"real" photos can't win at DPC! ...

05/16/2007 01:18:36 PM · #51

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Some people here believe that they are losing DPC to digital art, which just isn't the case.

Is there a difference between Digital Art and a heavily polished/processed image?

Message edited by author 2007-05-16 13:19:04.

05/16/2007 02:04:55 PM · #52

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Some people here believe that they are losing DPC to digital art, which just isn't the case.

Is there a difference between Digital Art and a heavily polished/processed image?

I think there is a distinct difference. The difference is that a heavily processed photo must start with a photo. Digital art doesn't necessarily have to start with a photo (but for DPC it must).

IMO, any photo taken with a digital camera or in any way manipulated with a computer is by definition "digital" art. However, digital art is not always a photograph.

But the reason for this thread is to show that it is not necessarily the heavily processed images that are scoring well at DPC. Even under advanced and expert rules good photography is still appreciated.

Message edited by author 2007-05-16 14:05:58.

05/16/2007 03:35:04 PM · #53

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

IMO, any photo taken with a digital camera or in any way manipulated with a computer is by definition "digital" art. However, digital art is not always a photograph.

But the reason for this thread is to show that it is not necessarily the heavily processed images that are scoring well at DPC. Even under advanced and expert rules good photography is still appreciated.

Just a thought but I'd bet... by a percentage in the high 90's, most images that do win, have some kind slick processing to them.

Sure there's the occasional image that slips in...maybe where the idea creatively speaking, blew people away or a simple nice image that noone could find fault with...a sexy girl(?) but overall...PP plays a tight role in things. I guess you could use all those richly saturated sunsets images with burned clouds as an example. There are other steady winners, in termes of look and processing but the list is kinda long.

It's all good...

BTW you said "IMO, any photo taken ..." and then "is by definition "digital" art..."

Was that thought an "opinion" or an accepted "definition" of digital art?
Not sure I agree but willing to hash it out...

I am and have been curious for a while where people draw the line.

Message edited by author 2007-05-16 15:42:16.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/16/2007 03:50:10 PM · #54

If photography is an art and it is done digitally, does that not make any image captured with a digital camera "digital art" by default?

Think about it long and hard before ya answer. If you say I'm wrong then you are saying photography is not an art.

daboardergirl

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

05/16/2007 03:55:17 PM · #55

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Honestly, I don't think it really matters. It seems that many try to label "art", but in the end, art is art. :)

Jewellian

Pentax *ist DL

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

05/16/2007 03:56:30 PM · #56

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

unles s they're shooting film... then it's ... flimsy art? no, wait filmy art...

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

05/16/2007 03:59:35 PM · #57

Originally posted by Jewellian:

unles s they're shooting film... then it's ... flimsy art? no, wait filmy art...

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

05/16/2007 04:02:07 PM · #58

ugh, the ones from your butt?

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

05/16/2007 04:06:48 PM · #59

Originally posted by skewsme:

ugh, the ones from your butt?

Nah, the doctor told me I had to quit that.

Jewellian

Pentax *ist DL

05/16/2007 04:08:01 PM · #60

we really don't want to know where they come from now.......

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

05/16/2007 04:08:23 PM · #61

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

In a bare bones sense, of course but I wouldn't call what e301, pmotta,zeuszen or jjbeguin do "digital art" by todays standard definition of "digital art," as I understand it (with a few exceptions, I'm sure). "As I understand it", being the operative.

I think we've moved into a zone where it's not that simplistic. "Art"..."Digital Camera"...doesn't come close these days with the advent of PS and serious digital manipulation. Just an opinion but I'm curious where people draw the line in regards to image purity....and when it becomes "digital art"?

Message edited by author 2007-05-16 17:19:09.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

05/16/2007 05:37:39 PM · #62

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If photography is an art and it is done digitally, does that not make any image captured with a digital camera "digital art" by default?

Think about it long and hard before ya answer. If you say I'm wrong then you are saying photography is not an art.

In a bare bones sense, of course but I wouldn't call what e301, pmotta,zeuszen or jjbeguin do "digital art" by todays standard definition of "digital art," as I understand it (with a few exceptions, I'm sure). "As I understand it", being the operative.

I think we've moved into a zone where it's not that simplistic. "Art"..."Digital Camera"...doesn't come close these days with the advent of PS and serious digital manipulation. Just an opinion but I'm curious where people draw the line in regards to image purity....and when it becomes "digital art"?

My line is when you start incorporating outside elements that didn't exist in the original capture. Manipulating, enhancing, or adjusting existing elements, even when it goes so far as to completely change the look and feel, crawls right up to that line, but doesn't cross it IMO. This includes changing colors to other ones, moving elements around or deleting them completely, combining exposures, etc. You may no longer have something that resembles your initial capture, but technically, it is still the original capture.

However, combining multiple *separate* photographs, adding clip art, images, foreign elements, etc., hand-painting elements, replacing backgrounds, and other similar methods, would constitute crossing the line into digital art. You'll definitely have something that doesn't resemble the initial capture, and you'll have that because you've incorporated aspects that don't exist originally.

That's my line.

Gabriel

Pentax K7

Tomioka 55mm f/1.4 in M42 Mount

05/17/2007 04:45:24 AM · #63

Originally posted by pawdrix:

As you pointed, things are not that simple, but are blurry and evolving.
Even jjbeguin or e301 did some photos relying strongly on photoshopping:

jjbeguin:

but also

e301:

but also

Now, let's have a look at "classic" photography, some photographers used postprocessing a lot (even if it was a lot less than what is now possible)
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.
- Ansel Adams

Regarding DPChallenge, I also think that there is a trend of evolution going there:

First DPC generation, starting to go beyond simple snapshots:

Second DPC generation, stock-like photography:

Third DPC generation, heavy dodging and burning:

Current DPC generation, going back to the "Photography" look:

I'm not saying that one style is better than another, just that I am noticing a kind a global style evolution there.

crayon

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH1

05/17/2007 05:00:02 AM · #64

Originally posted by Gabriel:

this image got locked from comments, hey that's new

alpharich

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85 (Lumix DMC-G80)

Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-60 mm

05/17/2007 05:40:02 AM · #65

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I beg to differ :-)

Not only this photo, but none of the current front page photos rely heavily on post-processing.

I hope this helps to calm some of the fears that DPC is turning into a digital art site.

It seems apparent to me that since DPC introduced the expert editing rule set that the other challenges have become less reliant on post-processing. Maybe it's because now photoshop people now have a place to play.

Or it might be because minimal editing has actually shown that "raw" photos can score well.

And then check out Rule of Thirds where the first sub 6 score is 100th place. Wow! I don't know what that means, but wow!

i would like to know like to know how he got what looks like a very sunny landscape into the bubble? and he says he bounced a flash off the ceiling so was inside?

Message edited by author 2007-05-17 05:41:18.

scottjk62

Nikon D200

Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 EX DG Aspherical HSM for Nikon

05/17/2007 05:47:41 AM · #66

Ooh! One big can of worms got opened here! Having used the digital darkroom before a chemical one it is the latter that I prefer - perhaps because work has me staring at a monitor much of the day but the sight of an image emerging in the developer is something quite magical. To print an image from the 'pootah is just a different sensation with any cropping/cleaning up/adjusting of the image via electronics a different way of achieving what can be done in the chemical darkroom. Wouldn't suggest that any of the above constitutes 'digital art' though; that would be reserved for much longer processes involving multiple images being placed together, creating shapes/forms/scenes etc, that didn't actually exist together. IMHO you still need an 'eye' for photography and GIGO still applies. Yes, perhaps a 'raw' image with absolutely no PP might struggle in a competition but it could be argued that by submitting a neg that might struggle also. Photography still rules, the rules differ slightly depending on your chosen photographic medium and the argument that digital and film are look the forces of dark and light is getting a bit old hat. Will now go to e-bay - For Sale, one used soapbox.

docpjv

Fujifilm X-E1

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

05/17/2007 05:52:36 AM · #67

Sorry, I did not read it all but the title reminds me of that twit running EyeFetch. He claims DPC is ALL about eyecandy, no photography here.... What a sorry excuse of a.....

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

05/17/2007 06:43:29 AM · #68

Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If photography is an art and it is done digitally, does that not make any image captured with a digital camera "digital art" by default?

Think about it long and hard before ya answer. If you say I'm wrong then you are saying photography is not an art.

In a bare bones sense, of course but I wouldn't call what e301, pmotta,zeuszen or jjbeguin do "digital art" by todays standard definition of "digital art," as I understand it (with a few exceptions, I'm sure). "As I understand it", being the operative.

I think we've moved into a zone where it's not that simplistic. "Art"..."Digital Camera"...doesn't come close these days with the advent of PS and serious digital manipulation. Just an opinion but I'm curious where people draw the line in regards to image purity....and when it becomes "digital art"?

My line is when you start incorporating outside elements that didn't exist in the original capture. Manipulating, enhancing, or adjusting existing elements, even when it goes so far as to completely change the look and feel, crawls right up to that line, but doesn't cross it IMO. This includes changing colors to other ones, moving elements around or deleting them completely, combining exposures, etc. You may no longer have something that resembles your initial capture, but technically, it is still the original capture.

However, combining multiple *separate* photographs, adding clip art, images, foreign elements, etc., hand-painting elements, replacing backgrounds, and other similar methods, would constitute crossing the line into digital art. You'll definitely have something that doesn't resemble the initial capture, and you'll have that because you've incorporated aspects that don't exist originally.

That's my line.

That's pretty much how I view it as well.

Message edited by author 2007-05-17 06:44:54.