| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2005 01:39:31 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I am having a hard time trying to put a definition of the concept (that RulerZigzag spoke about when he started this thread) that I have in my mind into words. It's easy to say this image fits and that one doesn't. But trying to come up with a strict outline of what is and what isn't in words is like trying to contain a cloud of fog with a chainlink fence. It just doesn't work. I am not against editing just for the sake of being against something, or to draw a line. I have learned editing techniques here that have helped me to produce better pictures. I need to learn more too. And I am not against digital art per se, it has it's value and a place in the big tent that goes by the name of digital photography. Even though I cannot come up with a decent definition to draw a hard and fast distinction between the two (photography and art) I am against what I perceive as a continual blurring of the separation, and a seeming reluctance to acknowledge it exists. |
Yup - it is a difficult line to draw - the issue I take is when things created entirely in camera are considered digital art - that just doesn't seem logical to me.
Advanced editing or Photoshop have nothing whatsoever to do with long exposures or wide angle lenses. You may not like or be interested in photographic art, which is of course, perfectly reasonable. Personally I'm not very interested in heavily manipulated images or those were the majority of the impact was created in Photoshop - and those are what I believe are commonly considered digital art. Images were the colours are put in in photoshop, or elements are created in a rendering package might be impressive, but not what I'd consider photography any more, moving on in to that messy, ill defined hybrid world of digital art.
I'm all for thinking and supporting the idea that dpchallenge should be about good photography and photographic skills. But classing photographic techniques as 'digital art' doesn't help the issue much at all. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 10:18:54 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yup - it is a difficult line to draw - the issue I take is when things created entirely in camera are considered digital art - that just doesn't seem logical to me.
Advanced editing or Photoshop have nothing whatsoever to do with long exposures or wide angle lenses. You may not like or be interested in photographic art, which is of course, perfectly reasonable. Personally I'm not very interested in heavily manipulated images or those were the majority of the impact was created in Photoshop - and those are what I believe are commonly considered digital art. Images were the colours are put in in photoshop, or elements are created in a rendering package might be impressive, but not what I'd consider photography any more, moving on in to that messy, ill defined hybrid world of digital art. |
But you seem to take pride in producing the same kind of outcome when it is done by what you call photographic technique. I believe images that are commonly called digital art, and those that are not, are divided by there appearance, not by the methods used to get there. After all, in the vast majority of cases the viewer doesn't know the methods used. Should we not be able to say what we think is art until we investigate what methods the photographer/artist used? What makes you think "that messy, ill defined hybrid world of digital art" starts after the image leaves the camera? It would be a convienent place to draw the line, just as the chainlink would be, if it worked.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm all for thinking and supporting the idea that dpchallenge should be about good photography and photographic skills. But classing photographic techniques as 'digital art' doesn't help the issue much at all. |
Depending on the final appearance, photographic techniques can produce digital art just as can photo editing/manipulating software.
Some ducks are hatched in nests in the wild, some are hatched in manmade incubators. Both can fly, quack and walk like a duck.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 10:26:24 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
But you seem to take pride in producing the same kind of outcome when it is done by what you call photographic technique. I believe images that are commonly called digital art ... |
You seem to be fixated on one photo which required the use of a specific technique for which Gordon's photo -- of which he should be proud -- is an entirely expected example.
Have you looked at his flowers and butterflies and other "photographs" -- they are pretty good too.
That that one (good) photo happens to look like "digital art" and that a lot of people liked it says zero about anyone's photographic philosophy.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 22:26:53. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 10:50:38 PM · #104 |
| Long before Digital art, there was ordinary Photography. Now anything modified on a computer is of course digital art. I do not care if my photos donot generate any money. As long as I keep them looking original, with just contrast and sharpness level adjustments. My camera has a built in saturation adjuster. It is good enough. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 11:11:58 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You seem to be fixated on one photo which required the use of a specific technique for which Gordon's photo -- of which he should be proud -- is an entirely expected example.
Have you looked at his flowers and butterflies and other "photographs" -- they are pretty good too.
That that one (good) photo happens to look like "digital art" and that a lot of people liked it says zero about anyone's photographic philosophy. |
Nothing that I have posted in this thread, nor others, is intended in any why to detract from, or speak in a derogatory fashion about, the abilities of Gordon with camera and/or computer, nor his images. He is much more experienced and accomplished than me with both. He has been a dpc user longer than I have. He has ribboned and I haven't. His challenge images usually score higher with the voters than mine do. He has had more people select him as a Favorite Photographer than I have. He has had more of his shots selected as people's Favorite Photographs than I have. If Gordon, or anyone else, has been offended by what I have posted here, I apologize to them.
I will not apologize for my taste in photography, nor for my determination of what I think is digital art. Nor will I be intimidated from voicing my opinions when I choose to do so.
In My Humble Opinion, Gordon's blue ribbon winning "Fantasia" is digatal art, it is eye candy. It is a prime example of the kind of digital art that we were told would not take over the site when the Advanced Rules were put in place a year ago. It is a prime example of the kind of digital art that is dragging the site away from it's intended concentration on digital photgraphy.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 11:21:39 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Long before Digital art, there was ordinary Photography. Now anything modified on a computer is of course digital art. I do not care if my photos donot generate any money. As long as I keep them looking original, with just contrast and sharpness level adjustments. My camera has a built in saturation adjuster. It is good enough. |
When you get the money, go out and buy CS. Your whole attitude will change. Because you don't have it I think you feel that you are at some disatvantage competing with other members here on DP. DP is not the real world. It is a learning tool, a proveing ground, and to some a crutch.
For now use it as a learnig tool. Learn even the things you think you don't need. Later, as your work improves, and it will if you stick it out, use this as a proving ground to get outside oppinions and input. When you think you have reached a certain level of proficiency go out into the real world and put your work in the newspapers, the magazines, the galleries or wherever you think you want to go.
When you are at a point that most of your chalenges are getting sixes and above , regardless of your editing technique, you need to branch out and make you world bigger.
Message edited by author 2005-01-11 00:26:11.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2005 12:18:33 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I will not apologize for my taste in photography, nor for my determination of what I think is digital art. Nor will I be intimidated from voicing my opinions when I choose to do so... |
No apology necessary nor intimidation intended ... my post was merely an observation that the thread (and your later thesis that the site is being "changed") seemed to be based primarily on this one image ... and that it was one which was in a challenge which was specifically intended (I think) to produce images similar to what you consider digital art. I don't think it's fair to paint the trends and directions of DPC with so broad a brush (pun intended), especially when based on so narrow a sample.
Message edited by author 2005-01-11 00:23:25. |
|
|
|
01/11/2005 12:36:14 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I will not apologize for my taste in photography, nor for my determination of what I think is digital art. Nor will I be intimidated from voicing my opinions when I choose to do so... |
No apology necessary nor intimidation intended ... my post was merely an observation that the thread (and your later thesis that the site is being "changed") seemed to be based primarily on this one image ... and that it was one which was in a challenge which was specifically intended (I think) to produce images similar to what you consider digital art. I don't think it's fair to paint the trends and directions of DPC with so broad a brush (pun intended), especially when based on so narrow a sample. |
Well, the sample was two to begin with, but there are many, many more which could be cited.
Do you agree or disagree with my "thesis" ? That is a much more important topic. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2005 12:49:28 AM · #109 |
| Did the invention of the eraser stir this much controversy? |
|
|
|
01/11/2005 02:08:07 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Do you agree or disagree with my "thesis" ? That is a much more important topic. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. |
Mostly I don't. I think one of the reason the "examples" stand out is because the site is primarily filled with images which are indubitably "natural photographs" -- yet we complain incessantly about photos looking "like snapshots" as well.
Personally I find myself doing quite a bit less editing than I did earlier, partly because my subjects and shots don't require it, and also because any attempt to "try something interesting" -- even when well within even the Basic rules -- has been almost invariably been met with votes in the low fours.
I think the vast majority of high-rating images fall into the category of "photograph" and not "digital art." Perhaps you can post a list or count of photos finishing in the top ten for the last ten challenges which you consider over the boundary. My guess is it would be ten or fifteen images -- I don't think I'll worry until it gets over 40-50 or so. |
|
|
|
01/11/2005 05:43:33 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
In My Humble Opinion, Gordon's blue ribbon winning "Fantasia" is digatal art, it is eye candy. It is a prime example of the kind of digital art that we were told would not take over the site when the Advanced Rules were put in place a year ago. It is a prime example of the kind of digital art that is dragging the site away from it's intended concentration on digital photgraphy. |
Actually, this is a prime example of an effect that can be done with a camera, be it digital or film. This is not only encouraged it is aplauded for its creative use of the photographic medium. The type of fantastic images that the site is trying to discourage are those where the primary effects are created digitally where they don't exist in the original photo. Determining what is digital art solely on a visual basis is really misunderstanding this site's definition of digital art. This site focuses on photographic techniques and proper digital editing, not digital creation. I don't completely disagree with you in that many photos appear as digital art and I don't prefer them as much as more naturally looking photos but that is simply my preference. As long as people are following the rules, which we carefully monitor, and they create their visual effects photographically, then a wide variety of photos are welcome.
T
Message edited by author 2005-01-11 05:45:43.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2005 06:08:17 AM · #112 |
This has got to be the stupidist thread I have ever read or responded to. OK, well maybe not the stupidist.
I can pretty closly replicate Fantasia with a $100 30 year old Spotmatic film camera. How the hell is that digital art, or digital manipulation? It is photography. If it looks good it is good photography.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2005 10:43:21 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
It is a prime example of the kind of digital art that we were told would not take over the site when the Advanced Rules were put in place a year ago. It is a prime example of the kind of digital art that is dragging the site away from it's intended concentration on digital photgraphy. |
My only problem with your thesis about this is that that particular shot could have been entered in a 'no editing' challenge, where I would have shot it, resized and submitted, and it would look entirely the same.
As a result, using it as an example of how advanced editing has gone wrong is slightly strange. There was almost zero editing, so I don't quite get what rule change you'd propose to stop creative photographic technique, while encouraging digital photography ?
For some context to the discussion, and even though it is meaningless, as the image wasn't shot to be seen 'straight from the camera' as I knew I was going to process it to a certain extent, here is the Fantasia shot, as is, direct from the camera other than a resize, to give people reading the thread an idea of just how much 'advanced editing' went in to this and how much it is ruining the site and photography. The edited version is certainly better, and is closer to my final intention - but isn't that the point ? I didn't create the image digitally, I just used fairly advanced photographic technique quite creatively - at least I think so.
Message edited by author 2005-01-11 23:03:05. |
|
|
|
01/11/2005 11:00:38 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
But you seem to take pride in producing the same kind of outcome when it is done by what you call photographic technique.
|
Yes, I absolutely take pride in using photographic technique creatively. If by your tone, you are trying to suggest that long exposures aren't a photographic technique, then you have a lot of people to convince, I would think.
Here are another couple of more extreme examples of the same photographic technique. Still not photography ? Both digital art ? They were all captured in the same way - in fact these two require probably more complex photographic technique than Fantasia.
Originally posted by coolhar:
I believe images that are commonly called digital art, and those that are not, are divided by there appearance, not by the methods used to get there. |
and other than yourself, I've never heard it used in that way. Nor does it have anything to do with advanced editing, so I don't quite understand why you continue to use this as an example of what the rule changes introduced.
Message edited by author 2005-01-11 23:41:12. |
|
|
|
01/11/2005 11:37:24 PM · #115 |
That's the ultimate riposte, Gordon. Good on ya.
Robt.
|
|
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: 08/09/2025 03:53:44 PM EDT.
