Why do some people genuinely not see photography as art? It has existed for over 150 years, yet people still see it as nothing more than a reproduction of a subject. We live in an age of images, where our culture is steeped in the ubiquity of photography; the camera is inside everyone's phones, and proliferates on every app. Keep that in mind when you realise that a good photograph is hard to come by; despite an inundation of images, a truly beautiful piece of art, a stunning photograph, is harder to grasp. A photographer only hopes to make about one or two genuinely good photograph in their lifetime. But even if we narrow our assessment of photography to people who buy the right gear (film cameras, full frame cameras, mirrorless cameras, ecosystems of lenses), we find another issue. How many people in the photography community can even take a masterful photograph? The worst thing I see in hobbyist photography is not necessarily a lack of passion, but a lack of vision. A family snapshot with low technical skill is only interesting to the person who took it. You can find people on Lomography, Instagram, Discord, or Reddit just post photographs that boil down to these elements: >lack of detail or sharpness>tonally flat (i.e., no tone splitting, no contrast between highlights and shadows)>no choice in colour or tones>no pre-production elements that would convey vision or ideas>centre-shot>no forethought about depth of field, especially if someone is just using the same aperture all day like Sunny 16>noisy or grainy for no reason>no meaningful use of negative space>no sense of narrative>flat with no sense of visual hierarchy (i.e., how your eye is supposed to be guided, from point to point)>no ambiguity, so the photo is obviously just about a particular theme or subject
If you have seen a photo you immediately forget as soon as you scroll down to the next photo, then you have seen most photograph posted online, even on this board. There is nothing remarkable about taking a poor photograph on a full frame camera if it looks as inspired as smartphone snap. The same goes for people who want the "imperfections" of film photography, but who do not utilize the aspects of film photography to convey anything. Do you think Sally Mann uses the collodion process just because it is boutique? Or is she actually trying to show something through a slow process, through chemistry, through the capture of light onto a wet plate? Is she trying to trap a moment in time like an insect under a pin? Photography, like painting or sculpture, is built on a visual grammar. Things must be composed properly. A broken sentence in a language does not convey what it tries to mean; likewise, a centre-shot, blurry photo of a woman posed flatly on a beach, with a deep depth of field, is not that interesting.That being said, you cannot boil down photography to mere technique. You can have someone who is clueless about the history of art but who nonetheless nails exposure, motion blur, depth of field, and lighting. And we forget those people.>There is nothing as useless as a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept.t. Ansel Adams
TL;DR?
Making copies from the original negative was baked in from the get-go. Sure, you could own the original roll of film of the SD card that was really there. But you can't really display the and brag about it like you can a painting.
>>4493129>Why do some people genuinely not see photography as art?>Op pic is Ansel Adam's >Probably the most famous photographer who said fuck pictorialism.Btw AA said you make photo not shoot but i think he didn't mean it's an art. It's just another way to express your vision which evoked by the tangible vision. >Took first pic, looks tepid>Second try, added red filter to add contrast to the sky and the cliff >B...but!!! that's artistic decision!!!!! AA was true artist!!!!!Is a cook choosing appropriate knife, chopping a nourriture in to a appropriate shape and size, turn the fire down or up "Artistic Decision"?If your definition what is an art is merely expressing your idea then ok, photography is an art.
>How many people in the photography community can even take a masterful photograph? 99% of people in the "photography community" are just hobbyist snap shitters that take pictures of their dog in the backyard of ducks in the park. If you could actually bother with the mise en scene of a photograph i.e. come up with a narrative, get a model, arrange the set/environment, use props and wardrobe, etc. you'd immediately be better and more interesting of a photographer than 99.99% of people that have ever held a camera. But that actually takes effort so most don't bother. These people also have a lack of respect for the skill side of photography. Framing, composition, shape design, lighting -you don't pop out of your mother's womb with a mastery of these things, or even a working knowledge. They require study and practice, but again, too much effort for your average retard.Part of it is no doubt fear. Photography has a large contingent of unassertive, passive autismo's attracted to it for some reason. Go on any photography forum and half the posts are about how people are embarrassed to do basic street photography because they're afraid of shooting in public. Look at some of the pictures posted on this very board. Many people don't even dare to shoot beyond their backyard or any other subject than their stupid dog. And most are completely closed down to critique. Even the gentlest attempt at perhaps suggesting that they should consider framing their picture more nicely instead of randomly taking a snap shit will send somebody into an autistic fit of rage while accusing you of being a "no photo".
>>4493170A dog photo is better than the shit you just posted. That tacky, fake shit. Looks like an amusement park photo stands output. The kind that doles out costumes and props. You’re pretentious. You think you are very smart. But you’re not. And you’re no richard avedon. Avedon has more in common with dog and cat photos than he does with you just because he has obsession with portraying his subjects how he sees them instead of performing as “a creative”. Aka, real photography. The real meaning of photography. Not this kitschy attempt at checking off creativity criteria. Prove me wrong. Post a GOOD photo, a shot to rival helmut newton. Can you?>embarrassed autismos because people dont shoot in publicTaking photos of strangers and their homes is morally wrong and has never produced a photo worth looking at. Or any sort of art. Neithet new topographics nor architecture nor street have ever produced art.
>>4493170please try harder to sound like huskychad and eggGOD btfo you
>>4493171>new topographics be like>oh man im too much of a scrawny baby to travel and everything near me looks like shit>ill take photos anyways and pair them with a political statement to explain the joke. and say “human” far too often to hook the pseuds. gotta do that. lamest “movement” ever right up there with buttynsky>flickr hdr landscapes but its strip mines>le politicsthere is nothing sadder than artists wishing they could be intellectual with this surface level whiny mid tier photographyback in the day artists that wanted to be intellectuals actually engaged in intellectual pursuits instead of “awareness”
>>4493170>terrible photo>saudekhmmm lets lookhttps://agallery.com/artist/jan-saudek/oh my god, this is just dogshit. sexual vulgarity with superficial meaning as an excuse. this faggot is just mentally ill. how did he get funding and promotion? did someone just want to offend as many good christians as possible? i wonder ifhttps://www.tomasworks.com/en/2025/11/18/jan-saudek/>As a Jew,>His work focused on themes of personal erotic freedomwhy are they all like this?
>>4493174It’s not offensive. It’s in line with the values of the talmud. :^)
>>4493170Saved the photo and got motivated to “stage a photo” as you wrote. The eggtard is already doing it but I would be down to do a mise en scene more akin to the photo you posted. Don’t listen to the dog gags, they shoot nice but uninteresting and safe photos.
>>4493259It's harder than it looks and it takes time to develop the skill, but you should definitely give it a shot. It's really fun and I hope to see what you come up with!
>>4493141I love those old CBs so much dude
>>4493259are dog photos that safe if they made that homo seethe in 10 different threads and then samefag to console himself?dog photographers are the new mark cohensthe future is canine
>>4493297Based, I think
>>4493264They're fantastic. Get one before everyone realizes how good they are and how few have survived the cafe racer trend.
>>4493297Im gonna be diplomatic and say that both dogs and cats are fine. But it’s almost always pictures of them doing nothing and kinda similar to a Karen showing you her chihuaha on her phone but with analog medium format quality. These photos are kinda boring to everyone who isn’t the pets owner.I have yet to see a good body of work on a dogs life for example (the fights, the pooping, the stealing food from thrash etc)Pic rel is a dog pic I took and if it had been taken on something else than a phone it would speak louder than any dog photo ever posted here.
>>4493170>lack of respect for the skill sideWith a triple digit IQ you just read a book, practice some 100 hours and you've 'mastered' it, it's much quicker to learn than e.g. oil painting or violin.
>>4493354You didn't even tell the dog to sit and your pic is sideways. What are you talking about?
>>4493372He already had gotten beaten up by the other street dogs by the time I arrived. It’s not my dog why would he sit? Are you retarded? Also don’t know why the photo got uploaded sideways kek
It's notable that there is no aesthetics for music. No one has to be shown why or how to receive music, it speaks for itself. But we need to be told this is photography as art, please receive it that way.
>>4493373Unfortunately you've missed the point. Did you just take a snapshot because you only had your phone on you or would you have taken the same picture with a proper camera?
>>4493375I don't think that's necessarily true if you consider all music and all photography. Appealing to the masses is what produced shitty pop music and HDR landscapes.
>>4493376That is the point I’m making, my snapshot tells more about a dogs life than any large format photos (that are mostly beautifully executed, props to all the dogfuckers here) here do. I haven’t seen any worthwhile dog photography ever, it’s all the same boring safe shot of dogs posing or snapshits of them running in a park somewhere. As an example, there is a great doc about street dogs called space dogs. Now turn that doc into a photographic body of work and then we’re talking.
>>4493380Well yeah, you're essentially comparing a picture of a hobo with an abscess on his leg to someone getting a professional headshot in a studio. Is happy dog a worse picture than sad dog? Maybe one is more boring or safe but most dog pictures aren't really for the "world" they're for the person that has a connection with that animal. I don't completely disagree with you and think photography enjoyers should push their pet photography to be more than just cute pics. Personally I enjoy a nicely taken pet picture and think that if they're cute/funny and well composed that's enough for what they are.Also how dare you forget about this gem.
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4200180/#4200707
>>4493384If I cared about nice tongue guy I would have stopped posted a long time ago.
>>4493384I think this was doghair actuallyAnd cANON = huskyfag>photo? ill be doxed (all i have is my very recognizable photos) -hUSKY
>>4493394Not me. I'm not really a fan of nikon aesthetics.
>>4493382> Maybe one is more boring or safe but most dog pictures aren't really for the "world" they're for the person that has a connection with that animal.I don't completely disagree with you and think photography enjoyers should push their pet photography to be more than just cute pics.Thank you
>>4493409You're welcome. I feel the same way about 99% of the pics I see posted on here as well. :D
Why are dogs mentioned so much on this board? I know it's full of casuals who live with their parents but for fuck's sake, progress already.
>>4493411Im sure mine aren’t part of the 99% teheee
>>4493419Post some 1%er photographs and I'll let you know. It isn't an insult it's a simple fact of taking any hobby seriously. Pushing yourself to improve and actually getting there is a big part of the fun!
>>4493382this provokes visceral disgust in me
>>4493423I was joking, I’m probably well into the 99%I’m the anon who posted the Peru series as well as the one about my alcoholic friend etc
>>4493413Because someone posted photos of their husky and it awakened repressed feelings of zoophilia in several anons, who were suddenly accusing photos of a dog playing in flowers of being too sexy and suggestive.They eventually left when the person that was maddest at them (following an argument about garry winogrand) went full dogfucker and started posting weird writeups about asian women being sex slaves to dogs
>>4493424Art will do that to you sometimes.
>>4493259The picture he posted is uninteresting and safe you retard.All you "wow I'm a REAL artist" types post the same safe edgy shit and then suck yourselves off over it.Your entire idea of what constitutes "safe" is decades out of date. You're not avant-garde you're the laggards of a subject which was exhausted decades ago.
>>4493170Agree with this. I dabble in a few different hobby communities and by far the most insecure, dog eat dog, and least supportive twats are the photographers, more so than even the fashion people. You'd assume the fashion people would be more catty, but no; it is actually the photographers. I guess that is because fashion people have some sort of confidence to go outside dressing in their own styles against the lowest common denominator, while photographers are often little gremlins and the only shred of attention they get in their lives is from their photographs. Just a theory.
>>4493469What you wrote makes no sense. And asking to have a bigger variety of dog photos instead of the same portraits isn’t «too artsy».
>>4493504I'm calling the photo you're aspiring to "uninteresting and safe"I am saying that it was once something interesting and avant-garde but is now repetitive, derivative and safe, even though photographers who produce such works claim it not to be.My gripe is judging the value of others photography on if it's "safe" as if what you enjoy isn't the same.I don't care if there are more (or less) dog photos, the people posting dog photos aren't trying to wow me with their "risky" approach. My gripe isn't the subject, it's the attitude of the photographer.
>>4493506I was saying that the thought of making a mise en scène seemed fun to ME. I don’t know the guy or woman who took the photo so I have no idea if he’s a pretentious prick or not, but you seem to know him on a personal basis.My personal opinion ( and see I’m not telling you to think the same way) is that I would like to see more photos of dogs that are fun and different instead of portraits after portraits. Yes it’s a difficult task but nonetheless I would love to see it. I feel like you’re asking everyone to have the same view on things as you have. That’s weird bro.
>>4493354Took another snapshit of a dog to further my body of work on street dogs. (No I’m not a third worlder I’m just on vacation)
>>4493378>HDR landscapesHow do you define HDR? how wide range of exposure is high dynamic range? When do we start to get disadvantage instead of advantage from it?I've been auto HDRing all my photos after i took them. for sake of more 'Le details'But recently i started to question about Le HDR stuff.
>>4493516anything that makes a fujislug or foolturd feel buyers remorse or jealousy is too HDReverything on 4chan is about gear and money no exceptions. /o/ often seethes about drag racing and worships autocross and miatas lol.
>>4493129>Why do some people genuinely not see photography as art?Photography is the act of capturing a scene. If anything the scene itself is art, not the fact some talentless schmuck pressed a few buttons while looking at it.The most glaring example I can give is the numerous shots of urban grafitti art otb. The 17yo nigger with a few rattlecans is making art. The fat nerd walking past a few days later with their EDC OH EMM FIVE looking at it and taking a photo is not making art.You could maybe, MAYBE give a bit of credit to those who carefully curate a scene intentionally to make it on their own, but then you have a cohort of /p/ that'll say that's disingenious or fake. Well yeah. You don't find sculpted marble statues in the wild, and you don't find interesting artistic scenes in the wild either (the vast majority of the time).Photography is a recording medium. You archive and you append. Photos are useful because I wouldn't know what an iguana looks like without a photo, or I wouldn't know what a tropical Fijian beach looks like.
nature itself is art.
rivers and earthquakes create landscape. rivers are like paint pushed by the brush of a stream and earthquakes create the peaks and valleys on an oil canvas.
>>4493525>>4493524I like nature photography when it does more than just document pretty scenes. Pic is a decent example where the photographer creates something more than what is there through his understanding of form and composition.
