| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2007 03:00:27 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
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. |
Damn! I had you pegged for Peanut Butter. or Peanut_Butter. :)
Now I shall henceforth call you JoPH. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 03:48:10 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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 ... ;-) |
hmmmm
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 09:16:53 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Username change requests must be directed through the Ticket system ... also, no spaces allowed; you may substitute hyphens or underscores ... ;-) |
Then how do you explain  Art Roflmao?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 09:24:50 AM · #54 |
One thing that amuses me about this discussion is how it seems to be working on the assumption that "digital art" involves using photographs as a starting point. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a hell of a lot of "digital artists" out there who would say "If it uses a photograph it is NOT digital art"; these people create their work using the computer in a manner analogous to how a painter uses his brushes.
And here's another question for ya: there's a whole genre of fine-art painting called "photorealism" where the artist, working freehand with paint on canvas, creates images that are basically indistinguishable from photographs. Would you call these "paintings"? Would you call them "art"?
And amongst the photorealist painters, are works created by projecting an image onto the canvas and drawing in the outlines of the finished work somehow "less artistic" than those done without benefit of or reference to a photograph?
If your answer to the latter is "yes", then where do you rank the old-school painters who used the camera obscura to project a scene from life and drew over that to create their basic compositions? This was done centuries before the invention of "photography"...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 09:54:08 AM · #55 |
Just tell him what Andy Warhol said when he was getting flak for not "creating art":
"All art is an adaptation of other art".
That will hopefully throw anyone off enough that they stop talking. |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:15:41 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One thing that amuses me about this discussion is how it seems to be working on the assumption that "digital art" involves using photographs as a starting point. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a hell of a lot of "digital artists" out there who would say "If it uses a photograph it is NOT digital art"; these people create their work using the computer in a manner analogous to how a painter uses his brushes.
R. |
Not a photograph, but represent a true moment. (I guess this is in between case). I did not shoot it, but somebody else made a movie about this. I only snapped a picture from that movie.
[thumb]543712[/thumb]
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And here's another question for ya: there's a whole genre of fine-art painting called "photorealism" where the artist, working freehand with paint on canvas, creates images that are basically indistinguishable from photographs. Would you call these "paintings"? Would you call them "art"?
And amongst the photorealist painters, are works created by projecting an image onto the canvas and drawing in the outlines of the finished work somehow "less artistic" than those done without benefit of or reference to a photograph?
If your answer to the latter is "yes", then where do you rank the old-school painters who used the camera obscura to project a scene from life and drew over that to create their basic compositions? This was done centuries before the invention of "photography"...
R. |
photo-realism is most challenging thing:
[thumb]286510[/thumb] |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:20:15 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It becomes totally subjective and what one person considers art, another considers photography. |
and what if one considers photography, art ?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:24:05 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments.
|
So what shutter speed does photography end, for you, and digital art begin ?
1/250s ? 1/50s ? 1 second ?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:36:04 PM · #59 |
An answer to the initial post and my perspective.
Digital Art is basically the process used. It can be photographs, photoshopped work, music, lasers...anything that is manipulated digitally. It does not have to be a static 2 dimensional thing such as a print. Painting and sculpture are not generally considered digital art. Add some digital parts/proccesses...
Digital Photography is the continuation of film photography. Rather than using film as the capture device it is a digital sensor.
One is not exclusive or inclusive of the other.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:55:01 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Basically, in my humble opinion. Yes. A photography is a stolen moment, not stolen several moments.
|
So what shutter speed does photography end, for you, and digital art begin ?
1/250s ? 1/50s ? 1 second ? |
You silly silly boy. 6-;
It isn't a question of shutter speed that marks a moment, but the moment itself.
I have never seen a bubbling brook with streamlined water as it flows. Nor have I seen Crashing waves upon the shore be streamlined.
Still life, that moment is there until it is changed. Do a three day long shutter speed, that moment is never lost. It doesn't change.
Now, the moment a surfer crests the top of the wave, You can freeze that moment and save it forever... However, if you take two much time to freeze the moment it would be lost. If you are not quick enough, it is lost.
So, you tell me, what shutter speed to you use for your moments? Is it the same for each one? Or does the situation call for a different speed to capture that moment?
Seriously now, don't be so silly in the thought.
Because in the time it took for you to read this reply, a lifetime of moments have passed you by.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 07:28:00 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
I have never seen a bubbling brook with streamlined water as it flows. Nor have I seen Crashing waves upon the shore be streamlined.
Still life, that moment is there until it is changed. Do a three day long shutter speed, that moment is never lost. It doesn't change.
|
But it's the same at the other end - I've never seen a crashing wave frozen perfectly sharply. I've never seen a bullet exploding through the back of an apple - are those equally well not photography ?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:00:25 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by littlegett:
I have never seen a bubbling brook with streamlined water as it flows. Nor have I seen Crashing waves upon the shore be streamlined.
Still life, that moment is there until it is changed. Do a three day long shutter speed, that moment is never lost. It doesn't change.
|
But it's the same at the other end - I've never seen a crashing wave frozen perfectly sharply. I've never seen a bullet exploding through the back of an apple - are those equally well not photography ? |
The thing is, You do see those things only your brain does not proccess them nor do your eyes as quickly.
There is a difference between Freezing a moment and extending it.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:03:22 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
The thing is, You do see those things only your brain does not proccess them nor do your eyes as quickly.
There is a difference between Freezing a moment and extending it. |
So I see them, but my brain and/or eyes don't let me see them.
Isn't that the same if I watch a wave crashing in for a few seconds then ?
I see it, but my brain /eyes don't let me see them, in the same way.
It's an interesting distinction to hinge the difference between art and photography on, is all.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:45:43 PM · #64 |
| I seem to remember from anatomy class that the average recovery time for retinal neurons -- the time from when they send an impulse to the brain until the cell regains the chemical equilibrium to send another impulse -- is about 1/30 second (hence the frame rates for movies and videos), so I guess any other shutter speed represents a technologically-induced distortion of our record of reality ... better use a 50mm prime lens too. :-( |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:53:17 PM · #65 |
... better use a 50mm prime lens too. :-(
Unless your shooting a crop sensor;) |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:53:53 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by littlegett:
The thing is, You do see those things only your brain does not proccess them nor do your eyes as quickly.
There is a difference between Freezing a moment and extending it. |
So I see them, but my brain and/or eyes don't let me see them.
Isn't that the same if I watch a wave crashing in for a few seconds then ?
I see it, but my brain /eyes don't let me see them, in the same way.
It's an interesting distinction to hinge the difference between art and photography on, is all. |
I am not making a distinction between art and photography because they are one in the same on their own level.
However, one thing your brain doesn't do, is remember visually in a continuous motion. If you can, then you have an extra special gift.
What I am saying is if you can stare at your ocean breaking, and as you stare for a few seconds,(say 5) that you can perfectly remember the exact placement/position/type/strength/colour/arc/ect for the first second, then combines with the next one, and those two combine with the third and forth and fifth and you perfectly can see the streamlines caused by that data, so in essence you stop seeing the scene as you first did but as a continuous blur of movement created by previous moments?
That is a special person.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:59:04 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by littlegett:
The thing is, You do see those things only your brain does not proccess them nor do your eyes as quickly.
There is a difference between Freezing a moment and extending it. |
So I see them, but my brain and/or eyes don't let me see them.
Isn't that the same if I watch a wave crashing in for a few seconds then ?
I see it, but my brain /eyes don't let me see them, in the same way.
It's an interesting distinction to hinge the difference between art and photography on, is all. |
I am not making a distinction between art and photography because they are one in the same on their own level.
However, one thing your brain doesn't do, is remember visually in a continuous motion. If you can, then you have an extra special gift.
What I am saying is if you can stare at your ocean breaking, and as you stare for a few seconds,(say 5) that you can perfectly remember the exact placement/position/type/strength/colour/arc/ect for the first second, then combines with the next one, and those two combine with the third and forth and fifth and you perfectly can see the streamlines caused by that data, so in essence you stop seeing the scene as you first did but as a continuous blur of movement created by previous moments?
That is a special person. |
Wave a sparkler in the air at night. Tell me you don't see motion trails ? |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 09:10:33 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
...Can someone give me a basic, 1 or 2 sentences on the different. Like: An apple is red and tastes sweet, an orange comes from a different tree and has a different taste. Something THAT simple would be NICE as an explanation. |
Photography is photography is photography and sometimes photography reminds the management that we are human that we have sensibilities and then it is an art.
Digital art is a misnomer if it were not a misnomer it would be something that starts with photography and ends up an abomination.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 09:10:50 PM · #69 |
I do believe those motion trains are quite different then what it is I am speaking of now.
However, I can see this door is closed and I grow tired of not being heard.
(don't have to agree with me, but it would be nice to be understood.)
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 10:20:36 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
I was thinking of more a BEFORE: (Photo) AFTER: (Same photo but now DIGITAL ART) |
[thumb]494417[/thumb]
 |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 10:38:06 AM · #71 |
| It's all art. When you take a picture you're creating art. It could be crap, it could be brilliant, but it's entirely subjective... like art. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:54:10 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by JayA:
Originally posted by heavyj:
I was thinking of more a BEFORE: (Photo) AFTER: (Same photo but now DIGITAL ART) |
[thumb]494417[/thumb]
|
That just looks like you cut and past the building into another picture full of preset brushes.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:22:57 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
Originally posted by JayA:
Originally posted by heavyj:
I was thinking of more a BEFORE: (Photo) AFTER: (Same photo but now DIGITAL ART) |
[thumb]494417[/thumb]
|
That just looks like you cut and past the building into another picture full of preset brushes. |
well not really the sky is made from 3 different skys combined, some of the trees are brushes but some i took yesterday with my camera.
and as the Liverbuilding wasn't the top layer it wasn't as simple as cut and paste :) |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:54:45 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Tez:
It's all art. When you take a picture you're creating art. It could be crap, it could be brilliant, but it's entirely subjective... like art. |
Why is a photo necessarily art? |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 02:40:59 PM · #75 |
because art is the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements. Photographers arrange elements within the picture to create their vision. Artists (painters, sculptures, architects, great chefs) arrange elements within their medium to create their vision, or their interpetation.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:53:41 AM EDT.
