A new gallery category called "Digital work"

[ann_overland]

<p>I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have a new gallery category called "Digital work". It would be for the images that are purely digital made, not made from any photo.<br /> <br />If I understand it correctly, it is allowed to post purely digital made images to the galleries today. But it is not allowed to post digital images (no photo) to the No Words forum. I have just asked permission, and I got no to that.<br /> <br />My question is if that decision could be reconsidered. I think if it is allowed to post digital images to the galleries, it should also be allowed to post them in the No Words forum. Please? :-)<br /> <br />Would it also be a good idea to have a separete forum for the digital work, or should I use the Digital darkroom for questions related to this?</p>

[jimadams]

<p>I wonder what purpose it would serve to have a category for "images that are purely digital made, not made from any photo"?</p>

<p>This is, after all, a site dedicated (supposedly) to photography.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I know, Jim. But sometimes it can be hard to tell if the work comes from a photo or not. And it is already allowed in the galleries with purely digital work (not from a photo).</p>

[joshroot]

<p>While there are obviously people on the site who are interested in both types of art, this is photo.net, not digital-creations.net. Images here should have, in almost all cases, started out with light passing through a lens and hitting a recording medium.</p>

<p>For the most part, we don't play "art police" and delete digital creations out of the gallery. But we also do not support or encourage their existence on the site. Thus, I would be highly unlikely to create such a category because there really is no reason for purely digital creations to be taking up space in the ratings or critique system or to be posted in the forums.</p>

<p>While there is some argument to be made about when a photo has been too far manipulated, I think most people can understand the difference between a "digital alteration" that was born out of a photograph and a "digital creation" that never saw the light of day outside of a computer (pun intended).</p>

<p>Digital creations are a legitimate art form, they just aren't photographs. And Photo.net is about photos and the photographic process.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>There are quite a few of the no-photo-digital-art-works on the site already. Does what you write here, Josh, mean that this is not allowed? Or is it sort of allowed but one should feel a bit ashamed if one is posting it? I hope not :-)<br /> <br /> My opinion is, that if the members get creative with the tools and possibilities of the post processing software they have at hand, the photos on this site will also benefit from that and the quality of the photos will be getting better. There are many tutorials on how to improve your post processing skills on this site and others. To learn more, you have to get creative and try out all the functions of the programs. In doing so, art work can emerge. And you want to show it to someone who can appreciate it and enjoy it, and the best place for that I think is photo.net.<br /> <br /> The world is moving forward, and post processing softwares are becoming more sophisticated for each new upgrade. One has to learn these things to be able to make photos beyond average quality. IMHO it is all an important part of the photographic process. The art work doesn't have to be created from a photo to be an important part of the learning curve in post processing. Hopefully you can also see the benefits for the site in allowing digital art work to be made and shown. This is not off-topic work, even if it is not made from photos.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>To my knowledge, among those websites devoted to digital creations (ie, <em>de novo</em> digital synthesis of imagery), there is no counterpart to photo.net in terms of civility, structure, reasonable moderation, etc. Because of this, my opinion is that photo.net will miss an incredible opportunity (both economic and technical) if it doesn't expand into this area. Given the recent discussion of reduced participation on photo.net, IMHO, opportunities to expand into closely related fields like this should not be dismissed out of hand. The incremental cost to photo.net of expansion into this area would be negligible, with little downside (as far as I can tell).</p>

<p>My sense is that many of the most creative young people who, in the past, would likely have become interested in traditional still photography think it is passe, and are now either going into video, <em>de novo</em> 3d scene synthesis (eg, Maya, Blender, 3ds Max, etc.), or, at the very minimum, heavily manipulated stills. The popularity of the latter among the general, non-traditional photographer population should be blatantly obvious by the large number of photo manipulation apps for smartphones being sold. I'm sure that if phone apps for complete, <em>de novo</em>, digital synthesis of realistic images were available, they would be selling like hotcakes. </p>

<p>In fact, even at the other end of the technical spectrum, arts and crafts stores (who clearly have never courted traditional still photographers) are effectively getting into digital image synthesis by offering classes on digital scrapbooking based on easy to use cut-and-paste programs that are never mentioned on photo.net. Sometimes there are photos involved, but many times these programs are used to generate printed backgrounds and ornamentation for non-photographic objects adhered to the pages of the scrapbook.</p>

<p>IMO, if Photo.net continues to be run the way it has, it could almost certainly attract large numbers of people from both of the above groups if it expanded into the area of <em>de novo</em> digital image synthesis.</p>

<p>Best regards,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - In the interest of full disclosure, I dabble in this area, so I am not an impartial observer. On a really funny note, I recently started a thread titled, "Digital Brushwork" in the Digital Darkroom forum. It was removed, probably because the image I posted to start the thread looked like there was no photo involved in the process. I take that as a high complement because I am a terrible painter and generated that image using a photo of some flowers at Longwood Gardens. I then used Corel Painter's auto-paint module to do much of the brushwork. So, while that image may have looked like <em>de novo</em> digital creation of an image, it was, in every sense of the word, an almost automatic digital alteration of a photo, just a bit more sophisticated than most other plugins or actions.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>It is a fact that you can substitute any color and any shape in a photograph with the use of filters or other tools. Surely there are no rules against manipulating a photo in this way?<br /> <br /> I cannot see the difference in that and being able to use brushes, patterns, blend tools and bucket fill tools to let you get the colors and the patterns that you want (without going via a photo). The result that you can create is the same. No one can tell the difference when everything is altered. But it is just much easier to use the proper tools that you need when creating an abstract artwork. And I also think that 3D software should be allowed, like Tom suggests. I wanted to make a photo of mine 3D recently. I did so by hand and it took forever to do. With a 3D software I guess it would have gone much quicker and hopefully looked a lot more professional.<br /> <br /> I have posted three digital-only-art-works in the gallery. But that was after I was told by the moderators that is was allowed. But they said it was not allowed in the No Words forum. Now I am a bit confused...and a little dissapointed. The first art work was made when trying to figure out how the blend tool worked. It is made with the blend tool only. The other two are digital watercolors. They were made when trying out new brushes that I had downloaded to Gimp. How can this not be allowed?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I enjoy various forms of creative expression, but I don't see any need to combine them all into one site. I visit painting oriented sites for painting, digital art sites for digital art, video sites for video and music sites for music.</p>

<p>If this were still the 1990s and the web didn't work with the near-seamless flow we now enjoy, sure, there might be a valid reason to expand the scope of a topic-specific site like photo.net to include other visual arts. But the fact is, the web is easy to navigate and there are many excellent websites for each genre and niche.</p>

<p>I'm open to new ideas, which is why photo.net's b&w forums have long accommodated and even encouraged discussing hybrid techniques that merge the best of traditional and digital. But in this case I'm not seeing any persuasive argument in favor of using photo.net for digital art that has no foundation or basis in photography as an integral part of the artwork. As much as I enjoy visiting deviantART, I don't actually want to see photo.net mimic deviantART. Focus is a good thing.</p>

[gordonjb]

<blockquote>

<p>" One has to learn these things to be able to make photos beyond average quality. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true, plenty of " beyond average quality " photographs have been made and continue to be made without " these things "</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Focus is a good thing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>indeed, hence the name of this site.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I agree that focus can be a very good thing. However, adapting and changing with the times can be very beneficial, and it's often better to lead the pack than lag behind.</p>

<p>IMHO, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. While folks have questioned the benefit of adding such a forum, I see no argument against my statement that the cost to add such a forum is essentially zero to either operators or users of photo.net.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS (in edit) - ...and, if, by some chance, the popularity of such a forum became so great that it put a burden on the servers and available bandwidth, I would point out that there are much worse problems for a forum to face. ;-)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Not to suggest that photographers are completely stiffnecked, hidebound, Harry Hairshirts, but just to give some perspective on how the web tends more toward niche interests and narrow-casting, consider this...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php">APUG</a>, one of my favorite sites for traditional film/darkroom oriented photography, has a lesser known spinoff site, <a href="http://www.dpug.org/forums/home.php">DPUG</a> (formerly Hybrid Photo), to accommodate folks who are interested in the hybrid traditional/digital workflow. I've barely browsed DPUG but presumably it includes such hybrid workflow topics and creating large format digital negatives for contact printing to light sensitive paper - something I'd like to try again after some early experiments several years ago.</p>

<p>Occasionally on photo.net's b&w forums there are spirited but polite debates about whether discussions about such hybrid techniques are suitable here. I believe they are appropriate. But such responses serve as a thermometer for checking the temperature of photographers on certain issues.</p>

<p>If you're really wanting serious, objective and well informed critiques of completely digital 3D art or abstracts, would you be more likely to get that type of feedback here, where the TRP has long been dominated by photos of nudes, colorful landscapes and beautiful birds, or on a site where like minded folks gather for that specific type of digital artwork?</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>You already have that artwork here, Lex. And I really enjoy looking at it. I think many people do. And "the audience" are mainly photographers. As I said in my pervious post, since it is allowed to completely transform a photo and create the same image as you can with digital tools only, I cannot see why both cannot be allowed. It makes no sense to me.<br /> <br /> I would like to share digital artwork on this site, where you have both photos and digital art work. Because it is experienced photographers who make this digital art work. They know about lighting and composition. And the results are often stunning. I cannot find the same at Deviantart. And most of the people posting there, seem to be very young and are more into creating brushes (as an example). No offense, but I don't think I can find the right "audience" there.<br /> <br /> Clearly many photographers develop their own style that might be without photos using available software to broaden their abilities and skills. And in doing so are producing great art work. It is food for thought that still in 2012 more than this photo site will ban activities like that.<br /> <br /> Many photographers are making digital only art work. And clearly they want to show it alongside their other artwork/photos. Why wouldn't we be allowed to show it on a photo site, we are photographers doing this as a result of us being photographers. We want other photographers to see it and hopefully appreciate it.<br /> <br /> The world seems to be changing at an ever faster pace, one has to go with the flow an adapt to the new things that come along. It is not so long ago that the debate was about whether or not to use post processing software at all. This development is IMO just the continuation of that theme. No offense, but I think it will look old fashioned a few years from now, that this was even debatable.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>There is a photo contest at a certain persons webpage that one is not allowed to link to from photo.net (just found that out when I was trying to link to a Nikon Lens Compatibility page in another thread). In this contest it is also allowed to submit digital artwork that are not based on a photo. As he writes: " It’s all about the image, and not the process." I guess he knows that it is often impossible to disdinguish one from the other. Thumbs up from me :-)</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>No offense, but I think it will look old fashioned a few years from now, that this was even debatable."</i><P>

Then I guess there's no need for discussion. All you need to do is wait a couple of years until the rest of us attain enlightenment. It's a shame we're not perceptive enough to comprehend the obvious truth as quickly as you . . .

[joshroot]

<p>Again, this is not digital-art.net. Photo.net is a photography site. </p>

<p>As I alluded to before, I am not going to run around deleting digital art out of the galleries. It's really not a big deal in my book if people want to upload it. However, as I also stated previously, digital creations do not need to be in the critique/ratings system or in no words or weekly photo threads in the forums.</p>

<p>And finally, let me repeat, if it didn't start with light passing through a lens and hitting a recording medium then it probably doesn't have a place on photo.net. I respect other art forms, but photo.net loses as much as it gains if it tries to be everything to everyone. So we're just going to be a photography site for photographers.</p>

<p>As there is unlikely to be any agreement on the topic, I'm going to close the thread. </p>