Post the best & most artistic picture you've ever taken

I think this can inspire many people in a gear forum to go out

My contribution:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

This was my first go at "artistic" this past summer.

This reflection shot was taken with a Minolta A200 before I got my Canon gear. Still one of my favourites though. P.S. nice shot Light Pilgrim

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/43829277@N07/8​080872816/

I hate to post it, as i've already posted it a few times on here.. but this is one of, if not my most, artistic image.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/1tanker/7114868​169/

The Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 ZE at f/2 ISO 3200 made it look like a painting

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/the_warlock/7​563953974/

As time goes by, I find that I don't really like "artistic" images. I much prefer "realistic" images - ones that look like a photo, not a painting.

I prefer the images that serve more as an accurate visual record of what was really there, rather than images that are so much an "interpretation" of what was there. (I do realize that the two are not entirely mutually exclusive).

Hence, I think that my "best" images are certainly not those that are "most artistic".

Do others share this opinion, or am I alone in this view?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15114441
As time goes by, I find that I don't really like "artistic" images. I much prefer "realistic" images - ones that look like a photo, not a painting.

I prefer the images that serve more as an accurate visual record of what was really there, rather than images that are so much an "interpretation" of what was there. (I do realize that the two are not entirely mutually exclusive).

Hence, I think that my "best" images are certainly not those that are "most artistic".

Do others share this opinion, or am I alone in this view?

There's a time and place for both. Art is too subjective to really nail down. I think sometimes a scene will speak for itself and others it might need a little creative encouragement to be pleasing. What great about it is that you can give 5 photographers the same scene and all 5 resulting photos will be different.

Let me get my picture of a bug on a bench where I talk about good vs evil.

Oh wait, I take pictures that look good to me, not artistic ones.

What does an artistic photo even mean?

I would find photography suffocatingly boring if all it sought was to Xerox a conventional sense of reality, at least within the inherent limits of a camera. This said, I don't think "art" has to veer away from this more literal interpretation to be successful, since ultimately, there are various components, not just 'painterly' rendering, that contribute to a photograph's artistic appeal (even if the photograph is not "art" itself).

Eight_Blade wrote in post #15114801
Oh wait, I take pictures that look good to me, not artistic ones.

What does an artistic photo even mean?

IMO, every photo is "artistic" in the sense that the photographer chooses the framing, the DOF, the perspective, the exposure, and the moment to press the shutter button and the processing to follow. As was already mentioned, nailing down a specific definition is very difficult (if not near impossible) because we all have different views. I think when the OP was refering to artistic, s/he meant a photo that shows a different take on reality (although I could be wrong). Using the word "artistic" as a way to qualify something is very vague indeed and many people will take that to mean many different things.

jra wrote in post #15114840
IMO, every photo is "artistic" in the sense that the photographer chooses the framing, the DOF, the perspective, the exposure, and the moment to press the shutter button and the processing to follow. As was already mentioned, nailing down a specific definition is very difficult (if not near impossible) because we all have different views. I think when the OP was refering to artistic, s/he meant a photo that shows a different take on reality (although I could be wrong). Using the word "artistic" as a way to qualify something is very vague indeed and many people will take that to mean many different things.

Fair enough, everyone has their own style. As far as I'm concerned - if you like your pictures, that's all that matters.

Interesting discussion. But, the OP asked us to post images, so I thought in all fairness to him I should do so. It'd be good to get back on track with what he wanted this thread to become.

When trying to decide what my "best" image was, I finally realized that I cannot identify any one image as being better than all the others.

So, what I have is not a single "best" picture, but rather a collection of several dozen "personal favorites". Here is one of them, taken earlier this year. I don't know if it is "artistic" or not (that is to be determined by the eye of the beholder). The subjects are wild Prairie Chickens, in South Dakota.

I don't know about artistic, it is something different to everyone. The below image is probably one of my favorite images - if not the most favorite - that I have ever taken. I guess that makes it the best and most artistic to me?

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/davidkhaykin/2​623464796/

Who says you can't take architecture shots with the 70-200 IS II. This is nearly 20 stitched images.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR