You are not creating anything, just making a copy of things that already exists.
If god didn't made earthquakes and volcanoes, you wouldn't have mountains and valleys to take pictures.
If god didn't design life as it is, you wouldn't have trees and flowers to take pictures.
If the architect didn't design the church, you wouldn't have a good looking building to take pictures of.
Photography is not art, photography is theft at best. You are just ripping off the real artist.
It's been a while since we had one of these
Is anime art? I would say yes
HDR does not actually exist in nature
your move OP
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:01:07 21:15:07 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1024 Image Height 768
ah ken yer jis trolling bit ah also ken yon people dont un'erstn fit wye this is wrang.
yer confusing additive art as a pure definition i' art.
in reality photography is a reductive art in whilk yer influence on the bitty is fit ye flitt an fit ye focus on, as opposed tae additive art sic as painting in whilk ye create aathing .
boiling things doon tae achieve a specific goal is an art.
Photography is an art of observation and documentation. For street or landscape photography, we may not create anything, strictly speaking, but we wait for or engineer a specific scene that matches the photo we want in our head.
Most studio, portrait, macro, and still life photographers do engineer their scenes, and are able to modify real life to their creative vision, and in doing so, create art.
You say that photography isn't art? I say it's an art that can create art.
Well, catching photons, bending their stream through different kinds of glass, mixing chemicals like a mad scientist...seems pretty cool to me, I really love it. I don't really care if you think this is art or not art or whatever, I don't even think about it that stuff you're asking about. I just really enjoy making photographs, free of any justification.
Because god forbid some fool is coming to 4chan, researching "Is photography art?", and finds this bullshit, with no retort in the comments, and decides not to do photography.
> Congrats we just lost the next Robert Capa to the art of underwater basket weaving.
We're creating memories.
If the place has changed, it always will be on the photo as it was.
You can forget something but.. you should only look at the photo to remember your already dead cute lovely girl, that smile on it, and cry
Photography is a skill, not an art. It shows us things of beauty that other folks can see while not being there at that specific time and place.
Photography is documenting. Documenting a scene or event.
Why does it matter if photography is art or not?
I realize there are a lot of parallels drawn and a lot of overlap with other visual mediums but I am of the opinion that while photography can be art, it is not always art. And that's ok because not all painting or drawing is art either, unless you consider painting a bedroom or drawing the stick dude in the game hangman to be art.
Photography does bring a lot to the table and has room for creativity. It involves a different set of challenges like being in the right place at the right time, consistently and then being able to use light, composition and exposure to capture something effectively vs simply snapping a picture of it.
Your problem is that you subscribe to a definition of the verb "create" and the noun "creation" that aligns directly with the Christian creed of "creatio ex nihilo" — creation from nothing. Even if such a thing existed, which it does not, those people did not see creation as an out-of-nothing thing when regular human beings were doing it. That was God's domain only. Yet no one has ever denied that humans have creative abilities.
That's because the terms "to create" and "a creation" do not actually connote an out-of-nothing requirement. In every single case of creation that can be empirically witnessed, existing matter is taken and rearranged into something new.
In the case of photography, an analog signal is converted by the camera into either a chemical response or a digital signal. The thing that qualifies this as a photographer's creation rather than a camera factory's creation is the fact that the result entirely depends on USER INPUT.
Following this, a development process occurs. This can occur in-camera, on the computer, or when developing film. That process always has an element of manual-ness to it. Even if it is fully automated, the user has been there to specify the settings and properties that are going to control the process. In more manual scenarios, such as editing using software (though semi-manual only using macros), it's even more.
Finally, there is the outputting to the various formats you may need. Resizing, printing, file formats, paper size and weight, color profiles and whatnot. All of this affects the result.
These steps have a lot of factual information, sometimes even science, behind them. But the hard reality is that there exist no objective, hard-science standard that can judge such a process or really predict in significant detail what made one user (if the user is only to be understood as a mindless tool, as your thinking would indicate) choose to behave one way as opposed to another.
Therefore: Photography is art.
>>2741674 here, muh post-brother.
Photography is not just documenting. The objective photograph does not exist. Even in-camera, the document is manipulated to hell. The creative process that makes it art and makes the practice move away from simple documentation begins way before the camera even captures any signal. The ONLY exception to this is archival scanning.