Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Photography vs Imagery


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1
Nikon Shooter

Nikon Shooter

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,128 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location: French Canadian living in Central Europe

Inspired by Ron, thanks.

This is gonna be very tricky because the extremely fine line between the
two can move quite a bit depending on who you ask.

PHOTOGRAPHY

In my eye, the word says it all: 
     The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός
     (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "repre-
     sentation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "draw-
     ing with light". wiki.

 

And this: "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes god
made 
in establishing tonal relationships."  —  Ansel Adams
No one has ever seen good shots signed: god!  rofl.gif

So is/are there a limit(s) in the production of photographs… some sort
of taboo? Are the tools used clearly defined and so restricted?

My view is there is a big difference between photography and imagery.
Don't get me wrong, both are legitimate as they appeal to artistic intent
and/or to rigorous and disciplined technical application.

Imagery is bringing in the process the creative freedom of the painters.
With imagery like with painting, the process is all about creating a com-
positional interest using everything like subject, perspective, colours, to-
nes etc. Even non existing scenes.

Photography, otoh, is more like getting out there and witness, live, expe-
rience the world as it is… in all its splendour.

What do you say, think? :P


  • Ron likes this

#2
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

Interesting... I really need to think about this a bit.

 

But, as you know... drawing ... and eventually painting was at one point in time the equivalent of what documentary photography is today. I almost just said "photography" but of course we all know that photographs don't always tell the truth, just as the drawings and paintings that came before them. And even documentary photographers such as W. Eugene Smith took liberties with the process.

 

And remember, at one time there were artist and there were illustrators. One of these tended to make lots of money on their (often garish) work while the others, who were often just... if not more talented, barely inked (see what I did there?) out a living. 

 

The same is true of photographers. Think of newspaper photographers versus "fine art" photographers. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.

 

I've rambled... probably missed the point as well. But then it's late and I'm old and worn out. The last four years have not been kind to me.

 

--Ron