i'd like to discuss something with the group here. some time ago i had an argument with my friend about the topic of photography.

regardless of it being an art or not i think, today, too much credit is given to the photographer.

without exeption, when i see a photo - i always say "a great photo" and not "the man who took it is a genius". arguably, i take many good photos but i never take the credit.

for example - if a take a great shot of a mountain i can take no credit. why?

well - i did not "make" the mountain. i did not make the camera. i did not make the sun shine in such way. i did nothing else than make the "click".

i'm saying that while in art as painting or writing, where a man takes materials (color or words) and creates something that only he sees, does it with his own effort and utilises his knowledge and skills, his ingenuity and hopefuly, does it really well (worth a mans recognition and worthwile)... i see not such effort in photography... too little is "done" by the man in my opinion...

what are your views of the subject?

I disagree entirely.

I would invite you to take a look at some of the greatest photographers of all time and see that they indeed put a lot of effort into their work. Perhaps they take the photo in an instant, and pressing the shutter releaseis something a one year old could do, but they put enormous creative effort into their photographs.

With the advent of digital, many the amatuer photographer use the "spray and pray" method of image capture. Simply by an enormous memory card and leave you finger on the shutter at all times. Then sort through the 178000 photos they took in china and get a world class image by accident.

Ansel Adams only took one negative of each thing. He spent a lot of time thinking each on over, but many were very good. That didn't happen by chance, that happened by creativity and talent.

effort in taking a quality picture can be seen, by besides being a perceptive and aestetic person, one might argue how much do we give when we take a photo.

photographing is all about taking, not giving.

to paint a (good) work of art takes idea and that touch that only true artists have. a painter creates everything from nothing. a photographer simply takes everything that is already there.

i believe that different "efforts" are needed when it comes to say taking a photo and painting the sistine chapel(:

Very often the best quality photographers will go to extreme lengths to get a photo. What looks like it was an easy "Oh look! *snap*" was often extremely difficult and meticulous. Nature photographers will hike to obscure uncommon locations with potential for an amazing photo and stake them out for weeks at a time, just waiting for when the light is just right for the shot. This means camping without many necessities for a long time. When the shot finally comes they'll snap it and hope it's perfect. Many times they'll do this for a few months, staking out locations and taking shots, and when all is said and done, they only have two or three shots worth selling professionally.

I believe photography is up there with the rest. The effort required to get truly amazing photos is extreme. Even the best spray and pray shots aren't near the calibur of a truly amazing photograph.

a good photograph is all about timing (for the most part) i do agree there. but patience is not art in itself in my opinion.

look it from another angle - a man is waiting. spending pecious time of his life, waiting for nature to make him "his" perfect picture (and to arrange everything for him), and then he steals it.

while a painter would have nothing out of sitting and waiting. the painting will never draw itself on its own(:

Hi

I put some fun photos/pictures up on my site. All were taken with a Canon powershot.  4 megapixel. Many turned out average and some turned out really bad but  few I really like.  Now I have a Canon EOS with 10Mega pix but would not use it on my world travels, Too clumsy and large. I will buy a small Powershot again 6to 8 mega pixels. Keep in the pocket and out of sight.  Rolef

When one makes a painting of a mountain they did not make the mountain or the sun, yet its creation is considered artful.

But when I take a photo of a mountain, I am choosing to portray that mountain in a certain light. I capture the mood of the mountain much like Monet painting a cathedral many times over during the day to catch its varied moods.

Monet used his skills mixing paint, applying the brushstrokes just so, interpreting the church through the filter of his mind.

I do the same thing. A careful choice of subject, light, composition, color or black and white, timing, and motion. Post processing is an art unto itself. and I spend most of my time lately 'painting' the photo: adjusting exposure, focus, framing, saturation, and atmosphere.

The painter didn't make the paint or the canvas or the brush. The photographer didn't make the tools of choice either (though I have shot with cameras I built from boxes and home-made glass plates).

Art is about INTENTION. It doesn't matter whether the image is created with a brush, a chisel, a spray can, a hammer, or a camera. It is still artful expression of an idea or emotion from an artist to a viewer.

To say that photography isn't art is simply an un-examined point of view. To say that photography is about taking and not giving: perhaps you need to spend a day in the darkroom or out on a shoot with a photographer to see how much of the final image is about CREATION and not random capture of light.

I don't TAKE photos, I MAKE photos. I don't take photons hostage: it is the other way 'round! I am captured by an idea, a scene, an image until I can express it.

I was a painter and sculptor many years ago, but the camera has provided me with a way to interact with the world and through my artistic struggle, GIVE back to patrons a view of that world changed by my efforts.

I have some photos where it's hard to tell it's a photo. They are impressionist in nature and built through careful, contemplative thought or happy accident: but in the end, the image is as strong as my talent allows.

Try http://capcloud.deviantart.com/gallery to see what I mean. Some photos here are photo-journalistic, some are shots for magazines, but most are a product of my need to create. Having graduated from art school with honors in photography, I think my peers and I have settled this question of whether the camera is a valid artist's tool or not.