Should I call this a photograph?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by chasfs, Oct 7, 2005.

  1. chasfs

    chasfs Guest

    http://chasfs.com/shelling.html

    I took this photo with a wide angle lens and didn't see the people in
    it. Years later they showed up when I zoomed in with Photoshop. So
    now, printed at 24" x 30", it looks more like a watercolor than a
    photograph.

    What do you think?

    Peace,
    -chasfs
    http://chasfs.com
     
    chasfs, Oct 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. chasfs

    Sheldon Guest

    Well, it "is" a photograph, but IMHO a watercolor would be sharper. Maybe
    I'm missing something by not seeing it full size and hanging.
     
    Sheldon, Oct 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. chasfs

    Jim Guest

    It is art. It is a photograph. Watercolor is specific as is
    photography. Watercolor is water soluable paint on paper (my Mom
    happens to be really good at it). Photography is the capturing of light
    on media. They are both art. Your's is an inteteresting photograph
    and very intriguing piece of art.

    Peace.
     
    Jim, Oct 7, 2005
    #3
  4. chasfs

    l e o Guest


    Anything can be arts, like Any Warhol's famous Campbell coup cans. The
    beach photo's (watercolor as you call it) not something that interests
    me, but if you like it, it's an artwork.
     
    l e o, Oct 7, 2005
    #4
  5. chasfs

    Eugene Guest

    It's an intersting abstract image. I would be inclined though to not
    include it with all your other landscape images, as it's really quite
    different. To me it seems to clash a bit. If you have any other similar
    images, perhaps you could make another category called "abstract
    landscapes" or something.
     
    Eugene, Oct 7, 2005
    #5
  6. chasfs

    Eugene Guest

    When I've heavily cropped or manipulated an image to a fair extent, I
    start to feel more comfortable calling it digital art, but that's just
    me. I think it's totally up to the individual artist. You took it with a
    camera, so I think it's perfectly fine to call it a photograph if that's
    what it is to you.
     
    Eugene, Oct 7, 2005
    #6
  7. I think it is a photography, i.e. a picture made from light. And it is
    quite a good one too, I like it very much. Sharpness is not a part of
    the definition of a photogrpahy, even in MF ;-)
     
    Vincent Becker, Oct 7, 2005
    #7
  8. You were asking if you should call it a photograph - well by definition yes
    but I see some questions which you should perhaps look at:

    1. Sharpness is not an issue - there are many famous photographs which are
    totally unsharp, but out of focus photography needs to be very creative,
    artistic and well done - in your case, it looks rather like having forgotten
    to focus or overenlarged something of not too much interest.
    2. Composition - a photograph needs to convey a message - ask yourself what
    the message would be in your case
    3. Simplicity is a virtue - most of the famous photographs as regarding
    composition, message and overall impression "simple". The have a strong
    message, a clear understanding of the situation and usually do not happen by
    accident.
    4. Photoshop - one of the negative sideeffects of Photoshop, which I for my
    own work experience in the same way is, that one can make almost anything
    look like willfully done. Not that I want to discredit the merits, but
    Photoshop often misleads people to think that what they produce is art - it
    is often nothing but applied electronics.

    That is what I think -
    George Nyman

    http://www.gnyman.com
     
    Dr. Georg N.Nyman, Oct 7, 2005
    #8
  9. chasfs

    John Fryatt Guest

    I think it's a perfectly valid piece of work. I quite like it. The
    bright shirts work well in this context.

    Can I also say that it's refreshing to see some posts about photography
    rather than the endless and pointless arguments about 'Canon vs. Nikon'
    or "Film is dead! ... No it's not! ... Yes it is!".

    John
     
    John Fryatt, Oct 7, 2005
    #9
  10. chasfs

    Chimp Guest


    *it's a photograph", "no, it's a water colour", "No it's not, it's abstract
    art".....what sort of stupid bollocks *is* all this drivel?!

    It's an extremely bad snapshot - of a quality sufficient to embarrass a five
    year old!.

    We all take bad pictures sometimes, that's life - but PLEASE stop all this
    pretentious pseudo-art shit!, it's not art, it's rubbish!

    Bin it, and move on.
     
    Chimp, Oct 7, 2005
    #10
  11. chasfs

    Charlie Self Guest

    Ayup. I sat here waiting for it to clear up, as that is a
    characteristic of dial-up modems, the out-of-focus coming into focus
    eventually. Instead, it turns out to be a POS.
     
    Charlie Self, Oct 7, 2005
    #11
  12. chasfs

    Chimp Guest


    Yes, it is a POS - which, upon reflection, means that I've been a bit hasty.

    The 'Arts Council' (sic) are always on the lookout for a nice POS to lavish
    taxpayers money on - whether it's a dead cow, and unmade bed, or a
    chronically out of focus image.

    So my advice to Mr Chav is to take himself and his handiwork off to London
    in order to get in on the action. He needs to hop in to the Arts Council
    headquarters, announcing that he's a disabled homosexual conceptual artist
    (that's a 'Piss Artist' in everyday parlance) and they will load him up
    with an enormous sack, stuffed full of £20 notes - and, If he wants to take
    the trouble to blacken himself up like a Minstrel, he will receive an extra
    sack of cash to show how Positively Discriminatory they are.
     
    Chimp, Oct 7, 2005
    #12
  13. chasfs

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    Fair is fair, George: explain the message in the photos on your home page.
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 7, 2005
    #13
  14. chasfs

    no_name Guest

    I wouldn't consider it a sellable image.
     
    no_name, Oct 7, 2005
    #14
  15. chasfs

    no_name Guest

    So he's gonna' be
    in the gallery ...
     
    no_name, Oct 7, 2005
    #15
  16. I think photography is to be enjoyed, unless one has to make a living at it
    (and then it can still be enjoyed, but not necessarily so). I like to play
    as shown by this:
    http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1034.jpg

    Is it a photograph or is it art? Don't care, as I enjoyed doing it and
    still enjoy looking at it. That's all that matters.
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 7, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.