| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/26/2005 08:38:09 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
I should always read to the bottom of the thread (I have it in reverse) before replying ;)
These are good examples. I am not sure anymore that my last post is to the point of the "original" question (I was posting to John's breakdown.) |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 09:05:42 PM · #27 |
You can ask the same question about film:
If you take your film to a one hour lab and have 4x6 prints made it's a photo.
If you process your own film and do your own printing in a darkroom and do custom developing and dodging/burning, or add tints, blurs, change the angle of the print table, print multiple exposures on one sheet of paper, etc... it's photo art.
But either way it's a photo if it's taken with a camera.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 09:10:44 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
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)."
|
The key words are 'most' and 'in general'. The problem with abstracts are that there is no way to tell by looking at the image how it was created. In any case, it still doesn't matter. Whether or not its 'right' or 'wrong' is up to the photographer and the context in which the photo is being used.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2005 09:11:52 PM · #29 |
I work in the field of Make-up and Hair photography... and I can tell you... the line is extremely thin.
There is a huge industry built around Hair-style competitions where stylist send in a 8x10 to be judge and then when huge prizes... right now most haircare product manufacturers (Wella and L'Oreal mainly) whom are heavy sponsors of such competitions are seriously re-assesing their position...as most entries are so re-touched in post that the hair colors, backgrounds and make-up jobs are more suited for Mags such as Graphika than they would be for real-life. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 10:00:30 PM · #30 |
Photography is an art form, and most popular cameras these days are digital. Therefore, as soon as you press the shutter, abracadabra... you've got digital art. From there, you can debate whether the image is realism, surrealism, abstract or even "art" at all.
On this site, a good percentage of the masses define Digital Art as any image that has been heavily manipulated in post-processing. While that's may be a reasonable definition, there's simply no way to know for sure whether a scene was edited or not just by looking at it. As a result, anti-digital art prejudices are often directed unfairly at images that weren't heavily edited. The Silhouette II winners are a good example. I've seen people complain that a shot was OBVIOUSLY filtered or composed of multiiple images when it's actually straight out of the camera.
As long as the rules are obeyed, I care more about the image than how it was made. A great image gets a great score and a poor image gets a poor score. This one appears to be heavily filtered, but it's actually a brilliant manipulation of light. I gave it a 9, but 19 other people scored it below 5.
I'm simply content to savor the amazing scenes conjured up by digital cameras and human imagination working together to create magic. |
|
|
|
05/26/2005 10:41:45 PM · #31 |
When I hear the term "digital art", I cringe. I'm haunted by visions of day-glo and roaring elks with lava haloes.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 12:32:22 AM · #32 |
I think a lot of people tend to lose their objectivity on the question at hand once they invest in Photoshop, investing too much money to buy it and too much time to learn it. By the time they have mastered it they don't know what a photograph is anymore.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 12:37:37 AM · #33 |
When the noise/grain level goes up - who cares really..if it's fabulous I don't care if you spit on it to get the effect you want
ps - I don't call myself a photographer- I am a visual artist ; ) |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:13:31 AM · #34 |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 08:32:55 PM · #35 |
Here's a recent one with only a histogram adjustment...
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 08:45:38 PM · #36 |
  
No filters.
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 20:46:09. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 09:07:11 PM · #37 |
"When does digital photography become digital art?"
When it stops transfering digitized information and starts transfering emotions.
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 21:08:14. |
|
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: 08/24/2025 10:47:05 AM EDT.
