The ART of Photography

The Art of Photography

The thing about art photography is this, the tools are different. That is all, really. Everything else about the creation of art is the same.

What makes a photograph qualify as Fine Art? From the artist's standpoint, my point of view as the artist, it is the editing -- what is included, what is left behind, what is enhanced, what is downplayed.

The scene is chosen for an interesting aspect, light, shadow, form, or content, then the photographer chooses a composition and the camera records it. Then with a vision for its ultimate artistry, the photographer sculpts and paints it digitally into the artwork you see on the screen, on the paper, perhaps hanging on your walls.

Fine Art Photography differs from documentary photography by the nature of its editing. A documentary photograph is also edited, but it is intended to accurately portray the scene, object or content.

If I had been creating a documentary photograph, by definition, this is the photo you would see -- The Before shot -- a basic conversion to jpg from the raw file.

See what I mean. Art. Not art. An okay photograph. But not art.

Most digital photographers shoot in a format called 'raw' -- which simply means that the camera's sensors detect more information than is dumped onto the user's screen. So all the photographs I take and display are edited, but many are just great snapshots. Those in my Fine Art Photography Gallery differ in that I've had a vision for them and gone to a great effort to create my vision.

My paint brush is a mousepad. That is the difference between me and a painter. Our tools are different, our knowledge varies, but we both have tools and knowledge that is utilized in creating art.

You may ask why I bring this up, why it is important? Because, quite simply, photography is often not allowed into art shows. Or onto certain websites. And I think that is unfair to the art-photographer as well as the potential patron or viewer.

Advances in digital cameras and software make creating art from photographs, well, a true art. It's not an automatic thing. There is much to master, not the least of which is the ability to take the initial photograph in such a way that the lighting doesn't spoil the vision, or the composition doesn't, or the settings insure you get a clean image to work with.

It starts with knowing how to use a highly-sophisticated instrument, the digital camera.

But wait, you say, I take great photos with my phone. And it's true. You may indeed take great photographs with your highly sophisticated phone camera. But most art-photographers are using instruments with tons of setting options. They are altering the depth of field to go from here to infinity, or to focus on only a small part of the image. They are increasing or decreasing shadows using camera settings. They are skilled tool users, just as any great painter becomes with years of practice with a brush, or a sculptor with hands, or a metal-worker with hammer and heat.

It's like anything else. Practice is the thing that makes us good at what we do. I've been shooting photographs for the better part of five decades, and I'm still learning.

I believe it is time for the art world to realize that art-photography is worthy of being seen next to paintings of oil, acrylic or watercolor, and for the photographer to be recognized as an artist.

Just as all people who pick up a brush and paint are not artists, so it is that not all photographers are creating art. But the distinction should be made on the work, not on the category of tools used for creation.

That's my opinion anyway. What's your's?

That said, I hope this little explanation helps you understand why I label some of my work 'art' -- and that you enjoy what you see! Want to see the work I think of as 'art' -- head over to that gallery:

Fine Art Photography

And as always, thanks for reading!