Interesting thread.

I myself have experience in both digital and film photography. Do I consider all of my photos artistic? No. But sometimes they are, and I've shown some of them in "art shows" which were comprised primarily of photographs.

I really like the points that Madea made in post #37... Art isn't art because of the medium, but because of a connection between the viewer and the subject. Anything can be art.

With regard to the question in this post, it is my opinion that once a shutter button is pressed, and film, photo paper, or CMOS is exposed to capture light it becomes a photograph, however you make that happen (camera, pinhole box, scanner, enlarger...). Photo means "light". It is also my opinion that once a photograph comes into existence it is always a photograph. I think that no matter what you do with it in post processing it still remains a photograph.

On another note, I think digital media is a much, much broader category. I believe that anything can become a piece of digital art, no matter it's origin. Look on youtube and you'll see video's of people "painting" in MS paint. You could also take a real oil painting and scan it into a computer and call that digital as well. Though they originated from 2 different mediums, I would certainly consider them both digital medium in the end.

If we get right down to the crux of it, even people shooting on film who have no access to a dark room's photos undergo manipulation from the instant they're captured. Degradation of the film, different variables introduced during printing process, minute alterations brought in by the print media, so on, so forth. What difference does it make, ultimately, if those manipulations are introduced intentionally?

I think a processed photo is, more often than not, more artistic than an unprocessed version of itself. To say that the creative process of making something ends the instant you press the shutter is kind of belying the intention of photography - to capture a scene as you see it - something which in application happens incredibly rarely. Capturing the basis for it is just the beginning, without being a completed representation of what you're trying to say you're pretty much wasting your time. And if that's the yardstick for what qualifies as "artistic photography", I've not seen photographic art in a very long time.


fwiw, those of us shooting in RAW have no CHOICE but to process our work after the fact. I think it just comes down to the creator of the work to remain as true to the original image as possible. It's easy enough to tell works whose origins are dubious.

I didn't mean to imply that the second picture is the epitome of what every picture should strive for, I just think it's a good representation of how HDR should be used. I'd disagree about it being bland without it, but that's subjective. I guess I just feel like HDR, just like any other post processing tool, can be used appropriately and can be abused, but I don't think it should be thrown out completely. I've typically given up on HDR for most of my photos, but I still use it occasionally if there is an area of shadow that I want to bring a little detail to that can't be done with any other tool I have.

wat? i was with you until here, Jer. not sure how you came up with this.

The first part, I agree with. The second, I have to ask--are you trolling? Do you believe all artists should be starving, living in garrets, chain smoking and burning manuscript pages to keep warm?

The two statements contradict each other, imo. If art (whatever form/medium) did not stimulate or engage the observer, the observer (or listener, or reader) would have no desire to pay for it; so it would not be art?

Brilliant scene in Bullets over Broadway (watch it - great movie) has this quote from a Bohemian to someone who became a success:

"Sheldon Flender: Hey, look who's here. The big Broadway success. I don't write hits. My plays are art. They're written specifically to go unproduced."

Yeah, I'm not part of the unwashed and unpublished because I'm terrible at the business end of things, or even because my work is crap, it's because I'm too brilliant to be understood. That's the ticket.

...and now I'll have to find and watch Bullets over Broadway.

The idea of taking a photograph,

This is what I saw... This is what I wanted in the frame...

Changing the exposure/color values in photoshop doesn't change anything. Now making mirror reflections and using the blur tool sure does ! And thats the point at which I believe photography as an art stops and Digital arts begin. Taking an image of a landscape and then clipping another subject into the frame isn't Photography... The process of getting both of those images is however.

it's a hilarious scene.

I was not trolling. The idea of a starving artist exists because most true artists create art for the sake of art. While they are alive, few sell their most treasured pieces, instead subsisting on sales of lesser works, or commissioned pieces, or endeavors in another field (advertising, marketing materials, etc).

Once an artist starts creating art for the sake of a profit, they cease to be artists and instead become commercialists. The two ideas - that art stimulates the observer, but stops being art when it is sold at a profit - do not contradict each other, rather one is the possible outcome of the other. Works can be sold or bought, they can be hoarded or gifted. Art can be a product or a service, but not both - that would be a contradiction.

I do not agree.

You are basically saying it is wrong for society to find value in something done well and reward the doer.
else they invalidate his work.

I can not agree

um, have you ever read anything I've ever posted on this site?

is this a trick question?

Don't make me unleash the hamster.

Yeah, I'm a capitalist - profit is a good thing, not a bad thing. A piece of art that is sold is not invalidated by the purchaser, rather its artistic heritage is being acknowledged as it transitions from a service (to society, by the artist) to a product (to the purchaser, by the artist). Intrinsic value meets monetary value - the perfect blend of capitalism and humanity.

Make sense?

I bow down in shame.

I am aware of your proclivities but the word comercialist threw me off.

I guess my view of the world is to simple.

I suppose the opposite argument could be made. Is any image made with a digital camera a photograph or are they all digital media.

I can infinitely modify a set of data I capture on a sensor. While this is true for a conventional film image it is a 1000 times more difficult and requires expense and skill.

I have no skill. What would it take to get all this on one negative.

jeremai, remember that scene in the Fountainhead where Dominique destroys the statue so no one else could ever experience it? that was cool.

Okay so I don't have time to read this whole thread right now but it caught my eye and I had to make a comment. Why does it matter what medium you're using? All artists mix media at some point in their careers, some do it consistently. Digital photography is as much photography as it is digital art. If you want to be a purist, get a film camera (like me). The beauty of the digital age is that things are starting to blend together, this is a perfect example. You can make boundaries and definitions all you want but there will never be any hard and fast rule so why worry about it?

Besides, aren't artists supposed to disregard what society tells them?

Now I'll get off my soapbox and go back to reading your posts.

By the way I would never said that film photography takes more skill than digital art. It's all about the talent and creativity behind it. Anyone can snap a photo.

Doesn't matter.

Just curiosity.

WHATEVER LANI IT TOTALLY MATTERS!

Oh ya.... I'm totally outraged about.... all the crap... that you guys are spewing..

YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND I'M RIGHT

ayn rand is a hack

Man, spammers are getting trig these days.

No xbox, YOU'RE a hack. You dumb hack.