After thinking about it, I guess I did ask an open question with no correct answer. Take Joel-Peter Witkin for example. His work is grotesque and highly unusual but highly rated.
What makes fine art photography "fine art"
At least one nipple and contrasty unnatural lighting
That's my rule anyway :-p
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
How about the german taxi driver and he got his work shown of all the topless women in his cab. Isnt that fine art too stone? :P
This is good advice. Just keep producing, I find inspiration usually comes from putting one foot in front of the other, so to speak. As for fine art, that's a moniker someone else usually "bestows," and then only after you're dead and can't collect. Do you enjoy what you are doing? Just keep going and ignore any naysayers.
Originally Posted by eddie
Zackesch- As a novice, I think you're coming to film photography at an exciting time. I know it's contrary to "the sky is falling" thoughts on film but, "hardware" is cheap, and the entire world is your marketplace. "Software" is still available and, while choices aren't as varied as before, what's still produced is (mostly) exceptional. There's a kinship among film users, and information/guidance is more available than when I started out, over 40 years ago. The internet gives you the opportunity to see work by wonderful photographers you'd never knew existed before. About 80% of my favorite contemporary photographers I found on this site. They live around the world, and I never would have seen their work in the pre-internet days.
If I were in your shoes, I'd spend the $25 to become a subscriber. Then, I'd dive into the Gallery, spending time looking at images. I'd note the ones that "spoke to me", and figure out why. Then, I'd dig deeper into that photographer's work, noting the consistency of their vision and craftsmanship. Then, I'd go out with my camera, armed with the knowledge of what "speaks to me", and make my own.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
William Eggleston is a Fine Art photographer who used 35mm film. Today it seems a lot of Fine Art is done with digital camera's & lot's of post processing so I feel that there is open space for Fine Art photography in the 35mm film format, especially B&W. To me Fine Art consist primarily of these 3 things. Subject matter, does it inspire the viewer, & will it sell.
Originally Posted by batwister
Yes, I think that is a fine definition.
Originally Posted by Darkroom317
To the OP:
If you scroll through APUG, you will find many, many, many threads where this and similar questions have been asked and debated.
You might find those threads interesting, but if you read them I have one warning: watch out for posts by blansky
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
One that makes you stand at one place and allow your body and mind focus on one thing
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Agfa Isolette III: Amazingly simple, yet it produces outstanding negatives.
Wars have been started by less contentious questions than this, I suggest the O.P concentrates on becoming fine photographer, and not producing "fine art".