So if there is a blank sky in the original image, but the final print has amazing clouds and lightning that is not a modification? I see that in the digital world at least. It is more difficult in the darkroom, but far from impossible.
I'm just very simple and honest person. I'm taking all addressed to me as is, straight. I'm an villager, I live in subdivision known as Village.
And in same simple honesty I addressed OP (marked as digital) attempt to regulate what is standards in art with how I feel.
I'm just not finding digital photography as an art. I'm digital photog as well. I see use for it for commercial, product, macro and even documentary. Or just for the wall print.
But not as an art. To see art I'm going to Galleries and Museums. To see mostly paintings as art, but I'm even more excited to see prints from Bob Carnie or George Zimbel own photos prints or Garry Winogrand prints. And Phortio Symposium recent collective show. Those are art.
I used to be computer graphics artist. I'm not considering it as an art either.
The Photorio Symposium group show was an alternative process show, which included silver gelatin as an alternative process. May of the images shown were derived from digital negatives and other digital processes. Would you exclude those?And Phortio Symposium recent collective show. Those are art.
Red canoes are really important - at least in the Canadian (CAPA) versions.
Immediate impact is probably the most important characteristic, because people/judges rarely get much time with any particular "image" (I use "image" because so much of what is viewed now is viewed on a screen). Camera clubs rarely seem to accommodate series or collections of prints.
Standards in the food industries are important because peoples lives can depend on them......art is subjective......think anout it.
Digital negative is "printed" on a transparent carrier from a digital file for the purpose of printing on a photosensitive substrate, usually in contact. Digital file in turn can be made from either analog or digital source.
Are you really interested in knowing if the image you are looking at "has fidelity to the original moment in time and space"? What make you think it should be the case?
not sure i would fit in at all, unless there were standards set forth that have to do with cameraless photography .Half the time, you don't even use a camera...where does that fit in?
Yes. The problem with the "standards" idea is that it began with prejudiced notions... it is anti-art. Terrible idea.
That Photoshop and digital photography are somehow antithetical to art is a notion that is nearly exclusive to a shrinking subset of Photrio Members.
That professional photographers are somehow not "artists", and that commercial photographs are somehow not "art" demonstrates that the idea springs from ignorance the resulting authoritarian mindset.
digital / hybrid were never a large population here and were often slammed on apug.jtk said:That Photoshop and digital photography are somehow antithetical to art is a notion that is nearly exclusive to a shrinking subset of Photrio Members.
sure there are people who say that including some commercial photographers. people say all sorts of ©r@p!That professional photographers are somehow not "artists", and that commercial photographs are somehow not "art" demonstrates that the idea springs from ignorance: the resulting authoritarian mindset.
I believe, if you check their website, you will find that the Photographic Society of America has already done most of that over the past hundred years or so. Of course, while embracing some f64 restraints they may also cover (I'll whisper this: "Pictorial") as well........Regards!Photrio Photographic Arts Standards
This group proposes the creation of a set of standards that can be used by Photrio members and encourage other to use to convey the nature of the photographic work they are presenting. An example of such standards are the f/64 group; though I am not proposing rigid standards of this type (there could be a class as such within the standards).
The initial objective is to create a series of descriptions that can be used as tags on images on the internet, printed work, or wherever users want to use them. The purpose of the tags wold be to lead back to standards related to how images were created and post processed. The tags would indicate to the viewer in a non-judgemental way to what degree the image has fidelity to the original moment in time and space. It would help people decide for themselves whether the image meets their expectations for a photograph, a work of graphic arts, a composite image, etc.
The idea would be to use the tags ourselves (on Flickr, photo-sharing sites, social media, print, what ever); have links to pages where the tags and the standards they represent are defined; to encourage other people to use the tags, and to lead them to the descriptions.
The standards are not intended to define "real photography", rather give the public the information they need to understand how modified an image may be (analogous to food labeling).
The tags could describe general classes of modification (say "Photrio Level1"). They could indicate specific features, e.g., "Photrio: Content added subtle", "Photrio Content added significant", "Photrio: Clouds added", etc. People with special interests could create standards for their own classes, e.g., "Photrio: f/64 digital equivalent".
Clearly this is most useful for images ultimately distributed digitally, but could also be used for gallery prints etc. (say in the description).
The proposal would be to create a committee/committees to start defining things, then create standards and tags. If such adequate standards already exist, we could adopt them.
Unfortunately, while red canoes are funny to some people and impact is, perhaps, over used, a picture with no "impact" stands a much better chance of being ignored by viewers looking for something other than how big the grain is and other technical stuff. They may be looking for "what made the photographer take this picture? What did he/she see that I am not seeing? But first something needs to catch their attention and that, my friends is usually "Impact". When we had a Salon here, we took turns watching the accepted prints (yes, people do steal them). We all noticed that some prints caused people to stop and take another look. These were the prints with "impact". Laugh all you want but these were people off the street, not photographers. Hopefully people, other than just photographers, will look at your pictures.. Oh, also, sales of any of these pictures was very rare. The picture thieves were mostly after nudes so we watched them the closest and we laughed (to ourselves) when the little old ladies would see a nude, study it closely, and then burst out loud laughing.. We never knew why........Regards!
I agree, but how do you discuss with people the difference without getting into a fist fight?Artlessness can sometimes be art. But process alone is not art--be it film, alternate process, or digital or other manipulation.
Artlessness can sometimes be art. But process alone is not art--be it film, alternate process, or digital or other manipulation.
digital / hybrid were never a large population here and were often slammed on apug.
many film users are intimidated by a variety of things ... its unfortunate and not only digital related
sure there are people who say that including some commercial photographers. people say all sorts of ©r@p!
and its all a bunch of nonsense.
Not sure what that was about, were her tips "bad"? I don't think so, I think EVERYTHING she said was pretty much spot-on. I made sure to subscribed to her feed, and I gave her a big thumbs up. The funny thing is the TITLE of her vid. The things she suggested to do are basic composition "skillz" if you know them and a secret if you never learned them, kind of sort of like always using FILL FLASH on your point and shoot camera. ©R@P, I should have a vid for that.
People do what they do. They may not think your prescriptions result in better images. Do you argue oil vs. acrylic?The vast majority of "real photographers" have zero interest in street photography and wet darkrooms..they actually care enough to want to make their important images better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?