Repost - What exactly is a "Fine Art Photograph" ?

[Ottor]

A little bug in the V-Bulletin software, so I'll repost...

What constitutes a "Fine Art Print" vs just a damn nice photograph ? - Does it really just come down to terminology and, perhaps, a tiny bit of snobbery, or is there a actual difference in subject/composition/technique ?

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by Ottor

A little bug in the V-Bulletin software, so I'll repost...

What constitutes a "Fine Art Print" vs just a damn nice photograph ? - Does it really just come down to terminology and, perhaps, a tiny bit of snobbery, or is there a actual difference in subject/composition/technique ?

A bit like the difference between paint splatter and fine art.

[Elmo]

The definition I was given years ago was Fine Art Photography is a photograph produced with the intention that it is to be sold non-predetermined customers who will use it as a decorative piece.

[Vivalaveritas]

Makes sense I guess.

[mshockley]

Originally Posted by Elmo

The definition I was given years ago was Fine Art Photography is a photograph produced with the intention that it is to be sold non-predetermined customers who will use it as a decorative piece.

I'm confused then, are you saying that if one were to head out today and take a picture of an old barn with the notion of trying to sell it that it is considered Fine Art Photography?

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by Ottor

A little bug in the V-Bulletin software, so I'll repost...

What constitutes a "Fine Art Print" vs just a damn nice photograph ? - Does it really just come down to terminology and, perhaps, a tiny bit of snobbery, or is there a actual difference in subject/composition/technique ?

Just call an inkjet print Giclée and you've got fine art

One of these might help too

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by mshockley

I'm confused then, are you saying that if one were to head out today and take a picture of an old barn with the notion of trying to sell it that it is considered Fine Art Photography?

Yep if it for art not documentation. Whether you succeed in producing fine art is an entirely different issue.

[Thunder_o_b]

A lot also has to do with the materials that are used in producing the picture. For example, my 13"x19" prints are often printed on fine art paper which has a distinct texture to it and is vastly more expensive than standard paper. I also have the values settings on my printer at max so in a 13"x19" I have around $8.00 in ink alone in the print, and there is the archival acid free mounting and matt board.

[Jonbar18]

It has less to do with the quality of the work than oof the intention

Wiki says:
Fine art photography refers to photographs that are created in accordance with the creative vision of the photographer as artist. Fine art photography stands in contrast to photojournalism (which provides visual support for news stories, mainly in the print media) and commercial photography (the primary focus of which is to advertise products or services).

[Ottor]

Originally Posted by Thunder_o_b

A lot also has to do with the materials that are used in producing the picture. For example, my 13"x19" prints are often printed on fine art paper which has a distinct texture to it and is vastly more expensive than standard paper. I also have the values settings on my printer at max so in a 13"x19" I have around $8.00 in ink alone in the print, and there is the archival acid free mounting and matt board.

So you mean that it relates more to the componants of the product, than the subject... IF there is that much more of a difference in the production costs, perhaps that's making a little more sense.. I would find it hard to justify, after the print was produced, as to the photographers "Intent" in taking the picture..