Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

any one who who is a master at his sport , beyond what the average person
can do in same. is an art . and if they do it good the deserve to be called a artists . it takes many more hours to be a Woods , a Wayne Gretskey Casses
clay, tennis players , race car drivers . and some one who comes along and
just has a gift for taking pictures . drawing pictures playing a sport . that person to should be noted as a artists also . the art is the end result of doing
what you chose to do . as long as you do it well . above and beyond what the norm can be called . and the norm is not art , only in your mind . put some of your work up here and I'll tell you if your a artist or not .

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

it's all just art . you can't pigeon hole it to digital art . then if you dipped your
toe or butt in paint would you call that toe art and butt art . then pixel art , sensor art . back button art . what you do to create is the out come of the final product that's viewed by others . not what your using . other wise we might call the brush that Vangoa used the creator of the work .

FastFrank Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

If you want to believe you are an artist, good for you. I would celebrate your camera because that is what produced the image. Mr. Adams physically manipulated his images during development. Pressing a button on a computer is no comparison.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I know a house painter that works with latex, acrylics, and oils that calls himself an artist. Go figure.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

You must be completely ignorant about photography. Looking through the history of photography, there are photographers who are artists on the level of great painters. The camera is just a tool like a paint brush. The photographer produces the image, and it is not easy to consistently produce great images. And great post processing on a computer requires skill comparable to doing great darkroom work. There is a lot more to it than pushing a button.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Ah, well there's the rub isn't it? You assume that it is all done just by pushing a button and running a filter algorithm (and granted, for some that may be the case), but for many of us that is not even remotely close to what we do. For example, I "physically manipulate" my images using a pressure sensitive stylus, painting on and erasing from multiple layers, dodging and burning by "painting in" darker or lighter hues, make decisions about which digital brushes will best provide a texture I desire, etc. etc.

One can't simply dismiss a group of creative people from the ranks of artists, and their work from the realm of art, based on faulty assumptions of their process and lack of knowledge of that process.

Ultimately, you are pretty much doomed to continue to be "offended", because galleries, art festival juries, competition judges, recognized artists, and a majority of the art buying public seem to disagree with the narrow parameters and definitions you wish to impose

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

your catching on : no camera no photography art , no earth no trees ,air water, no universe no nothing . and if the only thing missing in the whole
soup , was mankind there would no minisickel little peices of s-i-- running around giving a useless name to every thing .

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

SharpShooters perspective is simple and objective.
Says it all.

Dave

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Not so sure, Dave ["if it starts in your camera, then it's photography, digital or otherwise."]. All of these started in the camera. The first two, the one straight out of the camera and the one optimized would be considered photography by the majority I think.

The next one has a deer added. NOT photography, but digital manipulation?

The last one is, well, NOT photography, but also digital manipulation.

What do you think?

A lot of this matters only if you are entering a contest, and there, the rules are usually clearly stated.

straight out of the camera

(Download)

optimized

(Download)

manipulation (deer added)

(Download)

digitally manipulated (color)

(Download)

sidpearce

If out of a camera it's a photograph

FastFrank Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

You completely misunderstand my point. I am not underestimating the skill level of a good photographer. You may be much more highly skilled a photographer than I am an artist. I can't undestand why you are ashamed of your craft and want to be called an artist. If I produce a painting I don't then declair myself to be a photographer. If you described Mr. Adams craft you would describe him as a photographer. His images are highly collected and very valuable. I'm sure he was not ashamed to be called a photographer.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Unfortunately, it's difficult to know exactly who you are directing your comments to unless you you the "quote reply" option when you post.

Personally, I don't think I am misunderstanding you. It's simply a matter of not agreeing with your position.

I certainly have no shame in being called a photographer, but I also see myself as an artist. (I consider Adams to fit into that duel roll as well). While my preferred medium may be photography, my creative efforts, like most artists, is directed toward producing images which are aesthetically pleasing and which connect with the viewer. And, like artists in other disciplines, I work hard at perfecting my skill sets in order to produce worthwhile images on a consistent basis. And although those skill sets are certainly different than those I used when I was primarily painting in acrylics, those differences don't negate their artistic nature. Would we differentiate a watercolor painter as being any less or more of an artist than a sculptor whose skills are significantly different? I think that same reasoning just as easily applies to photographers.

There are many examples of photographs which are pretty universally accepted as works of art. I have no qualms whatsoever in considering those who produced them artists.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Composite images were created in camera and in the darkroom almost from the time photography was invented. They were considered photography then, and they are still photography now that they are done on a computer.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Artist is an umbrella term for many different disciplines - painting, sculpture, printmaking, and, yes, photography. It's not a matter of being ashamed to be a photographer, it's a matter of being legitimately considered an artist AS a photographer. Why is a painter automatically an artist and a photographer can't be?

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Because painters don't do weddings. :)