- This topic is empty.
Fine Art Photography? [not nude]
-
I described myself as fine art photographer on my website… I couldn’t come up with a description that were closer to how I feel about my photography.
You are looking for descriptions and definitions… I don’t think, fine art is a category and so I don’t think, it has a definition.
I’m not sure that the problem is one of definition,
but rather that the term probably covers too broad a base.If it covers artistic expression through the medium of photography,
then everyone does it, and an exalted description becomes devalued.
A google search returns 73,800,000 results for the term.So what is the benefit of lumping yourself in with that many hits?
Exhibited artists using the medium of photography might be more likely to use the term ‘artist’ or ‘photographer’ I think-
The explosion in the use of the term ‘Fine Art Photography’ is directly proportional to the ever increasing reach of the internet-
in my opinion.It’s semantics really, of course everyone is a fine art photographer-
all you need is a camera and a website- (not you obviously, I should have said ‘all one needs’)
but considering its ubiquity, is there a real benefit to using the term?j
jb7 wrote:
I’m not sure that the problem is one of definition,
but rather that the term probably covers too broad a base.If it covers artistic expression through the medium of photography,
then everyone does it, and an exalted description becomes devalued.
A google search returns 73,800,000 results for the term.So what is the benefit of lumping yourself in with that many hits?
Exhibited artists using the medium of photography might be more likely to use the term ‘artist’ or ‘photographer’ I think-
The explosion in the use of the term ‘Fine Art Photography’ is directly proportional to the ever increasing reach of the internet-
in my opinion.It’s semantics really, of course everyone is a fine art photographer-
all you need is a camera and a website- (not you obviously, I should have said ‘all one needs’)
but considering its ubiquity, is there a real benefit to using the term?j
Yea thats why I asked the question initially. the term seems to be over used and maybe used in the
wrong context.I think the problem I am running into is that I am not really specializing in any one area of photography YET
but I enjoy all forms and I find it hard to section off some of my images into a style, as above!‘Personally I’m usually a little dubious about anything that is not easily definable when it comes to artistic endevours. But that’s probably more to do with how my brain is wired than anything else ‘
Robbie I have the same thing really . . .
Joseph i think the problem is that there does’nt seem to be a definition,I posted earlier the wikipedia definition . . .
they seem to give a very indepth explanation and examples of it.
I particularly think the work of Ansel Adams is a very strong representation of Fine Art Photography.
I also have this think where the image has to be mono tone to even qualify.You have it all wrong. You need to cut the print in half and preserve it in a glass container in formaldehyde. Then you must hang around with wealthy benefactors with Italian sounding names and wear oversized designer sunglasses to cocktail parties and trendy openings.
Personally, the openings I tend to prefer involve someone else’s cheque book followed by them walking away with one of my prints (blurry and under exposed) under their arm.Wikipedia definition: Photographs that are created to fulfill the creative vision of the artist as opposed to photojournalism which provides visual support for stories and commercial which are designed to sell a product or service.
Oxford dictionary definition: Creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic or intellectual content.
Finally getting there…now what does it mean when someone advertise that they do fine art printing?
Alan.
Ah now, that’s a different story but I think one of the lads posted the answer to that one earlier. Fine art printing is printing done to a very high standard by specialist printers. The exact criterea I’m not sure of, but they are usually of exhibition standard.
Also standard printers print at something like 72dpi or 300dpi and the fine art printers are supposedly much higher and therefore there is much better resolution in the final print. It is really a quality standard for printing images to show them at their best.
actually
in printing terms its generally more about the paper
for me I print everything at 1440 dpi
if its a normal print its generally on a RC(resin coated )paper, eg fuji pearl etc
for fine art prints, its generally a fibre based paper eg hahnemuehle photo rag pearl or fine art baryta
I am presently printing an exhibition for someone of the second paper, its a more time consuming process, as firstly the paper marks much much easier and then also they need to be sprayed with a hahnemuehle finish.
they other difference generally is that most of the fibre papers are proper matt and need matt black ink in the printer, although the two i mention dont
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
