image or digital art? (Page 3): :sm09:...

old poet

CHG_CANON wrote:

Real Photographers use Polaroid.

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

burkphoto wrote:

So long as the photographer/artist reveals what was done to achieve the results, I think it's fine. Competitions should just update their entry rules to accommodate or restrict entries according to the preferences of the sponsoring body.

My wife is in charge of two annual art shows the Greater Salem Art Association puts on. They're juried (professionally judged) competitions with categories like water color, acrylics, pen & ink and photography. For the past several years, the Association has tried to come up with photographic categories that might range from "untouched" photographs to "digital art." Trouble is, it's hard to define "untouched." Should a slight post processing exposure change be considered untouched? Sharpening? Cropping? Even Ansel Adams did a lot of post processing during the development process. If a photograph is made largely unrecognizable compared to the original through pp is it still a photograph or is it now digital art?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

Real Photographers use Polaroid.

I knew a guy that did!
Back in the film days (mid 70s), he would "preview" his shot with a Polaroid, make any necessary adjustments, then expose the film.
I suppose one could call it "the first preview mode".

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

And Van Gogh cheated on his image of a starry sky. Didn't really look like that ( but did to him)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Things like swapping skies and adding or removing objects have been done since the very beginnings of photography. Much of what we do on the computer now was done in the darkroom first, it was just much more difficult. But now that it's easier to do (but not necessarily done well) it's no longer considered part of photography? Competitions are free to make their own rules concerning what techniques are appropriate for them.

HOHIMER

BobSchwabk wrote:

A question for the group.
As I look at on-line posts of images, I see some that obviously been created by adding features that weren’t in the original capture. But with the advent of AI it’s getting harder. With all the editing software out there, many adding features for enhancing an image, I’m curious as to your opinions as to when an image transitions from a photo into the realm of “digital art”. What will be the impact on competitions?

As a painter I feel I can include anything I want in my painting except when I am documenting a well known scene or doing a portrait. Even then, I do take liberties such as enlarging or diminishing a given detail or altering a perspective to enhance the effect. However, when presenting an image as a photograph, I feel somewhat constrained at doing so.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The artist captures what the other photographers didn't notice.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JohnSwanda wrote:

Things like swapping skies and adding or removing objects have been done since the very beginnings of photography. Much of what we do on the computer now was done in the darkroom first, it was just much more difficult. But now that it's easier to do (but not necessarily done well) it's no longer considered part of photography? Competitions are free to make their own rules concerning what techniques are appropriate for them.

mindzye Loc: WV

CHG_CANON wrote:

No artist ever sees things only as the camera would. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.

Quite right. There is a difference between an image maker and a picture taker.
If one post processes, does this also make an artist fake?
Such slanted and tunnel vision viewpoints lends to many being takers of 'image of record' only.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If it's not Polaroid, it ain't nothing.

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

burkphoto wrote:

So long as the photographer/artist reveals what was done to achieve the results, I think it's fine. Competitions should just update their entry rules to accommodate or restrict entries according to the preferences of the sponsoring body.

I completely agree!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I think the issue is now (and always has been) the truthfulness and integrity of the photographer. And I'm cynical enough to question that. I did journalistic photography for decades, and, truthfully, I have difficulty with replaced skies. I recall the first time I removed a pole from a picture. I had nightmares for days! I assume if there's an unexpected element in a photo I see on the internet, (including the Hog) I assume it's a fake. I know many here think it's OK to do whatever they want to make the image look as they want it to. If I were a painter, I'd do that. But I'm not. I have possible buyers look at one of my pieces and express the assumption that I made it up in Photoshop. (Particularly if it's a really good piece!) Unfortunately, the buying public now assumes that everything is fake. That's a real detriment to those of us who work really hard to get a beautiful image right in-camera!

I know many of you are going to attack me for what I've said. I'm sorry about that. I'm not trying to start a fight.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The surest way to corrupt a novice is to explain the importance of SOOC.

Cragzop Loc: NYC

This started out as a photograph of Michelangelo‘a Pieta. It was created using AI.
Is this “cheating?”
Is it still a photo or digital art?