Gary Crabbe's response (posted at his request):

TO APUG / re: Traditional vs. digital & Art


uuhh, I think I need to clear up a couple quick facts related to this
thread, since it's obvious that some here have a very convoluted
interpretation of AGGIE's post.

First, I am NOT the digital instructor referred to.


I've never even USED a digital camera, nor do I have plans to buy one.
All of the images on my site match my original film transparency.
I NEVER would be so STUPID as to run photo paper thru an inkjet.

Second, I am not an "ART" photographer. I am a working commercial and
editorial photographer, and my images are tailored to that market.

I do sell high-end commercial photographic prints that I label as "Fine
Art Prints". If you want to debate the artistic value of my work, fine.
Call my work amateurish and unoriginal, fine. Even call me an artistic
whore; I don't care. I use my pictures to help pay for raising my
family. Nothing more, nothing less. I have a nice long string of clients
that will pay $2,000.00 - $30,000.00 for my amateurish photos. If the
client likes them, that's all I'm concerned with as far as viewers go;
that, and the resulting check puts food in my children's stomachs and
clothes on their backs.

Steve, You're right, my shot is almost a copy of the cover, except the
photos were taken a year before. So how did I copy a shot made a year
before the one that was published? Maybe it was just two photographers
in the same place & time.... gee, more than one photographer in
Yosemite, who'da thunk.

Personally, I don't try and COPY anyone's photos. I go to a place, shoot
what catches my eye in a way that I think is marketable to my clients.
In other words, I just go out there and do my thing (as was said in this
thread).

I've seen Jorge's work, along with some of the others mentioned in this
tread, and Nothing I've seen is any better or any worse than what I see
at local camera clubs, and none of which I would call truly impressive
or original, even though they may be artsy. My pictures may be common
and trite, but no more so than a B&W mission facade or single lit flower
against a black background. You may consider it art, but it is totally
unoriginal; but your "art" does serve it's place to a particular segment
of viewers. My "work" simply serves a different purpose and segment of
the population.

You like chocolate mocha with a pecan carmel swirl, and I like vanilla.


Finally, I don't consider myself a "master of Photography" or an
"Artist". I get 50,000 people a month through my web site, and I'm proud
of my accomplishments. I certainly don't need to label other peoples
work as crap, trite, or amateurish to make me feel better about my own
"art". As for what constitutes art, that's a debate that this forum is
way to small (and perhaps too biased) to properly handle.

Happy new years to you and yours.

Gary (one hell of a sucky non-digital artist) Crabbe