| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2003 10:01:06 AM · #1 |
Hi Everyone,
I was wondering if someone could tell me exactly what is considered digital art? Specifically, if I take an original digital photo, and using enhancements,filters, etc. so that it looks like a graphic design, abstract watercolor etc., to the point where you really couldn't tell what the original photo was, is that considered digital art? Or is digital art something that is created by the artist from a blank page with no photo involved at all? Any input would be appreciated! BJ |
|
|
|
02/17/2003 10:07:17 AM · #2 |
| I believe you hit it on the head with both definitions. More with the first though. But it can be a combination of both. That's just me. //www.digitalphotocontest.com actually has a Digital Art category. Take a look at some of thos entries. |
|
|
|
02/17/2003 10:07:26 AM · #3 |
i think digital art is probably defined differently by different people, but yes.. your two suggestions would be digital art to me...
|
|
|
|
02/17/2003 09:53:29 PM · #4 |
Here's something that would fall into the first category (modified photo). I think this is digital art, it's really no longer a photograph.
//jjj.image.pbase.com/u15/kirbic/large/13105138.SlowDayV.jpg |
|
|
|
02/17/2003 10:07:17 PM · #5 |
Well let's try that link again, a different way.
//www.pbase.com/image/13105138 |
|
|
|
02/17/2003 11:18:57 PM · #6 |
That's a cool image kirbic. This is what I like so much about this site - everyone's is so helpful! Thanks to everyone for responding!
BJ |
|
|
|
02/17/2003 11:46:44 PM · #7 |
There are many people who are skilled at digital "painting", who do things like background mattes for 3D scenes and stuff. It's a great skill. If it has anything to do with photography, though, it's only in that the artist often uses photos as reference material.
Strangely, though, I've been in on a mailing list flame war about a bunch of images made this way, in which many people claimed it wasn't art. I've also been involved with other arguments where people claimed photography isn't art. I'm sure those people would love to club together and say that digital art isn't art... *groans*.
To me, it's all art, and the lines between them are very, very blurred. Most photos that score highly here have had their colours, contrast, etc. processed, and would not have been as well received otherwise. But the point of that processing is to make it look more like a professional, high quality photo. You can do the same amount of processing with the aim of making the photo apear to be a watercolour painting, and somehow it's more like "digital art" than the first kind of image. Why is this? |
|
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: 07/23/2025 10:34:15 PM EDT.
