| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2007 08:45:06 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Photography is simple, it is a capture of a stolen moment in time of what the eye sees.
When taken to another level using our heads, our hearts, our souls the photograph because a tool and the final image becomes something else. A piece of Digital Art (A Visual Work Created by Digital Means i.e. Computer)
Digital Photography is 'filmless photography' It can be enhanced to a point before it crosses the line. When the real becomes the Unreal it is something else. Yes, a Photograph was still the canvas, however it is difficult to call it a photograph any longer. One of the reasons I call most of them Images anymore and not photographs. |
OK...in basic editing I did this
Under the rules, everything was followed. The sky in the original picture was light blue whitish (Don't have the original to show) But it definitely wasn't black. Is this now digital art since over half the image is completely different (The negative space)?
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My response to this perpetual question anymore is "Who cares??"
I just never get the point of this debate. |
I care when I get a comment that says "Digital Art...therefore DNMC." I'd like to know WHY it would be considered this in that persons point of view. At what point did I cross the line? That's one reason I'm beginning to care.
The point of the debate, for me anyways, is to get an idea of what members think is and isn't digital art. I can see now that there is no real line, but a blur and that regardless of whether I follow the editing rules, if a person thinks I went too far, regardless of how well the image looks, I will be given a low score by that person.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 09:04:37 PM · #27 |
 heavyj, you seem to want a solid definition of what constitutes photography vs digital art. The problem there, like stated before in other post, is that it is entirely subjective. You could ask 100 members what their definition is and they could give you 100 different answers. Imo, the only one that really matters is your definition, if someone disagrees with you then so be it, does that change what you tried to convey in the image? I think not. You decide where the blurry line is for yourself, and let others decide for themselves. just my 2 cents
Message edited by author 2007-12-03 21:05:35. |
|
|
|
12/03/2007 10:45:53 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
OK...in basic editing I did this
Under the rules, everything was followed. The sky in the original picture was light blue whitish (Don't have the original to show) But it definitely wasn't black. Is this now digital art since over half the image is completely different (The negative space)?
|
Answer this, on an average day, under average conditions is this an image you would be likely to see? Without a camera? I believe the answer itself would be No, you wouldn't.
Now, granted, photographers have been manipulating images since they could take an image. The question is, what is real and isn't real?
If a person can Digitally paint an image of a person so well I can not tell it isn't a portrait photography, then guess what, It is what it appears to be.
There is an airbrush artist, the linkie was posted here on DPC some time ago. He painted so fantastically, that you would swear it was a photograph. So what was that?
If you didn't know before hand, you would call it a photograph.
What do you perceive as being real?
I stand my by original answer, a Photograph is simply a stolen moment of time. The rest, the modification, alteration editing by whatever means is used allows something else to be created/seen/perceived. Is it still a photography... *shrugs, the base is, just like when painted, the canvas is still there, same as it was before the painter started. Just can't see it as well anymore.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 10:58:37 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Answer this, on an average day, under average conditions is this an image you would be likely to see? Without a camera? I believe the answer itself would be No, you wouldn't.
Now, granted, photographers have been manipulating images since they could take an image. The question is, what is real and isn't real?
If a person can Digitally paint an image of a person so well I can not tell it isn't a portrait photography, then guess what, It is what it appears to be.
There is an airbrush artist, the linkie was posted here on DPC some time ago. He painted so fantastically, that you would swear it was a photograph. So what was that?
If you didn't know before hand, you would call it a photograph.
What do you perceive as being real?
I stand my by original answer, a Photograph is simply a stolen moment of time. The rest, the modification, alteration editing by whatever means is used allows something else to be created/seen/perceived. Is it still a photography... *shrugs, the base is, just like when painted, the canvas is still there, same as it was before the painter started. Just can't see it as well anymore. |
So that means anything taken with a long exposure with movement (i.e. waterfalls, star trails, etc) is digtal art? After all none of that is real just something created by the camera.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 11:02:23 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So that means anything taken with a long exposure with movement (i.e. waterfalls, star trails, etc) is digtal art? After all none of that is real just something created by the camera. |
Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments.
but ya know, to each their own.
Message edited by author 2007-12-03 23:02:40.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 11:14:10 PM · #31 |
A lot of viewers would think Photoshop was responsible and thus digital art. However, I could have pulled it off on film and had Walmart print it. It relied mostly on photographic technique. Now, which is it?
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 11:17:59 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by yanko:
So that means anything taken with a long exposure with movement (i.e. waterfalls, star trails, etc) is digtal art? After all none of that is real just something created by the camera. |
Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments.
but ya know, to each their own. |
Kudos for being consistent. I think that's a first in these types of threads.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 11:42:36 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by yanko:
So that means anything taken with a long exposure with movement (i.e. waterfalls, star trails, etc) is digtal art? After all none of that is real just something created by the camera. |
Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments.
but ya know, to each their own. |
with the concept of stolen moment comes the concept of truthfulness of this moment. If by any means the truthfulness of this moment was sullied. I would put it into realm outside of photography, it may or may not be digital art. (that is it may not be art at all and just a crap).
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:29:21 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by yanko:
So that means anything taken with a long exposure with movement (i.e. waterfalls, star trails, etc) is digtal art? After all none of that is real just something created by the camera. |
Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments.
but ya know, to each their own. |
with the concept of stolen moment comes the concept of truthfulness of this moment. If by any means the truthfulness of this moment was sullied. I would put it into realm outside of photography, it may or may not be digital art. (that is it may not be art at all and just a crap). |
A moment never has to be 'truthful' to be stolen. Its just a simple moment. Take it as you wish.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:39:50 AM · #35 |
| Photography started with cameras that needed extreme exposure times in order to get an image. Would those photos taken not be a photo because of the length of the exposure? littlegett you stated , Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments What defines a moment? 1/2500 sec? 1/250 sec? 1/25 sec? |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 12:55:37 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by yanko:
So that means anything taken with a long exposure with movement (i.e. waterfalls, star trails, etc) is digtal art? After all none of that is real just something created by the camera. |
Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments.
but ya know, to each their own. |
with the concept of stolen moment comes the concept of truthfulness of this moment. If by any means the truthfulness of this moment was sullied. I would put it into realm outside of photography, it may or may not be digital art. (that is it may not be art at all and just a crap). |
A moment never has to be 'truthful' to be stolen. Its just a simple moment. Take it as you wish. |
I think you misundertood the 'turthfulness of moment', even if its a simple moment, it has something in it.
For example take the moment when you smiled. Your smiling is the truthfulness of this moment. You captured it and altered such that now it looks as if you are crying. I would not call this photograph, I would call it digital art. Take the same moment you used photoshop to enhanced this photo but the photo still shows you smiling. (that is the gist or the truthfulness of that moment is not vitiated) I would like to keep this into realm of photography.
Further to take on your moment thing. I do not know how you define a moment, because no matter how small or big you define your moment it could be further be broken into smaller parts. And making it group of several such moments. By this logic you never have any photograph.
For example 0.6 second moment is 10 x 0.06 moments. (you could always divide it untill the time span becomes 0, which is no moment).
So this way long exposure is also photography or you have no photography. Chose what you like. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 01:12:43 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
heavyj, you seem to want a solid definition of what constitutes photography vs digital art. The problem there, like stated before in other post, is that it is entirely subjective. You could ask 100 members what their definition is and they could give you 100 different answers. Imo, the only one that really matters is your definition, if someone disagrees with you then so be it, does that change what you tried to convey in the image? I think not. You decide where the blurry line is for yourself, and let others decide for themselves. just my 2 cents |
Yes, I wanted a basic answer so that I knew where to draw the blurry line for CHALLENGES, as this discussion went where it went. On my own, for my own work there is no line so long as I like the image and it starts out with my camera.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 01:53:23 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
A lot of viewers would think Photoshop was responsible and thus digital art. However, I could have pulled it off on film and had Walmart print it. It relied mostly on photographic technique. Now, which is it? |
That is neither art, nor photography. It's KICKBALL!!! :P
Ok I can understand heavyj's asking the question for the purposes of challenge success, but the question you are asking is irrelevant - you should just simply ask "what do voters want?" - which would also be irrelevant because which voters? when? what challenge? While there are trends in the results on the front page - they generally evolve and occasionally buck the trend and sometimes they begin new trends - some people here seem to know "the formula" but it's not 100% and with an occasional lucky exception, they all put a great deal of effort into it.
So if you want what I think is the ribbon formula from my observations of 3 years of seeing the top people on this site win challenges- it is various combinations of the following:
- artistic vision
- the skill to realize that vision both with photography and processing
- the time and willingness to spend it
- the equipment itself
- access to locations, props and models
- support from family and friends
- persistence (enter lots or every challenge)
- knowing what generally works on DPC, but more importantly staying away from what doesn't
- timing / luck. Yes, luck plays a role in everything.
If I put all that into a pie chart, it would be a different chart for each of the top ribboners and a different chart each week for each challenge. You can read the notes on many of the winning shots - sometimes they spent days and elaborate setups, etc, other times they just snapped a shot at the right time.
Somewhat off topic maybe, but seems more on the topic you were getting at. And while you may see an occasional "Looks like digital art - 1", it is probably fairly rare and rarer than other biases i.e. nudes, religion, politics, etc. - all of which also carry their own dead horse debates. :)
Sheesh, what a babbbler I am. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:03:13 AM · #39 |
| ...as if I didn't say enough - I am still curious about the debate - WHY does anyone feel the need to draw any line anywhere? If you produce an image that you like and everyone likes - WHO CARES if you are called a photographer or an artist?? Who cares what you call yourself - you still produce the same images. I just don't get it. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:15:46 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Who cares what you call yourself - you still produce the same images. I just don't get it. |
People like labels -- look at all the sub-sub-genres in the music industry these days. Having a label confers a certain legitimacy -- the recognition by "the other" which absolves the viewer of having to decide what "it" is for themselves.
"He's an artist" is a clichéd joke, "He's a artist" sounds distinguished. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:17:16 AM · #41 |
| Art Roflmao <---- What he said...mostly because he talked us to death, but I agree w/ his points none the less. If you like the image, regardless of how you got there, then that's what really matters. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:20:24 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Who cares what you call yourself - you still produce the same images. I just don't get it. |
People like labels -- look at all the sub-sub-genres in the music industry these days. Having a label confers a certain legitimacy -- the recognition by "the other" which absolves the viewer of having to decide what "it" is for themselves.
"He's an artist" is a clichéd joke, "He's a artist" sounds distinguished. |
Good answer. I'm off to make up my own genre. ...along with a replacement for the word "genre" - bugs me. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:22:04 AM · #43 |
I'm gonna bite Ken/Art's foot!
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:23:37 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...as if I didn't say enough - I am still curious about the debate - WHY does anyone feel the need to draw any line anywhere? If you produce an image that you like and everyone likes - WHO CARES if you are called a photographer or an artist?? Who cares what you call yourself - you still produce the same images. I just don't get it. |
I don't care what I'm called. I care what my photograph is called in a challenge, because hey...we all want to ribbon and when we don't I'd like to know more about what I did wrong. If someone views it as digital art, then maybe a bit more on why that person feels that way. What line does THAT person have. Then, over time, I can start to understand a bit of the anti-digital art people's way of thinking for CHALLENGES.
This all started with a non-photographer asking me what the line was, and I didn't know the answer. Now I understand that it's a pointless debate.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:28:01 AM · #45 |
| Now I understand that it's a pointless debate lol, yup. I feel where you are coming from though. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:32:32 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...as if I didn't say enough - I am still curious about the debate - WHY does anyone feel the need to draw any line anywhere? If you produce an image that you like and everyone likes - WHO CARES if you are called a photographer or an artist?? Who cares what you call yourself - you still produce the same images. I just don't get it. |
I don't care what I'm called. I care what my photograph is called in a challenge, because hey...we all want to ribbon and when we don't I'd like to know more about what I did wrong. If someone views it as digital art, then maybe a bit more on why that person feels that way. What line does THAT person have. Then, over time, I can start to understand a bit of the anti-digital art people's way of thinking for CHALLENGES.
This all started with a non-photographer asking me what the line was, and I didn't know the answer. Now I understand that it's a pointless debate. |
I think you are assuming something which is not the case. The people who classify things as digital art need not be be against it. For example me, at no point I said that I dislike digital art or I will vote them down. Dividing things into category does not mean to hate them. In your someone might have voted a photo down for being digital art but it is generally not true.
Ask yourself would you do it? |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:36:28 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
...we all want to ribbon and when we don't I'd like to know more about what I did wrong. |
I've spotted part of the problem. :) There is no "wrong" in Art (although I have received countless "that's just wrong" comments).
Just do what you do and get better at at it over time. My final two cents. :) |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:38:04 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...as if I didn't say enough - I am still curious about the debate - WHY does anyone feel the need to draw any line anywhere? If you produce an image that you like and everyone likes - WHO CARES if you are called a photographer or an artist?? Who cares what you call yourself - you still produce the same images. I just don't get it. |
I am a Jar of Pickled Herring.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:47:54 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
I am a Jar of Pickled Herring. |
Username change requests must be directed through the Ticket system ... also, no spaces allowed; you may substitute hyphens or underscores ... ;-) |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 02:56:28 AM · #50 |
|
