Our Friday Q&A session is going to combine a few questions people had submitted about commercial photography vs fine art photography.
Next week I’m going to talk about stock photography so if you have any questions that you’d like addressed, please leave them in the comments below!
I think the defferents lies in the intention to create the photograph. In fine art the intention purely depends on the photographer, may be its how he see the subject, or how else he see the subject or how else the subject could be than to a normal eye, its completely depends to the photographer. In comercial the intention is bringing the prev experience of the photographer to create that perfect exposure and the good compositions to a higly paying client. am i right?
I have found that, when on a commercial job, be it products, weddings, Bat/Bat Mitsvahs etc. there are opportunities to "commit" art. I did a gig for Fishes Eddy, an NYC specialty store. I did the set and the product pieces and while we broke for lunch, I wondered around the ware house and got fine art images.. while doing a bar Mitsvah in Manhattan, waiting for clients to dress, I got the photo that is my business card; a look at the three story iron spiral staircase from the bottom up and the top down. Opportunities are all around you while you are working. Maybe it takes attention to detail. Maybe you need to be a little "obsessive/compulsive." The material is there if you look for it.
the difference I see is commercial is objective (people, places, things) whereas fine art is subjective (feeling, taste, opinion).
No offense but you titled this video "Commercial Photography vs Fine Art Photography" and then you spent 2/3's of it talking about stock. If I wanted to watch a video about stock I would have chosen one with Stock in the title.
from what I have seen, stock photography = AM radio…same impetus ( sell! ) and don't worry about the arty farty stuff…and "Fine Art" photography seems to be some people worrying way too much about the "arty farty stuff " ( and how can I be different?..) – in the end neither seem to give the best of what some people who just go out and shoot ( on a regular basis ) and develop their eye produce…
Great episode as always!
So stock photography,
Do you think it's still possible to make a living from it?
And do you think video stock will surpass still images in the future?
Any tips or resources you know of would be of great use.
Thanks and keep up the fantastic work
Thank you Ted +theartofphotography for posting this video. Very informative.
Though I dig your definition of fine art photography I think there's something else going on: Commercial photography represents an economic value, fine art photography represents a more emotional value. Of course, if you're skilled, you could get economic benefit of your emotional photography 🙂
In my eyes, a successful fine artist is able to recognise the fact that whilst you need to have a strong concept behind the images produced, you also have to be able to create work that people will want to buy, otherwise your work will not be in demand.
Sorry, but I find it amusing as well as disappointing that the definitions of art and commercial work, both are made based on the one and only criterium: money. Apparently, what differentiates art from commercial work is how you charge the money : )))
This is a very good show. I am taking a class and you are a great teacher. Can you talk about examples? It would be good to use examples of your own work for commercial and fine art. Thank you Mr Forbes.
I definitely feel there is more of a difference between commercial and fine art than stated. Fine art is created first and foremost from and for the artist to express or define a unique idea feeling or message of his own creation, the photographer being the end in himself. Commercial photography is first and foremost created as a job for a client to express their need, the photographer here is only a means to an end.
Can you talk about NGO photography, ways to go about getting jobs in it, ups and downs.
Hi Ted! Have you read The Principles of Art of Collingwood?
I’ve always disliked the term “fine art” as it is defined by being intended for sale and therefore the success of fine art is based on salability. True, many of the great artists we know from history were creating images to sell to patrons but if we define the segment by sales then it limits where we will push boundaries and makes it easier for people that don’t appreciate something to dismiss it based on low sales.
I think Thelonious Monk’s music is better than a lot of the music that came out last week but, if judged on salability in today’s market, I would be 100% wrong. It is important not to define the value of art by sales. Or I guess we need to be more definitive when discussing “fine art photography” and what you might call “art photography”. The sections get a little muddy at that point though as it would imply fine art photography isn’t art, which is not what I’m saying at all.
Thank you that is a wonderful episode!
Hi Ted. How does one get into stock photography? What is the best way and place to start? Thanks