DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Is it Photography or Is it Photoshop?
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 144, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/18/2007 04:13:55 PM · #101
Originally posted by yanko:

....

Funny thing is you never see one thread of the opposite. Nobody starts a thread saying my work IS photography! Probably because they are too busy doing what they love instead of bitching about what they don't like.


Some weird guy just did. Too much time on his hands I say. ;-)
09/18/2007 04:14:58 PM · #102
Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by yanko:

....

Funny thing is you never see one thread of the opposite. Nobody starts a thread saying my work IS photography! Probably because they are too busy doing what they love instead of bitching about what they don't like.


Some weird guy just did. Too much time on his hands I say. ;-)


Hey, I'm billing! Always billing...
09/18/2007 04:15:46 PM · #103
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by yanko:

....

Funny thing is you never see one thread of the opposite. Nobody starts a thread saying my work IS photography! Probably because they are too busy doing what they love instead of bitching about what they don't like.


Some weird guy just did. Too much time on his hands I say. ;-)


Hey, I'm billing! Always billing...


:)
09/18/2007 04:18:52 PM · #104
Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by yanko:

....

Funny thing is you never see one thread of the opposite. Nobody starts a thread saying my work IS photography! Probably because they are too busy doing what they love instead of bitching about what they don't like.


Some weird guy just did. Too much time on his hands I say. ;-)


Ha. Well I did say probably.
09/18/2007 05:02:08 PM · #105
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by macpapas:

There's "darkroom" type Photoshopping and then there's this type of stuff:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This is an incredibily AWESOME image, and I don't want to take away from it's coolness or the creators incredible talent. It obviously met all the Expert Editing rules, but I'm hardpressed to call this "photography" - this is digital art in my mind.

Why isn't it Photography? Several photographs were combined to produce a piece of art ... it's not painting, it's not drawing, it's not a tapestry or a hook-rug.

- no it is not drawing, or hook-rug, or tapestry - it is digital art -

there is nothing wrong with digital art either - and it obviously as seen in this image incorporates photographic elements, but that doesn't mean that it IS photography

Just because i use a photograph in a collage i make, doesn't make the collage a 'photograph'
09/18/2007 05:24:53 PM · #106
Using Justin's image as an example is on the far end of the scale, its true. I still think of it as photography since that was its genesis, but I understand why many would call it digital art. On the mid-range of the scale, however, the line gets more blurred...

Is this digital art?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/689/120/527228.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/689/120/527228.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Do you prefer the original "photograph"?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/15266/120/533792.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/15266/120/533792.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
09/18/2007 05:26:34 PM · #107
Originally posted by idnic:

Using Justin's image as an example is on the far end of the scale, its true. I still think of it as photography since that was its genesis, but I understand why many would call it digital art. On the mid-range of the scale, however, the line gets more blurred...

Is this digital art?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/689/120/527228.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/689/120/527228.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Do you prefer the original "photograph"?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/15266/120/533792.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/15266/120/533792.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


No and no.
09/18/2007 05:27:37 PM · #108
Originally posted by leaf:



Just because i use a photograph in a collage i make, doesn't make the collage a 'photograph'


Nope, it makes it a collage made of photographs. :-))
09/18/2007 05:44:25 PM · #109
Originally posted by yanko:

The only bizarre need I see around here are those who hate digital art so much that they can't stand it's existence. They start thread after thread derailing it and trying to convince whoever will listen that digital art isn't photography. Funny thing is you never see one thread of the opposite. Nobody starts a thread saying my work IS photography! Probably because they are too busy doing what they love instead of bitching about what they don't like.


I think the reason you see it more around here is probably because of this

Expert Editing places minimal restrictions on your post-processing. A full range of editing tools are allowed for touch-up and enhancement as well as for image modification. Please remember, however, that this is a photography contest. You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly.

Whatever that might mean.
09/18/2007 07:33:20 PM · #110
Photographers have been combining images since the invention of the glass plate negative and the acceptance of the resulting images as photographs has been widely held. Now, simply because combining images is now more easily done and more accessible to the masses via computer technology, such images are now, no longer considered photographs.

09/18/2007 07:38:02 PM · #111
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Photographers have been combining images since the invention of the glass plate negative and the acceptance of the resulting images as photographs has been widely held. Now, simply because combining images is now more easily done and more accessible to the masses via computer technology, such images are now, no longer considered photographs.


He, he, yeah :) Funny how that works. That's where what Gordon bolded above is so tricky, what in the world is "photographic in nature"?
09/19/2007 10:36:31 AM · #112
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Photographers have been combining images since the invention of the glass plate negative and the acceptance of the resulting images as photographs has been widely held.


That I'd disagree with. There's a good interview on Jerry Uelsmann's site where he describes taking his photographs to New York and being told by everyone that 'they are interesting, but not photography'

The printmakers & painters that he worked with accepted his images for what they were, whatever that is, but the photographic establishment 'rejected' them too. That was in the 70's

The interview is worth reading for more valuable reasons that any sort of side discussion on if collections of images is photography or not though. Interesting stuff on his process and approach.

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 10:40:33.
09/19/2007 10:46:31 AM · #113
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Photographers have been combining images since the invention of the glass plate negative and the acceptance of the resulting images as photographs has been widely held.


That I'd disagree with. There's a good interview on Jerry Uelsmann's site where he describes taking his photographs to New York and being told by everyone that 'they are interesting, but not photography'

The printmakers & painters that he worked with accepted his images for what they were, whatever that is, but the photographic establishment 'rejected' them too. That was in the 70's


I was referring more to the composite images created in the 1800's using multiple glass plate negatives to create scenes that, while not real, certainly were not as fantastical as Uelsmann. Perhaps the acceptance of those images was due to the fact that people were still trying to figure out what photography itself was and it's place in the world of art.

Uelsmann certainly had more difficulty gaining acceptance, but today, he's usually referred to as a "Photographer" and not pegged with some other label. One thing he certainly isn't: Digital.
09/19/2007 10:56:37 AM · #114
When comparing digital to film processing you might want to check out the following link. It's from the Sept 2007 Shutterbug magazine. It's about Jerry Uelsmann and how he assembled multiple negatives in different enlargers to create his photographs. I think it relates very well how darkroom editing has changed to Photoshop editing.

//www.shutterbug.net/techniques/pro_techniques/0907ueksmann/index.html
09/19/2007 11:02:07 AM · #115
I did a quick survey in the office yesterday and asked 10 people to look at the following three “PHOTOGRAPHS” (purposely used that word) and state whether they thought it would be better classified as photography or digital art.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/689/120/527228.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/689/120/527228.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' 10/10 put in photography category
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/334/120/171632.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/334/120/171632.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' 8/10 put in digital art category
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' 10/10 put in digital art category

When I asked the two people who thought Joey’s image was photography why they selected that category, they both (mutually exclusively) said “because it obviously started from some type of photograph/picture”.

I then showed the same three pictures to four other people and told them that the images were created from photographs. I then asked, of the artists who created them, who is the better photographer and who is the better digital artist. Same results, only the Elephant image got the “photography” heading.

Although this is far from being a scientific survey, bottom line to “me” - people have a clear distinction in their mind as to what constitutes photography and what is digital art, and the general trend (in my small survey – and ONLY based on these three images) is that “if you cannot tell the image started from a photograph, it would probably better be classified as digital art (or some other type of art form)”.

Having said that – just to be clear - (IMHO), if you don’t think Photoshop (or any other image editor) is part of photography – you’re missing the boat (it just left you on pier – you’ll have to walk around – it’s a long walk, sorry). The ORIGNAL post again was asking “where do you draw the line?”, and somehow the discussion got into this PS is not photography, collages are not photography, combining multiple images is not photography…..thing (I lost track of some of the arguments along the way)… However, IMO, if you have manipulated a photograph(s) to the point that you cannot tell it started from a photograph – you have most likely crossed over the divide and moved it to another art form other then photography. (AND THERE”S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!)

09/19/2007 11:02:50 AM · #116
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Uelsmann certainly had more difficulty gaining acceptance, but today, he's usually referred to as a "Photographer" and not pegged with some other label. One thing he certainly isn't: Digital.

Seems to me that Uelsmann was quite unique in his time and it's difficult to categorize his work.

Yet. He is the primary example held up as the precedent to extreme photo manipulation, aka "Digital Art".

If this (creating artwork that no longer resembles a photograph) was widely practiced prior to digital cameras and photoshop, why is the list of practicioners so short?

Extreme use of photoshop has created a new age in art and certainly has it's place, but to call much of the collages and fantasy creations "photography" is a fallacy IMO.
09/19/2007 11:05:01 AM · #117
Originally posted by macpapas:

However, IMO, if you have manipulated a photograph(s) to the point that you cannot tell it started from a photograph – you have most likely crossed over the divide and moved it to another art form other then photography. (AND THERE”S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!)

Very well stated. Kudos on the survey too! :D
09/19/2007 11:23:33 AM · #118
I like photos that look like digital art, especially Elsapo's...How do I learn how to do this? I've searched the web and some images on here but can't really find any info. I like the city's that look digital too.

Originally posted by idnic:

Using Justin's image as an example is on the far end of the scale, its true. I still think of it as photography since that was its genesis, but I understand why many would call it digital art.

09/19/2007 11:31:16 AM · #119
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Uelsmann certainly had more difficulty gaining acceptance, but today, he's usually referred to as a "Photographer" and not pegged with some other label. One thing he certainly isn't: Digital.

Seems to me that Uelsmann was quite unique in his time and it's difficult to categorize his work.

Yet. He is the primary example held up as the precedent to extreme photo manipulation, aka "Digital Art".

If this (creating artwork that no longer resembles a photograph) was widely practiced prior to digital cameras and photoshop, why is the list of practicioners so short?

Extreme use of photoshop has created a new age in art and certainly has it's place, but to call much of the collages and fantasy creations "photography" is a fallacy IMO.


The pre-digital list is short because it's very difficult work. What the advent of digital photography has done is made extensive manipulation much easier and the tools accessible to many more people, just as it has done with photography in general.

Uelsmann is used as an example because he is the most extreme example and the results are most dramatic. Similar techniques have long been used in other areas to create dramatic, but equally impossible, results. Sandwiching slides in a slide copier is one technique that springs immediately to mind. So does using rubylith to mask out a background and drop in another for a catalog shot.

If Uelsmann or someone else used the same extensive manipulations to create images that were indiscernible from single exposure photographs, would that then make him a photographer in the narrow-minded view of the "photo-purists"? What about HDR? Is that beyond photography? Is such an image not photography if the viewer can't tell?

The arguments that manipulated images aren't photgraphy sound a lot like the arguments of the established art community in the 1800's that photography itself wasn't art, but some kind of mechanical abomination.

09/19/2007 01:36:17 PM · #120
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Uelsmann certainly had more difficulty gaining acceptance, but today, he's usually referred to as a "Photographer" and not pegged with some other label. One thing he certainly isn't: Digital.


Except of course, when he is.
09/19/2007 02:20:37 PM · #121
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Yes my photo is a photo manipulation, which I guess is considered a form of digital art. So I guess yes it is not "photographic" in nature. I was happy that it was so widely accepted during the challenge and I think that it scored high because it wasnt just a manip, it had a meaning behind it that people understood. I get why it has become "contraversial" here, but I dont see why anyone wants to keep that form of art out of DPC.

I really dont think that having an expert editing challenge every now and then will really change the site that much. If anything it will make it more interesting. Basic and advanced editing rule sets are very good in my opinion and really doesnt give you that much room to do anything like my Hope photo.
09/19/2007 02:24:49 PM · #122
Originally posted by elsapo:

"photographic" in nature.


Still don't know what the heck that means. No one can define that term and it should be banished from the rules and the site...

:-D

Edit to add Arrrgh!

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 14:25:40.
09/19/2007 02:25:06 PM · #123
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Uelsmann certainly had more difficulty gaining acceptance, but today, he's usually referred to as a "Photographer" and not pegged with some other label. One thing he certainly isn't: Digital.


Except of course, when he is.


I know his wife works on the computer, but I have not heard of Jerry using the computer in his own work.
09/19/2007 03:40:54 PM · #124
Originally posted by elsapo:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/702/120/543104.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Yes my photo is a photo manipulation, which I guess is considered a form of digital art. So I guess yes it is not "photographic" in nature. I was happy that it was so widely accepted during the challenge and I think that it scored high because it wasnt just a manip, it had a meaning behind it that people understood. I get why it has become "contraversial" here, but I dont see why anyone wants to keep that form of art out of DPC.

I really dont think that having an expert editing challenge every now and then will really change the site that much. If anything it will make it more interesting. Basic and advanced editing rule sets are very good in my opinion and really doesnt give you that much room to do anything like my Hope photo.


Hey Justin,

First of all, I would like to publically apologize for bringing you into the sorted mess of a thread by using your picture as an example. It was not my intent to malign your skills or your picture in any way. As I noted on several occasions, it’s a totally AWESOME image that met all the Expert Editing rules and whole heartedly deserved 1st place. It was also not my intention, nor did “I” ever state (I can’t speak for others on this thread), that this form of art should be taken out of DPC – personally, I think it’s really cool and would love to know how to do it!!

I brought your image into this discussion as example of where I personally draw the line between photography and digital art – that’s not to say that one is better or worse than the other, or that digital art should not be part of this site – it was just “an example” of an image that I personally thought transcended what most would call photography into something else (in this case, the term being used: “digital art”).

Again, I cannot speak for others on this thread, but please do not read into my comments as being negative in any way towards you or your image. I used the picture in what I thought would be an academic discussion of the “blurring line” between photography and “multi-media artwork” (to use the OP’s original terminology). It’s great stuff – I hope to see more!!

-Mark

09/19/2007 04:15:20 PM · #125
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I know his wife works on the computer, but I have not heard of Jerry using the computer in his own work.


He talked a bit about it in that interview. That he much prefers the magic of the darkroom and chemicals, but that he does work on a computer, with someone else doing the technical stuff and him directing.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 04:58:05 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 04:58:05 PM EST.