I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.
Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.
blackmtnman wrote:
I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.
Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.
Blackman, sorry about your mobility, that's gotta be a tough one if you've done photography freely for many years.
For me, if it starts in your camera, then it's photography, digital or otherwise.
If it starts it's created in your computer and does not involve a camera, then it would be digital art.
They both involve pixels, but it's where those pixels originate.
Lets see what others have to say! Good luck with your art. :thumbup:
SS
PS, the pic you show is clearly a photograph, and a darn good one at that!!
In my opinion as long as "all" you are doing is manipulating the pixels that your camera captured it is photography. If you were to drop a polar bear onto the skis then it becomes digital art.
I personally would call that a photograph, what is it that you have done to it that makes you ask the question?
I see the colours look a little different to what I would have expected but it still looks like a very nice action shot to me :)
in terms of a camera, lens, and a sensor or film, photography will always be what it is. as far as what we can do with a picture, we've crossing and re-crossing the lives for the last 100 years. so who but the nitpickers cares.
jfn007
Loc: Close to the middle of nowhere.
I have a great friend who is wheel-chair bound and has only the use of his left arm and hand. His enthusiasm and spirits for photography have not flagged in forty years. I would assume it no longer becomes photography when it is no longer fun but becomes drudgery.
bull drink water wrote:
in terms of a camera, lens, and a sensor or film, photography will always be what it is. as far as what we can do with a picture, we've crossing and re-crossing the lives (lines) for the last 100 years. so who but the nitpickers cares.
Indeed. Anything that helps the photograph tell the story as the photographer saw it is in bounds in my opinion. ;)
There is a big difference between a photo and a photo illustration.
Composite images for example would be considered photo illustrations and not photographs.
picpiper wrote:
In my opinion as long as "all" you are doing is manipulating the pixels that your camera captured it is photography. If you were to drop a polar bear onto the skis then it becomes digital art.
:thumbup:
Except that if the polar bear and the skis were both photographed, I still think it would be photography. Ultimately, you are still painting with light.
Swamp Gator wrote:
There is a big difference between a photo and a photo illustration.
Composite images for example would be considered photo illustrations and not photographs.
But both would fall under the broader umbrella of photography.
I should point out that I do not do a lot of PP in my own work, but I defend the rights of other photographers to do so.
blackmtnman wrote:
I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.
Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.
I'm also believe if it starts as a photograph, It remains a photograph no matter how much you manipulate it. If not, then who decides when it becomes digital art rather than a photograph? It seems a big waste of time to argue where the line should be drawn.
Swamp Gator wrote:
There is a big difference between a photo and a photo illustration.
Composite images for example would be considered photo illustrations and not photographs.
People have been doing composite photographs way before digital came along, both in camera and in the darkroom. And that is what they are, composite photographs. I have done a lot of them, starting with film and now with digital, and I won't be told they are photo illustrations and not photographs.
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
blackmtnman wrote:
I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.
Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.
It seems kinda simple to me. If it starts in a camera it's a photograph. Whatever manipulation done to the original image dosen't matter. A film negative wouldn't be anything bot a photograph no matter what is done in the darkroom. I don't think there is any difference in PP in a computer. Enlarger VS Computer. So what. BTW I am scheduled for a knee replacemant next week so I can sympathise with your disability
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.