Can macro be art?

[Deleted member 250]

Is macro all about the sharpest, in focus image with no noise, correct colour balance etc, or is there a place for the "arty", limited dof, grainy, manipulated image?

 

[nataliaflejszar&Photo]

Is macro all about the sharpest, in focus image with no noise, correct colour balance etc, or is there a place for the "arty", limited dof, grainy, manipulated image?

great topic @Bill Edwards !!
yeah, of couse the macro can be Arty!! I love this part of macro and photography mostly, my motto is ''breake the rulles and create what you want to''

 

[Jack]

Is macro all about the sharpest, in focus image with no noise, correct colour balance etc, or is there a place for the "arty", limited dof, grainy, manipulated image?

@Bill Edwards , I don't think you will find a concrete answer here. As everyone think different, also depends how you looking at it. of course could be an art, if it's not. Personally I think that all types of photography is art, ages ago, people didn't had camera or technologies to catch stunning pictures. They where painting everything.

Nowadays, 'manual' art has been replaced with modern way to make photos. Also don't forget that you can achieve pretty much everything using Adobe software, which is still an art (but not for me). So I would say 'art' nowadays lost sense.

Is macro all about the sharpest, in focus image with no noise, correct colour balance

Same, everyone is different and has different level of creativity and view. As I said @Bill Edwards , I don't think you will find a static answer on this question. Because depends how you looking at it .

 

[Deleted member 250]

@Bill Edwards , I don't think you will find a concrete answer here. As everyone think different, also depends how you looking at it. of course could be an art, if it's not. Personally I think that all types of photography is art, ages ago, people didn't had camera or technologies to catch stunning pictures. They where painting everything.

Nowadays, 'manual' art has been replaced with modern way to make photos. Also don't forget that you can achieve pretty much everything using Adobe software, which is still an art (but not for me). So I would say 'art' nowadays lost sense.



Same, everyone is different and has different level of creativity and view. As I said @Bill Edwards , I don't think you will find a static answer on this question. Because depends how you looking at it .

Good points jack. I am interested in all points of view.

 

[Jack]

Good points jack. I am interested in all points of view.

You will find different opinions here . Everything can be an art, depends how you will look at it and accept.

 

[Helix_2648]

I would definitely say yes. Small DOF of a flower with a nice blurry background can be better than a bug @ 4:1 with all hairs and details. But a fan from those bugs may say, that an low DOF picture of a flower is just crap.



I made this pictures three years ago and would say, that this is more art than anything else.

 

[nataliaflejszar&Photo]

I recommend to read Photography magazines. They help you a lot to find your kind of photography that you will enjoy. And find yourself. As they have helps me a lot.. I love to read Photography magazines.. I really enjoy the kind of Photography that I've been chosen... thanks of thems help..

 

[Shan]

@Bill Edwards the basic question stems from how you look at photography..is it an art or a science. When its just about recording subject or events, there is not much of art involved, however when you are looking at creativity, everything is an art. I have seen your pictures, the picture of the violet flower with the center sharpened and all the petals soft, may not be how the flower was actually, but it portrays your interpretation. As for macros, not only are there abstract macros but macros with the japanese concept of wabi sabi. That is my two bits, but would really be interested to know your viewpoint in details..coming from your experience and your love for the subject.

 

[Deleted member 250]

@Bill Edwards the basic question stems from how you look at photography..is it an art or a science. When its just about recording subject or events, there is not much of art involved, however when you are looking at creativity, everything is an art. I have seen your pictures, the picture of the violet flower with the center sharpened and all the petals soft, may not be how the flower was actually, but it portrays your interpretation. As for macros, not only are there abstract macros but macros with the japanese concept of wabi sabi. That is my two bits, but would really be interested to know your viewpoint in details..coming from your experience and your love for the subject.

Great post Shan. My viepoint is that it is all about the final image.
If, as you say an accurate representation is required then for me that is science, cold and without any room for interpretation but maybe a great level of skill.
On the other hand as we are not usually producing scientific images we can interpret how we see our image and work towards that end. Our interpretation is our art. If you take for example a portrait by one of the famous old masters is it art or just someone with the skill to make a representational image?
If they had cameras would they then be considered "artists" or portrait photographers?
I think that there is room for both the perfect sharp all over image and the "artistic" interpretation.

 

[Deleted member 250]

To further expand the discussion check out Andy Taylor LRPS latest post.
A very clever composite image.