Even if I really wanted the photo, I'd probably be put off by having to email the photographer. Payment with Paypal is a definite plus point.

Andrew

I didn't really mean in creating the work (of art?) but in devising the mechanism by which it is created.

The phrase "caveat emptor" comes to mind when thinking about collectors, novice or otherwise, who might consider buying such works.

Andrew

I take your point - but I'm not sure that I would condemn that as not being "art", as it does involve the use of creativity to produce a work. If you were to suggest that the result does nothing for you and that you wouldn't be prepared to pay real money for it then I would personally share that view.

A gallery is a business. A business is simply a machine for making money. In what way would a gallery owner be clueless if he offered for sale and actually sold works produced by "artists" whom some folks regard as being talent-free. It sounds like a shrewd move to me ...

Andrew

When you say "genuine", I assume you mean "talented". Do "artists" really try to deceive or do they just get carried along on a wave of critical acclaim?

Andrew

Similarly, I take photographs but don't think of myself as a photographer - a term I generally mentally reserve for those who earn a crust from doing it.

Although I haven't read every word of all the posts in the thread, the issue of whether photography is art and about what art is anyway, is quite interesting. Couldn't we reasonably regard art as being merely the application of creativity to the production of some object - or alternatively, to the generation of IP (Intellectual Property)? The issue of whether art is "good" or "bad" is perhaps too subjective to allow rational discussion.

If we were to use those kinds of definitions for art, then applying green fence paint or creosote to my shed from a big bucket bought at B&Q with the primary purpose of weather-proofing the shed obviously isn't art - but maybe would be art if I used the same (or other) paint to create an image of some kind on the side of the shed (irrespective of whether the bit of shed I had painted was subsequently dismantled and displayed in the Tate).

On a similar basis, if creativity was excercised in taking a photograph then maybe that photograph would be art - but not necessarily "good" art. Adopting a machinegun approach to photography with little thought as to what is captured might challenge the notion that photography is art - but maybe the subsequent selection and post-processing of images captured could be argued to include the application of creativity.

I suspect that this thread will eventually fizzle out, rather than arrive at a concensus.

Andrew

I have a Dell 2209WA too and it works fine for me.

Andrew

We got the weather yesterday alright!! It hammered down with rain. This morning, all the red leaves have taken their leave of the shrub and are now being blown about on the lawn. Rats!!

Andrew

If we get the weather over the next day or two, I'll give it a whirl wide open and see how it goes .....

Andrew

Errr ....... it was a Rikenon 50mm f1.7 (but not wide open). Please feel free to post some of yours.

Andrew

Thanks for the thoughts folks.

You are both absolutely correct and again confirm my thoughts about one of my biggest failings - not taking enough time to get a shot right "in camera". A tripod would have helped slow me up, but the light was failing, so ...... (that's my excuse, anyway).

The best I can do for now is to re-crop the first to remove the offensive leaf in PP.




Better or just different?

Andrew