Is photography art or technology..?

This is a roundabout way of bringing attention to something I've mentioned before. We have a photography forum, but it is the last sub-forum on Teakdoor in the multimedia forum, it's a place where threads are born to die.

In my opinion photography is an art and since this art forum has been created I think the photography sub-forum should be moved here.

I'm highlighting this again after looking at pictures from the Nikon Small World competition, pictures like this..

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/09/3111.jpg
Dr John H Brackenbury, University of Cambridge, UK: Water droplet containing a pair of mosquito larvae (Laser-triggered high-speed macrophotography)

..and this...

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2011/09/3112.jpg
Yanping Wang, Beijing Planetarium: Sand

..and let you know that this years entries can be viewed and voted on here: Nikon Small World - Photomicrography Competition but if I posted it in the photography sub-forum, no-one would ever see it. :(

So is photography art or technology?

depends on who is behind the lens.

'tis an art.

both. you need the technological skillz to make it art, anyone can point and shoot.

I think art.

You could give me the most expensive camera in the world and I'd still not manage one decent shot.

Bit of both, innit. Any photography requires technology- good photography requires art too.

Nice link Neo, some fascinating photos there. Makes my poxy macro shots look utterly crap! :)

But yeah, it's definitely an art. It's hard enough choosing good composition, before you even get to exposure, contrast, depth of field, lighting considerations etc.

A bad photographer can make the most exciting/beautiful scenes seem dull, the good photographer can find and reveal something of interest or beauty in the most everyday and mundane things.

It's an "art" and technology can be used to alter and enhance the image significantly, the subject can be staged etc. and the results can be just stunning. Unaltered un-staged photos that deserve the label art is probably the best of the lot because that takes real talent and maybe also luck, asking a computer-program to show you 10 different versions and then picking the one you like is maybe a little less talent and a bit more tech-savy.

But the borders are floating because it is also documentary when used to report on events or places for-instance, and somehow i think there should be clear distinctions, maybe a bit like a content declaration, lots of photos in media is altered quite a bit and show a fake "truth", and it is used to deceive people for sales reasons, for political reasons etc.

You often see examples in photo mags and so on where the original image has almost no relation to the photo-shop/aperture digitally altered image they end up with.

I know it is a complicated problem and that for-instance every single camera type/brand/lens makes slightly different photos in the standard settings, so when do a photo become digitally tech altered enough to be labeled as such ?.

But it does not even have to be good photos to be labeled art IMO, as soon as the original image is changed by a certain margin it becomes the vision of the photographer/tech. and is no longer a "realistic" photo, and then it is art! IMO - good or bad.

Anyway for me the photography sub forum could very well be in the art section to answer the OP.

^^Oh yeah, forgot to add that I agree with giving the photography forum a bit of a bump up the list...I'd considered starting a thread there myself but thought it'd probably slip by unnoticed.

Theres some good photographers on TD and if it was a bit more prominent I'm sure more would be encouraged to start some decent threads there.

I like photography but IMHO it is overrated ,, we all know about the power of photoshop for those of us clever enuf to be able to use it ,,,having said that , there is the cheap click and clunk software a blindman could use to achieve very passable results . Give a man who has no clue about photography or painting a camera along with 3 primary colours some brushes + paper to paint on , he wont be able to produce art with the paints but he will provide you with a picture :)


I know there is some fantastic photographers on here but as someone who loves to paint pictures as opposed to photographing them , I am sorry but it grates with me , everytime I walk into a shop/gallery that used to sell 100% original paintings , now you go in there and its 50/50 original paintings and original photoshopped scenes tweaked and twisted to allmost fool the masses with there watercolour/oil effects aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelandjan

I am sorry but it grates with me , everytime I walk into a shop/gallery that used to sell 100% original paintings , now you go in there and its 50/50 original paintings and original photoshopped scenes tweaked and twisted to allmost fool the masses with there watercolour/oil effects aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!

---

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder mate. The point at which art gets consescending is when it starts imnposing its values on the "masses".....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder mate. The point at which art gets consescending is when it starts imnposing its values on the "masses".....

---

Yes I appreciate that mate and a one size glove will never fit all , it,s just we have a guy around here who to give him his due is well boned up on photoshop , but he is filling all the bloody shops around here with his ? landscaped photo,s of beach huts and does,nt sign em Photoshop or Intel core i7 but plasters his name on em in the name of art ?
I know if I were a prof artist who had natural talent and had spent years and years of some of the most mundane training to get to a good enuf level to call myself an artist I would be pretty pissed off to have to compete with this kinda stuff that was nowhere to be seen in the volumes it is now .

If you want to have a look at some real art have a look at this link , I used to be mates with him when we were kids , he is one talented artist :) and he is still despite his wealth a down to earth guy

Richard Stone, Royal Portrait Painter

The equipment used to capture the image is technology. The subject matter and composition is art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

Bit of both, innit. Any photography requires technology- good photography requires art too.

---

Having a good eye and artistic vision is the key.

I have seen photos from blokes who have all the gear and not an ounce of talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

The equipment used to capture the image is technology. The subject matter and composition is art.

---

Yes, it's that simple. No camera or software, lighting, printer, ink and paper, no photograph.

No skill at composition and in the use of the eqipment and you are unlikely to get an artistic picture.

Well there is an obvious demarcation between technology and art, that makes it difficult to place wholly in either genre.

But what of giving the photography forum a higher profile?
It would seem that most agree it is a good idea.

So, can the mods put their heads together and move the sub-forum here?

I should not admit this but I have a minor in photography. Now this was in the day of developing one's pic by hand. Learned a lot but forgot most. I was one of those guys who could not draw worth a shit.A stickman drawing was tough for me.

But I can capture the moment, sometimes...

Then TD has the experts that make me look like crap. Still fun to shoot photos anyway...