How much is too much?
Jul 15, 2015 00:12:37 #
So when does a photograph become graphic art? We've all seen what can be done with Photoshop, where people put houses in the clouds or birds under the sea, Erik Johanson has done some brilliant things with his camera and software. This has been discussed on the Hog many times, and I'm not trying to start that debate again here, but what I would like to see here are images that you have done that started out as a regular photo and morphed into something that you personally feel that is closer to graphic art than photography.
I'll start with a shot I took today. This teapot was made into a wind chime that was hanging from a post in a neighbors back yard. All I did was get rid of the rope that it hung from and the strings that the chimes were attached to.I think that because it was really shot against the sky instead of pasted in, it gives it more of a "really there" feel, and yet it's no longer a photograph of a regular object in it's natural setting.
I'll start with a shot I took today. This teapot was made into a wind chime that was hanging from a post in a neighbors back yard. All I did was get rid of the rope that it hung from and the strings that the chimes were attached to.I think that because it was really shot against the sky instead of pasted in, it gives it more of a "really there" feel, and yet it's no longer a photograph of a regular object in it's natural setting.
Jul 15, 2015 00:26:24 #
Erik_H wrote:
So when does a photograph become graphic art? We'v... (show quote)
Interesting concept. One of my favourites is Jerry Uelsmann. Only he doesn't use digital images. He uses numerous enlargers.
I'm working on some along these lines myself.
--Bob
Jul 15, 2015 00:34:06 #
rmalarz wrote:
Interesting concept. ...
Should be fun to see how this turns out. S-
Jul 15, 2015 00:47:39 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
Erik_H wrote:
So when does a photograph become graphic art?
I was once told one distinction is when a graphic is added such as drawn line or cartoon character. I think what you have here is more on the lines of photographic art. Erik take what I say for what it's worth as I have no formal training whatsoever. I do find your shot interesting.
Jul 15, 2015 01:10:35 #
Im really with Frank on this one Erik. If you manufacture a rainbow in Photoshop and add it to an image its graphic art if you photograph a rainbow and add it to a picture its photographic art. Text for instance takes any photo into the graphic art corner I think. As a fan of both genres and occasional poor dabbler in both that's how I define it for my poor offerings. Im sure others will feel other rules apply.
The main problem with putting them in separate boxes is the elitism and snobbery shown by some photographers towards graphic artists. To become a master of either is a lifetimes work and each deserves mutual and equal respect.
The main problem with putting them in separate boxes is the elitism and snobbery shown by some photographers towards graphic artists. To become a master of either is a lifetimes work and each deserves mutual and equal respect.
Jul 15, 2015 01:54:31 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Billyspad wrote:
Im really with Frank on this one Erik. b If you m... (show quote)
Very interesting to read your definitions here Billyspad.
I'm sure many of us can learn from that.
Jul 15, 2015 04:40:47 #
lighthouse wrote:
Very interesting to read your definitions here Billyspad.
I'm sure many of us can learn from that.
I'm sure many of us can learn from that.
Thank you litehouse
Jul 15, 2015 07:44:59 #
I like your image, Erik. There's something very playful about it. I'm reminded of the whimsy we see so often from Treepusher in Photo Gallery.
I have no training or knowledge in graphic art, but what might be considered photographic art, but do know what I like :)
I have no training or knowledge in graphic art, but what might be considered photographic art, but do know what I like :)
Jul 15, 2015 07:47:38 #
Erik_H wrote:
...what I would like to see here are images that you have done that started out as a regular photo and morphed into something.
This might not be as extreme as what you had in mind, Erik. But here is a meadowlark with a Nik Color Efex midnight filter applied. A wonderful compliment from someone I much admire on UHH suggested it looks like porcelain :)
Jul 15, 2015 08:54:37 #
Erik_H wrote:
So when does a photograph become graphic art?
I don't claim to know. I don't really care. Like Linda said in one of her posts, I know what I like. It troubles me when people become judgmental, and that is often what is entailed when someone begins to draw hard lines between what is and is not art, what is and is not photograph, what is and is not graphics.
To my own mind, any art work that has a recognizable photograph as its base is photographic art. Graphic art seems more like the advertisement for Corel Painter that pops up on the UHH screen sometimes.
Here is a link I'd like for anyone to look at to further this interesting discussion. http://hcporter.com/art/list.asp?cat=adelle. HC Porter is an artist who lives where I live and her work in this particular gallery was done in a neighborhood where I spent considerable time during my years in public education. She has captured the spirit of that neighborhood very well. HC is a gifted photographer and a gifted artist. But what is her work to be classified as?
Jul 15, 2015 12:40:19 #
minniev wrote:
I don't claim to know. I don't really care. Like L... (show quote)
Minnie's take is mine as well. I like what I like, and I dislike snobbery. I LOVE the floating teapot! It puts me in mind of a hot-air balloon (somebody must have one; they make them in so many shapes). I agree that, being shot against the actual pastel sky it looks completely natural. I like the vertical frame and the fact that it has room to rise, like a hot-air balloon. Cool shot!
Jul 15, 2015 14:21:44 #
I love the teapot! A visual treat, and just plain fun. Nice work.
I will contribute a shot to the thread I did years ago, but in its final form I would consider this graphic art, not a photo anymore, even tho the original photograph is still present in this.
I will contribute a shot to the thread I did years ago, but in its final form I would consider this graphic art, not a photo anymore, even tho the original photograph is still present in this.
Jul 15, 2015 14:44:38 #
Treepusher wrote:
...I will contribute a shot to the thread I did years ago, but in its final form I would consider this graphic art, not a photo anymore, even tho the original photograph is still present in this.
I love everything about it: the composition, posture of the person, simplicity of detail, colors - especially the touch of pink, just enough - and most of all, the star in the sky. Your creativity is shining, Randy! (and of course, I know it's Maine :) )
Jul 15, 2015 14:55:14 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
I love everything about it: the composition, simple lines, colors - especially the touch of pink, just enough - and most of all, the star in the sky. Your creativity is shining, Randy! (and of course, I know it's Maine :) )
Lol, there's no place like it. : )
Thanks, Linda. I didn't get a chance to comment on your own image, but I quite agree it looks like painted porcelain and is completely delightful! But does that mean it's graphic art now, and should therefore be banned from certain areas of UHH? (in fairness, it might not be, lol. But just saying...)
At what point do these enter the realm of art? Is there a line? Mine has no text. Does that mean it's not really graphic art? I did add the star. Is that the qualifier? Or just that it's been processed and now the features are mainly in silhouette?
I'm not sure there is an objective line. Or is there?
Jul 15, 2015 16:21:35 #
This is an interesting conversation and I appreciate the OP starting it - I have a bunch of images that I consider photographic art, but they may be graphic art in the eyes of some. Here's a couple.
I shot the pelican in Ocean Springs right outside the Walter Anderson museum, and he is a Walter Anderson-inspired pelican. After looking at Anderson's oddly colored wildlife, I had to do my version. There's clearly a live pelican in there, but he is definitely morphing into something something different.
The other is a swamp shot - shot in surreal light but processed "creatively" with layers of softened/blurred detail stacked and masked with layers of harsh detail, then turned upside down.
Are they photographic art? Graphic art? There's no graphics that I know of. I have the originals on my disk, I didn't bring anything new in or take anything out that was there. But I don't think they would be considered straight photographs.
I shot the pelican in Ocean Springs right outside the Walter Anderson museum, and he is a Walter Anderson-inspired pelican. After looking at Anderson's oddly colored wildlife, I had to do my version. There's clearly a live pelican in there, but he is definitely morphing into something something different.
The other is a swamp shot - shot in surreal light but processed "creatively" with layers of softened/blurred detail stacked and masked with layers of harsh detail, then turned upside down.
Are they photographic art? Graphic art? There's no graphics that I know of. I have the originals on my disk, I didn't bring anything new in or take anything out that was there. But I don't think they would be considered straight photographs.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.