That's just your opinion, to me its a crock of crap, but I defend your right to see it differently..
Appreciated.
Uncomfortable, offensive ?? it just has to look as though it might exist.
Yes Sirree, offence and discomfort are certainly the more frequent.
Now that IS an interesting thought...it becomes of little value in photography circles ???
If 'photography circles' means fellow photographers then yes, I'd say most of the above reactions come from photographers. Dare I say it's not uncommon for them to have quite an axe to grind with the advances of technology too.
It is a little strange, I come from both ends of the 'stick', shooting journalism/sports and then creative and themed portraits, or at least that's what I attempt/try for.
Every journalism image has a process applied afterward, I shoot in raw format and apply a little finesse before publishing but that's as far as it requires.
Portraits or my own personal projects, anything will go, in accordance to suit the concept or theme.
Isn't that what its all about, isn't that the whole who har of why "anything goes" has to be inextricably linked to photography for some peeps, because without the photography link, "anything goes" has no credibility....:shrug:
Yeah, its the stupidest thing I've ever heard, art is art, surely digital art is valued just like any other art and could stand on its own two feet..
My apologies but I'm really not sure what your trying to explain here.
There is that Digital art description again though, as far as I'm aware, a digital artist is basically an illustrator or painter but uses a virtual medium as opposed to the physical.
If you were to demand the same level of photographic skills from a digital artist as you would a experienced portraits photographer for example, I think the vast percentage of DA's would most likely be at a loss to provide the same quality result.
What I can't relate to digital art are photographers who composite or apply certain post styles or technique to the photo's they take, nor do I relate photographers who alter or manipulate their photo's in any way to digital art.
If it's created with a camera and lens and cannot exist without the said camera and lens, then it's still photography for me. I like to keep it simple.
When one strays away from this simplicity, it begins to get quite unstable:
A slight levels adjustment in post is acceptable, then a curves or hue/saturation adjustment is acceptable, cropping has to be acceptable, is straightening acceptable? maybe a double exposure could also be acceptable?, is dodging and burning acceptable? Is cloning or healing acceptable? but splicing a collection of frames together to produce a composite is that not acceptable?.....
It's art. If it has substance, has narrative, makes you think, inspires or influences etc, then it's all acceptable.
I once recall a conversation by two photog friends talking about Drew Gardener and the Badger shot featured in his Location Lighting DVD.
Long story short, one opinion was that Drew
cheated and broke the rules because he made a composite, so his conclusion - that it's not photography and he's not a
real photographer.
It didn't matter that he flexed his knowledge and creative license of an experienced photog, nor did it matter about the skills that were evident working with his subjects, models, crew, lighting and exposure etc.
A composite simply can't be logically transformed into digital art because one has to deny the photographic ingredients to arrive at that conclusion, it's just another face or flavour of photography.
+1