• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

markjwyatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you see with your own eyes within a frame? Do you see in black and white? Do you see still or moving reality? Does the perspective of what you see change or not when you move? Do you hear sound related to what you see or disconnected to it? And I could go on and on to show you that a picture is remotely linked to reality when you experience it. Now, is there a little more or a little less cloud, a very few cares as what you see hung on the wall is already kind of artificial.
 
How can one regulate a standard for what is art and what is not?
Everyone sees art and photography differently and trying to create specific "boxes" in which to place peoples creations, is IMHO an impossible venture.

Photrio already has some "standards" for posting - analog, hybrid, digital; it caused some horror amongst some members that these would be integrated into the one forum, changing what APUG was (and still is, mind you). Now think of a group of people deciding to be the advocates of what makes a picture right and what makes a picture wrong, to all and sundry.

The freedom to express ourselves in our own way, is what allows us to create imagery as we see fit, sure some of it ruffles (a lot!) of feathers, some not so much. However, if we start to implement "standards" of what is right/wrong/correct/incorrect, the joy and freedom that artists feel when creating their art will be stifled. Instead of creating individual art, we might as well just produce artworks/photographs as a "create by numbers" effort.

We already have some "standards" that help create aesthetically pleasing images - the rule of thirds comes to mind, but sometimes breaking those rules makes for a stronger image or one that really stands out. For me, standards are for safety, manufacturing or employment - applying it to the creative arena defeats the purpose of creating.

Just my 2c (2.2c including GST)
 
I can think of a number of fields where established photographic standards in respect of the accuracy of representation are or would be useful.
But not in the field of Art.
 

I've never lived in a "subdivision" so maybe my understanding of "art" is more metropolitan or rural.
Ko.Fe, I've visited your Flikr...which of your images do you consider "art" and which are not-art according to your rules? Are they all "art?"
 
Ko.Fe. said:
And Phortio Symposium recent collective show. Those are art.
Click to expand...
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?
 

 
Willyekerslike said:
Standards in the food industries are important because peoples lives can depend on them......art is subjective......think anout it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
nmp said:
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.
Click to expand...

it is more than that .. its a negative that was made with the assistance of a computer, that is about it ..
i regularly make digital negatives at a xerox shop on PAPER not film ...

Dali said:
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?
Click to expand...

thing is that every person on the planet perceives every moment in reality differently... depending on their
life experiences .. so in essence reality is pretty much an illusion we create for ourselves ...
the B-52s sang the song "private idaho" about just this ...

nmp said:
Half the time, you don't even use a camera...where does that fit in?
Click to expand...
not sure i would fit in at all, unless there were standards set forth that have to do with cameraless photography .
its kind of the problem the minutemen had decades ago ... they were part of a larger group who said
" hey they don't look like us, dress like us or sound like us, why are they here" ...

i've haven't added false tags or nsfw to my work
instead i upload everything as a "hybrid image" seeing it gets online with a scanner..

vive la résistance!
 
Last edited:

Exactly.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
Sirius Glass said:
View attachment 203058
Click to expand...
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!
 
"We have no art. We do everything as beautifully as we can."
Balinese saying
 
Artlessness can sometimes be art. But process alone is not art--be it film, alternate process, or digital or other manipulation.
 
Pieter12 said:
Artlessness can sometimes be art. But process alone is not art--be it film, alternate process, or digital or other manipulation.
Click to expand...
I agree, but how do you discuss with people the difference without getting into a fist fight?
Photographers are so touchy.
Regulation stifles creativity.
 
It seems all this is important to the OP. I encourage him to apply himself to it and see where it takes him. Personally I see no use for it in my world however it would be interesting to see what the OP comes up with.
 
I prefer to think of photographs as photographs, often better than "art", which itself is usually worse than "art."
 

 
jtk said:
Click to expand...

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.
 

Not "bad" at all. Just a heads-up:

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.
 
Last edited:
jtk said:
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.
Click to expand...
People do what they do. They may not think your prescriptions result in better images. Do you argue oil vs. acrylic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register