attack on any suggestion that the picture is traced.  Why would he not trace the basic outline if he wanted to make such an exact replica?  And by tracing, as somebody else has already pointed out, we could be talking about projecting the image onto the canvas.  The picture you have shown looks to have zero creative input if you compare it to the original photograph of the musician, because he has painstakingly copied every nuance of the original.
Surely some painters spend weeks on an art piece, but I have seen other artists produce the most amazing pictures in a matter of minutes - anyone from the UK above a certain age will remember Rolf Harris or Tony Hart with a 4" paintbrush and a blank wall.
Similarly I have known photographers painstakingly plan a shoot before executing their vision, and I have seen people with a pint of beer in one hand and a camera phone in the other hand shooting a landscape which they think will look wonderful.

The skill as far as I am concerned is the creative vision in the artists head.  The visual arts are just a means of communicating what is in the artists head.  I use the term 'artist' in the loosest sense.  The medium used to produce that art is immaterial as far as I am concerned, and to hint that people choose to be photographers because they cannot paint is often wrong.  There are lots of things I would love to paint, and perhaps one day I will try, but none of them are things I could photograph. They are imaginary. If I want to make an exact likeness of an object or person I cannot see why it would not be better to photograph it.

One last thing Jack.  I do find your posts a bit threatening because of your use of BOLD TYPE.  I know it's just a perception but it comes across (to me) as either shouting or finger pointing.  I'm sure you aren't doing these things, but you write very fluently (better than me) and so I think the bold type and underlining are probably not necessary and will just inflame readers who do not agree with some of your points.  I mean even Schewe doesn't need to use bold type when he wants to dis-embowel someone!

Jim
Logged

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
    • My Flickr page
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #69 on: September 08, 2011, 06:43:06 am »

Heck, a good photographer can take, adjust, and post-process hundreds of images a day ... while a painter can barely get through one complicated piece a week, if he's lucky.

Just because I take, adjust, and post process hundreds of images a day does not mean that any of these images are going to be inspiring works of art.  And, just because a painter finishes one complicated piece a week does not mean that the painting will be an inspiring work of art.  If the only criteria is the perceived artistic value, then the speed of production is irrelevant.  

But my own original point was, that it's still easier to create "art" with a camera and Photoshop than with a blank canvas, colors, and a brush. And the very fact that a top photographer will come back from his photo shoot with hundreds (or even thousands) of images ... while a painter will still be working on the very first piece of work he started with ... is pretty much proof positive of which form of art is "easier" to create.

The hundreds (or even thousands) of images that a photographer captures at a photo shoot will not all be equal.  Out of those hundreds or thousands of images, the artist (photographer) will probably be able to single out one image that is the single favorite.  So, at the end of the day, both artists may only have "one" best image.  In fact, at the end of the week, both artists may be dissatisfied with what they have produced and reshoot or repaint.  This is proof positive that neither of the art forms is "easier" to create.  

How many images can you capture and process in the same amount of time that it took Jackson Pollock to create the "No. 5, 1948?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948  This painting sold for $140,000,000.  Pollock's painting was considered by at least one art critic to be "a joke in bad taste.", and another opinion was that Pollocks work was “mere unorganized explosions of random energy, and therefore meaningless.”.  I propose that the level of difficulty in producing a copy of this painting (that the majority of people could not distinguish from the original) is much lower than the level of difficulty in producing a similar quality copy of any of the works of the great portraitists, still photographers, nature photographers and even landscape photographers.....even with the best equipment.

It is my opinion that a well composed, well lit, and properly processed image (landscape, portrait, or still) takes more time to execute, and is much more difficult to create, than it took Pollock to create the most expensive painting ever sold....the painting with the highest determined value in the world.  


The very fact that there has been an inherent lack of respect for a photographer's "finger push" to create his work ... when compared to the time, effort, and skill a painter must employ ... is the point, I would think.


I am quite well aware that photography is an art (at least in some cases), an art that I personally enjoy, love, and have quite a bit of fondness for. But a form of art that, while there are skill levels that need to be mastered, is still easier to master than painting.

The photographer's "finger push" is not all that there is to many great works of photographic art.  Some photographs took much more time, effort, and skill than some paintings.  If only some photography is art, then only some paintings are art.  I can not state that one of the art forms (Painting or Photography) is easier to master than the other because I have not mastered either one.  In order for you to make such a statement, you must have mastered both.  Have you?  If not, you are not qualified to make such a statement.

And I realize that I have a long way to go to being able to achieve all of the results I want to achieve in my own efforts. And yet, despite these sincere feelings and convictions on behalf of photography, no "great photograph" will ever earn my deepest respect and admiration in the way that a great painting will.

Why in the world are you spending time with posting your beliefs on a PHOTOGRAPHY forum?  I suggest that you join a painting/drawing forum and tell the members there how much superior they are compared to photographers.  I am sure that your chances of having someone with the same opinion would be higher there.  At least you would be able to view "art" that is the most respectable and admirable to you.  Why are you settling for less by looking at less respectable and admirable things?





« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 06:57:08 am by Bryan Conner »
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #70 on: September 08, 2011, 08:42:20 am »

Quote

Personally I just do my thing because some will feel it's art, some won't and nothing I can do or say will change that so why lose any sleep or time worrying about it.

Nothing against those that do worry about it, I'm just not one of them.

unquote

This should be the epitaph to this thread. With respect to the amount of words typed preceding the above sentences this sums it all up, imo.  ::)

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #71 on: September 08, 2011, 09:11:53 am »

Jack
I think you are flogging a dead horse here.  I can see exactly where you are coming from - but can't agree with your way of thinking.  As wayne and other have said it's all been debated before and trying to categorise what is and isn't art, and which is more difficult, is pointless.
The painting by your friend of Jimmi Hendrix I would not call art because it is an exact copy of someone else's artwork.  True he is a great craftsman in making such a remarkable copy, but it doesn't for me make him an artist (that is not to say he isn't).  I also cannot understand your scathing attack on any suggestion that the picture is traced.  Why would he not trace the basic outline if he wanted to make such an exact replica?  And by tracing, as somebody else has already pointed out, we could be talking about projecting the image onto the canvas.  The picture you have shown looks to have zero creative input if you compare it to the original photograph of the musician, because he has painstakingly copied every nuance of the original.
Surely some painters spend weeks on an art piece, but I have seen other artists produce the most amazing pictures in a matter of minutes - anyone from the UK above a certain age will remember Rolf Harris or Tony Hart with a 4" paintbrush and a blank wall.
Similarly I have known photographers painstakingly plan a shoot before executing their vision, and I have seen people with a pint of beer in one hand and a camera phone in the other hand shooting a landscape which they think will look wonderful.
The skill as far as I am concerned is the creative vision in the artists head.  The visual arts are just a means of communicating what is in the artists head.  I use the term 'artist' in the loosest sense.  The medium used to produce that art is immaterial as far as I am concerned, and to hint that people choose to be photographers because they cannot paint is often wrong.  There are lots of things I would love to paint, and perhaps one day I will try, but none of them are things I could photograph. They are imaginary. If I want to make an exact likeness of an object or person I cannot see why it would not be better to photograph it.
One last thing Jack.  I do find your posts a bit threatening because of your use of BOLD TYPE.  I know it's just a perception but it comes across (to me) as either shouting or finger pointing.  I'm sure you aren't doing these things, but you write very fluently (better than me) and so I think the bold type and underlining are probably not necessary and will just inflame readers who do not agree with some of your points.  I mean even Schewe doesn't need to use bold type when he wants to dis-embowel someone!
Jim

Good post, Jim.

Sorry about the bold type ... I just use it for emphasis, not to threaten. Some people gloss over everything, and really don't take the time to read, so the bold type is intended to stop people in their tracks and at least make them read "that part" :)

Jack


.
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #72 on: September 08, 2011, 09:15:39 am »

I just wanted to make a little comment here ...
Cheers!
Jack

Wow ... this was a "little comment"?  

I'd love to see what happens when you turn off the regulator and really let her rip ...  ::)
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #73 on: September 08, 2011, 09:42:13 am »

Wow ... this was a "little comment"?  
I'd love to see what happens when you turn off the regulator and really let her rip ...  ::)

Yes it is.

What happens when I really feel strongly about a subject? I write a 300,000-word book, that's what

Jack


.
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #74 on: September 08, 2011, 11:18:58 am »

Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #75 on: September 08, 2011, 01:40:44 pm »

I guess I have to kick the horse one more time



Just because I take, adjust, and post process hundreds of images a day does not mean that any of these images are going to be inspiring works of art.  And, just because a painter finishes one complicated piece a week does not mean that the painting will be an inspiring work of art.  If the only criteria is the perceived artistic value, then the speed of production is irrelevant.  

True.

However, respect must be paid to "level of difficuly" as well as "level of skill."

For example, if I capture a woodland image with a click of my camera ... and then turn it into a "digital watercolor" simply by going into Photoshop and hitting Filter > Artistic > Watercolor ... you may enjoy the effect and my image, artistically, but please don't tell me you'd have the same level of admiration for what I did to make it as you would if I painted the image with precision by freehand.

IMO the person who can't admit this just isn't being honest.




The hundreds (or even thousands) of images that a photographer captures at a photo shoot will not all be equal.  Out of those hundreds or thousands of images, the artist (photographer) will probably be able to single out one image that is the single favorite.  So, at the end of the day, both artists may only have "one" best image.  In fact, at the end of the week, both artists may be dissatisfied with what they have produced and reshoot or repaint.  This is proof positive that neither of the art forms is "easier" to create.  

On the contrary, because the photographer can make (and choose from) thousands of images is all the more reason to appreciate the work of the painter, who has to make the one image he's working on count by getting it right the first time ...

And because a photographer can "undo" a hundred steps in an instant in post-processing, without losing a penny, he loses nothing by experimenting ... whereas, if the painter doesn't like what he's doing, he can't "undo" anything and is stuck with the physical reality ... not to mention being out-of-pocket on his wasted canvas and colors, as well as his time.





How many images can you capture and process in the same amount of time that it took Jackson Pollock to create the "No. 5, 1948?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948  This painting sold for $140,000,000.  Pollock's painting was considered by at least one art critic to be "a joke in bad taste.", and another opinion was that Pollocks work was “mere unorganized explosions of random energy, and therefore meaningless.”.  I propose that the level of difficulty in producing a copy of this painting (that the majority of people could not distinguish from the original) is much lower than the level of difficulty in producing a similar quality copy of any of the works of the great portraitists, still photographers, nature photographers and even landscape photographers.....even with the best equipment.

I agree ...




It is my opinion that a well composed, well lit, and properly processed image (landscape, portrait, or still) takes more time to execute, and is much more difficult to create, than it took Pollock to create the most expensive painting ever sold....the painting with the highest determined value in the world.  

I agree.

But then I didn't mention Pollack in my own post; I spoke of DaVinci, Picasso, and Michelangelo ... and if you repeated your previous paragraph, but inserted the names of these men (instead of Pollock), I would strongly disagree with you.




 
The photographer's "finger push" is not all that there is to many great works of photographic art.  Some photographs took much more time, effort, and skill than some paintings.  If only some photography is art, then only some paintings are art.  I can not state that one of the art forms (Painting or Photography) is easier to master than the other because I have not mastered either one.  In order for you to make such a statement, you must have mastered both.  Have you?  If not, you are not qualified to make such a statement.

I agree with the first part, not the second part. I have tried to "do both" for years, and it is much easier to gain skills in using a camera than it is to gain skills with a brush and blank canvas. Even the greenest neophyte can buy a good camera, point it at a subject, push a button, and get the dimensions and proportions preserved accurately (thanks to the camera) ... whereas most people could try painting/drawing all their lives and never be able to get these things recorded with any kind of exactness by freehand.




 
Why in the world are you spending time with posting your beliefs on a PHOTOGRAPHY forum?  I suggest that you join a painting/drawing forum and tell the members there how much superior they are compared to photographers.  I am sure that your chances of having someone with the same opinion would be higher there.  At least you would be able to view "art" that is the most respectable and admirable to you.  Why are you settling for less by looking at less respectable and admirable things?

You're starting to become petty yourself Bryan.

Why do I come here? I come to this forum because I enjoy photography, and there are a lot of good photographers here who have helped me immensely. In point of fact, I like photography more than I like painting. If I could trade my camera in for the ability to paint well, I wouldn't do it. I would not want to have to "paint" macro photos, precisely because it is so much easier just to photograph them. I want ease and convenience and results, which is why I would never trade my camera for a paintbrush.

For that matter, and speaking strictly about photography, I also realize it takes more skill to make a camera and a lens than it does to "take a picture" with them, but that does not mean I want to strive to become a camera-and-lens manufacturer either

So your logic is severely flawed here. Just because I give credit where it is obviously due doesn't mean I strive for that myself. It merely means I realize the difference between what takes more skill to do versus what is more enjoyable "for me" to do.

Let us look at photographic software as another example: would you not agree that it takes more skill to design Adobe Photoshop than it does to "learn how to use it" properly? Is it really a contradiction for me to give credit and respect to the designers of these programs, and to believe that "their" skill is considerably higher than a person who merely uses the program? Is it really a contradiction to believe and say this ... and yet still appreciate the art of those who make pretty pictures with Photoshop ... but who could never design it ... and also without wanting to become a software designer myself?

It is not a contradiction at all ...

Well, in the same fashion, I can recognize the level of difficulty in painting a complicated landscape versus taking a breathtaking photo of one ... and yet at the same time I can also appreciate the photography too ... while having no desire to be a painter. In the end, Bryan, there is simply no contradiction is giving credit and respect where it's due, while having no desire to do likewise, and finding more enjoyment in pursuing the less-complicated path.

Okay, that is my last kick of this horse

Jack


.
Logged

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
    • My Flickr page
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #76 on: September 08, 2011, 02:44:46 pm »

Here are my last kicks of the dead horse.

Just because it is easier for you to take a very good photograph of something as opposed to creating a very good painting of the same object does not mean that the same is true for everyone.  Painting is easy for some and difficult for others.    Photography is easy for some and difficult for others. The same goes for the learning of either craft.   The two arts are different, and they are not the same. Some people are never great, or even good at either.  Maybe mechanics is their thing.  All of your statements comparing photography and painting are true for you.  You can not speak for everyone.

My point using Jackson Pollock was simply that his painting brought the highest selling price of all paintings that have been sold.  That is the only way that I know of to put a concrete real value on any art...unless you are only putting a value on the materials involved. Ask some people what is the best piece of art that they have ever seen, and they will tell you that it is the drawing their 5 year old child/grandchild created that is now on the fridge.  They may not even consider trading it for an original Michelangelo.  The value and quality of a work of art is only an opinion relative only to the person holding the opinion.  There is nothing concrete about this....outside of the value of the raw materials.

A photographer makes a thousand captures and ends up with one choice image, but each image is captured with a single push (stroke) of the finger.  The artist paints with a thousand strokes and ends up with one picture.  Both take time, both involve refinement, both involve individual decisions, both involve personal opinion, both have the same result.  But, they are only the fruit of their maker....like apples and oranges.

I truly respect your right to have an opinion.  But, I do not agree with your opinion, and do not see any logic in it.  So, we will have to agree to disagree.

Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #77 on: September 09, 2011, 04:27:50 am »

John you blundered here.

Quote.

who has to make the one image he's working on count by getting it right the first time .

Unquote.

I know very little about painting but I know that a lot of painters will spend a lot of time painting a canvas and then paint over what they have done and start again. The famous Scottish painter Peter Howson re started a commission several times delaying the finish of what was eventually a "masterpiece". I would suspect that very few painters get it right first time. Unfortunately I think you are painting yourself into a hole with the continuance of this thread.  :)

jbrady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #78 on: September 19, 2011, 10:12:08 am »

After viewing some proofs with a client a couple of years ago, I made comment about how over used the bridal portrait is with the bride looking into a mirror.  She quickly told me that just because every other bride has a shot like that, this one is with her in it and therefore it special to her.  I like to try new poses, but it seems like the majority of my clients want the same poses that they have seen for years.  It feels like I’m just copying others work a lot, but I’m in business to give my clients what they want.  That’s my 2 cents.
http://www.judsonbradyphotography.com
Logged

James R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: When is a Photograph a Cheat?
« Reply #79 on: September 22, 2011, 02:08:48 am »

Either you like a photograph or you don't.  There is no right or wrong.  A photograph, whether it is thought to be art by many or a few, still must move the viewer, which is what a photographer strives to do.   The art world has artistic criteria it applies to an image, but that is meaningless unless I'm moved by the image--nobody's opinion matters, only my judgment.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up