We are "ONE"

This is a superb piece of work Dieter. I hope the 'purist' members do not tell you to post your digital art on a site more appropriate. I only say this because I have experienced it. Photographers have said to me that they come here to see photography :(

 

This piece is very appealing. The tree and the couple intertwined show great vision, and your skills at producing an image which you obviously envisioned first, are truly enviable. I find an almost spiritual element being conveyed. Brilliantly executed. Well done.

This is a superp photograph. More importantly, it is ART. You can go to the park and take pictures of the Duckies all day long, but if you don't have a statement to make or an emotion to convey, you aren't doing anything but playing with your, ah. . . cameras.

 

We need fewer sterile, empty landscapes and pretty girls smiling into the camera on this site, and more thought out, well planned photographs.

Easily one of the very few photos that is a pure "10" for originality, and is quite appealing as well. Please post more!

Hey you!!!... We only want to see PHOTOS here not art...lol - just kidding...

good stuff here, excelent work...

Oh - tremendous picture.

Great idea, wonderfully executed.

This is great digital artwork.

I think my initial comment on this post has been somewhat misinterpreted by subsequent commenters & I just wanted to clarify to you personally Dieter, that in NO way did I intend to put you off posting art on photo.net.

 

On the contrary I am always happy to see photography and art incorporated together. It is my field of interest, and that is why I applaud your work enthusiastically.

 

The negative aspect I meant to convey was purely from my own experience, & for your info only.

 

My comment has resulted in a positive effect by attracting support for art being posted on this site, and hopefully this will deter those purists from attempting to slap down their rules.

 

Over time the harsh self-appointed politicians here have ground me down, and perhaps I shouldnt be such big softie by taking down my art folder. I may well put it back now ;)

This is a really excellent juxtaposition of the technology of PHOTOGRAPHY and the expression of that image as ART. I have no issues with digital manipulations of a photograph in order to end up with a successful and thought-provoking final image. Our craft is also our art, after all. Please do continue to post images as excellent as this.

 

Rich

This is a great image. Congratulations on CONCEPT and EXECUTION. I feel that some colours would make this an excellent piece.

I think my comment earlier was misinterpretted by others who thought that i had misinterpretted their original comment...lol... I was actually spoofing the opening comment as I totally agree with what was stated... : )

ROFL .... actually I think the last poster may have misinterpreted what I misinterpreted, it was in reference to Glens misinterpretation!!! Hehe ....... :P

Oops... sorry...

my only question now is, is "misinterpretted" spelled with one "t" or two?... : )

Well, with all the comments preemptively and prospectively answering the criticism that has not actually been lodged against this photograph, it seems anti-climatic not to actually have that criticism appear. So, let me do the honors.

 

Whatever this may be, and appealing though it may be, it is not a photograph, and only some of the standards by which photographs are rated or critiqued apply. I hope there is a place on the Internet for work such as this, but I do not think that photo.net should be it.

Nicely executed. Any photo that can raise controversy from both sides, digital and purist, deserves a second look. technically, if you have to please the purists, make a negative from your digital file. Personally I say leave it as it is!

I agree with Brian. It is beautiful, it is original, but it is not a photograph. I do like it. I'm just undecided as to wheather or not it belongs on "photo.net". Perhaps if this site was called www.photoSHOP.net........

Geraldine said: "On the contrary I am always happy to see photography and art incorporated together" Now, now Geraldine... I believe you just commented on your confusion about photography. NO NEED TO DENY PHOTOGRAPHY THE STATUS OF ART (we spend the last century discussing this problem -- i can assure you, photography won that war!). Even documentary and photojournalism (see Selgado's newest exhibition)is what we call art of photography. As in any art, you will get kitsh (so called Kodak moments)and a high class art expressed through the photographic techniques. I suspect that you know much more about paintings and too little about photographic masters and techniques to make a statement like this(teasing you here and awaiting your answer. As to this excellent digital photography exhibit, the question is if Dieter is still using photographic techniques to create his art or rather mixed media? Think about controversy over graphic arts and you know what I mean.

Hello Maria. Firstly you are quite correct that I know more about painting than I do about photography. However, I was not disputing photography as an art. More to the point, the description of works using mixed media & also incorporating photographic images, have NOT been established over the last 100 years!

 

My earlier comment you quote should be more accurately written as "On the contrary I am always happy to see photographic images with digitally rendered art incorporated together". My intention was merely to state what I am happy to see, and was not intended to state any terms or definitions. Since this appears to be what bothers you, I must point out that I also use my own photographic work, manipulate it with the use of computer software. If all images originated as my own photography then I tend to use the term 'photo art'. If on the other hand 3D rendering (or other computer based methods) have been used, then I use the term 'digital art'. These are terms I have chosen for myself, and do not expect purist photographers to call any of this type of work 'photography', and why I expected some reaction to this post.

 

I am always interested in subjective & political debate on photonet. What I do not appreciate, and was afraid Dieter may suffer, was very sour & cutting rejection without any polite or intelligent argument. Thankfully that has not been the case so far ;)

Yeah...I think I made up my mind as to "digital photography" -- digital technique is not a photo technique anymore. If we paint the picture of a sculpture we won't, of course, get a 3D sculpture (sorry for this truism). For me, photography would always be the image=idea on film and tools/technique used to make this idea available to a viewer. That technique is a darkroom with it's darkroom tools. I think that's the only argument I can hold to and don't feel stupid. And, the silly argument that one can take a picture of a digital image to make it a true photgraph does not intrigue me anymore. I do manipulate reality in a darkroom: I arrange subjects of my photos (rarely tho), I crop my picures, I combine two images, I burn them, I tone them . . . still I can't do what Dieter does using digital darkroom. In other words, I am using different technique. I am not jelous, mind it, but you see one has to paint the painting to still call it a painting. Yes, you can make a photocollage -- nor painting neither photograph and that's where digital photography is: between categories.

Digital photography gives the artist an ultimate freedom but I think that what makes photography photography is defined by LIMITATIONS of its technique. It wouldn't be fair to compare Rembrandt's paintings with Dieter's images because we would take away Rembrandt's talent and mastery. I believe, for that same reason it is not right to compare digital and traditional darkrooms: it does take away the talent of capturing the right image and the knowledge of techinique that will make that image into the photographic masterpiece.

That does not mean that I don't appreciate digital - to the contrary, I admire it immensly. I have no talent for painting but always wanted it. Now I know how.

Great concept, great execution - truly exceptional work.

 

As for the persistent annoyance of those who inhale a bit too much fixer, It was shot on film and composited and retains the feel of a photograph. It is not mixed media, but a creative idea shot and put together on... gasp...a computer. If only we could go back to the days of smearing glass plates.

 

It is called the "digital darkroom" for a reason. Technology and the processes and techniques of photography evolve. They are all tools for creating great images that evoke emotion.

Unbelievable~! This is amazing and wonderful art. I'm in awe. I would be interested to know if you can make prints available and how much you would charge. I'm seriously interested!!!!!

I really enjoy your work.

As long as it's nice, it passes the test.

 

But if every CG wannabe start posting their "reflective sphere over a black and white tiled floor CG picture", then we could start talking about "pollution".

 

To me it's a CG picture. If this picture has its place here is not my responsibility, it is a subject to the community "tolerance" or "acceptance".

 

For my part of personal comment. The baby really makes me think of all those 3D Studio spoofs, the dancing baby and so on. I fiddled with poser and worked with 3D program so I get an eerie feeling about the baby.

 

But aesthetically, it's pretty nice. The colors and the way the subject is treated are nice.

 

I have a bit of doubt about yelling originality, since my standards on photos and cg arts are quite different and I don't think i want to compare it on the same standards as photography.

 

Originality is to go beyond the standard way of doing something.

 

Anyway, this is a pointless debate. Be free and enjoy.

It's the tree of life!

Nice piece. However the baby stands out like a plastic doll, maybe if you could add a little more detail there.

Amazing image ! And amazing comments too!

First of all, I hate to hear discussions about whether this picture belongs on photo.net or not. There are certainly " purists " or so called, who wish that this picture would only belong in Hell. For those people, the furthest quality is, the better - because seeing Beauty elsewhere than in their own photo album is enough to prevent them from sleeping for a week or two. As for me, how you did it matters far less than the fact that you did it, and that I love it. If an image brings pleasure or knowledge, or feelings to its viewers, are we going to ask whether it's ISO 9002 certified and free of bacteria ?...

Congratulations to the photographer, who made my day... and of course... 10/10 (can't find the way to put 12/12)...