Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: How many of your own photos displayed on the wall at home?
I never print my photos 3 2.88%
I print my photos but don't display them on my walls 10 9.62%
Just one or two of my own photos on my walls 18 17.31%
Three to ten of my own photos on my walls 40 38.46%
More than ten of my own photos on my walls 33 31.73%
Voters: 104. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

On The Walls
Old 05-05-2017   #1
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 2,099
On The Walls

I'm finally getting round to putting some of my own photos up on the walls and wondered if others display their own prints at home and, if so, how many.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #2
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,870
I've got a pretty fair amount. They're mostly from early in my career or of beloved, now lost pets.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #3
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,488
I marked more than 10, but that includes my wife's pix too. It's not a photograph until it's on the wall......
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #4
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
I marked more than 10, but that includes my wife's pix too. It's not a photograph until it's on the wall......
Yes!!!

A photograph is something you can hold or see on the wall.

I love making prints.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #5
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,298
Some of my pictures are on the walls in another houses. And only some of my pictures are allowed at our house walls. 99% of them are portraits. The rest is not allowed, because it is meaningless...

What was the question about how many? My pictures are on four walls at home, I think. It is between tree and ten.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #6
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,983
I have 4 large images printed on aluminum hanging on my kitchen walls. Aluminum prints are much more eye-catching when displayed in a sunny area.
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #7
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 59
Posts: 4,971
There are something like 2 dozen of my photos hanging in other peoples' homes but I've only got two of my own on the wall in my apartment. I've been asked for prints, sold one or two, and given several as gifts.
I have a lot of other peoples' art (some photos, original paintings, and a couple of prints) on my walls since I'm intimately familiar with my own work and would rather see other work day to day.
Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #8
John Bragg
Registered User
 
John Bragg's Avatar
 
John Bragg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Penwithick, Cornwall U.K.
Age: 58
Posts: 1,267
I voted three to ten. I have 7 all told of portraits I have taken. Might add some landscapes soon. Family portraits are very important to me and I make the best prints I possibly can. None of us are forever and the photos of family that have passed on are very precious.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #9
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Like Ko Fe, almost all of my photos on my walls are photos of family except a set of three sewing related photos I did for my wife and one of my landscapes. I also have a few photos from other people, one Trent Parke print, and one from the recent RFF print swap. My parents have several of my landscapes, but mostly my extended family has photos I took of family on their walls.
(I actually answered 3-10, but if I actually count them, there are 22 from 6x6cm to 8"x10" in size, mostly 5"x7")
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #10
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,533
Yes, I have framed photographs on walls at our house.

Our children when they were growing up.

Now our grand children.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #11
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,461
About 4 years ago I won around 30 picture frames in various sizes from a local retailer promotion. Most of them are on the walls with family portraits; the remainder are nature/landscapes and prints by other RFF members.

Additionally quite a lot of prints blu-tacked to bedroom walls and above my desk.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

You answered for me Maggie
Old 05-05-2017   #12
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 387
You answered for me Maggie

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
I've got a pretty fair amount. They're mostly from early in my career or of beloved, now lost pets.
Dear Maggie,

The only pictures I have taken that are displayed on my walls are of my dogs that passed, plus a dog that a friend had that was the best buddy to myself and my brother years ago and who turned us into dog owners.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2017   #13
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,145
I have one only. There are some of the children in frames on surfaces, and one in a frame of one of our regular haunts, taken on my wife's birthday.

The one on the wall was chosen by her. She'd suggested putting one of mine on the wall. I was surprised. She looked through the recent Lightroom catalogue and chose one of a tree from the thumbnail. We both had the same criteria: it was not to be of someone, not dramatic, not clever. It had to be something you could just walk past, or stop to look at and then think nothing of it. It should pose no question and give no answer. This was all decided almost without discussion. The one she chose was next to others I had taken at a much visited house in a street near here. The house is from 1856 and a very modern design. The tree was in the street in front of the wall next to the entrance. I had taken the photograph with care, noticing the textures and wanting a small aperture to keep everything sharp. I hardly shoot at f11 and this was evening with low sun and long shadows. I didn't think to be careful with shutter speed, but I held 1/125s still enough with a 50 to have a sharp picture at A4.

I was surprised at her choice and thought it might be a tolerable picture. I'd never really looked at it after taking it. I dutifully printed it on my Epson 3880. When it was only half printed I nearly fell over. It had such presence. I pass it every day and have not tired of it. Most pass it without a look. Others stop and see something about it but can't say what. It seems to have been a success.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...1476.SEQ.0.jpg
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #14
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,449
In fact I don't like photographs as wall decoration, I very much prefer paintings.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #15
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
In fact I don't like photographs as wall decoration, I very much prefer paintings.

Erik.
I agree with this.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #16
lxmike
Barnack fan
 
lxmike's Avatar
 
lxmike is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Co Durham NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 3,305
One very large print of my two sons is my only print on my walls
__________________
Currently loaded: Leica, MDa, IIIg and Bronica ERTS.

Glass currently in regular use: Voigtlander 15mm 4.5 Helliar, 35mm Summaron.

Soon to arrive: a boat load of HP5
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #17
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
In fact I don't like photographs as wall decoration, I very much prefer paintings.

Erik.
Dear Erik,

Why not both? I mostly prefer photographs, but of the 36 or so pictures hanging in my séjour about a quarter are paintings, collages and other forms of more or less flat art. About 10% of the photographs are by friends. And I have close to 100 crucifixes (flat/3D/bas relief) hanging in the hall, along with photographs, paintings, maps...

The wall hangings in the kitchen are mostly pots and pans, plus pewter plates and tankards.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #18
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,831
In our apartment there are paintings (mostly watercolor my father did) and photographs.
In fact we left a place dedicated to photographs, in this moment seven from my wife and three from myself. We change this each three/four months according to our moods and...production!

As addition we have a metallic bookshelf where we sometimes hang with small magnets temporary material like photos or drawing to help editing or just to view a work in progress.

We are visual people and like to see images!

robert

https://i0.wp.com/thequietphotograph...&h=&crop&ssl=1
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #19
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post

Why not both?
For me photographs are documents with a visual content, in itself they are mechanically produced objects that can be reproduced endlessly. Paintings are hand made objects, every single painting is unique and can not be reproduced. They never bore, unlike photos, even when they are no masterpieces.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #20
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
For me photographs are documents with a visual content, in itself they are mechanically produced objects that can be reproduced endlessly. Paintings are hand made objects, every single painting is unique and can not be reproduced. They never bore, unlike photos, even when they are no masterpieces.

Erik.
Dear Eric,

Ummm.... No. Fine prints are rarely "mechanically produced objects that can be reproduced endlessly."

And even if they could, what of it? Art is a way of seeing, not a method of production. Consider "Fountain" (1917) by Duchamp.

If you've never seen a boring painting, you must have a very low boredom threshold. I've seen LOTS of paintings that were a great deal more boring than many of the photographs I've seen.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #21
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
I've seen LOTS of paintings that were a great deal more boring than many of the photographs I've seen.
Yes, of course, but I've seen a lot more photographs that were boring than paintings that were boring.

And ... even very good photographs are boring after a while.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #22
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Yes, of course, but I've seen a lot more photographs that were boring than paintings that were boring.

And ... even very good photographs are boring after a while.

Erik.
Dear Erik,

First sentence: yes.

Second sentence: no. More boring than paintings? Why?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #23
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
More boring than paintings? Why?
More boring because they are not hand made. I prefer, on my wall, a clumsy drawing or painting made by a child (if I can not afford a painting by Modigliani) to a photograph by Cartier-Bresson.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #24
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,870
Thank you, Tim.

Those critters, they get into your heart and never leave.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #25
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
More boring because they are not hand made. I prefer, on my wall, a clumsy drawing or painting made by a child (if I can not afford a painting by Modigliani) to a photograph by Cartier-Bresson.

Erik.
Dear Erik,

A print isn't hand made? Unlike the child's drawing that requires paper and crayons, neither of which the child has made?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #26
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Erik,

A print isn't hand made? Unlike the child's drawing that requires paper and crayons, neither of which the child has made?

Cheers,

R.
No, I've never seen handmade prints. The printer can make as much identical prints as he likes. That is the reason that famous paintings are priceless and prints of famous photographs are for sale.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
No, I've never seen handmade prints. The printer can make as much identical prints as he likes. That is the reason that famous paintings are priceless and prints of famous photographs are for sale.

Erik.
Dear Erik,


How are you defining "hand made?"

What about dodging? Burning? Exposure? Toning? Local bleaching? Hand colouring?

Identical? Not really. Remember the Ansel Adams saying that the negative is the score, and the print is the performance. Try buying an original Ansel Adams print of Moonrise. Why do you think prints made by other people from the same negatives go for less?

And... um... famous paintings do get sold from time to time. Van Goghs, for example. Expensive, yes. Priceless, no.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #28
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
famous paintings do get sold from time to time
The most expensive painting was quite unfamous, a painting not by Van Gogh, but by another Dutchman, Willem de Kooning, $280 million if I remember right. Of course the priceless paintings stay in their museums.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2017   #29
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Regarding paintings v photographs.

Nothing irritates me more than an off perspective in a painting, where objects look like they've been cut and pasted into a composition. It takes a skilful painter to get it right.
The main difference I see is the bar is so low in photography, you can take an image, and have it hanging within an hour. The effort required to hang a uninteresting photograph is not a lot. On the other hand, a painter who by virtue of the medium has made a substantial investment in time is more likely to know what to do and how to do it before they hang something on the wall.
But when both the photographer and painter know what to do and how to do it, the results from each can be equally inspiring. The same goes for other artistic methods. I think its a bit childish to discount one method based solely on the means of creation. It's a bit like loving marble sculpture while dismissing bronze as 'mechanical' and therefore inferior.

Just my 2c. (We also have screen prints, ceramics, paintings, and other associated 'art' in our house - I don't see one as superior, they're just different)
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2017   #30
Bruno Gracia
Registered User
 
Bruno Gracia's Avatar
 
Bruno Gracia is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Ronda (Spain)
Age: 35
Posts: 730
Well I love to see pictures hanging on the wall, specially good ones and very well made ones, but being spanish, having lived in Madrid for a couple of years with possibility to visit best paint museum in the world (El Prado) I'm more inclined to paintings, of course.

Look at Bosco Paintings are PRICELESS. Velázquez, Murillo, Rembrandt, Rubens, Tiziano... impressive. I also enjoyed my years in London visiting National Gallery and the Flemish, impressionist...

Photography is a bourgeois concept :P
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2017   #31
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
. . . I think its a bit childish to discount one method based solely on the means of creation. It's a bit like loving marble sculpture while dismissing bronze as 'mechanical' and therefore inferior.

Just my 2c. (We also have screen prints, ceramics, paintings, and other associated 'art' in our house - I don't see one as superior, they're just different)
Dear Michael,

That's my feeling too. Nice analogy, by the way.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2017   #32
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 2,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Michael,

That's my feeling too. Nice analogy, by the way.

Cheers,

R.
Back in the Nineteenth Century it was also the feeling of one of the pioneers of 'pictorial' photography Dr. P.H. Emerson: “Photography has been called an irresponsive medium. This is much the same as calling it a mechanical process. A great paradox which has been combated is the assumption that because photography is not ‘hand-work’ as the public say—though we find there is very much ‘hand-work’ and head-work in it—therefore it is not an art language. This is a fallacy born of thoughtlessness. The painter learns his technique in order to speak, and he considers painting a mental process. So with photography, speaking artistically of it, it is a very severe mental process, and taxes all the artist’s energies even after he has mastered technique. The point is, what you have to say and how to say it. The originality of a work of art refers to the originality of the thing expressed and the way it is expressed, whether it be in poetry, photography, or painting. That one technique is more difficult than another to learn no one will deny; but the greatest thoughts have been expressed by means of the simplest technique, writing.”
  Reply With Quote

Doesn't it depend on how one defines art?
Old 05-07-2017   #33
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 387
Doesn't it depend on how one defines art?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence View Post
Back in the Nineteenth Century it was also the feeling of one of the pioneers of 'pictorial' photography Dr. P.H. Emerson: “Photography has been called an irresponsive medium. This is much the same as calling it a mechanical process. A great paradox which has been combated is the assumption that because photography is not ‘hand-work’ as the public say—though we find there is very much ‘hand-work’ and head-work in it—therefore it is not an art language. This is a fallacy born of thoughtlessness. The painter learns his technique in order to speak, and he considers painting a mental process. So with photography, speaking artistically of it, it is a very severe mental process, and taxes all the artist’s energies even after he has mastered technique. The point is, what you have to say and how to say it. The originality of a work of art refers to the originality of the thing expressed and the way it is expressed, whether it be in poetry, photography, or painting. That one technique is more difficult than another to learn no one will deny; but the greatest thoughts have been expressed by means of the simplest technique, writing.”
Dear Lawrence,

I agree with all that you quoted, but I sometimes think that how photos get judged depends on how one defines art?

I enjoy bird and wildlife photography. Neither of which would be considered by most to involve much in the way of artistic effort, or vision. To me, and to the people who are much better at those genres than myself and whose work I admire, success is determined by preparation and scouting and set-up.

I consider photography is it's literal definition of "light writing" and approach what I do with the idea in mind of recording a visual representation of what I witnessed with my own two eyes. Speaking only for myself I hope to record something that shows what I would have written about a particular bird or animal. In that sense, I really don't see art being involved.

I do however understand that others actually do use photography to create art. I've seen many photos posted here on the message board that involved the use of light and shadows and shapes and patterns to create a pleasing and interesting image.

I can recognize their work and appreciate it, I'm just not good at it.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2017   #34
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Dear Tim,

I don't think it does depend on how one defines art if you compare like to like.

Is a bird photograph worth more, less, or the same as a similar painting for example? In some ways, the painting is easier, lighting can be controlled, the subject can be dead (yet the painting of a living bird), there are no leaves in the way etc. while the photographer has used their skill to ensure they are in the correct position at the correct time to ensure correct lighting, they have had to stalk/hunt the bird and wait for the perfect subject position and framing, etc. I would say there is an art to making the bird photograph, but of course that doesn't mean the end result is art - but then neither is the painting

Quote:
I can recognize their work and appreciate it, I'm just not good at it.
I feel the same way about bird and wildlife photography.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2017   #35
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence View Post
. . . but the greatest thoughts have been expressed by means of the simplest technique, writing.”
Not sure it's the simplest, but it's certainly pretty simple. Also quite difficult to do well, as any internet forum well illustrates.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

We're fighting on the same side I suppose?
Old 05-07-2017   #36
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 387
We're fighting on the same side I suppose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
Dear Tim,

I don't think it does depend on how one defines art if you compare like to like.

Is a bird photograph worth more, less, or the same as a similar painting for example? In some ways, the painting is easier, lighting can be controlled, the subject can be dead (yet the painting of a living bird), there are no leaves in the way etc. while the photographer has used their skill to ensure they are in the correct position at the correct time to ensure correct lighting, they have had to stalk/hunt the bird and wait for the perfect subject position and framing, etc. I would say there is an art to making the bird photograph, but of course that doesn't mean the end result is art - but then neither is the painting



I feel the same way about bird and wildlife photography.
Dear Michael,

When you put it as you put it I can agree that there is an artistic component to a good bird or wildlife photo. As a hillbilly who lives and breathes in the woods I guess it's easy for me to miss that part as I see more things on a daily basis than I could ever hope to record in a photograph.

It all kind of boils down to the old American football quote, originally made by the Roman philosopher Seneca but effectively stolen by many football coaches. You can substitute the word "art" for the word "luck' in the quote but it goes like this, "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity."

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2017   #37
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,065
Well, if I ever produce a pic good enough to put on a wall, I'd be too shocked to decide what to do with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2017   #38
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 2,099
Good to see so many RFFrs print to hang on the wall, I intend to have photos on one wall and artworks on another.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2017   #39
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
Is a bird photograph worth more, less, or the same as a similar painting for example? In some ways, the painting is easier, lighting can be controlled, the subject can be dead (yet the painting of a living bird), there are no leaves in the way etc. while the photographer has used their skill to ensure they are in the correct position at the correct time to ensure correct lighting, they have had to stalk/hunt the bird and wait for the perfect subject position and framing, etc. I would say there is an art to making the bird photograph, but of course that doesn't mean the end result is art - but then neither is the painting
Outspoken photographer Dan Burkholder opines that you don't get extra credit for the technique being hard; the resulting image should be judged on its own merits.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-11-2017   #40
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Outspoken photographer Dan Burkholder opines that you don't get extra credit for the technique being hard; the resulting image should be judged on its own merits.
No one cares what you did to make the photo, just if the photo is any good.

Same goes for just about everything.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:59.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.