When is Photography considered Art?

I post images of my photography, on some sites and include the type of camera I use, get lots of views, but no comments.

I then, take the camera info off and all of a sudden the positive feedback, comes flooding in????

Is there a stigma to using a point and shoot camera? If you read my portfolio profile, you will see that photography, was literally a life saver for me beginning in 2010. The only camera, I had, was my Panasonic DMC-TZ3. I was not happy with the control of DOF, so seeing as how I could not afford to upgrade, I made myself a little lens add on, that included cardboard tubing and lots of duct tape. (Unfortunately my camera was stolen, this summer and since I have sold a few prints, am in the market for a better camera and increased image quality.)

I took the little Leica lens on my Panasonic to it's limits and concentrated more on composition, because I knew that my image quality would never been quite up to par.

Does photography only count as art, if shot with an SLR or DSLR camera?

Just curious.....

I can only speak regarding my comments. Since I don't even know what a Panasonic DMC-TZ3 is, they have nothng to do with the type of equipment you use. My main interest is floral so I comment mostly on flower images, then on others that catch my eye. The comment count has been down generally throughout the site because alot of people are on vacation. The more you critique others' posts, the more comments you will get. Your photography is excellent so don't take the lack of comments personally.

Hello Patricia :)

I was not really talking about this site :) sorry, I should have made that clear in my original post. I have belonged to others, where when they discover what I use, it is almost as though the images are not worth critiquing or looking at.

I have not really gone out of my way to advertise my camera and settings, in my posts on NPN. (not yet). So far, I have been very happy with the level of comments and good constructive criticism. I just hope the same thing does not happen here, as has happened on other sites, when people realize what I have used for equipment.

link to more info on the camera : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3

Sorry I did not make my original post more clear

It's interesting to me to see technical data posted along with images, but it doesn't matter at all what brand of camera/lens one uses. I suspect I speak for many (most?) here.

I am glad to hear, this site may be different

I have not had good response on other sites. For some reason, when people find out that a point and shoot was used, it becomes sub-standard photography. I can post the same image with no camera details and get positive response. Funny how that works.

Does photography only count as art, if shot with an SLR or DSLR camera?

Stephen... I think I'm taking you too literally here with the "art" mention in your question, but I'll throw a couple of thoughts out there...

I think that's a very, very simple answer. The way a photograph is made has no bearing on whether or not it's art.

And actually, it's a bit of an odd question to me, to the point where it is almost non-sensical. Sort of like asking if something is only considered a car if it's blue.

Whether or not it's art also doesn't depend on comments, or sales, or price, or renown, or megapixels, or sharpness, or saturation, or any other particular one thing you can think of. Whether or not it's art only depends on whether it fits someone's definition of art, which can be pretty far ranging....

Usually though, something is art if it causes someone to think and consider, to feel an emotion, to connect with something outside of themselves (amongst lots of other possibilities - read up a bit on the definition of "art" and you'll see what I mean); The art world is a very big broad place and changes constantly.

I will say that many many photos - including famous ones, and ones you like, and ones posted on this site, probably don't really qualify as art in a technical sense. Sure - it may have meaning to the person taking it, and it may be beautiful, and I or someone else may be willing to pay for it. But that doesn't necessarily make it art.

So I'd say it's art if you manage to make something that matters, that has something to say, and that people connect with - whether you make it in Photoshop, take it with a P&S, take it with a homemade oatmeal box pinhole camera, or use a brand new Nikon D4.... that part really doesn't matter, except in how well it lets you take/make the photos you want to take.

Thanks David. :) I really appreciate that. I did a gallery, in my hometown, the winter of 2010. Most of the work I will be posting here, was at that gallery. It was a tough time in my life and the photos themselves, although low in image quality, were a huge part of me getting through that period in one piece. The reason I did the gallery was not to show off the photography, but more to bring attention to mental illness and how something as simple as photography can be a lifesaver.

I had people walk in to the gallery, start to show a real interest in the work and when they saw my camera, they walked out.

I get a lot of same negative feedback, on other sites, where because I mention a point and shoot, the work itself all of a sudden becomes less desirable. It has not changed my passion, for the hobby I have found and it has not stopped me from selling a few pieces. :) What it has done though, is given me a very confused impression of what photographers consider "real photography" and knowing exactly what "photographic art" is.

Sorry it does not make perfect sense.

If the viewer walks away because of the camera you use, I'd have to question THEIR understanding.

A number of years ago, when I decided to "try" digital, my son and I were out at a local provincial park with point and shoots. A lady walked up to us, toting a dslr, and made the snide remark "Everybody with a camera thinks they're a photographer." My response was "Isn't a camera a prerequisite ?"

Double standards exist everywhere; more so, I think, among people who know very little, or elitists (another word for those that know the words but with little knowledge or experience.)

To me, if its your vision, its your art.
I'm simple so I like to keep it simple.

IMHO it is not what you use but how you use it! I use DSLRs, an advanced PS and a very simple PS and have taken bad shots and good shots with all of them. Some of my favorite images were taken with an early PS with limited flexibility and when I look at them I am surprised when checking the info to find it was an early PS I used! Enjoy photography, use what you like and have fun. My 2 cents.

Does photography only count as art, if shot with an SLR or DSLR camera?

If this were true, I may as well use my 4x5 for an, albeit, expensive doorstop.

When is Photography considered Art?

This is easy to answer: When you, or someone else says it is.

--P

Hi Stephen, I personally don't care so much for the tech site of the image I am more interested in the image itself not which camera you used to capture or create it. The camera and lenses are just tools it is how they are used and applied that count. If I cared what people think I would likely never use my Lensbaby again , but luckily for me I do photography because I love it. It is always an honor when someone loves my work enough to pay for it and luckily I have never had a client say they would not buy my work because of the camera or lens I used ! I also teach photography and though the occasionally student might ask about my camera I usually only bring one lens and a mid range body to a lesson as I tell my clients it is not about how much they pay for their gear is about creating images with depth and soul and what ever equipment you have on hand and you can still create beautiful works of art. Now that does not make me any less a gear junky and I tell me husband I need a new lens every other month as I just can't create amazing worth while work if I don't have that lovely shiny new lens !!! I am now the proud owner of twelve cameras and thirteen lens but I still use maybe two of them most of the time.
Don't worry about your gear, it will evolve over time ,use what you have and love what you do ,your work will mean more to you that the type of equipment used. And hey if you use a point and shoot to create beautiful images then that speaks volumes about knowledge and skill more so than any camera ever could.

On of my most favorite cameras and I used it until I killed it was a Cheap little Olympus E410, It sucked for noise but the colour was just beautiful and it was the perfect size to pop in my pocket with my most beloved Lensbaby attached.

Stephen, the camera may matter depending on where, how, and mostly, at what size the final image will be viewed. When you began posting here, you noted the camera you were using but, frankly, it meant little to me because I was not familiar with it, which is not that unusal. I am not much of a tech person, and that includes cameras, hardward, software, gadgets, etc. Therfore, it would not have affected my comments one way or the other except that, as moderator of the macro gallery, I will sometimes comment on the limitations of the poster's equipment for macro photography (usually in the context of commending them on their ability to overcome or work around the limitations of their camera/lens). Other than that, the images pretty much stand on their own. For posting at NPN, the final image size here is pretty small. Unless it is a significant crop posted at the larger size, the images posted here, whether captured from a P&S or an x-rays, and everything in between, will look much the same. It is a great equalizer in that regard. On the other hand, if you are talking about a gallery showing of printed images, that is a different matter. A single image printed from my D700 (or formerly from my F5) at 20 x 30 won't look as good as a quality printed 20 x 30 from a large format camera or from a D800 which has 3x the original file size. Even then, however, the issue isn't whether one is art, or even the talent or the photogapher, but only the look of final product.

Hi Scott,

That is an interesting way to look at it, by basing it on final product. :) With my Panasonic, I am able to get a nice 8X12 print, and have successfully sold 3. :) The original file size, gives me an 8x10, at 100%. I have some software, that allowed me to slightly extend, to 107% (8X12). I find that size, fits nicely on an 11X14 sheet, giving me a slightly larger space at the bottom for title, signature etc.

Thanks for commenting.

Thank you, everyone, for all your feedback. Much appreciated !!

Obviously, a good photo taken with a disposable camera will always trump a crappy photo taken with a 50K $ camera. So the gear doesn't determine whether it's art or not. However, gear can be limiting to your vision--technically challenging photos require gear that's capable of meeting that challenge. You can play Mozart on a toy piano or on a Steinway--but it will sound better with the latter.

Don't matter the camera, its what's behind it. I sold a print last week shot with my first digital camera, a Sony 4mp cybershot.