Digital Photography or Photo Art?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

05/24/2004 08:22:40 PM · #1

I would like someone to please critic this and tell me if they feel that this is digital photography or photo art? I would like to know what is wrong with it, if someone would please tell me.
This was taken at night of a cactus called the night blooming cerus (sp). It only blooms at night. I don't know how it knows but it does.

bledford

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/24/2004 08:38:44 PM · #2

Originally posted by AzCrazy:

I'm confused. Are you wanting us to guess as to whether this has been manipulated in Photoshop or through some other means? Or are we evaluating the "photographic integrity" of the shot as far as we can tell?

I for one, think it just looks like a decent shot of some flowers using an artificial light source in dark environment. If you're worried it looks too Photoshopped because of some changes you've made, don't. I've seen more Photochopped images than this.

Message edited by author 2004-05-24 20:39:22.

05/24/2004 08:48:24 PM · #3

Hmmmm, there is no EXIF Data; This information usually includes the photograph's date/time of exposure, camera settings, and camera model among other things. I would believe that this image as been altered quite a bit. If it were a real photograph then the EXIF data would remain. However, it would not surprise me to the least that this image is made up from a application of some sort. But, I have to say that this shot looks perfectly real...But not a real photo from the original format. You did one heck of a job here. I can tell however the back ground is fake or added as it is pure black and had been created. But the flowers, believeable. Overall, i think it would be Photo Art....after once all the data is erased from the oringinal photo. On this site, this won't fly in any challenge...however, it might at other contests or even a photo contests in real time. Depends on what you feel is true to the photograph. But, nice work digitally.

05/24/2004 08:50:02 PM · #4

The photo was rejected from another site because it was not digital art and was said to be photo art! I would appreciate any feedback on the photo though.
Oh yea.
Ape was 5.6
ISO 100
Shutter 1/200
I did a few things in photo shop.
Auto levels
Auto contrast
Sharpen
resized
usm

Thank you vey much in advance.

moodville

Nikon D100

05/24/2004 08:59:39 PM · #5

If you all you did was auto levels/contrast and sharpened then it's neither photo art or digital art - it's a photograph. It looks ok although personally I'm not particularly fond of the composition.

As for EXIF info, I've heard that running NI destroys EXIF and also if you cut/paste into a new canvas will do it too.

MadMordegon

05/24/2004 09:03:12 PM · #6

looks like a great picture to me.

05/24/2004 09:06:30 PM · #7

Hmmmm again, wierd....yet even with adjusting auto levels, contrast, sharpen ect. The Data still should be there. But anyway, it think you are trying to define digital art v. photo art. Hmmmm, i have seen too that photo art is mearly creating a single shot and applying a filter or effect to transpose the image to look like a painting, perhaps watercolor or a pencil drawing. Yes, it's done digitally. However, there is one more element that may just drive over the line of what Digital Art is. Applying two or more images together to create a whole new form and object.

Photo Art: Apply one filter, one photo.

Digital Art: Applying mutitudes of filters and images. Or, just creating a scene from nothing and useing a digital canvas with no added photos. Just as if you were to sit down and draw or paint something with a real pencil or watercolors. Same uses, but on a computer, hence digital.

Hmmmm, define ART? Ok, Define what METHOD to create ART...oh brother....now i'm confused...

05/24/2004 09:10:04 PM · #8

"As for EXIF info, I've heard that running NI destroys EXIF and also if you cut/paste into a new canvas will do it too." [/quote]

Ahhh, moodville had a great point there...always work from a copy of your oringinal file. Copy and pasteing will do the trick.....

05/24/2004 09:11:59 PM · #9

This is the original pic. I also did a crop to get rid of the out of focus moon.

As far as that site is concerned. Digital art is to take a photograph in Photo shop or whatever program and use any of the things avail to you in that program.
It is very confusing and the site is very confusing. It has been in many post here.

Message edited by author 2004-05-24 21:21:21.

05/24/2004 09:34:43 PM · #10

Originally posted by AzCrazy:

This is the original pic. I also did a crop to get rid of the out of focus moon.

Ok, if you were out in the desert and miles away from any lights form the cities. I could be very well pure blackness...I know, I have been in the middle of the Pacific Ocean 4 times. I know how it can get pure black out there, same in the desert. Hmm, so the flowers are real but looks over exposed due to the flash...No problem, adjust the curves a bit to give them more definement. Ok, so they rejected you from a digial art contest with this shot? It's not digital art, but then again what is digital art? :) You have photograph here with just a few adjustments made. However, don't copy and paste it to another document....:) Hmmm, that's funny. Your original pic (untouched) is way to small in size from a Canon EOS-300D Rebel. From any camera in fact. Second, there is STILL no EXIF Data from this shot...Now I'm really confused!!! Let's face it, it's totally renderned scene and it was too good or looked too real for a digital art contest. But that's that the irony. You mastered digital art in all high reguards and even fooled the contest judges. You can not advance no more. When you made something totally from a computer and made it look ssooooooo reall and then get rejected for looking to real and it fooled them to believe it was a real photo....That's it. You have retired.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

05/24/2004 09:44:11 PM · #11

Dustin03 you are right that it was in the desert. I do have the EXIF data but you can not load the origanal to your portfolio. The site will not allow it. I sized the photo to 640 so I could upload it. I am very flattered that people think that I did this on the computer.
Thank you for the comment. I will try it.

Message edited by author 2004-05-24 21:46:37.

bledford

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/24/2004 09:45:37 PM · #12

Originally posted by dustin03:

Second, there is STILL no EXIF Data from this shot...Now I'm really confused!!!

Dustin, if you evaluated all of the images submitted to this site, I think you'd find the EXIF information was missing on 95% of them. It's just not a good measure of whether a jpg is really a photograph...too many processes occur from camera to web that can blow the EXIF.

05/24/2004 10:03:38 PM · #13

Originally posted by bledford:

Originally posted by dustin03:
Second, there is STILL no EXIF Data from this shot...Now I'm really confused!!!

Dustin, if you evaluated all of the images submitted to this site, I think you'd find the EXIF information was missing on 95% of them. It's just not a good measure of whether a jpg is really a photograph...too many processes occur from camera to web that can blow the EXIF.

Hmmmm, interesting....I really wouldn't know that 95% of all photos don't have the data with them. As I were to have always download a photo and bring it up in Photoshop. Way to much time taking to do that. All, I do know or even rememberd that the data can get lost while copying it or even saveing it to another file format etc. True. However, i was baseing my thoughts that the data should be from the original photo or file...I have always found my info still there. I don't know... different for everyone....

moodville

Nikon D100

05/24/2004 10:07:21 PM · #14

Whenever I shoot in jpg and upload to pbase it extracts the EXIF and puts it on display. Whenever I shoot in RAW and open it up in photoshop, work on it, and eventually save it as a jpg and upload it to pbase then there is no EXIF. So there are probably a few things that strip the info.

05/24/2004 10:08:29 PM · #15

Originally posted by AzCrazy:

I got a very small image file on my end....according to PS your image is w: 120 pix and h: 80 pixs....