picpiper Loc: California

OK - please note - I said that by my definitions your avatar is a photograph. But in order for my definition of digital art to exclude your avatar I added the "incongruous" concept to the digital art definition. Specific examples of "incongruous" digital art:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3Cq7YTj8ru8/UY7WoKr1E4I/AAAAAAAAA8g/diPA_pqSQdc/s1600/digital-art08.jpg and http://www.kewlwallpapers.com/images/wallpapers/ws_Digital_Art_1024x768-675313.jpeg

After looking at many digital art images on the web I realized another way of distinguishing a photograph from digital art is this: An image is digital art if it cannot or could not be recreated in camera with a single shot or bracket set.

The OP was asking us for a discussion of where photography crosses over into digital art as it applies to marketability. "Everyone is going to have their own notion..." doesn't really advance the discussion much.

Regarding:

But not when it applies to your work?


Hmm... And I don't want anyone defining the President as a complete failure when I consider him among the best. (Not really, just trying to make a point here.)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I think that is way too narrow a definition for photography. My point was that since everyone will have a different idea where a photograph becomes digital art, or whether it ever ceases to be a photograph, everyone should define that for their own work and not try to apply it to anyone else's. Why should your definition be the one that everyone has to use? If you think everyone should use the same definition for marketing purposes, who is going to decide what that definition should be?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I would say, anything that could be accomplished in the darkroom with film is still considered a photograph when done digitally.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I agree that it is photography because the pixels originated in a camera, and digital art (in a dictional as meaning "1.-" should be reserved to images where the pixels originate in the computer. But digital art could also have another meaning, like in a dictionary as "2.-" to describe creative efforts which result from electronic manipulation...how about a lead guitar riff with a digital echo box? I think that also qualifies as a form of digital art. I play guitar and do photography, and love altering tones with digital effects whether they be audio tones or visual tones. I also create digital paintings using a graphics tablet and a painting program called 'Painter'. Having trained in a traditional art college and earned a BFA, I do not think it would be wrong to call myself a digital artist for all those things. But I do see the problem here, I get incensed when musicians call themselves "Artists" to the point of that being the meaning of the word now. Not that they are a kind of artist, but that when you see "your favorite artists" these days it means musicians, not fine art painters as it should. Artist has in the past been used to differentiate musicians from painters, and I think that distinction needs to be acknowledged. To call a musician an artist makes me feel like us painters have become eliminated.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

If you were entering your work in photographic competitions it might have some bearing but as you intend to market your images I expect that people would buy them for what they are not how they were made. All the best with your venture and don't get hung up on petty definitions. Rob.

Grandpa Bear Loc: Florida

There will always be someone out there who will argue the other way where this is concerned. I've known people who would argue that by using various darkroom techniques, like doing touch ups, using a burn-in tool, etc, that it's no longer a "true photograph." To me, making adjustments to the exposure IS part of photography.
That said, using a computer to change the composition falls into the realm of digital art. The dividing line, to me, is if I could do it in the darkroom then it is photography--even if done on the computer. But, as soon as it requires a computer to go beyond simple manipulation it loses that claim to photography, I choose to err on the side of disclosure when I tomes to composition. And remember that if just one customer feels what you've done is a misrepresentation then your reputation could suffer.

Carlo Loc: Maryland, NW.Chesapeake Bay

Fantastic Image !!!
Call it what you want...combination of photography and art... :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Keep up the good work...

Bob Grove

This a good semantic question, one that is hard to answer without appearing arrogant. First, let me assure you that I consider myself a camera owner who takes reasonably good pictures; I'm not a serious photographer.

I see a difference between a well-composed photograph and a snapshot, just as there's a difference between an oil painting and a canvas on which someone has smeared oil paint. My inclination is to call any photograph which has been substantially manipulated for effect "creative photography."

This becomes an issue in photography contests where judges must choose between a photograph which faithfully records a subject, versus a random snapshot which is then artificially manipulated to become visually attractive. Both began as photographs; the first by carefully choreographing the scene and adjusting the camera's appropriate settings, and the second depending on post-process computer alteration for juried presentation. Is it still a photograph? Sure, but the emphasis was on post-processed artistic creativity.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'd call it photography. "Digital art" sounds like "modern art" - something you can't recognize. Every digital photo has been manipulated, so don't hesitate to call your work photographs.

Shakey Loc: Traveling again to Norway and other places.

Sorry about your problems, I have seen photographers at outdoor shows who sell their wares. Many have created art from their photographs and label such as digital art (or similar) so that buyers do not think that they are getting a real painting. Some I have seen have been printed on canvas, which does look like a painting and if you are not a photographer with a magnifying glass you cannot see the pixels. Some of the prints look amazingly like paintings.
One photographer, who sells, steered me towards a free software program to do this. You can download it here for free: http://www.fotosketcher.com/

abbey4049 Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

Who cares what it is. It's all creativity. What's the difference what you call it. You created something!!!!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I think this is the reason, "...not sure how to market it."

Carlo Loc: Maryland, NW.Chesapeake Bay

Maybe a new name "Photartgraphy"
Marketing term ...!!??

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

Looks like photography to me! And a very good photo, at that! As already pointed out, in this thread, if it starts in a camera, then photography. If it starts in computer, then digital art. But please don't get down on yourself for not adhering, in the strictest of terms, to "photography." Life throws us some curve balls. How you have adapted your passion for photography is impressive. You may not be able to get the shots you once were able to but what you do, with what you're able to capture, is based on the artistic eye that you've developed through the viewfinder. After all, aren't some of the most impressive photos in history the result of exceptional composition, augmented by artistic darkroom and/or digital manipulation?
Even with your limited mobility, please don't give up taking pictures! If you produce "digital art" like this, and it makes you happy, it would be a crime for you to stop.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

If the source of the image is a photograph or contains a photograph, and at least 50% of the image is that of the original photograph, is is a photograph.

The dictionary does not address digital manipulation or post processing that we do today.