3D CG Last Post (Page 2): Perhaps it's just a different way of interpreting light, a different language that some have little interest in learning or understanding? I don't understand...

RogStrix Loc: UK

rmalarz wrote:

That posted production has little to do with capturing and using light.
--Bob

Perhaps it's just a different way of interpreting light, a different language that some have little interest in learning or understanding?

I don't understand those who seem to react to something so extremely as demonstrated by some of the views posted. I don't mind those who are honestly saying they don't like it, that's their right, but for those who want to 'drive the OP out of town' you are too much, too demanding and too narrow minded.
Sorry.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

RogStrix wrote:

Perhaps it's just a different way of interpreting light, a different language that some have little interest in learning or understanding?

I don't understand those who seem to react to something so extremely as demonstrated by some of the views posted. I don't mind those who are honestly saying they don't like it, that's their right, but for those who want to 'drive the OP out of town' you are too much, too demanding and too narrow minded.
Sorry.

I see that type of thinking with the current political divide in this country as well.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

anderzander wrote:

The information and images were posted for educational purposes, I won't be back and I will discontinue accessing Ugly, it's an oxymoron site that if you can't post anything beyond photography then this site is nothing more that an egoy trip, and I don't think I have seen professional photographers post here, I could be wrong, but that's not the point, if you can't be educated, that isn't my problem.
I constantly improve my craft, that's what I do.

You can post art other than photography here, in the non-photographic forum General Chit Chat, where people have posted paintings, drawings, or computer generated art. I wouldn't expect to be welcomed if I went to a painting site and started posting photographs, even if they are also art.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

JohnSwanda wrote:

You can post art other than photography here, in the non-photographic forum General Chit Chat, where people have posted paintings, drawings, or computer generated art. I wouldn't expect to be welcomed if I went to a painting site and started posting photographs, even if they are also art.

... but if the art shows nudity it should not be in General Chit Chat.

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

rmalarz wrote:

I fear you're mistaken. Photography deals with, from the etymology of the word, writing with light. CGI is not related to photography other than it produces an image. It does not do so through the use of light. That posted production has little to do with capturing and using light.
--Bob

relying on the etymology of a word as a rebuttal is a double edged sword - the meanings of words change, both connotative and denotative, is writing at all related to writing as it was thought of by our grandparents, as something we do by hand, with a pencil and paper, no, it's now something we do with our fingertips that press on a keyboard that sends electronic signals to a central processor that interprets the signals and presents to the viewer text that can be read. So, the meaning of words evolve, so should our thinking. That light is used by photographers to do what? Well, it's pretty obvious that light is used to make an image, and if there wasn't an image, well, photographers would be like horseshoes, rare and hard to find. I think photography is about making images, and images tell stories. As technology advances, and becomes much more sophisticated than the above examples, I would be willing to bet that the storytellers and the image makers of the future will give a hoot about whether an image was made the traditional way or by creating an image using x's and O's. Is a digital image still an image, or does it have to by analog on film to be a real image. Does it have to be made in a camera, using a lens, to be a real image written with light, or can a digital image created on a computer, which is what our cameras really are now, still be an image. Is photography's entomology really important, aren't we really trying to improve our image-making skills and our story-telling skills, isn't the end result we're looking for, a successful impactful image more important than whether we used an old Kodak Brownie or a Hasselbald medium format 100 megapixel camera, or a computer.

Does money exist without being printed on paper, can stuff be transported without sitting on a ship, can books be written without the use of a pencil, can an image be created without the use of a lens, can a mind be changed without the use of a scalpel (probably not) but it's an interesting argument that we can't take all this too seriously, and the world continues to change around us, and so does everything we know, and an image that starts to look and feel like a photograph, does it have to be made by a glass lens attached to a camera, either analog or digital, to be a photograph. And has the meaning of the word photograph changed to mean something more than the original meaning, and now might include the concept of an image that is static, as opposed to a movie.

So, I agree that the above image isn't a photograph in the traditional sense, but it's still an image, and might even fool the uninformed observer into thinking it was a photograph. We may not like it, we might never choose to use something like that, but let's be interested in what's developing out 'there' and be grateful that an Ugly Hedgehog is taking his incredibly valuable time to show us what's being developed.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

jonsommer wrote:

relying on the etymology of a word as a rebuttal is a double edged sword - the meanings of words change, both connotative and denotative, is writing at all related to writing as it was thought of by our grandparents, as something we do by hand, with a pencil and paper, no, it's now something we do with our fingertips that press on a keyboard that sends electronic signals to a central processor that interprets the signals and presents to the viewer text that can be read. So, the meaning of words evolve, so should our thinking. That light is used by photographers to do what? Well, it's pretty obvious that light is used to make an image, and if there wasn't an image, well, photographers would be like horseshoes, rare and hard to find. I think photography is about making images, and images tell stories. As technology advances, and becomes much more sophisticated than the above examples, I would be willing to bet that the storytellers and the image makers of the future will give a hoot about whether an image was made the traditional way or by creating an image using x's and O's. Is a digital image still an image, or does it have to by analog on film to be a real image. Does it have to be made in a camera, using a lens, to be a real image written with light, or can a digital image created on a computer, which is what our cameras really are now, still be an image. Is photography's entomology really important, aren't we really trying to improve our image-making skills and our story-telling skills, isn't the end result we're looking for, a successful impactful image more important than whether we used an old Kodak Brownie or a Hasselbald medium format 100 megapixel camera, or a computer.

Does money exist without being printed on paper, can stuff be transported without sitting on a ship, can books be written without the use of a pencil, can an image be created without the use of a lens, can a mind be changed without the use of a scalpel (probably not) but it's an interesting argument that we can't take all this too seriously, and the world continues to change around us, and so does everything we know, and an image that starts to look and feel like a photograph, does it have to be made by a glass lens attached to a camera, either analog or digital, to be a photograph. And has the meaning of the word photograph changed to mean something more than the original meaning, and now might include the concept of an image that is static, as opposed to a movie.

So, I agree that the above image isn't a photograph in the traditional sense, but it's still an image, and might even fool the uninformed observer into thinking it was a photograph. We may not like it, we might never choose to use something like that, but let's be interested in what's developing out 'there' and be grateful that an Ugly Hedgehog is taking his incredibly valuable time to show us what's being developed.

relying on the etymology of a word as a rebuttal i... (show quote)

Photography isn't defined by just being an "image". Paintings and drawings can be images, but they are not photographs. Photography is defined by being an image created by the action of light on a light sensitive material. That works just as well for film or digital photography. It doesn't necessarily require a lens - it could be a pinhole camera, or even require a camera, as I would define photograms as a type of photograph. And yes, a computer is used in digital photography. But it is to "develop" the image created by light on the sensor. If we are going to start calling images created entirely on a computer photographs, we are creating an entirely new definition of photography which has nothing to do with what photography has always been.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Loosen up a bit, folks. While this is primarily a "photography" forum, there are sections where things other than photography/photographs are discussed/presented, as in (and I quote from the Forum Sections page):

Introduce Yourself
New to the forum? Jump in, say hello, and introduce yourself here.

General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
A place to talk about anything (discussions not related to photography).

The Attic
Where we put stuff we don't want our guests to see. Complaints and rants about topics moved to The Attic will also be moved to The Attic.

For Your Consideration
This is where we have honest, respectful and open, conversations about art, in all its forms, with an emphasis on photography. Managed by ebrunner, Frank2013, R.G.

In my view UHH is a forum where folks interested in photography can interact, and not all of the interactions centre around "photographs". Since the "Nude" section includes NSFW material in its charter definition, I believe CGIs of nudes can be presented here.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

rmalarz wrote:

In certain venues this might be interesting. However, when one is looking at photographs, on a photo web site, this causes a complete disconnect with the subject and any technique that might be displayed.
--Bob

I absolutely agree with your statement, Bob. This C.G. stuff belongs in a gamer or tech forum at the very least in a different section that this.

anderzander

Computer graphics has everything to do with light, there are different types of light and different types of cameras, all can be controlled within the spectrum of CG. There are also different temperatures for lighting and a selection of lens, it may be CG but I can gurrantee they perform in the same way as real world techniques. One goes into lightroom and completely changes the appearance of an image, that happens to be CG, and the software on digital cameras is totally CG, people need to look at the technology and get off of there historical photo ego trips to understand the future, I happen to be a seeker of knowledge and nothing more.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

anderzander wrote:

Computer graphics has everything to do with light,... (show quote)

I have no problem with computer generated graphics - it is an art medium for the future. But I shot, developed, and printed my own film for 30 years, and now embrace digital photography, which doesn't seem that different in many ways. I just don't want photography to lose its uniqueness and be lumped in with purely computer generated imagery, especially when the day comes that it is hard to tell the difference.