gdanmitchell wrote:
What is the difference between “pur photographers” and “photographic artists?”
Are “pure photographers” not “artists?” Are “photographic artists” not “pure?”
I am what I am calling a pure photographer and yes a pure photographer is a artist. but for me I am doing just minor edits to my images, cropping, exposure, dodging and burning type edits. I have photographer friends that I call Artist Photographers at are doing complex composite images combining multiple parts from many different photos and the do a lot of enhancements to the image like paining in more fur or hair.
By no means did I want to offend anyone. Photographers are artists bringing our own unique vision to the image painting with the light and atmosphere given to us at the time. I supposed I should had said the Photoshop is the tool for graphic artists for painting and composite work.
rjn_design wrote:
I am what I am calling a pure photographer and yes a pure photographer is a artist. but for me I am doing just minor edits to my images, cropping, exposure, dodging and burning type edits. I have photographer friends that I call Artist Photographers at are doing complex composite images combining multiple parts from many different photos and the do a lot of enhancements to the image like paining in more fur or hair.
By no means did I want to offend anyone. Photographers are artists bringing our own unique vision to the image painting with the light and atmosphere given to us at the time. I supposed I should had said the Photoshop is the tool for graphic artists for painting and composite work....Show more →
I think that if you look into the history of photography (now spanning almost 200 years) you’ll find that doing the sorts of things your friends are doing is as close to the central nature of photography as is your approach.
The question of how photography intersects with other arts often causes a lot of angst among photographers, some of whom want to think of their medium as being independent from the other visual arts. It is interesting and enlightening (and liberating!) to learn that people in the broader arts world don’t necessarily see things that way – to many of them, photography is just another visual medium that they can call on, along with the others they use.
It is odd that photographers often want to restrict the range of what photography can be and do, don’t you think?
I have quite a few friends who are photographers and also quite a few friends who are painters. I do both.
I find it interesting that many of my retired photographer friends spend a lot of time with digital manipulation. One even quit taking photographs and uses old images or images online as starting points. A hundred some years ago this was called pictorialism. For many early photographers this approach was considered artsy and an attempt to have photography accepted as a visual art form. Now with our digital tools we have pictorialism on steroids. I am impressed at power of processing and all the apps and plug ins.
Many of my painter friends are striving for realism. It is an approach that is very popular with new painters and well accepted by the general public. Being able to paint realistically is considered to show great skill as a painter.
I am out of step with both of these groups. I do "straight" photography with minimal digital processing and I have no interest in painting realistically. The landscape forum here on FM convinced me I had no interest in digital manipulation. IMO there is way too much shock and awe using digital processing. I remember seeing a picture of crater lake at sunset with sunset colors and storm clouds. Later the same image was posted with a rainbow. Then later with a double rainbow and a lighting strike. Two of them won featured image awards. The options can be impressive and endless but others of us have different styles and preferences. It can be fun to appreciate all of them while doing our own thing.
It is odd that photographers often want to restrict the range of what photography can be and do, don’t you think?
I don't think photographers want to restrict the range of what other photographers do to their photos. Its that we all have our own personal tastes that we try to follow, and their are no categories. I am sure my tastes and yours will differ on what we are comfortable with doing to our images.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that if you look into the history of photography (now spanning almost 200 years) you’ll find that doing the sorts of things your friends are doing is as close to the central nature of photography as is your approach.
The question of how photography intersects with other arts often causes a lot of angst among photographers, some of whom want to think of their medium as being independent from the other visual arts. It is interesting and enlightening (and liberating!) to learn that people in the broader arts world don’t necessarily see things that way – to many of them, photography is just another visual medium that they can call on, along with the others they use.
It is odd that photographers often want to restrict the range of what photography can be and do, don’t you think?...Show more →
Dan, regarding "It is odd that photographers often want to restrict the range of what photography can be and do, don’t you think?" - I am not sure, depending on what you mean. I haven't seen too many posts where such advice is given to others. Some do, but this kind of arrogance is relatively uncommon (thanks God!). In personal terms, yes this is common to see posts where the the posters limit THEIR OWN photography in different ways. E.g.,there's a pursuit of certain lenses that according to influencers produce near magical images after minimal processing, even straight out of camera. Some deliberately limit their kits to manual focus lenses, or avoid color by working in black&white, etc. This isn't objectionable to me, as non-professional photography is all done for personal pleasure in the first place, and who should judge others for what they do in their bedrooms (or photography studios)?
In a broader sense of what you said, yes, the experience of engaging with the diverse forms of photography can be very rewarding. I now have three kits: micro-four-thirds with OM-1 II, full-frame with Sony A1, and the most recent addition, the large format Fujifilm GFX100S II. I find educational and eye-opening the experience of exploring the particular strengths of these systems in different types of photography.
I'm not an artist nor a photographer, but it is apparent that LR is heavily biased towards going back to a RAW file and converting it to an image using their ACR de jour. PS can use the ACR as a source, but layers can also be composed from numerous other sources such as the outputs from dozens of RAW converters, image processors, stackers, stitchers, scanners, etc. That makes it far more versatile for my needs. I'm sure that for photographers and other pros it is more efficient and productive to use the jack-of-all-trades Abode.
