snubbr.com

Is Photography an ART or a TECHNICAL skill one can master??
Hello experts!.

I was asked this question....

"Is photography an ART or a TECHNICAL skill one can master?".

And really couldn't answer it proficiently....

My initial thought was:.

Yes, this is a technical thing to do....

Like, the programmer is NOT an artist... the WEB DESIGNER is... the programmer works out the back-end of a website... the nice appearance of a website is the work of the artist....

ISSUE: if you are really technically sound in your camera... you can produce nice images (ie: nice blue sky, nice blue green ocean, perfect lighting, etc)....

POSING PEOPLE? one can just buy a book on how to pose, then copy that posing and ask the subject(s) to do the same thing... then shoot... and if you have the right exposure... you just produced a nice picture!!.

HELP... need some sound answers and opinions....

Me personally? it's mixture of technical know how and confidence and experience and looking at the situation a differently... it's technical and art?..

Comments (50)

As I see it, the technical aspects merely allow you to capture light. The artistic aspects allow you to capture an image. You know you have crossed the line between the two when you start giving names, and not just captions, to the photographs.http://www.pbase.com/cbeck.

One does not achieve success by being at the right place at the right time, but rather by being ready when the right place and time present themselves for your inspection...

Comment #1

There is no simple answer, other than "both"..

It is possible to be "artistic" and not have a clue what the camera is doing..

It is possible to be an engineer and be able to describe, in minute detail, everything the camera is doing, but still take crappy pictures..

It really is the end result that matters. If the picture pleases the photographer, that is what matters. If you are getting paid to shoot, then it matters if the client likes the work. As long as the end user is satisfied, the how's and why's don't really matter..

Crime Scene PhotographyA small gallery of personal work: http://picasaweb.google.com/PID885..

Comment #2

I'm going out on thin ice here, but this how I see it today..

Let me paraphrase Caeodhen:.

It is also possible to be "artistic" and not have a clue what the camera is doing, but still take crappy pictures..

For ones mental health, I think Techies like my self have an easier time accepting it if we find out that we never will be great. Were usually not all that artistic anyway..

I think an artist will have a much harder time accepting that he knows exacly what he wants to do, but just does'nt know how! And everybody knows that it is usually hard to teach artists technical stuff..

So IMHO it's definitly BOTH..

A link to a guy who is both.http://www.anhava.com/exhibitions/sandberg/index.html.

Tom..

Comment #3

I was once going to to go to an art school (private) run by a well known illustrater who illustrated books , film posters etc etc. I was accepted with very basicttalent , the rest I was told was technique and learning and hard work(Couldn'y afford the fees in the end!) Same goes for photography or indeed virtually anything. If you have a good teacher even with virtually no talent or skill in the given subject you can become good, really good even great as long as you put the hard work in. You can be taught good composition , lighting etc etc , you can even learn it from a book..

I have little skill in art and just as little in photography yet I enjoy them both tremendously and have sold both artwork and photographs on a very small irregular basis..

Regards.

Tim Hugheshttp://www.artwanted.com/timhughes..

Comment #4

It's hard to imagine "mastering photography." It's a pretty big topic, sort of like mastering medicine; you might be a good brain surgeon, but not all that hot when tryuing to use medicine to fixz a broken liver..

All in all, one of those nonsensical questions that sounds good on the surface..

BAK..

Comment #5

My feeling is just about anything produced has the capability of being called art. There are some weird things out there being called art. Of course, weird to me. I think another poster put it best, if it pleases you it can be art, if it pleases your client it can be art. Applied to a broader base, art could be seen as something being accepted. Some people consider the Mac computer a piece of art.

Some gadgets may be considered works of art, not necessarily for their aesthetics perhaps but perhaps it's cleverness in design. Just like any work of "art", you must possess the technical skills for the given medium. A painter used oils and canvas as his technical forte to paint his viewpoints. As an example, I'm terrible at drawing and painting, but my "creative" mind may come up with ideas that would make great paintings, but alas, any attempts to create these will fail for me..

I guess it's tough to draw the lines on what makes art art. If I have a unique idea and am to describe that idea to a painter and in essence commission a painting, but say my involvement is very intense where I'm telling him not the right color, not the right texture, etc and he is replicating what I tell him, who is the artist in that case? Is it the guy painting or is it me who is directing? If not me, then is a director of a movie not an artist?.

So my feeling is, knowing the techincal details of photography is important, but having the eye and being able to translate your ideas from what you see onto film is the link that most often is broken, just like me and trying to be a painter. You can have a good eye but if you can't master the technical details of the medium, you'll fall up short. On the other hand, you can master the technical details and not necessarily have the "eye". But then again who's to say it's art or not art. It all depends on who your "gods" are that you are answering. Is it for yourself or for someone else?.

And like the previous poster said, I don't believe it's possible to "master" any type of art. The only way to master it is to feel for yourself that you cannot improve. If you rely on others to be the judge, a masterpiece today may be a cliche tomorrow..

Just trying to learn.

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/..

Comment #6

It's also mater of understanding why you like particular image and ability to find technical reason why this image is different from others..

Same subject looks differently in different lighting, weather conditions, angle. Artist and tech expert can look at the subject and plan winner shot..

It could be acheved by training, education..

Http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..

Comment #7

If it were anything else i'd get bored..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Mike Rudge..

Comment #8

Most of the Fine Arts graduates or students will really say photography is not an art... I just ask few "ARTISTS" after reading all your replies....

And thanks a lot for your time....

Here's another thought....

Someone good with Photophop can create an attractive and artistic image out of a very lousy image.....

Comment #9

There are many, many different kinds of photography. You can't just characterize "photography"..

For that matter, there are many different definitions of "art". You can't characterize anything as being "art" or not without many people disagreeing..

The question as posed is unanswerable. It also, in my opinion, is pointless when considered alone. Is there a specific reason for this question? It sounds to me like you're asking if photography can be learned, and the answer to that question is that many forms of photography can. As with all things that one can learn, some people learn better than others..

Personally, I shoot mainly travel photos. I get some very pretty pictures. Many look like postcards. I don't consider those photos, in any way, to be "art". And I doubt that I'll ever be an "artist" by my definition of the word& I'm far too guarded to ever be able to reveal my inner self in my work...

Comment #10

Doug Pardee wrote:.

There are many, many different kinds of photography. You can't justcharacterize "photography"..

For that matter, there are many different definitions of "art". Youcan't characterize anything as being "art" or not without many peopledisagreeing..

The question as posed is unanswerable. It also, in my opinion, ispointless when considered alone. Is there a specific reason for thisquestion? It sounds to me like you're asking if photography can belearned, and the answer to that question is that many forms ofphotography can. As with all things that one can learn, some peoplelearn better than others..

Personally, I shoot mainly travel photos. I get some very prettypictures. Many look like postcards. I don't consider those photos, inany way, to be "art". And I doubt that I'll ever be an "artist" by mydefinition of the word& I'm far too guarded to ever be able toreveal my inner self in my work..

Very, very good point... the reason for the question really is:.

A Fine Art graduate asked me the question... NOT to humiliate me (i think)... but I think he wants to find out if I will answer him YES (so maybe I may consider myself an artist)....

I think we can generate a healthy discussion here... and for those arrogant photographers who elevate themselves as a master artist/photographer, when they read this discussion they might humble themselves....

I hope I answered your question.....

Comment #11

Most of the Fine Arts graduates or students will really say photography is not an art....

The rest of them do!.

Most of the Fine Arts graduates or students become art critics.

The rest of them do great things!..

Comment #12

I came late to this party. It's an age-old question though, made more complex by the introduction of a computer. If DaVinci or Michelangelo were alive today, would they be computer animators or painters?.

If you capture an image digitally and start playing with it in photoshop, when does it cross the border between photo and photo illustration?.

Is writing an art, or a technical skill one can master? How about cooking? Or bartending?.

You can learn all the skills and tricks in any of those practice, whether it has to do with light quality and contrast in photography, proper structure in writing or the proper way to mix ingredients in food or a drink..

If know how to make a drink by pouring the proper amounts of liquor in a measuring instrument and you can make the exact same drink by knowing instinctively when to stop the pour, am I a technician and you an artist?.

Ages ago I took a course innocently titled "The Creative Process" the professor happened to have produced a series for public TV exploring the same question. Since the class was more than 25 years ago, I can't begin to recall the specifics. But what I do remember from that class was the importance of the reaction of the audience the emotion (or lack thereof) drawn from the viewer..

Take from that what you will..

A very interesting question.'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..

Comment #13

First and foremost, photography is a technical skill. A basic understanding of the mechanics of photography is required to appriciate how light and shadow can turn a 'snapshot' into a photograph of interest..

As to the artistic element, I think for most of us mere mortals, it is simply the case of getting lucky occasionally. I probably average around 25000-30000 photos a year, mostly studio work, and mostly portraiture/live model. From this number, I would generally expect around 5000-7500 to be keepers of a good enough quality to use for the intended task I have been paid for. Although this may seem a large number of photos, is any of it art ? .

I guess my personal measure of artistic ability is when I am sitting there in the wee hours of the night post processing the day's work when I come across a single image I have taken that stops me dead in my tracks. Why that particular image worked as it did, I often have no idea, the image before it and the image after it are both good quality photographs, but in this single image I have captured something indefinable and rare, and for me that is art..

I often wonder how many images the photographic greats took to achieve the images with which we all associate them with. After all, we are all familiar with Ansel Adams work, but do we really know how many photographs he took to achieve a single stunning image ? .

Regards.

Steve..

Comment #14

Photography is a skill, same as drawing, painting, scupture, ceramics etc..

As any other skill it can be learnt. One curious thing is that today, because of the use of clever software, you don't even need to learn most of it, just the "frame and click part of it"..

But it can also be used as the basis of artwork, this is not to say that a photo just because it's a photo is a work of art. Of course not, but it is as many others a valid media. Of course for some inherent qualities attached to photography it will rarely be chosen as the final output and probably more integrated in other more traditional media. But can be used on it's own..

I don't understand why some posts seem to imply that an artist doesn't have or need technical skills, quite the contrary it's the profound knowledge and dominion of the technical aspects what permits the artist to become truly creative. It is a common missconception that the likes of Picasso, Dali, Van Goth, Cezanne etc had limited drawing/painting skills, when in reality they had a masterful dominium and profound understanding of their skills...

Comment #15

Seems like multiple questions rolled into one. What is art, what is photography, if something is an art, is it impossible to "master", etc. etc.?.

I'll respond to this part of the question: Is photography a technical skill that one can master? By the tone of the question, the question seems to be along the lines of photography is a science with a finite number of objective laws (the underlying assumption seems to be that if those laws can be identified and learned, then one would be a "master" of photography)..

The problem with the premise is that photography has no fixed laws, and while it does have principles, great photographs often break those rules effectively (i.e., the photo is aesthetically more pleasing than if it had followed those rules). If all known photographic and aesthetic principles are programmed into a robot, the robot can produce sound photographs with aesthetic value. However, to be a "master" requires more than just sound photographs and there are no known rules that if followed would turn a photograph into a master-piece..

So my answer is: photography does have technical principles that can be learned to form a skillset, but even then, that would not necessarily make you a master photographer. If that's what you mean by an art (as opposed to a science), so it is...

Comment #16

Hello creaDVty!.

What a prfound response....

I just want to keep reading your comment and master it... in my heart!.

Thanks!!..

Comment #17

Historically, painters were considered craftsmen, not artists. It was only with the landed wealthy of the 18th Century that the definition of 'artist' began to emerge..

In the mid-19th Century, a major change to copyright law moved the creative authorship of an artwork from the commissioner of the art to the person commissioned, irrespective of the media they used. The commissioned person is considered to be both author and artist. Prior to that change in copyright, a photographer was essentially a 'camera monkey'..

Photographers followed painters in redefining their trade as an artform and defining themselves as artists. Back when the term artist and craftsman were interchangable, there was a technical skill that could be mastered by people, allowing them to become tolerably good painters. There were even apprenticeships, under 'master' painters. A few painters rose far beyond their trade to create what is now considered great art..

We have to learn a technical skill, but when that's learned a few make the results into an art.You name it, I've broken it...

Comment #18

People!.

Don't miss Scruntys NutPea Funch's short but HEAVY history lesson....

I learned a LOT!!..

Comment #19

Using your programmer example, there may be more than one way to accomplish a task via programming. Any programmer may be able to accomplish that task, but a good one can write code efficiently and elegantly to get that task done in the minumum ammount of time using the least amount of resources from the system. Does the fact that his code isn't something that's vsually pleasing make him less of an 'artist'?.

Leehttp://leem.smugmug.com..

Comment #20

Art, in it's broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art..

Comment #21

Excellent. So, based on that definition, would you not consider a good programmer an artist?.

Leehttp://leem.smugmug.com..

Comment #22

I'll try my hand at this....

I am a musician (have been playing sax for 30+ years), and am a computer network engineer, so I can relate to the artistic and technical side of a medium..

There are people who learn to play the sax very very well, they know all the fingerings, how to manipulate the amberture, know many keys in which to play in, and their fingers can fly through the keys like mad... all technical and skill aspects; but does that make them an artist?.

In this case with the sax, I would say that the artist, even if he or she is not as "skilled" as the person in the example above, can make beautiful music from the same saxophone, and make someone stop in their tracks and listen to them. Some people can do this, and have all the skills above. Some people are capable of just one or the other..

I think it is the same with photography. The camera/lenses and skill and knowledge do not make the artist - a robot can do that. It is that the person who is taking the photographs, and processing them, is able to portray and express what they see, and can show it in a way that would make people stop in their tracks and look at their photo..

I think the camera, like a saxophone, is a tool for artists to express what they've seen, experienced, or felt..

What is wonderful about photography, music, and other hobbies, is that you don't have to be considered an artist to enjoy what you create, or the process of creating it. But everyone who creates photographs or music, or anything else for that matter, can probably be called an artist, as something of that person is inevitably part of what they create..

So... in answer, I would have to say, like anything else, painting, drawing, photography, music, writing... learning to use the medium for how you express yourself is the technical aspect; everyone must first learn how to use the medium they choose. The outcome is the art - so I say it is both..

Albert-O.

Http://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #23

Lee Mychajluk wrote:.

Excellent. So, based on that definition, would you not consider agood programmer an artist?.

Without hesitation, yes - I get the same pleasure and satisfaction from writing good code as I do from taking a good photograph or, say, decorating a room. All three are creative processes which require a certain level of technical skill, without which the "art" part can't happen..

Think back to all the great "artists" in the traditional sense. They were great technicians too - they had to be. Except perhaps Jackson Pollock.....

Comment #24

It's both..

There isn't anything on the planet that isn't a skill someone can master, some people just pick it up faster than others..

Whether people ever like your work or not is a whole other story...

Comment #25

True, it's both. But the "art" of photography goes beyond copying poses out of a book. You are producing nice pictures but not really producing "art". "Art", IMHO, requires that the artist take some point of view - any point of view, i.e. have something to say. Without there being some point to the photograph, I wouldn't say it's art..

If you look at the photographers who are recognized as "artists", the entire range of technical skills is represented, i.e compare Ansel Adams & Diane Arbus re: their technical skills. But IMHO both are artists because there was a point to what they doing, there was some message they were trying to get across..

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Hello experts!.

I was asked this question....

"Is photography an ART or a TECHNICAL skill one can master?".

And really couldn't answer it proficiently....

My initial thought was:.

Yes, this is a technical thing to do....

Like, the programmer is NOT an artist... the WEB DESIGNER is... theprogrammer works out the back-end of a website... the nice appearanceof a website is the work of the artist....

ISSUE: if you are really technically sound in your camera... you canproduce nice images (ie: nice blue sky, nice blue green ocean,perfect lighting, etc)....

POSING PEOPLE? one can just buy a book on how to pose, then copy thatposing and ask the subject(s) to do the same thing... then shoot...and if you have the right exposure... you just produced a nicepicture!!.

HELP... need some sound answers and opinions....

Me personally? it's mixture of technical know how and confidence andexperience and looking at the situation a differently... it'stechnical and art?.

Rich..

Comment #26

Well, i'm a fine arts graduate and an amateur photographer..

I can't see why there should be any divide between technology and art. if you look at the etymology of the word technology... the greek "technologia"... technology and art were, until relatively recently, the same. all artists use technology. brushes, paints, chisels, potter's wheels, hammers...

That is, we very creative about using objects as tools..

I did my art degree back in the 70s. we learnt photography as well as painting and drawing. we learnt photography *is* an art form. there is no question photography is an art. okay, I might decide I think this particalur photographer is technically proficient but boring or this other photographer can't take photos for nuts, but what they do is still art..

I think it's all art. maybe I don't like it. but who am I to say..

People do get all bound up in the question of "great" art. or get their knickers in a twist over contemporary "arty" photography that they think is woefully incompetent..

Meh, it's all art... so just shut up and take photos!..

Comment #27

The "ART OF PHOTOGRAPHY"... makes this skill an ART!.

But before you can be CREATIVE... you must at least master the technical part of this wonderful world of photography....

Keep on replying... WE ARE ALL LEARNING A LOT!!.

;->..

Comment #28

Scottcv worte:.

There isn't anything on the planet that isn't a skill someone can master, some people just pick it up faster than others..

Yes, but I believe there is some natural born talent involved, when it comes to art or any other skill...

Comment #29

And that is a fact that we should all accept....

Talented people can produce better and perform.....

Comment #30

Codeman74 wrote:.

Yes, but I believe there is some natural born talent involved, whenit comes to art or any other skill..

I agree with this 100%. Some people have a talent for composition, light, mood, subject, etc - it just works..

Albert-O.

Http://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #31

Certainly, you must have the rudimentary skill of knowing how to load the film into the camera (or insert the flash card). But I don't think you need to master the technical part before you can be creative..

That was the point I was trying to make by comparing Ansel Adams & Diane Arbus. No one would ever call Arbus a master of the technical. Whereas his absolute mastery of the technical was an important part of Adams' photographs..

Newspaper Man wrote:.

The "ART OF PHOTOGRAPHY"... makes this skill an ART!.

But before you can be CREATIVE... you must at least master thetechnical part of this wonderful world of photography....

Keep on replying... WE ARE ALL LEARNING A LOT!!.

;->.

Rich..

Comment #32

Bugzie wrote:.

... so just shut up and take photos!.

Well said!.

Rich..

Comment #33

Ok... maybe MASTER is NOT the right word... "KNOW HOW" is more appropriate....

Otherwise you're just shooting FULLY AUTO....

And we all know if you got creative using AUTO... that's LUCK... don't you think???.

;-D..

Comment #34

We are trying to have a lively discussion here... not just "forget it" and just shoot....

Insights... is what we want... so next time someone ask you the same question....

You don't have to say "shut up" and i'll just shoot....

If a good photographer answers wisely... then respect will follow....

Don't you think???.

;-/..

Comment #35

Well I didn't take it to mean that he was telling us to "shut up". I took it to mean that he was saying "Don't worry about whether photography is "art" or "science" (i.e. technical) - just take pictures, that's what matters"..

And it's that approach I was agreeing with - IMHO, it's a valid answer to the question..

Look at it this way - do sculptors sit around and wonder if sculpture is art? No. Do painters? No. etc. etc. Photographs hang in museums, so photography must be an art..

As French artist Marcel Duchamp once said, "If I call it art, it's art" (or words to that effect), when he sent a urinal to the 1917 exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists..

Maybe the more important question we should each be asking is, "Are *my* photographs art"? That's the one I have trouble with!.

Newspaper Man wrote:.

We are trying to have a lively discussion here... not just "forgetit" and just shoot....

Insights... is what we want... so next time someone ask you the samequestion....

You don't have to say "shut up" and i'll just shoot....

If a good photographer answers wisely... then respect will follow....

Don't you think???.

;-/.

Rich..

Comment #36

Actually, no, I don't think that. What's the difference if the camera picks the exposure & focus, or if the photographer does?.

What I mean by that is this - if the camera should pick the exact same exposure & focus settings that the photographer would have picked, the end results are indistinguishable. At that point it's simply a matter of the content of the photograph..

But I'm not saying that there aren't cases where the selection of focus & exposure settings contribute to the creativity of the end result. I'm just saying that it's not true in every case, and someone with little knowlege of the technical side can go out with a camera on full auto and come back with some incredibly creative photographs if they have the imagination for it..

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Ok... maybe MASTER is NOT the right word... "KNOW HOW" is moreappropriate....

Otherwise you're just shooting FULLY AUTO....

And we all know if you got creative using AUTO... that's LUCK...don't you think???.

;-D.

Rich..

Comment #37

"You play the piano very well. Maybe one day you will be able to make music." - Teacher to technically talented student..

Comment #38

I did answer you quite seriously and it is indeed a interesting debate..

Did you understand my point that the divide between technology and art is a cultural and historical one?.

I'm not going to write a thesis on this topic because some people simply aren't going to get it..

They're going to latch on to throwaway lines at the end and get their noses out of joint, aren't they. ..

Comment #39

Now that's a good input! that many of us would like to read and learn from....

Thanks!..

Comment #40

Bugzie wrote:.

I did answer you quite seriously and it is indeed a interesting debate..

Did you understand my point that the divide between technology andart is a cultural and historical one?.

I'm not going to write a thesis on this topic because some peoplesimply aren't going to get it..

They're going to latch on to throwaway lines at the end and get theirnoses out of joint, aren't they. .

You... as a fine art graduate... has already earned a credential and some kind of authority to really say "Photography is an Art"....

Your first response really is great with a little history and digging into the meaning of TECHNOLOGY... and I thought that was really sound! thanks!!..

Comment #41

Thank you!.

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Now that's a good input! that many of us would like to read and learnfrom....

Thanks!.

Rich..

Comment #42

Art which need some technical skills.... like everything. )My fotoblog: http://www.howtoshot.com/My fotoblog (czech): http://fotaky.xf.cz/My photos (leazy to update anyway): http://gady.idomena.cz/..

Comment #43

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Most of the Fine Arts graduates or students will really sayphotography is not an art... I just ask few "ARTISTS" after readingall your replies....

We must inform the Museum of Modern Art of this important development straight away in order to insure that their curators can avoid embarassment by divesting themselves of their large collection of non art as soon as possible. Once they do, other major art museums around the world will surely follow suit..

Thank goodness for our fine arts graduates and students!.

One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others..

The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer..

John Szarkowski.

Here's another thought....

Someone good with Photophop can create an attractive and artisticimage out of a very lousy image....

Someone with a can of Gesso and some paint can create an attractive and artistic image out of a very lousy image....

'Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!'.

Tom Younghttp://www.pbase.com/tyoung/..

Comment #44

Photography is a an artistic medium and field, not unlike painting; in fact "photography" means, roughly, painting with light. But not all photography is art, just as paint can be applied to utilitarian objects such as homes, cars, furniture, etc..

And there are technical skills in photography, as there are in with other media, that should be mastered for technical competence. Unlike many media, the tools of photography offer automatic modes which frequently provide reasonable results if one is not terribly demanding or requiring a level of mastered technical competence..

Galleries: http://www.dheller.net..

Comment #45

Consider an "artist" in the traditional sense of the word; a painter who paints landscapes, portaits, or architecture... does he not do the same with his brushes and paint, as a photographer does with his camera, camera settings, light, lens and post processing?.

The painter interprets something he sees (whether it be something tangible or in his mind), and then interprets it on canvas, the same as a photographer does on print or digital media..

Sometimes the painter will add to or modify the scene he or she sees, to complete his interpretation; making the sky more dramatic, a more restless ocean, etc; the same way a photographer would do to complete his interpretation during composition, post processing or cropping..

The painter uses brushes, paints and rags as his tools to get the look he wants; the photographer uses the camera settings, light, and perhaps some post processing to get the look he or she wants..

They are both skilled in the technical apects of using their respective tools..

I think photography is an art, and like the painters, some artists/photographers are better than others..

Albert-O.

Http://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #46

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Hello experts!.

I was asked this question....

"Is photography an ART or a TECHNICAL skill one can master?".

Yes..

The art part is about what you want to show with your photos. What do you want to make people think when they view your photos? In what way do you view the world around you that is unique to you and can only be explained to others through a photo?.

The technical part is the equipment and methods of using your equipment to accomplish your art and show it at a certain quality..

What you choose to point your camera at is what's important to master. This comes from your mind. The equipment you use simply gives you the ability to show it better. And this pretty much comes from your wallet and the time you devote to learning how to use the equipment. So I guess this is important to master. Obviously a person will want to show their art at the best possible quality..

It's not an art or technical skill one can master. It's an art AND technical skill one can master. There's a name for this. Photography. Notice the best photographers have been at it a while and use very good equipment? Is it the photographer or the equipment? This is the question you are really asking. The answer is still yes..

I noticed in a recent thread that a digicam user was expressing their intent to buy a Dslr and was looking for reccomendations and they made the statement, "I know it's the photographer, not the camera". This raises the question: Why then are they buying a Dslr?..

Comment #47

It's not an art or technical skill one can master.It's an art AND technical skill one can master.There's a name for this. Photography..

I agree!! imagine just by changing the "OR" to "AND" the entire statment becomes ARTISTIC!!.

Keep feeding us experts... we are chewing heavy stuff here... and I think it's really healthy!!.

;-D..

Comment #48

Wmsson wrote:.

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Hello experts!.

I was asked this question....

"Is photography an ART or a TECHNICAL skill one can master?".

Yes.The art part is about what you want to show with your photos. What doyou want to make people think when they view your photos? In what waydo you view the world around you that is unique to you and can onlybe explained to others through a photo?The technical part is the equipment and methods of using yourequipment to accomplish your art and show it at a certain quality.What you choose to point your camera at is what's important tomaster. This comes from your mind. The equipment you use simply givesyou the ability to show it better. And this pretty much comes fromyour wallet and the time you devote to learning how to use theequipment. So I guess this is important to master.

It's an art ANDtechnical skill one can master. There's a name for this. Photography.Notice the best photographers have been at it a while and use verygood equipment? Is it the photographer or the equipment? This is thequestion you are really asking. The answer is still yes.I noticed in a recent thread that a digicam user was expressing theirintent to buy a Dslr and was looking for reccomendations and theymade the statement, "I know it's the photographer, not the camera".This raises the question: Why then are they buying a Dslr?.

Indeed..

Comment #49

It is both.

The art is to see a scene and have an idea how it should look.

The technique is to make this happen.

Http://berlinguyinca.blogspot.com/..

Comment #50

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.