Has photography become digital art?

Finste

Finste

Suspended / Banned
Messages
354
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
Browsing through some of the more popular photo sharing sites and looking at the best work (editors picks etc), I was struck by how unphotographic most of it is. They certainly started life as photographs but the sheer amount of post processing that has gone into them make them look more like digital art than photographs. Is this just the latest trend (ala hdr) or is it the future for the medium? That a photograph is simply the raw material for the finished image and post processing matters more now.

Regards...
 
Some is, some isn't The difference today is that photography and processing is no longer the preserve of the specialist (professional or amateur). Anyone has access to it.

Whilst it can be compared with processing a negative, the potential for pushing it to extremes is greater.


Steve.
 
Finste said:
That a photograph is simply the raw material for the finished image
Click to expand...

Twas always thus

Trends in PP (both film and digi) come and go, often driven it seems by the latest wow plugin now where such as Photoshop is used

If you don't like it, just wait a bit until the next PP trend comes along :)

Dave
 
Finste said:
Browsing through some of the more popular photo sharing sites and looking at the best work (editors picks etc).
Click to expand...

Best is not an appropriate word to use. It's just what someone likes. Look a little further and you'll find all sorts of images, in many different styles, being promoted on other sites.

As others have said above: these trends come, stay a little while and then go.

It's the nature of any form of art.
 
Steve Smith said:
Some is, some isn't The difference today is that photography and processing is no longer the preserve of the specialist (professional or amateur). Anyone has access to it.

Whilst it can be compared with processing a negative, the potential for pushing it to extremes is greater.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I have the book of the 'Faking It' exhibition about photo manipulation before Photoshop / digital - very interesting and a ridiculously high level of skill.

http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2012/faking-it
 
Of course if a technique becomes available then someone somewhere will practice it. And if widely available, as via the dissemination of software, then many will likely practice it. Which doesn't necessarily make the results of that technique either photography or art - that is, the results aren't necessarily to be taken seriously.

Fads are inevitable but are often pretty meaningless.

You have to cut through the dross to see a thread of what's real in photography continuing through the years. At root, I think, is the quest for meaning.
 
Last edited:
Finste said:
I was struck by how unphotographic…
Click to expand...
You're bloody right there!

The problem being that one has to learn so much about
photography but few really care about developing their
own artistic intent and skills
Finste said:
They certainly started life as photographs but the sheer amount of post processing that has gone into them make them look more like digital art than photographs.
Click to expand...
Photography and imagery are two different art forms
and both, film or digital is irrelevant, have their own ap-
roaches and many get lost between the two.
Finste said:
That a photograph is simply the raw material for the finished image and post processing matters more now.
Click to expand...
Photography is just an other way to do it… including
the PP but where, when to stop is difficult to learn when
powerful softwares give one the tools to redraw reality.

That is the issue I think, not photography but the good
taste in conséquent artistic intents and skills.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
but where, when to stop is difficult to learn when
powerful softwares give one the tools to redraw reality.
Click to expand...

True.

Bear in mind that with film, the majority of users didn't even make straight prints of their negatives, let alone do any darkroom trickery. They just relied on a high street lab to print them. Now everyone can post process as much as they want.


Steve.
 
The 'latest trend' will vary according to where you go. If it's Facebook then everyone still loves a bright HDR image, if Ello then it is more likely to be slightly abstract fashion images or OTT post & blend work, etc etc. As much as anything people post images to a particular 'market'.

As already said, much well-known work shot on film was never straight either.

Kodiak Qc said:
Photography is just an other way to do it… including the PP but where, when to stop is difficult to learn when powerful softwares give one the tools to redraw reality.

That is the issue I think, not photography but the good taste in consequent artistic intents and skills.
Click to expand...

And this too, very much so.
 
A very diverse range of opinions. Thanks to all who replied.

New technology brings new opportunities to create new kinds of images and its good that this happens. I just wish that the core competencies of photography like lighting etc, were not so readily cast aside.

Regards...
 
I've spent the last year doing a photography course and now able to create a much wider range of images some of which are much more arty straight out of the camera, a look which I like. PP can help too. This is an interesting thread and many valid points of view. @Finste what sort of thing do you have in mind as being "unphotographic"?
 
I have the camera used to make these and never seen anything out of the camera that remotely resembles any of these photos whatsoever. AT ALL.

Wish I could make them, not to show off but would just be interesting to make some.

Done on a Nikon d90 that is £150 used now.

Not made by me.

S5+in+Motion.jpg





 
GTG said:
I have the camera used to make these and never seen anything out of the camera that remotely resembles any of these photos whatsoever. AT ALL.

Wish I could make them, not to show off but would just be interesting to make some.

Done on a Nikon d90 that is £150 used now.

Not made by me.
Click to expand...

Well it takes all sorts...

But I wouldn't want to 'create' any of those 'images'.

Back to the OP...

Virtually none of the great pictures I envy owe more than a small percentage of their appeal to 'digital skills', it's as easy (or difficult) as it ever was to create great photographs, but nowadays there's another branch of photography where digital skills are more prominent.
 
Finste said:
New technology brings new opportunities to create new kinds of images and its good that this happens.
Click to expand...

Painting used to be largely figurative but when photography took off at the end of the 19th century painters moved on to impressionism and from there more and more abstraction. The technological change this time is a combination of digital and ubiquity - everyone has a camera in their pocket so I think the trends we see emerging in photography are a response to this. "Photographers" don't want to create photos that could have been taken on a mobile phone so I think these trends are here to stay. But like pretty much all technology it adds to the sum of human activity and very rarely replaces part of it. Just as people still ride horses, people still shoot on film, paint portraits, take holiday snaps and push the boundary between "straight" photography and something more abstract.
 
GTG said:
Well teach me oh wise one.

Show example of "digital art" that you want to make instead of criticising
Click to expand...

There isn't any I wish to create, it's not what I do, and have no wish to move in that direction in the future.

I personally don't like any of the work that you posted, but if that's what you aspire to create, then good for you, I applaud your desire to look beyond your current practice and learn new things. There are doubtless plenty of tutorials available on YouTube that will teach you, I'm sure you'll find some to your taste. But I have no intention of 'teaching you', thanks for the offer though.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
There isn't any I wish to create, it's not what I do, and have no wish to move in that direction in the future.

I personally don't like any of the work that you posted, but if that's what you aspire to create, then good for you, I applaud your desire to look beyond your current practice and learn new things. There are doubtless plenty of tutorials available on YouTube that will teach you, I'm sure you'll find some to your taste. But I have no intention of 'teaching you', thanks for the offer though.
Click to expand...

Well that would make sense why you don't like any of them. You have no interest in such photography.

I have interest in all types except pornographic lol
 
GTG said:
I have the camera used to make these and never seen anything out of the camera that remotely resembles any of these photos whatsoever. AT ALL.

Wish I could make them, not to show off but would just be interesting to make some.

Done on a Nikon d90 that is £150 used now.

Not made by me.

S5+in+Motion.jpg





Click to expand...

The first one looks like panning in camera plus desaturation of the background in post processing. The next three look like variations of HDR post processing. The last one looks like a regular snowy landscape, don't see any special technique to that.

Personally I do like panned shots and things like twisting the lens or the zoom to give more abstract images in camera. HDR I've played with and tried some extremes, now I prefer only subtle use if at all. Selective desaturation I've also tried and can be good too.

No reason you can't get images like this yourself :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTG
GTG said:
Well that would make sense why you don't like any of them. You have no interest in such photography.

I have interest in all types except pornographic lol
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean I have no appreciation of digital art. There is some stuff out there of a very high technical and aesthetic standard. Off the top of my head, Natalie Dybisz (Miss Aniela) springs to mind, and there's a chap called Adrian Lines who is well known on the camera club scene for his digital art. Both are on Flickr and are worth checking out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTG
newbie1 said:
The first one looks like panning in camera plus desaturation of the background in post processing. The next three look like variations of HDR post processing. The last one looks like a regular snowy landscape, don't see any special technique to that.

Personally I do like panned shots and things like twisting the lens or the zoom to give more abstract images in camera. HDR I've played with and tried some extremes, now I prefer only subtle use if at all. Selective desaturation I've also tried and can be good too.

No reason you can't get images like this yourself :)
Click to expand...
The first 'panning' shot is faked, if the background is blurred so would the reflection be too. ;)

The 4th has a comp'd sky. There's a sun in the sky in the middle of the shot, but bizarrely there's another sun behind the buildings camera left creating a shadow. If it's not fake it was shot on a planet with 2 Suns ;)

I don't mind computer 'art' even when it's photography based, but I cant take it seriously if it's done so thoughtlessly.
 
Phil V said:
The first 'panning' shot is faked, if the background is blurred so would the reflection be too. ;)

The 4th has a comp'd sky. There's a sun in the sky in the middle of the shot, but bizarrely there's another sun behind the buildings camera left creating a shadow. If it's not fake it was shot on a planet with 2 Suns ;)

I don't mind computer 'art' even when it's photography based, but I cant take it seriously if it's done so thoughtlessly.
Click to expand...

Aha good spots, thanks Phil
 
Photographs are just another form of art, like anything in life you either like them or don't.

I have seen some amazing art that people rave about and I thought it was s***.

Likewise I have seen heavily criticised work I find appealing.

Also the opposite of both.

So I guess you like what you like and continue to do it. Do what gives you pleasure not what the crowd say.
 
You've gotta wonder what the intention actually was for that 1st one, I mean the car doesn't even have a driver so is it really faked to imitate a car driving at speed, or is it just an "effect" applied for Art sake.
When presented as Art, these images good bad or ugly, stand in their own right as something, digital art ?, it works for me.
But present them as photographs and all I see is..."faked"
 
joxby said:
You've gotta wonder what the intention actually was for that 1st one, I mean the car doesn't even have a driver so is it really faked to imitate a car driving at speed, or is it just an "effect" applied for Art sake.
When presented as Art, these images good bad or ugly, stand in their own right as something, digital art ?, it works for me.
But present them as photographs and all I see is..."faked"
Click to expand...

Very fitting for our current post truth environment - shall we call it trumpography? ;)
 
I went to a lecture and exhibition by an Estonian photographer called Kaupo Kikkas about his "treescape" project. The inventiveness, skill and technique in how he processes multiple images is astonishing.
http://www.kaupokikkas.com/treescapekikkas/

On the other hand, I posted some images today that were straight out the can and I only put them though Lightroom to reduce the file size. I did them for a friend and he just copied the .jpegs straight off the SD card and will get them printed.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/10th-birthday-party.657393/

Personally, I hate images over-processed for no reason.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top