I have been struggling with how to frame this question for the past week. Before I give it my best shot, we want to thank everyone who has contributed content to this site. We have done extensive research here which has provided many answers to our questions and raised new issues we need to address as we move forward. Hopefully you can provide some wisdom on this issue.
Our approach to photography to this point has been to capture what we call authentic images of the things we have seen and experienced. We want our photographs to accurately represent what was there when we hit the shutter. We have done minimal post processing.
We recognize that there are a lot of photographers taking many of the same photos we are which makes it difficult to distinguish our work from everyone else's. Placing myself in the shoes of a juror I can see how it would be difficult to make good decisions based on what I have seen at shows we have attended as patrons.
The problem for us is that the subject matter of our work is eclectic, making it difficult to come up with a body of work that jurors might see as cohesive. One possible avenue is to pursue our latest passion, night photography. Over the past six months or so we have enjoyed taking night or low light images of street scenes in Birmingham, Al. and on the lake near our home. We are not sure how the public would react to a booth full of low light/night photos. I have attached one of our recent photos. What do you think?
Recently we have come up with a way to extensively post process some photos of flowers we have taken on our travels which produces a more stylized version of the original image. Given the Photoshop work that has taken place, is this image still considered a photograph or has it turned into something else? How do juries view such work? We are considering doing a 180 degree turn from our original concept and pursue these new images as our body of work. If we do so would be photographers or something else?
Thanks in advance for your input!
Replies
Every show is different. I do extensively modified photography and to me it is photography. Starts with a photo, nothing but a photo in it. But all but a few shows have requested I apply in digital art. Each time I do a new show I check to see what they want me to apply in if there is a digital art category. Even though I think it is photography I find it easier with the customers if I am in the digital art category.
You're absolutely right Robert. The most common comment I get when I am in the photography category is someone walking in and saying "These aren't photographs". I then get a chance to explain what they are but I find that discussing process instead of the image doesn't result in as many sales. I also get a lot more of the "please tell me your secrets" comments which become irritating after a while. When I am in the digital art category I get less questions about process and more about the images themselves.
if that's not the exact way it looks, it's how it "should" look.
I get that question a lot as well. I sometimes add texture over images, and manipulate the colors of photos but I still consider them photos and not digital art. For me, it becomes digital art when your image creates an entirely new scene from multiple photos that wasn't in a single photograph to begin with.
For my photos I think part of the confusion is due to the large prints being on canvas. The texture makes them think it's a painting sometimes.
That is a masterful response. Is it OK if I use that? I always seem to come up with great things to say in response questions about three hours after the encounter.
That expression has been used by so many people over the years that the serial numbers have long been filed off, and it's been repainted many times. Feel free to use it ;-)
My first exposure to photography was crime scene work as a detective using a 4x5 that was heavy enough to be a boat anchor. Obviously it was drilled in our heads to photograph the scene as accurately as possible for court room purposes. I think I still carry that mind set with me although Sara has been a good influence on using some of the more creative tools that we have available. We have only done one local show as kind of a dry run to see how long it took us to set up and gauge public opinion on our work. Most of the pieces we displayed were local images. We received very positive feedback but not many sales. We did get some "how did you do that" questions even from the photographers there to cover the event. One of the judges insisted that one of our images was computer generated, which is one of the reasons I asked the question. I wish I would have thought to tell her the image was taken with an optical imaging device. That might have cleared everything up for her.
You can beat the snot out of an image and it's still a photograph. It comes down to a more important factor; is it a compelling image that someone wants to hang on a wall? Most shows draw the distinction between something that originated with an optical imaging device (camera or scanner), regardless of degree of manipulation, which would be photography versus an image created totally in the digital domain (digital art) where a graphics tablet and Photo Shop or Paint Pro have replaced physical media.
Thanks for all of the replies to my question...very much appreciated. If we decide to make the leap to this new concept I am thinking that we will still be in the photography category but the safest course of action would be to ask before submitting an application.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next