Other photographers

I thought I'd ask this as it is an interesting discussion, a lot of people look at attractive shots such as stunning landscapes, or a nice portrait or someone and define themselves as pretty good photographers which is a fair judgment by any means. But how do you feel about photographers such as Nan Golding, or Elinor Carucci? Do you study/look at/take inspiration from other photographers? Controversial photographers, those who have artistic merit as apposed to those who would have an attractive print to hang on the wall?

This is something that I'm finding an interesting discovery at uni and causing me to backtrack on all of my own work. Looking at it from an entirely different point of view. I look at why I'm taking each picture, not just taking it for the sake of it....

What does everyone else think/feel about this?

I like thought provoking art of any kind, so yeah I love that stuff.

Photography is difficult enough as it is, but when you try to add meaning to your photos you make it even harder, but, I think the payoff is higher, leaving you that much more satisfied with your work.

Go for it Lorna, would love to see some of your stuff!

Thanks Azz, as I'm selling some of my stuff at the moment I can't pop it online just yet, but as soon as I know which ones I can I shall. x

Cool - would like to see em! Hope you get a good price for em

Not quite sure whats going on yet, I can post one of my ex that I took for a project called intimacy, forgot I'd scanned it, its in the general photography section.

At then end of the day the only person who really counts is the person who creates the image imo, if we all followed the rules it,d be a pretty boring world dont you think ? go for it.

[quote=stewie;64307]At then end of the day the only person who really counts is the person who creates the image imo, if we all followed the rules it,d be a pretty boring world dont you think ? go for it.[/QUOTE

I find it fascinating that there are rules such as the rules of thirds etc. We're encouraged at uni to ignore them, so long as the prints have the correct colours contrasts, and we can justify the photos, they can be of anything. They have to have a purpose or be part of a series generally. But even photographs with light pollution are considered to be acceptable. I love the fact that art has no boundaries. Hence why I rarely pick up my dslr now. Its actually sitting next to me and has gathered dust! Lol.

Might sound like a cliche but rules are meant to be broken arent they ? I mean who set the rules anyway, saying that I generally follow em but if you get a result you are happy with stick with it I say. Btw you might reignite the old 'is photography considerd an art form' debate, which is no bad thing

I think that is also an interesting debate. I think that any additions to photographs made digitally, besides those that can be made in an traditional darkroom, often move the photograph into the realm of digital media.

Well the range of options open to a digital photographer using something like photoshop mean,s that if you are not careful you can cross over to being almost a graphic artist as opposed to being a photographer, saying that though, at the end of the day if you get the result you are aiming for,then job done I suppose I mean its not as if the 'traditional' darkroom user didnt dodge and burn, crop, colour enhace with all manner of chemicals etc