When does photography morph into digital art?

[szrimaging]

<p>I remember back in college someone did a technique, in camera, to emulate the paintings of Monet (or is it Manet, I always screw that up).</p>

<p>Digital Art is a rather meaningless term that fails to grasp at better classifications. With digital mediums, you have such a wide spectrum, that I have to wonder if it shouldn't be based on the separate instances, such as 3D model/rendering, Illustration/Painting, photography, and cinema. Of course, if you dabbled in multiples at any given point, does that mean you are a mixed media artist?</p>

<p>For me, one thing I am working on is taking my photographs and using tonemapping and curves to get it to an almost illustration like quality in my color work. So far, I have failed....</p>

<p>But in B&W, I am just working on that balance of composition and meaning.</p>

<p>Of course, art in itself is a subjective term, and often my work lacks meaning and is just "pretty", thus failing my classification of art. But, I very rarely can convey anything in an image, I usually need a body of work to convey a message. Just the way I work. Which means I really need to start a self assigned project or two....</p>

[GBarrington]

<p>I'm not sure it matters any more. It doesn't to me. I use a camera to take pictures, I do post processing on many of them till I get something that speaks to me. On others, not as much. Maybe its the artist and how he/she is feeling at the moment and not a well defined concept.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p> Some here want to appropriate all digital art to photography, it seems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don,<br>

<em>Collage</em> is the conventional term used for both scissors-and-paste photos and digital art. I don't think anyone means to say that <strong>any</strong> digital art with photo images is photography. </p>

[rossb]

<p> I guess I don't really care that much about how things are defined. I don't live in a world of Art Gallery's or anything. I just take photos of stuff, family and vacations. I like an old barn about as much as anybody I guess. However photography is my #3 hobby so it's down the list. I would rather buy a nice Taylor nylon string guitar then a D700. <br>

I have a 35mm and a DSLR and enjoy the 35mm more so for hobby pictures. I just bought a plustek 7600i SE and am looking forward to using that. It will be here on Thursday afternoon. However I will be the last person on earth to call my photos art or oil simulation (whatever that even meant). I prefer the term "snaps". I plan on burning some film this weekiend.</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>Photography does not morph into digital art even a little bit.</p>

<p>There is no such thing as digital photography. It's digital picture-making. Because digital files have no native appearance of themselves the results you get from outputting them as hardcopy depend on the output device.</p>

<p>In the early 21st century people tend to output digital files so the results imitate photographs. I suspect this is because artistic imagination has not advanced far enough to explore what <em>else</em> they should look like.</p>

<p>As for photographs, here's a way of thinking that identifies a photograph first time, every time, and unambiguously:<br>

Photographs are pictures made out of light sensitive materials via changes caused by photons from subject matter.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The word "photography," like every other word that has ever been uttered, evolves and is dependent for its meaning on usage within a language and a culture. No word has a fixed and eternal definition. Words are driven by the humans who use them. Somehow, even though that's the way it works, we manage to communicate. When I look at a computer monitor, point to the image on the screen, and utter the sounds that are represented by the letters "p-h-o-t-o-g-r-a-p-h" most people, present company excluded, know what I mean and that I've chosen a good word for the task at hand. Others are exclusionary and anachronistic in their definitions, and they may not get it.</p>

[richardsperry]

"I suspect this is because artistic imagination has not advanced far enough to explore what else they should look like."

 

Like a canvas wrap perhaps?

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p> It's digital picture-making. Because digital files have no native appearance of themselves...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maris,<br>

That used to be my theme song - I wanted to call these infinitely alterable inputs and outputs <strong><em>digitalities</em></strong>. <em>"</em>Film capture" and "digital capture" as labels seemed clunky to me. I quit trying to push the river. Don't worry. Be Happy. Take pictures.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I prefer the term "snaps"

 

I use that a lot as well (and is also part of my blog's name), liking the casual character of the term.

[denniswms]

<blockquote>

<p>When does photography morph into digital art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When the finished image is not what was in the viewfinder. </p>

[unangelino]

<blockquote>

<p>When the finished image is not what was in the viewfinder.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure some weenie-pnet-smartass is going to say, "My camera doesn't have a viewfinder."</p>

<p>I, on the other hand, tend to agree with you, Dennis.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Digital or film, the finished photo is rarely what was in the viewfinder. It gets processed, printed, and displayed. The prints we see of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams are far from what was in their viewfinders. And they weren't creating "digital art." For many photographers, what's in the viewfinder is the beginnings of a photographic vision. That pertains to film and digital means of working.</p>

[unangelino]

<p>I think it's odd how incisive some folks get about the word photograph. We all understand what the OP was asking; why all the hedging?</p>

<p>We know a painting is a painting whether it was done by Rothko or Rembrandt. We know a photograph is a photograph whether it was whether it was done by Daguerre or Leibovitz: A bunch of light <em>hit</em> something...</p>

<p>At what point does <em>something</em> become something different?</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Digital or film, the finished photo is rarely what was in the viewfinder. It gets processed, printed, and displayed. The prints we see of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams are far from what was in their viewfinders. And they weren't creating "digital art." For many photographers, what's in the viewfinder is the beginnings of a photographic vision. That pertains to film and digital means of working.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always thought Kodak Elitechrome gave a very realistic photo of what I saw in the scene or viewfinder. Natural color, skin tones and all around realistic.</p>

[stp]

<p>I personally have never considered a B&W photograph to be digital art by definition. Most that I've seen are photographs, and I believe that's what nearly every photographer would call them, despite the fact the viewfinder didn't show a B&W scene about to be photographed.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I always thought Kodak Elitechrome gave a very realistic photo of what I saw in the scene or viewfinder. Natural color, skin tones and all around realistic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ross, and I trust you on that. That doesn't, however, justify the statement that photography becomes digital art when the finished image is not what was in the viewfinder. Right? My point was to show that particular statement about what is not photography to be patently false, NOT to say that you can't get a realistic photo without darkroom or photoshop work, because you can. In other words, just because you can get a realistic photo without darkroom work doesn't mean doing darkroom or photoshop work puts you out of the realm of photography, which is what is being ridiculously claimed by some here.</p>

[Brad_]

I'm really happy there are so many people that worry and have strong views about things like this,

considering all of the minutia, ramifications, etc, forging towards the final answer. So I don't have to...

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As I recall, Brad is right. No one has to. No one is forcing anyone to read or participate in what they consider to be discussions of minutia.</p>

[Brad_]

And Fred is right, though I think most understand that's a given.

[ronny_zou]

<p>in my opinion - anytime that a photograph is edited. It morphs.</p>