[HBlack (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Army_of_Orr

I don't know why we are even having and argument this this idiot. Like twitch said, art doesn't need to be justified. What you think is art others don't, and the same pretty much goes for most people. We all have things that we like and dislike. I had a 2D design teacher that hated photography, and she did the most random abstract "art". She thought that everything needed to be abstract, I don't think it does, we each have two opions. But for you to come in here and ask us to prove to you why photography is an art form is complete and utter bull****. You have made yourself look ignorant, and uncultured. I think that you should leave st photo, look around at modern art, or even art in general and see what can be called art. Before you come in here and make a statement like the one that you did.

I said I'd leave the thread alone, but I feel I have to address this.

Did you miss my point completely? Several times, I said that I recognized photography to be an art form. I clearly stated that I didn't mean to offend anyone, and made all my points in a non-inflammatory manner, asking politely for your opinions. I made this with the hope of an intelligent discussion.

I refuse to beleive that my discussion warrants the response you gave. Honestly, get the sand out of your vagina.

[tonybhall]

I think one thing that a lot of people like the thread starter here assume is that all it takes to make a photograph is pushing a button. Where's the skill or talent in that, right?

What they miss is the fact that all it takes to make a painting is slapping a brush up against a canvas. Right?

But, just like slapping a brush up against a canvas doen't make a great painting, taking a great photograph takes a lot more than pressing a button. There are a lot of people, like myself, who have been working at this photography thing for 10 years and still aren't there yet. It's a lot harder than people think. It takes a lot more skill than most people will ever know. They think that because they can take a decent snap shot with their point and shoot that it can't be that much harder to take an awsome photograph.

Those people would be wrong, of course.

[Super Nosey (Banned)]

Please explain the validity of this thread.

[theultimatehero]

Originally Posted by Super Nosey

Please explain the validity of this thread.

why do you have to say such useless things...

Alright so i didnt read the entire thread because im lazy but the way i see it is photographers are just like artists in a sense. Artists make shapes/objects and put them in a frame.

Photographers have to find that picture in nature or somewhere and make the frame around it. And get the right meaning out of the object, just as a painter would try to espress.

[crobo]

Originally Posted by theultimatehero

why do you have to say such useless things...

Alright so i didnt read the entire thread because im lazy but the way i see it is photographers are just like artists in a sense. Artists make shapes/objects and put them in a frame.

Photographers have to find that picture in nature or somewhere and make the frame around it. And get the right meaning out of the object, just as a painter would try to espress.

might was well have said " i dont care enough to read the 10 previous posts, but why not throw the same idea out there everyone else has. and im gonna flame the guy above me"

and to the thread starter, coming into a photography forum and asking to prove your artform/hobby/passion to be valid is like. asking a professional athlete to prove thier sport is valid. at the end of they day they all just play with balls, does that make it any different? no it doesn't.

[OU812?]

Originally Posted by tonybhall

I think one thing that a lot of people like the thread starter here assume is that all it takes to make a photograph is pushing a button. Where's the skill or talent in that, right?

What they miss is the fact that all it takes to make a painting is slapping a brush up against a canvas. Right?

But, just like slapping a brush up against a canvas doen't make a great painting, taking a great photograph takes a lot more than pressing a button. There are a lot of people, like myself, who have been working at this photography thing for 10 years and still aren't there yet. It's a lot harder than people think. It takes a lot more skill than most people will ever know. They think that because they can take a decent snap shot with their point and shoot that it can't be that much harder to take an awsome photograph.

Those people would be wrong, of course.

Well said, i also believe photoshop might be leading more people to think it's easy. Now even if you dont take a great picture, with photoshop people can make it more interesting. Even though for noobs this usually just involves selective color or rediculous contrast/colors. Heck just look at deviant art for plenty of examples.
So in that sense photoshop allows ****ty photographers to produce better "pictures". I for one find photo shop useful for little things but dont like using it to completely change the picture. Because then it almost becomes a piece of "digital imaging" art rather than a photograph.

[PyroPenguin (Banned)]

Originally Posted by tonybhall

But, just like slapping a brush up against a canvas doen't make a great painting, taking a great photograph takes a lot more than pressing a button.

Exactly what I was going to say.


You don't just TAKE a picture, you create it. You are given a scene, and you can portray the memory of the scene however you (the photographer) see fit. You could make it bright and happy, or dark and gloomy, you could bring one person into focus and throw the rest out, or do two in focus, or three, it's up to the photographer.

My sister is into painting, and I'm into photography, she told me that she never realized the amount of work that goes into creating a picture until she had taken a photography class.

[tonybhall]

Originally Posted by PyroPenguin

My sister is into painting, and I'm into photography, she told me that she never realized the amount of work that goes into creating a picture until she had taken a photography class.

most poeple have no clue. This is the same reason most people can't believe how expensive wedding photography is. They don't have any idea how much work goes into it. The think the photographer just shows up, shoots for 2 or 3 hours and then all the work is done. Then they wonder how we justify $3000 for 3 hours work. They have no idea that we will spend another 100 hours in post processing. Again, most people think that taking a photograph is just pretting a button.

[elTwitcho]

Originally Posted by incob123

I don't see why he should be personally attacked for an opinion, he clearly stated it was his opinion and he'd like to hear an intelligent opinion to the contrary. so attacking his credibility does nothing.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. If a 10 year old who's never been in a car in his life started telling you that racing in NASCAR was easier than riding a big wheel would you sit and say "hey man, don't question his credibility, attacking it does nothing"?

[lolipopkid-josh]

Do you feel anything when you look at pictures? Especially ones with more emotion? For Example: your a paintball player and an event photographer takes a brilliant picture of you. Your going to look at that picture (if you like it) and say, "That guy did a good job". The thought process behind that is that you enjoy the way that he percieved the image of you playing and took that picture. You can relate to photography in many ways. This probably sounds like a bunch of **** on the screen and I'm sorry because its hard to type what im thinking.

[Super Nosey (Banned)]

Originally Posted by theultimatehero

why do you have to say such useless things...

Because I'd rather not explain my profession to someone who clearly doesn't, and will not understand it no matter what is said. The threadstarter started a debate that he already won in his eyes.



That's why I say "such useless things."

[therealmr]

Originally Posted by HBlack

I don't want this to get into a stupid argument, and I do see your point. But so far nothing has shown me that photography is as difficult to become proficient at than most other art forms.

That's because you've never done real photography, I reckon.

Comparing photography and traditional art is kindof like trying to compare... a hunk of meat and a thick stew. Sure, they both have meat... and they both go well with potatoes... but other than that, they're essentially incomparable.

I also think that you find it hard to see the difference between AMAZING photography and "Good Amateur" photography because I bet that if you have a background in art... that it rests in the traditional form (or maybe your parents were/are painters )

As everyone has already said, there's a lot more to photography than meets the eye... it's more than just pressing a button =P

[chris_arnet]

Originally Posted by Overgrownm00se

Many abstract paintings such as this sell for millions of dollars. It is a painting of 3 differently colored rectangles. How can photography be considered a lower form of art than this?

lol. agreed

[IncogNEATO! (Banned)]

I didn't know art had "levels". If photography is the lowest of these levels, I want to know what art represents the ultra badass level 70 with full arena lewtz.

[Snakeplayer.]

Photography is not art guys. Real art takes true talent and a real dedicated effort to be made. All of you trying to defend photography as an art are simply retarded and have never tried to paint or artistically doodle. If photography was really art, then Van Gogh would have used a Leica instead of a brush. I mean you wouldn't take away Picasso's guitar right?

Geeze, all you guys with your neat little cameras think you're all so high and mighty. You all suck.

[Shocktechballer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Snakeplayer.

Photography is not art guys. Real art takes true talent and a real dedicated effort to be made. All of you trying to defend photography as an art are simply retarded and have never tried to paint or artistically doodle. If photography was really art, then Van Gogh would have used a Leica instead of a brush. I mean you wouldn't take away Picasso's guitar right?

Geeze, all you guys with your neat little cameras think you're all so high and mighty. You all suck.

Fix'd.

[PyroPenguin (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Snakeplayer.

I mean you wouldn't take away Picasso's guitar right?

I would.

[TheLPB]

you make ****ty movies, anyways

[chris_arnet]

Originally Posted by Snakeplayer.

Photography is not art guys. Real art takes true talent and a real dedicated effort to be made. All of you trying to defend photography as an art are simply retarded and have never tried to paint or artistically doodle. If photography was really art, then Van Gogh would have used a Leica instead of a brush. I mean you wouldn't take away Picasso's guitar right?

Geeze, all you guys with your neat little cameras think you're all so high and mighty. You all suck.

sry to kill your roll bro, but photography does take a bit of talent and know how. they are each difficult in there own ways, however.....

some people are born drawing. people cant be born photographers. no doubt, some are better than others, but even the best photographers in the world just picked up a camera and knew how to get everything just right. theres exposure, lighting, iso and alot of other stuff that hasto be gotten right to make a picture. true, you can learn, but you can also learn how to paint if one tries hard enough. honestly, i think that painting/drawing and photography are damn near equals.

[TheLPB]

lol ^

[Terminal S.]

Originally Posted by TheLPB

lol ^

x2.