johnorr Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 <html> <head> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows- 1252"> <title>New Page 2</title> </head> <body> <p>Cool image but I think this is pushing the limit of photography vs. digital art. If the majority of the elements of a given image are "photographs" then I think it would be suitable on photo.net but I am just not sure if this does or not. I like digital art but this is photo.net and not digitalart.net. How are we supposed to rate this image (photographically) on aesthetics? They all go out the window here...for example is the image sharp? Or does is have a strong center of interest? How about originality? If photo.net wants images like this on their site that?s okay but they will have to update there entire site and their rating system to handle it, for example have a rating category for how well the image was rendered on the computer....Call it "Digital Wiz" category or something? I'll give this lower rating because I do not think it fits here IMHO. This site is called "PHOTO.net" and all the forums, galleries, equipment reviews, and everything else is about photography and digital photography not digital art. Am I wrong here or what? --John Orr </p> <p>These seem appropriate on photo.net: </p> <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/888407" style="text-decoration: none"> http://www.photo.net/photo/888407</a> </p> <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/900171" style="text-decoration: none"> http://www.photo.net/photo/900171</a> </p> <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/891077" style="text-decoration: none"> http://www.photo.net/photo/891077</a></p> <p>These do not seem appropriate on photo.net: </p> <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/805248" style="text-decoration: none"> http://www.photo.net/photo/805248</a> </p> <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=837938" style="text-decoration: none"> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=837938</a></p> </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnorr Posted July 24, 2002 Author Share Posted July 24, 2002 <html> <head> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <title>New Page 3</title> </head> <body> <p>I was referring to the link below<br> <br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/899241"> http://www.photo.net/photo/899241</a></p> <p> </p> </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hal_bissinger Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 John, I agree with you 100% as do many others. This has been discused at length here before with the result being that nobody wants to draw the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 I would agree with most of your examples of what types of digital work are "appropriate" and "inappropriate" for photo.net. The last of Anna's images, the one that apparently prompted this question, is a bit more problematic. While it is not a photograph, it is derived from two photographic images that were synthesized and manipulated in Photoshop, but so much so that the "photographic" nature of the image seems to have been lost. As a practical matter, the photo.net staff has not to date made any effort to exclude or segregate work that is not "photo-based" from photo.net. This is because, firstly, these images are not very common on the site. (They seem to agitate people out of all proportion to their numbers.) And secondly, such images are usually uploaded as part of a body of work which includes photo-based images and even "straight" photographs, and it is often quite interesting to see a photographer's vision expressed in his or her non-photo-based work. If significant numbers of digital artists with no apparent "photographic" work start using this site to post their images, we may have to reconsider this position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 I think the photograph nexus has to be made a little closer than Anna's work,which I rather like as an abstraction. Imagine when abstract art was first hung in galleries,there were riots. Now Mondrian and Picasso and Kandinski(sp?) are accepted. But accepted as part of modern galleries. The debate gets very confused,because those that are skilled at this sort of digital manipulation are playing with something that takes a different qualitative palette of tricks and techniques and are resentful to see said skills demeaned,as well they might ( the whole craft is based on a different mind set and delivery.If I achieved the abstraction by shooting through a glass or a crystal, I am still "shooting" and I can get into the shooting gallery. If my work is loosely evolved from a photographic image (think of Warhols Monroe poster) that becomes transformative into another art form. A case can be made and has been made recently but fell on deaf ears for most part or was not persuasive yet) I might buy Anna's abstract and hang it.) Its very lovely. I would hang it next to the Mondrian et al tho...gut feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_van_hulle1 Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 dig�i�tal ('di-j&-t&l), adj. 1. A method of crafting an image using a computer to manipulate a graphical file by people who do not have the skill and ability to create said image using film and a normal camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry schmetter Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Quite frankly, I think the profusion of these whiny posts degrades the quality of photo.net more than a few people playing with photoshop. Giving the 1 rating just seems petty and mean-spirited. Aesthetics and originality don't apply when you cross what line? I'd say the photo.net rating system is equally foolish for any flavor of image. I'm glad someone is adept at judging what is and isn't appropriate on photo.net because the older I get, the less cocksure I am of *anything*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Let me change a few words but not the meaning ofthat last post:<P><B> Pho-to-gra-phic (fo-to-gra-fiK), adj. 1. A method of crafting an image using a camera and film to make an image by people who do not have the skill and ability to create said image using paint and canvas.</B><P> Sigh, yours is an old argument; you might even apply it to the difference between an oral tradition of story telling and the written word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovethismoment Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 I think a lot of people would be happier (and not just in this debate) if, when uploading, you were able to put your photo (or image - whatever) into one or more categories - landscape, portrait, illustration etc. and then allow people to search for photos within a category. I think that as far as this debate goes there are a lot of people who object to "digital art" being here simply because they are here to learn about photography and they have no interest in making digital art. Maybe they would just be happy with a way of filtering out what they aren't interested in. Even with photography not everyone is interested in the same thing - some like landscape, some nudes etc - it would be nice to have a way to be able to look more specifically for what you were interested in. Just an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_van_hulle1 Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Ellis, don't get me wrong, I have two digital cameras and two scanners. They have their place in photography. But I guess I still view a lot of this the way I do what Tim Fitzharris has done in the past. Then again, Darron's work that I've seen is really no different from what many of us do. But, as I see it, once you pass the point where you have an image that would have required so much work as to be impossible to craft through a viewfinder (possibly an enlarger lens), you're not doing photography anymore. Unless we want to make this place into a graphics illustration kinda place . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 "God, grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarten_van_hoven Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 There's NOTHING WRONG with digital photography! It's the manipulation of images that kills the art of photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snapamhall Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 It's time I added my 2 cents. First of all, Anna's work (very lovely I might add) is a stretch for what we refer to as strait up photography. BUT, as stated before, it was made by combining 2 photographic images, and therefore has the roots of photography (maybe a distant cousin?:) ) Second, Anna also has good old fashioned photographs in her folders for all you purists to view and enjoy. We know she knows what she's doing, so why the hassel with some digital creations? Instead of beating a dead horse like so many of you love to do, let it go and enjoy the images your fellow photo.net'ers have created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomade Posted July 27, 2002 Share Posted July 27, 2002 <i>It's the manipulation of images that kills the art of photography.</i><p> Same kind of conservative thoughts were expressed by artist and critics of the 19th century. Result: cubism and surrealism, i.e., painters trying to find their place in the world after the massive propagation of photography. <p> Will photographers repeat the story one century after? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnorr Posted July 27, 2002 Author Share Posted July 27, 2002 Does anyone read? Digital photography is fine...manipulation is fine. Digital Art does not belong here. If it did not come from a photo and does not resemble a photo then it does not belong here IMHO. That is my question...am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_johnson Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 Well, its not my place to tell you that you're wrong.... but the very fact that these things exist here would suggest that whoever is in charge of the site does not share your position. Personally, I continue to fail to understand why people want to exclude other people's work. Even images that you and others wish to exclude as digital art often originated with camera capture. If an image begins with camera capture, and if manipulation is accepted (as it has been since the first days of photography), why shouldn't the image be allowed to exist on a site that promotes camera capture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 It seems my previous comment was not clear. As Editor-in-Chief, let me state that the current official position of photo.net is that any photo-based work is acceptable on photo.net, with the interpretation of what is "photo-based" being left to the submittor. We don't want to see works that are not photo-based become a major feature of the site. But while we urge restraint from members in uploading non-photo-based works, we don't intend to remove images that seem to us not to be photo-based. To us, more problematic than non-photo-based works are the actions of the self-appointed censors who take it upon themselves to impose their view of what images belong on the site via harsh comments, email, or low ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry_l. Posted July 31, 2002 Share Posted July 31, 2002 The world is going digital Jacob Maarten Arriëns van Hoven.............. -- Lasse Hoile Oh my GOD!! -- Jacob Maarten Arriëns van Hoven Yes I know the future looks pretty grim, and there is nothing we can do about it, except run for cover. Someday a real photo is what your grand grand grand dad used to play with, a relic from the past, unless of course that asteroid hits the earth and then no pictures will be taken anymore, at least for a while�. ;) -- Lasse Hoile Re: LasseI think there's nothing wrong with digital photography at it self. And yes the world is going digital, and that's... uhhm, ...OK acceptable. But i DO worry about digital manipulations and computer-made-compositions here on Photo.net, which push real (I mean more conventional) photographs to the background! These images should not be classified as photographs, the same way paintings shouldn't be classified as photographs (et vice versa). Ps. Also I would like to put some musical creations on photo.net, but I couldn't get my files uploaded... -- Jacob Maarten Arriëns van Hoven I agree with you, maybe there should be a manipulation section up here somewhere, my reason for throwing this stuff up here is of course because I can and also before me there were a lot of other stuff (mani.). I really don't know where else to go besides photosig and this place to get some serious critique on my stuff!!.. -- Lasse Hoile AgreeGreat idea I think. A digital artistic section (with computer-created compositions), and a more convensional section (all other sorts of photos)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy.marthinussen Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 I am glad to see this discussion..it reveals a great sceptisism for all that is new i think and its sad. For many years photography has struggled to be accepted as an art form. and now most people of course consider it art fortunately. no one today would even start to consider that pinhole photography are not photography..? that BW photo not would be artistic..? that the colourphoto are just something new that cant be used..? and today even most "serious" photographer are going digital..? and....are you going to stop here?? isnt it photography as a serious artform that are moving? hm..many people would of course disagree but i think it may be a fear for the new and lack of interesse to learn the new form.. BUT: I am very clear on one thing: the digital altering HAVE to be photo based..and there are borders that digital manipulations do not cross..as ex: Software that create digital 3d and algoritm that creates surreal and abstractions..its quite easy to make "photos" that looks real with software today..and here is the line that separate digital art from digital photo. open your eyes and mind and let the digital world walk hand in hand with more traditional photo art so that in fact art can move on and especially photography as a media can stand as solid in the artworld as it deserves. regards --willy-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I remember a discussion I had with Ansel Adams in 1969. I asked why he worked primarily in black and white and primarily with a view camera. He told me of a commission he had from Kodak to produce color transparencies so large they hung from the ceiling in Grand Central Station. He told me he owned a Hasselblad, but that he had invested so much experience and developed skills that were suited for what he did. He used one film, he used one developer, he used one enlarger (that he had built a customized light house for), that that was where he wanted to be. Anyone who thinks Ansel's prints were not manipulated to the greatest extent possible given the technology available, doesn't know how they were created. Ansel pushed the limits of photographic technology available to him and invented some technology on his own. To suggest that somehow a digital image captured on a CCD instead of film and processed digitally in a computer, rather than chemically in a darkroom is any less the creation of a phtographic artist is pure nonsense. For those who don't think pushing the digital photographic envelope is a good thing...I suggest the luddite.net site for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy.marthinussen Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 I agree John..i really think that its the great photographers in time that have made photo into the artistic platform it has today, that dared to push the limits,,that have made photography as strong as it is in the world of art today. those who dont see this are the bumps in the way of developing the artistic photo i think..and here on PN these people does consequently rate low and have bad comments..well i think its kinda sad..fair enough that they dont like a particulary photo but it seems almost as a demonstration against digital "manipulated" photos..why so? i dont rate and comment their outstanding work low..this has to do with understanding..some people just dont see..or are able to see..im an artist working primaraly in oil..and i see things...and i try to be open on things..praise the good craftmentship and work who is in traditional photography,,but wery few manage to combine that into real artwork..and thos who do..they have pushed the limits on photography..they have opened their eyes...remember that. --willy-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Forty years ago when I was a working photographer, I had a continuing discussion with a group of illustrators and art directors I worked with over whether of no photography was art. It was the general consensus that photography did not have sufficient degrees of freedom for the artist to fully express their creativity, and therefore, could not be art. Photography, at its most basic, is a means to capture and record photons for future viewing. The digital environment has freed photography of many of its prior constraints and restraints freeing the photographic artist to more fully express a vision. However, the basic element of photon capture is still at the root of the process. The billions of bits of information represented by those photons supply the overwhelming content of the final product regardless of the transforms that are applied to them. I would suggest to those who feel that the digital processing of photographic images is somehow a perversion or lessening of the photographic process; that the photographic process has not bee pure since we first substituted a lens for a pinhole and created a mechanical camera to replace the initial camera obscura. To suggest that the infusion of technology depreciates rather than enhances the process is to ignore advances of through-the-lens metering, electronic shutters, (or shutter of any form), auto focusing, film transport systems, improved printing systems, temperature control systems in the darkroom, stable dye transfer printing, etc. I strongly feel that digital technology is enabling and expands the photographic horizon, and is not a degradation. To paraphrase a common saying?progress happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Just as car-racing is not the same as cycling or running, strongly digitally altered photo-based images are not photography. Photography means drawing with LIGHT, which means that there have to be real photons that create the image on the photosensitive material or sensor. If the image is modified by changing the shapes of things in the photo, or moving them around, the creation may be art but it is not photography. It's a completely different art closer to drawing and painting in spirit than photography. The challenge in photography is finding the subject and light which make a great image. Sitting by a computer and creating new forms which did not exist may be enjoyed by some, not me. One reason that digital manipulation degrades photography is because it may look like photography and without an explanation viewers may assume that the image is a photograph and required great skill from the photographer. Also, since it is easy to create images with overly bright colours and unreal mood with digital techniques, it reduces the attractiveness of actual photographs in the eyes of the novice viewer. It also reduces the credibility of real photographs in representing actual events - soon no one will believe photos actually were drawn by light, they'll assume that if it's any good it has to have been created in Photoshop. There will be no such thing as a documentary or nature photograph. I have no problems with digital art. I think a strong line should be drawn between digital art and photography, because they are distinct and should never be confused with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 So,sitting in a darkroom and solarizing a print or maniupulating color saturation, or doing a double exposure is not photography? Excuse me! Photography itself is all totally artificial. Whether I play with the image with light and chemicals in the darkroom, or in a computer doing the same thing, neither is photography? I suggest that under the purest view, there has never been a single photograph. because every image captured by the magical silver compound is a fabrication of the photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Couldn't agree more John...and how could anyone disagree? This debate reminds me in some respects of the abortion issue. At what point does life begin? Who has the right to draw the line? If the line is drawn between "digital art" and "photography" ...WHO draws it? What if someone disagrees? Even for those who believe there is a line...most would think it has to be an extremely thin line. Glad I'm not God in the weightier things of life...or even photography. Perhaps those who have such a frenetic urgency about telling us where the line is, and is not...might have had a difficult time with that "the world is round thing" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now