| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/26/2005 04:49:36 PM · #1 |
| I just bought a digital cam a few months ago.Ever since then i have love taking pictures and take it everywhere i go.I noticed many of the photographers on this site do a lot of editing and changes to there pictures.When does it go from a photograph to digital art? |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 04:54:07 PM · #2 |
Are they mutually exclusive, for me a good digital photograph is good digital art. The question in my mind is when does a digital photograph lose its lable as a photograph and become a hybrid needing a lineage attributing its birth to a camera.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 04:54:16 PM · #3 |
| If there was an answer to that question we wouldn't have to vote whether to DQ any photos .. : ( |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:04:50 PM · #4 |
| Maybe when it's no longer possible to know for certain that it began as a photo? |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:08:46 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:09:38 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
Maybe when it's no longer possible to know for certain that it began as a photo? |
Check some of the examples in my Curves Demo Gallery. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:11:37 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
Maybe when it's no longer possible to know for certain that it began as a photo? |
I don't think you can make this analogy. It may be a photo that has not been touched at all but due to the technique used looks like a painting. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:24:00 PM · #8 |
| I would say that as soon as the image that was taken by a camera, has been altered enough as to no longer look like a photograph, or when an image is created completely on a computer. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:25:51 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I would say that as soon as the image that was taken by a camera, has been altered enough as to no longer look like a photograph, or when an image is created completely on a computer. |
What about the ones that don't look like a photograph to start with? |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:31:17 PM · #10 |
When you put [significantly] more time into editing the image than you did putting time into thinking about, setting up, and taking the photo...?
edit: Added "significantly"
Message edited by author 2005-05-26 17:32:30.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:32:59 PM · #11 |
I think it depends on your definition of Digital Art too. The heavily edited images on the site are not what I call Digital Art. To me Digital Art stands on its own as a recognized form of visual communication.
Few edits here and there to a photograph to make it more dramatic doesn't make it Digital Art.
Message edited by author 2005-05-26 17:33:40. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:33:18 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
When you put [significantly] more time into editing the image than you did putting time into thinking about, setting up, and taking the photo...?
edit: Added "significantly" |
I agree with that statement. However, who knows how much time anyone took taking versus editing an image? |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:39:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
When you put [significantly] more time into editing the image than you did putting time into thinking about, setting up, and taking the photo...?
edit: Added "significantly" |
I agree with that statement. However, who knows how much time anyone took taking versus editing an image? |
The individual would know, and in most (not all) cases I believe the viewer be able to tell, as well. Burning/Dodging until something looks unreal, applying 10 filters, and adding several versions of blur would be pretty apparent to anyone. Well, most anyone.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:42:16 PM · #14 |
Photography:
Digital Art:
:)
...or was it the other way around? :? |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:43:00 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Photography:
Digital Art:
:)
...or was it the other way around? :? |
LOL, exactly.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:44:49 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
When you put [significantly] more time into editing the image than you did putting time into thinking about, setting up, and taking the photo...?
edit: Added "significantly" |
I agree with that statement. However, who knows how much time anyone took taking versus editing an image? |
The individual would know, and in most (not all) cases I believe the viewer be able to tell, as well. Burning/Dodging until something looks unreal, applying 10 filters, and adding several versions of blur would be pretty apparent to anyone. Well, most anyone. |
Those well versed in PS techniques may be able to tell when something has been done via editing rather than in camera. A large number would assume certain techniques are done via processing.
Zoom blur is one technique that comes to mind. It can be done in camera (albeit SLR only) and if executed properly in PS it is close to impossible to see the difference.
Motion blur can be introduced in a number of ways in camera via movement during exposure creating a painted effect. The same effect can be achieved in post processing and if done well would be very hard to detect which way it was accomplished. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:52:19 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Those well versed in PS techniques may be able to tell when something has been done via editing rather than in camera. A large number would assume certain techniques are done via processing.
Zoom blur is one technique that comes to mind. It can be done in camera (albeit SLR only) and if executed properly in PS it is close to impossible to see the difference.
Motion blur can be introduced in a number of ways in camera via movement during exposure creating a painted effect. The same effect can be achieved in post processing and if done well would be very hard to detect which way it was accomplished. |
True, and I did say "most (not all)" would be able to tell. There are some very good PS'ers here that could probably pull it off, but I would say those that aren't fluent in PS are unable to reproduce in-camera effects so perfectly that they'd be undetectable.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 05:54:32 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Those well versed in PS techniques may be able to tell when something has been done via editing rather than in camera. A large number would assume certain techniques are done via processing.
Zoom blur is one technique that comes to mind. It can be done in camera (albeit SLR only) and if executed properly in PS it is close to impossible to see the difference.
Motion blur can be introduced in a number of ways in camera via movement during exposure creating a painted effect. The same effect can be achieved in post processing and if done well would be very hard to detect which way it was accomplished. |
True, and I did say "most (not all)" would be able to tell. There are some very good PS'ers here that could probably pull it off, but I would say those that aren't fluent in PS are unable to reproduce in-camera effects so perfectly that they'd be undetectable. |
Exactly. You said what I meant in much fewer words. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 06:04:59 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Exactly. You said what I meant in much fewer words. |
:-)
Also, I'll just add... Everyone has to start somewhere. I use to PS my images a lot when I was first starting. Now I try to limit my editing to something similar to the basic rules. If you want to learn photography (and I'm certainly not saying I have full grasp of everything, or anything for that matter), I think you need to learn from your mistakes, study others images, ask questions, and try different things. Don't rely on editing software so much. Don't be lazy and just snap away aimlessly saying, "Oh, well I can fix that in PS." because not everything is able to be fixed. And for goodness sake, think about the composition IN THE CAMERA, don't hack away half your digital file because you were too lazy to compose, too. You either want to learn photography or you don't. jmho.
Jen
Message edited by author 2005-05-26 18:06:21.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 06:09:58 PM · #20 |
my personal rule is to try not to go beyond the bounds of what I could do in a darkroom with a single negative. That is a whole lot, but photoshop makes it so much easier and more precise. not to mention the undo is to die for.
drake |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 06:38:27 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by superdave:
I just bought a digital cam a few months ago.Ever since then i have love taking pictures and take it everywhere i go.I noticed many of the photographers on this site do a lot of editing and changes to there pictures.When does it go from a photograph to digital art? |
I'll take a stab at it...
I prefer to use the term 'photographic art' rather than digital art for most of what we see on dpchallenge. You could call it digital art since its based in digital editing techniques, but most of the images here still look like photographs. In my opinion, digital art is the creation of some new physical presence that didn't previously exist in an image. Digital art may or may not be based on a photograph. It may be created entirely from scratch, or it may be blended with a photographic element in some way. It's difficult to differentiate these two ideas because people obviously have different ideas and thoughts on the definitions of the terms.
Photographic Art:
Photographic art is an image that is entirely based on a photograph or collection of photographs. Manipulations are made which allow the photographer to create a mood or feeling that he/she sees from within. Whether or not the final representation is 'reality' is only in the mind of the artist. Everything within photographic art is based (strictly or loosely) on reality. The photographic artist will not, in general, create something within the work that is significantly beyond reality. The manipulations and ehnancements are to existing elements of the original image(s).
Digital Art:
Digital art may include everything listed as photographic art, but it will go beyond this definition by introducing elements to the image that could not exist in our normal sense of reality. It may look like a photograph, but it also may not. It may be so well done that the viewer can't tell that it's not a photograph.
Does it matter one way or another?
Not really. Different people have different objectives. Some want to be masters of the camera. Some want to be masters of Photoshop. Some want to be both. Where you take your final image is up to you and you alone.
Then why is it a problem?
It's not really a problem, but within the context of DPChallenge, the founding principles of the site are/were:
1. Be all you can be with your camera.
2. Enhance your image to make it all it can be without using photoshop as a tool to create the primary impact of your image. Let your idea and camera execution create the primary impact and enhance that to it's maximum potential rather than letting the original photo be only a small part of your final work.
Loopholes:
For those of you who want to ask all the 'what if' questions regarding this post, feel free. If you find yourself looking for loopholes in what is stated here, chances are that you fall into the "i wanna be a master of photoshop" camp rather than master of the camera.
My personal opinion and path:
(yes... everything stated prior to this is personal opinion also.)
I choose to master my camera. I take pride in knowing how my camera works and how to use it to achieve the platform for my end result. Yes... The image that the camera captures is only a starting point for a majority of my finished photos. I choose to use photoshop to make the reality seen by my camera suit my tastes and interests more closely. My interests rarely enter into the realm of my definition of digital art, but they do sometimes. I want my final images to look like photographs.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 06:39:30 PM · #22 |
Here's a link to an essay I wrote on Photography and Digital Graphic Art
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 08:05:57 PM · #23 |
John, great definitions. I like to follow a similar path. I'm not against using PS, but try to moderate it. Still way behind you on mastering the camera, though. :-)
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 08:26:57 PM · #24 |
An interesting thing happened when I entered an open exhibit a few months ago. I entered one digital photograph which I entered under photography category, and one digital photograph heavily filtered (posterizing) that I entered under "digital art". The organizer of the event put it into "photography" - if I remember right she felt if it started as a photograph, it is still a photograph. Not sure of my opinion one way or another, but thought her decision was an interesting way to look at it.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 08:34:35 PM · #25 |
That's a pretty good characterization John.
But for the sake of discussion, here's an interesting couple of clauses:
"most of the images here still look like photographs"
and
"The photographic artist will not, in general, create something within the work that is significantly beyond reality. The manipulations and ehnancements are to existing elements of the original image(s)."
I personally love photos that "don't look like photographs". And it's possible to do fairly "extreme" manipulations using conventional techniques. These (and my other abstract examples) use time and movement to paint in the camera. The only photoshopping done was in the basic editing rules (well, Van Gogh Sky also had a small dust spot removed)
So, I am curious, do most people consider these DPC Basic editing legal entries "photographs" or "Digital Art"?
 
  |
|
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: 08/17/2025 02:29:00 PM EDT.
