• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Sands of a feather

D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Sands of a Feather... flock together?
Can a small feather, lying on the wet beach just outside the reach of the breakers, be considered fine art?

Sands_of_a_Feather_by_philosomatographer.jpg
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Dawid,

I do like this B&W image. How wonderful! Did you place this feather or just found it. The parallel line in a diagonal array with ending in curves like an Etré work of art, makes a striking compositional element.

I like this. it is unusual. As far as art, what does it mean to you?

What were your own thoughts and how did this work come about.

Unless it is essential to your idea, the roght side of the image might be better razer sharp too. However, I don't know what your idea is about yet.

You have me interested!

Thanks for sharing.

Asher
 
G

Greg Lockrey

New member
Hi David,

This doesn't say to me "lying on the wet beach just outside the reach of the breakers". I am not one to nit pick, especially on discussions about if a photograph is to be considered "art", but if this piece is to be called "art", then the "craft" part of the process has to be improved a tad first. My main disagreement with the piece is that it should have had enough depth of field to render the entire feather, at least, to be in focus. Then issuses about tonality and whether or not sufficient range of zones were properly exposed can be argued as well. It's a start though. It can be made into "art" very easily.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Greg,

Of course you have hit on several important issues in evaluating photographs. Technically we would expect to have a well-delivered print that reflects mastery of the photographic medium just as we'd expect in listening to a violinist deliver to us a recital.

Here however, Dawid has asked a question about "Art".

You'll notice I asked abut Dawid's intent and what this subject meant to him. I wondered too about the lack of focus in part of the feather. I wrote about but deleted my thoughts on tonality because the question might be mute after hearing more.

The reason why I do not as yet hold rulers of technical sufficiency to the photograph is because Dawid has asked about his work measuring up not as an exquisite photograph, but rather as a work of art.

How can this difference be tolerated? Are we just throwing away all we have learned about technical excellence by giving Dawid a pass?

Well, it turns out that "Art" can be expressed using imperfect, even simplistic photography, which meets few technical standards, as long as it expresses the artist's intent. At that point, Dawid can lock himself in a closet with a flashlight and celebrate his work of art or let other people look at it too.

If we are captivated and want to come back to it then this may be art. It may or may not be "good" or "great" art, but already it would be art.

I am always open to hearing about the context of an image being made and what's in the person's mind.

For sure, Greg, without knowing what the function of a picture is, then all we can do is describe it.

Asher
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Hi Asher, Greg,

I sort-of facetiously used the word "art" specifically because it has no well-defined interpretation. Kind of a different way of asking whether this image takes your fancy, and why... I post on this forum for two reasons - the one is pure expression (exhibition), the other is, of course, to learn. I find there is always a fine line between one's "own style", and of course, falling short of accustomed technical criteria. Let me give you a bit of context:

I did not place the feather, it was simply lying there. Whenever we're down there at the coast, my beloved and I like to take early morning walks along this very wild, empty beach. Almost every morning, we find some or other delicate insect who landed itself in the wet surf, lying on its back, feathers stuck to the wet sand, feet struggling for a foothold. Typically a large moth, a bee, etc. I always found the contrast between the delicate living thing, and the harsh sea and sand, most interesting, and we always try to "rescue" the poor creature by putting it on higher, dry ground. I typically never "interfere" but how can one resist?

Here, I found another delicate object in the same situation, but no inclination or need to rescue it, for it is inanimate. So, for the first time, I photographed it instead.

Now, for the technical and learning part: I am torn between taking images with sufficient depth-of-field (which everybody "expects" one to do), versus applying my "style" of focusing on only one thing in an already simple scene. In this case, I wish I took two versions, but I am an emotional photographer, and regardless of whether it's easy with digital or not, I usually take only one "shot at it" - as I see it in my mind.

At large size, the only striking element is the exquisite detail in the feather strands, offset by the sand detail. I think I wanted it that way, but as I said, I should have taken it with deeper DOF. Now, regarding the tonality - I have a tendency to compress this somewhat with very high contrast, in order to make the image more "stark" - however, what would you suggest? I'm not sure that I want to post the RAW file of this one just yet, but any pointers would be great.

Thanks for the thoughtful interest, as always.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Dawid,

Thanks for replying with such good sense and openness. I now take it that there was no particular need for the right part of the feather to be hardly focussed.

I believe that getting a technically excellent picture first allows you to then depart from this in an artistic fashion. The other way around may short-change you armamentarium of capabilities to express yourself.

One has to be sure that what you are doing is indeed purposeful artistic expression rather than sloppiness or insufficient attention to the whole subject.

I would bet that the picture was be far more impressive if focused sharply. Further, lighting the area optimally by timing the shot at sunset or the use of reflectors or black board can bring out the 3D texture of the sand. I look at this picture as a sort of down payment on a worthwhile project.

Do you have that feather? If so, then you have your work cut out for you.

Asher
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
I unfortunately did not keep the feather, and even if I had, it would no longer be in the same delicate state. But I agree, everything is a lesson learnt. I hope to apply this to a new, similar situation that may await me one day.

I am almost never in a position to use any form of props or assistance - carting a 1-series camera everywhere with me is already pretty extreme, so for my usage, there is usually no option for tripod, extra flashes, reflectors, etc. I am determined to not let this be a limiting factor for my photography, but rather conducive to my style. In a situation like this, thus, one is somewhat limited in terms of attaining a high enough shutter speed to get a sharp photo in a 1:2 Macro, especially on unstable beach sand in fairly windy conditions (without compromising DOF), but this is a challenge I do enjoy.

I do feel that, in some way, this image does work compositionally. The only two sharp areas, the side-by-side feather details and sand, are cradled centrally (almost in an ellipse, similar to an eye) by the out-of-focus sand and the rest of the feather curving around the bottom. I did make a 10x15in print, and the fact that the in-focus areas do look fairly spectacular at this size made me wish I made a second photograph with deeper depth-of-field, but such is life.

I'd still like to focus on the second mentioned aspect, the tonality. By zones, do you refer to Adams' "zones" system (which I have sort-of purposefully been avoiding, just like I avoid any form of photography magazine, for complex reasons of my own - none of which pertain to superiority)?

Should I try a different version with less contrast and post it here? (I have destroyed a lot of what I think you're referring to as the tonality through extreme contrast adjustment)

And then, the bigger picture again: Is this image sufficiently interesting to, from an external viewpoint such as yourselves, be worthy of a second look? Is it worthy of placement on a wall? Or do the "what-ifs" and "could-haves" always overwhelm and bother?
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Re-post of re-work (~400Kb image)

Hi, I hope it's acceptable to use this forum for this sort of thing, but in the interest of helpful critique, I have re-rendered this photograph with a somewhat less compressed dynamic range, and (I hope) smoother tonalities.

It's less "contrasty" and striking, but more subtle. Barring the fact that I cannot change the depth of field, is this rendering a more pleasing B&W rendering? With most B&W images I render, I accomplish a specific look quite easily, and stick to it as an expresison of my intent. However, I'm now using this image to experiment... to what end? I don't think any rendering will make it "Art" or not (it is what it is), but I am curious as to what the pros here think.
Sands_of_a_Feather__Version_2_by_philosomatographer.jpg
 
nicolas claris

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bonsoir Dawid

of course you can repost here, OPF is made for sharing and exchanging!

I'm not an "art" photographer, but this is my take (I like sharpness...):

Sands_of_a_Feather__Version_2_by_philosomatographer_NC.jpg
 
G

Greg Lockrey

New member
Asher Kelman said:
I am always open to hearing about the context of an image being made and what's in the person's mind.

For sure, Greg, without knowing what the function of a picture is, then all we can do is describe it.

Asher
Click to expand...

To be sure that knowing what is in the person's mind when making a piece makes for a more interesting interpretation on the viewer's part since we all do "see" differently. The piece should be able to stand on it's own. The picture in this case did not tell me what the function is. Dawid did tell us his intention in his presentation. Ok, the picture IMHO didn't fullfill it's intent on it's own. I couldn't get past the craftmenship aspect to then accept it as "art". Perhaps this is influenced by the fact that I am a formal university trained artist where the craft part is as important as the concept part (which many like to call "art"). Art for a lack of a better term just isn't just about art, but craftsmanship too. I am in no way slamming Dawid. His concept of a "feather laying on the beach just outside of the breakers" is "artistic". The concept is stated but it was overshadowed to a degree with the craftsmenship. I'm not saying to any great degree either.
 
Last edited:
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Though I am not a fan of 'artificial' sharpness, I am one of contrast, and my original posted version (though smaller) has a fairly extreme amount of contrast applied. I re-posted specifically to show a lower-contrast version. But I like all your versions thus far, especially Jack's :)
 
G

Greg Lockrey

New member
Dawid Loubser said:
Though I am not a fan of 'artificial' sharpness, I am one of contrast, and my original posted version (though smaller) has a fairly extreme amount of contrast applied. I re-posted specifically to show a lower-contrast version. But I like all your versions thus far, especially Jack's :)
Click to expand...

It is always good to pay attention to Jack. ;>)
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Greg, regarding your earlier post, we do indeed come from different worlds! (I am a software architect and modeler) but I hear what you're saying. However, the purpose of most of my photography is simply a means to capture the world I see around me, and to be able to show it to others in this way.

If one approaches a photograph from a formal art perspective, then the intent, and the ability to deliver a message about that intent on its own, becomes key. However, how many of us truly approach all our photographs that way? I would imagine it's even possible to add intent after the shutter was triggered, and not before, to most photographs. There is no way of knowing whether that intent existed when the photographer set up the shot.

Photography is still in so many ways fundamentally different from other visual arts, and it's this (lack for the need of prior) "intent", coupled with the completely different crafting process, which is largely responsible, in my opinion.

My intent may purely have been to show a delicate natural object in an atypical environment. You can read all sorts of stuff into this... i.e. from something simple, such as that I am attentive enough to notice a small feather lying on the beach, to all kinds of complex contemplations such as our world naturally combining the harshest of erosive materials (sea sand, which wears away rocks and continents) with its most delicate materials (a feather) - and even cradles the harshness with the delicate (the composition). Then you can go on and contemplate as to why the artificial worlds we as humans build, fail to co-exist in the same ways. Et cetera (you get the point).

Maybe the "artistic" value (and artificial value it usually and demonstrably is) of a photograph has very little to do with the merit of it itself, but rather pure chance? If it succeeded in evoking complex ramblings and emotions in (a) person(s) who is considered authorative enough to speak of such things, he will automatically help others to also consider it as fine art? (though they may not have done so on their own).

And some images have far greater universal appeal then others? I remember some time seeing a photograph of a white wall being sold for a ludicrous amount of money. Now come on - that has nothing to do with the image itself, nor its "intent"... (unless the intent was to steal some overly rich sucker's money - hehe)

I am just rambling, but I find this discussion interesting.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Dawid Loubser said:
Greg, regarding your earlier post, we do indeed come from different worlds! (I am a software architect and modeler) but I hear what you're saying. However, the purpose of most of my photography is simply a means to capture the world I see around me, and to be able to show it to others in this way.

If one approaches a photograph from a formal art perspective, then the intent, and the ability to deliver a message about that intent on its own, becomes key. However, how many of us truly approach all our photographs that way? I would imagine it's even possible to add intent after the shutter was triggered, and not before, to most photographs. There is no way of knowing whether that intent existed when the photographer set up the shot.

Photography is still in so many ways fundamentally different from other visual arts, and it's this (lack for the need of prior) "intent", coupled with the completely different crafting process, which is largely responsible, in my opinion.

My intent may purely have been to show a delicate natural object in an atypical environment. You can read all sorts of stuff into this... i.e. from something simple, such as that I am attentive enough to notice a small feather lying on the beach, to all kinds of complex contemplations such as our world naturally combining the harshest of erosive materials (sea sand, which wears away rocks and continents) with its most delicate materials (a feather) - and even cradles the harshness with the delicate (the composition). Then you can go on and contemplate as to why the artificial worlds we as humans build, fail to co-exist in the same ways. Et cetera (you get the point).

Maybe the "artistic" value (and artificial value it usually and demonstrably is) of a photograph has very little to do with the merit of it itself, but rather pure chance? If it succeeded in evoking complex ramblings and emotions in (a) person(s) who is considered authorative enough to speak of such things, he will automatically help others to also consider it as fine art? (though they may not have done so on their own).

And some images have far greater universal appeal then others? I remember some time seeing a photograph of a white wall being sold for a ludicrous amount of money. Now come on - that has nothing to do with the image itself, nor its "intent"... (unless the intent was to steal some overly rich sucker's money - hehe)

I am just rambling, but I find this discussion interesting.
Click to expand...

Dawid,

This is not rambling but the rumbling of the layer of cognition and wonder below the surface of our minds that errupts as artistic choices.

This has to be a struggle to find expression.

You did it impulsively on finding the feather. It's tough presenting it, but just work on it somewhere between Jack and Nicolas.

Don't destroy tonality! That, unless you have an ovewhelming reason otherwise, defines the nature of things. If it becomes your style to make pictures limited in distribution of light, then that should be a decision based on a lot of experience and the proof to yourself that this has to be your way.

Just the pictures you have of this feather could be a great excercise for you in learning what you like the most and need for expression. I'd print different version on a variety of papers so you know every speck. There's a lot of detail.

Sharpening is not artificial!

All we are doing is working to make analogs to what we see.

Asher
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Asher Kelman said:
Sharpening is not artificial!
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not implying that the act of increasing acutance is always artificial (in fact, it has to be done for Canon's current CMOS output), but I refer here to what I'd usually call "oversharpening" - for my style, I prefer only very mild sharpening. I think that visible sharpening halo's are right up there with very aggressive JPEG compression in terms of destroying an image. Which is why I really like Jack's version...
 
G

Greg Lockrey

New member
Dawid,

I find that this dicussion pretty interesting too. See what you started? ;-) I am pretty new to this forum so I don't know all the players but I do know some here from other forums, but I have been a participant on many. I seem to gravitate to discussions concerning "photography as art". I find it intersting that there is this selfconcienceness about if a photograph can be considered art.

Yes, most photography is like yours in that it's an individual's self expression of the world he sees. There is nothing wrong with that. Keep it up and have fun with it. A peeve of mine are those photographers who think that they are artists just because they are able to get reasonably exposed photos most of the time. I find in my business (I make custom large format limited edition prints for artists and photogrphers) that many photographers are frustrated "artist want to be's" that really haven't a clue to what makes a good two dimensional image. There is more work to being an artist that lay person will understand and many of those take up photography thinking if they can't draw but pointing a camera is somehow easier.

Along with the rules of composition, color, line, the artist has to be aware of, the photographer has the added burden of focus, depth of field, film, dpi etc. However in my experiance, the photographer tends to lazier in his approach depending more on his equipment to somehow pull him through.

Hey, I'm with you on selling white walls for obscene amounts, but that's marketing not art. The buyers just want to have a piece of the artist more for the hype than anything else IMHO. I've pissed off a lot of artists too by pointing out that Andy Warhol was a good supermarket illustrator that had good marketing behind him. One of the best pieces of art that I came across was called "Three Pieces of Paper" it looked like three sheets of paper in a loose stack, but if you looked close, it was a pencil drawing of three sheets of paper.
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Asher Kelman said:
Don't destroy tonality! That, unless you have an ovewhelming reason otherwise, defines the nature of things. If it becomes your style to make pictures limited in distribution of light, then that should be a decision based on a lot of experience and the proof to yourself that this has to be your way.
Click to expand...

In my seven years of practicing this great art/craft, it is indeed my decision that limiting the distribution of light is my way. Not always, but usually (for my B&W images). I had made that decision quite early on, and I have not deviated since...

My strategy would not work for most kinds of images, but the simple and contemplative (to me) things I photograph allow themselves to be better expressed as I see them that way. But I agree, it's so easy to devaluate a good image that way (and I suspect I do so often). For example, this image only works for me *because* I have limited light distribution severely:

Angels and Men
Angels_and_Men_by_philosomatographer.jpg

(inspired by the Juno Reactor song of the same name)

However, I have a feeling that some people here again could express this image in a very different, and aesthetically superior way. At some point, I will also again go back to the RAW and re-interpret it.
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Greg, I share your feelings about Andy Warhol! (haha)

And I fully understand your point of view. I am actually quite lucky, and content, in that I am not pre-occupied by this whole "being-an-art-photographer" thing. My true (and "day job") art is expressed through the software I enjoy to design and write, and this field of course has a completely different aesthetic than visual art. There, beauty lies in logic and algorythm. I don't delude myself regarding my photography, but I do know that I ave improved over the past 7 or so years, and want to continue to do so.

Photography remains a serious hobby for me, and a wonderful way to see the world. I merely capture, and share freely. I have never tried to sell a print, as this is a very personal endeavor. But I enjoy having resources, such as this forum, available to discuss and improve understanding.
 
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Dawid Loubser said:
I don't delude myself regarding my photography, but I do know that I ave improved over the past 7 or so years, and want to continue to do so.
Click to expand...

I think this is the key reason for all of us to be participating in a forum like OPF; to help and be helped :)

With all of the discussion over making "good" 2-dimensional art, I would like to add a comment, or more accurately, share a realization regarding photography as art: I find that many photographers approach making a photograph like a painter might approach making a painting -- and this is IMO the wrong approach!

Painting is an additive process -- the artist adds to the blank canvas all the elements they deem essential to arrive at the final image, requisite elements in place to deliver their visual message. By contrast I believe photography needs to be thought of as a subtractive process; as photographers we need to eliminate the non-essential, visually distracting elements of our compositions so that only those elements that clarify our desired message/feelings remain.

In this feather image, I found the brighter, in-focus sand grains to the upper-right of the center of the feather both too bright and too sharp, and thus a distraction. They pulled my eyes away from the fine detail on the in-focus vanes and barbs of the feather, the part of the image I believe conveys an emotion. Thus for my version, I simply blurred and subdued the sandy portion and then brightened the sharp feather area to increase the visual attention flow to it. I think that simplified the image for the viewer and thus made it easier for them to "see" what I felt was important in it. Obviously other artists may want to convey a different message from this same image and that is good; it is what makes our individual visions unique ;)

Hope this helps clarify,
 
G

Greg Lockrey

New member
Jack has made some good points. In 2 dimensional art the artist is trying to fill the page using certian rules of composition being applied by use of color, line, texture, etc. With photography the artist is trying to position the camera to "see" what the "mind sees" with using those same rules. This is the craft part of the process in both cases. The camera is less forgiving due to it's mechanical nature and the viewer's ability to "recognize" what he is looking at.
 
Last edited:
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Greg Lockrey said:
Jack has made some good points. In 2 dimensional art the artist is trying to fill the page using certian rules of composition being applied by use of color, line, texture, etc. With photography the artist is trying to position the camera to "see" what the "mind sees" with using those same rules. This is the craft part of the process in both cases. The camera is less forgiving due to it's mechanical nature and the viewer's ability to "know" what he is seeing.
Click to expand...

Greg,

In much of photography we have the option to decide what to include and where to put things in relationship to one another although Jack's point, an old adage (who came up with that anyway?) that in art we include whereas in photography we exclude, still is important in most pictures we make.

I believe that technical prowess is not always needed for art, merely sufficient skill to present the desired feelings, humor, thoughts, questions and imperatives. However, lack of technical skill is often seen as unimportant and this is a mistake. One needs to have enough control over a medium to actually express oneself no less that assembling words and crafting sentences with competence allows expression with more precision, richness and nuance.

My argument here, concerned depleting tonality, as I'm rather unconvinced as to what it adds to one's experience of the feather. However, I'm open to be informed and I say this without negativity.

Picasso, after all, mastered realistic painting and drawing a long time before extracting elements and departing from expected rules and previous representations.

In photography, great portraits, demonstrating use of lighting to build objects with technically impressive shading allows one to depart from that with confidence that one is not seduced by the simplistic routes because of lack of understanding and experience.

I for one like the image of the dead bird against the vegetation since there is a lot of idiomatic argument between the two components that provide endless interest and room for though and debate. I sea no reason to make this indistinct and not rendered superbly.

The idea of something being embedded in a picture must be creative in itself. Send it our way superbly offered! Now if your photographic rendering as line, or pencil marks adds something, makes us refer to another work or narrows the discussion, yes I understand. Otherwise, why not a technically impressive image?

The subjects of the feather on the sand or the dead bird on the grass to me, at least, are already original and demanding!

Asher
 
G

Greg Lockrey

New member
Asher Kelman said:
I believe that technical prowess is not always needed for art, merely sufficient skill to present the desired feelings, humor, thoughts, questions and imperatives. [/B] However, lack of technical skill is often seen as unimportant and this is a mistake.

Picasso, after all, mastered realistic painting and drawing a long time before extracting elements and departing from expected rules and previous representations.


Asher
Click to expand...

Don't disagree at all. Those were my points that you and Jack so eloquently put into words for me. I've never been a good wordsmith. That's why I took up photography and painting in the first place. ;) Actually realistic painting is taught in Art 101. Those fundamentals are carried through the artists career as you used Picasso for an example, even though the lay observer may not understand his purpose and therefore do not understand the craft behind the work.

In my little business of custom printing for artists and photographers I deal with all kinds of "art". I can say without equivication that "good art" is also technically well crafted. With paint and to some degree pencil, the artist may "get away" with technical imperfections. We'll just call it "art" or "artistic approach". An artist using a camera as a tool, the lay viewer understands better of what he is looking at since he has a real world reference and this will influence his observation.

If the photographer is in fact playing with things like focus, depth of field for example, then it has to be obvious as to the intent and not merely a mistake. Same is true in painting, if you make a "mistake" then to cover it up, the artist will often, make the same "mistake" somewhere else in the piece. Then it becomes "artistic approach" if you will.

Not to knock anyone off their high horse, art is a craft and a level of skill is needed to make the piece to be considered as "art".
 
Last edited:
J

Jack_Flesher

New member
Asher Kelman said:
although Jack's point, an old adage (who came up with that anyway?) that in art we include whereas in photography we exclude
Click to expand...

Guess I wasn't aware this was such a trite concept, my apologies! I do know that my own compositions improved once I began practicing it... Then of course there was learning how to integrate light, but that's most certainly a banal discussion topic for photographers!

Cheers,
 
G

Greg Lockrey

New member
Jack_Flesher said:
Guess I wasn't aware this was such a trite concept, my apologies! I do know that my own compositions improved once I began practicing it though... Then of course there was learning to integrate lighting, but that's most certainly a banal discussion topic for photographers!

Cheers,
Click to expand...

The concept isn't at all trite. True genius is profound in its simplisity. ;)
 
D

Dawid Loubser

Member
Thank you all for the input. I have taken your advice to heart, revisited my image (re-prosessed it from RAW), and have now derived my final version - the one I am most happy with. I agree with Jack's vision that the sharply focused sand was somewhat distracting, and I remedied it subtly. I am very much a "traditionalist", and I typically do not alter the structural elements of my images (only exposure/tones) but of course it made great sense here.
Sands_of_a_Feather_by_philosomatographer.jpg


My "exposure" tool of choice (Apple Aperture) does not allow this kind of image manipulation, but I did this in GIMP. Now, let the interesting discussion continue! (somebody is welcome to start a new thread on it, if it's out of place here)
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher Kelman said:
although Jack's point, an old adage (who came up with that anyway?) that in art we include whereas in photography we exclude
Click to expand...
Jack_Flesher said:
Guess I wasn't aware this was such a trite concept, my apologies! I do know that my own compositions improved once I began practicing it... Then of course there was learning how to integrate light, but that's most certainly a banal discussion topic for photographers!

Cheers,
Click to expand...
My Gosh, Jack, I was not being dismissive!

Just remember great minds do think alike!

Here for example is the opiniobn of Michael Reichman:

Michael Reichman said:
What Photography Isn't

It Ain't A Painting

A photograph is not a painting. An obvious statement but also one that can be helpful in understanding what photography is, as opposed to what it is not.

A painter starts with a blank canvas and adds what he thinks should be seen. This can be either from a scene in front of him, or from something that springs from the painter's mind's eye. If the painting is taken from reality, such as a landscape, items are included or excluded based on the artist's preference and vision. No one ever says to a painter, "Why didn't you include that telephone pole"?

The photographer, on the other hand, starts with whatever nature has placed in front of him. His task as an artist is to remove that which doesn't compliment his vision. (This is even the case when so-called documentary photography is being done. Taking a photograph is inherently an exercise in editorial decision making.)

.............MY SOLUTION

Since the art of the photographer is by definition that of exclusion I believe that it is appropriate to use the power of the digital tools available to exclude items. For example, I have no qualms about digitally removing an errant power line from a shot, because if I could have done so by changing position or lens when taking the photograph I would have done so in the first place.
Click to expand...
Source is here

Michael, is not however the first to have this point of view. I really would love to know who came up with it!

Asher
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher Kelman said:
although Jack's point, an old adage (who came up with that anyway?) that in art we include whereas in photography we exclude
Click to expand...
Jack_Flesher said:
Guess I wasn't aware this was such a trite concept, my apologies! I do know that my own compositions improved once I began practicing it... Then of course there was learning how to integrate light, but that's most certainly a banal discussion topic for photographers!

Cheers,
Click to expand...
My Gosh, Jack, I was not being dismissive!

Just remember great minds do think alike!

Here for example is the opiniobn of Michael Reichman:

Michael Reichman said:
What Photography Isn't

It Ain't A Painting

A photograph is not a painting. An obvious statement but also one that can be helpful in understanding what photography is, as opposed to what it is not.

A painter starts with a blank canvas and adds what he thinks should be seen. This can be either from a scene in front of him, or from something that springs from the painter's mind's eye. If the painting is taken from reality, such as a landscape, items are included or excluded based on the artist's preference and vision. No one ever says to a painter, "Why didn't you include that telephone pole"?

The photographer, on the other hand, starts with whatever nature has placed in front of him. His task as an artist is to remove that which doesn't compliment his vision. (This is even the case when so-called documentary photography is being done. Taking a photograph is inherently an exercise in editorial decision making.)

.............MY SOLUTION

Since the art of the photographer is by definition that of exclusion I believe that it is appropriate to use the power of the digital tools available to exclude items. For example, I have no qualms about digitally removing an errant power line from a shot, because if I could have done so by changing position or lens when taking the photograph I would have done so in the first place.
Click to expand...
Source is here

Michael, is not however the first to have this point of view. I really would love to know who came up with it!

Asher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top