IPF/LIPF

kensutz

artyeva

jayyyysus h - i'm wrecked after reading all of that!!!

the whole L/A/F thing brings me out in a rash. it's like those commercial commission competitions that used to crop up when i was in college. it was rare that the people with something to say won them, it was usually the people who just created what they knew would win, even though the work they'd created was as different to their usual stuff as baked beans to giraffes. :rolleyes:

i'm an arty [hint's in the name:D] but i have a good mate who's interest in photography is more scientific. that's the way i see it anyhoo. they're in a camera club, i would rather swallow my own tongue than darken a door of a camera club. they get excited by different aspects of taking a photograph than i do, they have different goals than i do, but we both get out of photography what we each want. my only formal photography training centred on the WHAT and WHY rather than on the HOW and WITH WHAT....

there's a place in the world for what some people percieve as ''photography by numbers'' just as much as there's a place in the world for abstract images that are taken with a thing with a shutter and a lens.

group hug?

ThOnda

I am loving it! I haven't had such a good laugh in ages, thanks people. In fairness, my bladder got weaker, as I have found just few minutes ago :pac:

My understanding of those funny letters is that you want to present that you were able to put together set of photographs in expected form, quality, order and presentation for subjective assessment by people assessing each other's pictures on regular basis.

There is nothing wrong about it, you do the very same thing here by posting your pictures. But you won't be putting "I've got 27 thumbs up on Boards.ie" after your name. Or would you?

However, there still could be good pictures, conceptual pictures, pieces of art. But in the very moment, when you begin thinking "how to choose / process / present / organise pictures to be well accepted by judges" you are lost. Game over. You are either confident about your work or you want to fit into somebody's old ways to get good score. This is not arrogance, but confidence in your own work.

And shortly about camera clubs - they are based on people and on voluntarism. You'll get what you gave. If you want to get more from your club, do something for it. Get in touch with people of similar thoughts and intentions, don't restrict yourself on general club activities.

And I am off to change my underwear. Oh my, I'll be still smiling tomorrow

Arciphel

Best discussion in a long time in this forum

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

wow this is a great discussion and obviously some people have distinct opinions on it.

As to Calina's question above, most of the time I take a picture is to capture a moment, a memory. I don't view this as art, I view it is documentary. However photography can be art, I once said I didnt have time for artsy stuff, I remember being blasted, I think fajitas may have referred to this earlier, however I do see how photography can be a form of art and I do try to go there from time to time, an example Calina if you dont mind, I would find your sports shots as documentary, very good at it too, but I would view your recent landscape shots as art.

My reasons being are, when taking shots in my case of a wedding or a get together I am not doing anything artsy at all, I am merely photographing what is happening, documenting the occassion, I may add processing afterwards that gives it more of an artistic touch. When say Calina sits there in the cold taking pictures of a sunset or sunrise she is designing a scene that may not be caught by the natural eye but is how she sees it and wants other people to see it, i.e. slow shutter, nd, starlight filter, many things such as these can be used specifically to obtain the desired affect. When I said before I didnt have the time for artsy things, I was being completely honest, I didnt have the time to sit there and take such images because of daily routines etc now I have more time I am focussing myself on more aspects of photography, images which need planning, detail, thought etc etc.

As for Fajitas and Ballymans debate, both of you in my opinion have photographs and both of you have works of art, as do the majority of people here on this forum, there is no line between them, only the way people perceive them, as my example above about how I perceive Calinas images someone else may perceive it in the opposite way, art is in the eye of the beholder and not necessariy always the creator.

You have explained this so eloquently that there is little more to be said. The debates that have ravaged the world of photography continue, but without the vehemence that was seen in the early 20th century. Photography had to find a place within the establishment and the negative reception it was given by many painters remain as a reminder to the threat that it posed to those whose income was no longer secure. A photo was available to all, a portrait a luxury for the rich.

The digital revolution has made artistic photography much more common. HDR is now expected rather than seen as an astonishing avant garde effect. Perhaps this is where the tensions between documentary and art still reside? If one works for a medical magazine, it would be impossible to offer an artistic representation of a clinical condition to people involved in diagnostics. However, making artistic images with electron microscopes is sometimes seen as art.

There's plenty of room for both...

http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.850259/k.B70/Upcoming_Exhibitions.htm

The fact that there is often a dichotomy between what the photographer intended and what the viewer sees has always been true. Atget saw himself as a jobbing, documentary photographer and was puzzled to find that the Surrealists hailed him as one of their major heros and called him an artist.

Anybody who looks at the world probably assumes that their gaze is banal and in tune with what everybody else sees. It is only when a photographer shares their photos that they find that their work may be seen as "different" ,"artistic" or "unusual". I had a very interesting conversation with a friend recently. I explained that anybody could take most of the photos that I do but she insisted that this is not so.

Platonists and Aristotelians have discussed the role of art for centuries. The debate looks set to continue...

Trev M

Good post Anouilh made me think, one mans poison etc

I find myself pretty attuned to what Ballyman is saying .... I tend to take pictures of "stuff" cause I just like how it looks, what it is, who it is... every now and then I get lucky and get something that looks cool to me and share it with others.

Genuinely I wish I could be artistic (or at least what I consider artistic). Im amazed at how people can approach photography with an "image in their head" and then go out and make it happen. Im only shooting a year or so, but I dont think I'll ever be an "artist", I may eventually become a reasonable photographer though if I put the work in, I guess thats the benefit of joining a club or attemptiung to attain an accreditation no?

I Just clicked on Ballymans sig and found what Id consider to be very "arty" type Photographs

Just in - "Ballyman embroiled in closet Artist SHOCKER" :eek::eek:.

But seriously great thread, I can see the thinking behind attaining this accreditation, my impression of it is it implies you can execute something in a technical manner to a defined standard of competency? Pretty useful if your offering your services (for photograpy that is )

Can you work to become more artistic or are you just artistic in nature?

Covey

Anouilh wrote: »

You have explained this so eloquently that there is little more to be said. .

Well done on keeping it brief then