anchev wrote:
There is no specific point and there is no need to separate one from the other. All digital photography is a digital art itself. And when I say art I mean the original meaning of the word: skill acquired through practice, in any field. The purpose is visual representation, the means vary. Just like I said in the other thread - there are situations when it is better to shoot separately the elements and combine them in post. That is still photography, shot with a particular intent.

Yup!

I call my wive "Honey", "Kiddo", "Pretty", What difference does it make?  She's still the same "Gordie".

Zack Zoll wrote:
I'd like to address your first and last points.

I also came(at first) from a skill-based background, and Karsh was my idol. I thought that if I could make images that skillfully, they would HAVE to be art.

That was the same mindset I had with drawing and painting, which was mostly what I did before I decided to go back to school for photography. My mind changed slowly during the Master's program ... Some of it was simply because that's how those programs work, but a lot more of it was because I was exposed to way more work from a much broader variety of artists, photos and otherwise. We went to a ton of galleries and museums, and we didn't always go to see photos. About half our visits required a response; either written, or discussed over food or beers.

When my bosses heard I was getting my Master's and was doing pretty well with it, they also gave me more photo classes. From the time I started that program until about a month ago, I was looking at and responding to photos several hours a day.

What happens is you gradually start to notice all sorts of technically brilliant work that is boring as shit - and a lot of really sloppy work that you can't stop looking at. And when you're grading, you might give both of those students an A, for totally different reasons. Or at least an A-.

Another factor for me was getting to the point where my own technical skills were better than I would have imagined, and still being bored with the work. Karsh isn't great because he was gifted: it was because he made well-fitting propaganda images of famous people, AND he was gifted. I don't like Ansel  Adams, but I can still say he's not great because he was gifted either - he was an incredible location scout, and he was gifted enough that he could capture (or create) what happened on that day.

M.C. Escher is the closest artist I can think of to being famous purely for his talent ... and as great as he is, there's a reason why his work is most often found on college dorm walls.

As far as why people take 'digital artist' as an insult ... Well, that's because it's usually meant that way. Racial slurs aren't offensive in and of themselves; if you think about it, Charlie and zipperhead don't even make any goddamn sense. They're offensive because the people calling you those things really want to offend you. Shoot, most of the time you can pick out when people are calling you names even if you don't speak the language.

'Digital artist' is often offensive because 9 times out of 10, it is used to indicate that someone isn't a 'real' artist. And just like racial slurs, you can change the language ('urban'), but it doesn't matter one bit, because the new word will become an insult too.

Very good response I enjoyed reading it very much.

Rays Fine Art wrote:

Yup!

I call my wive "Honey", "Kiddo", "Pretty", What difference does it make?  She's still the same "Gordie".

That is just too simple. I don't know how to think that way but maybe if I did there would be less chaos in my mind. But it is the chaos that I would like to make into art. I imagine if I could slow my mind down enough to focus on one thing I could get to the point. I wish I could just take screen shots of the images that go through my mind even as I sleep.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
You are assuming that the difference is relevant. Why is that? I'd like your thoughts on why it matters to you

Artificial limitations can be rewarding mentally, for some

As different sites including MM have a definition of what is photography and what is digital art. Your work or works may fall under one or the other or both. So do Galleries and Publications.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
So I believe that a photographer good at his craft and very good at Photoshop would have 2 tittles. A photographer and a digital Artist.

You're certainly free to your opinion. I don't happen to agree with it.

Skill at an application like Adobe Photoshop does not imbue a different job title. That is quite reductive.

as a point of argument look up:  focus stacking

It may or may not be art; it certainly does require skill.

Dan Howell wrote:

You're certainly free to your opinion. I don't happen to agree with it.

Skill at an application like Adobe Photoshop does not imbue a different job title. That is quite reductive.

as a point of argument look up:  focus stacking

It may or may not be art; it certainly does require skill.

You know what requires physical skill? Sports. Playing darts requires physical skill ... But depending on who you ask, it's probably not a sport.

I wish we could live in a world where an 'artist' was 'someone who makes pictures we like to look at', and that was the end of the definition. But people gotta feel like they're better than others, and so it goes.

'An artist who uses ...' used to seem like an egotistical title to me, because it slapped 'artist' on everybody. But now that's my preferred term, because I strongly believe anybody that captures interest is an artist. I call myself a photographer, because it's simple. I'd rather be an artist that uses photography,if that didn't have an egotistical connotation.

Mike Collins wrote:
Adding other images to an image is far from new.  Photographers have been doing this is the darkroom and even in-camera (double exposure) since, well, forever.  Jerry Uelsmann is very well known for his multiple image prints.  And every single one of them was created photographically.

However, yes, I do believe there is a point where an image becomes more "graphic design" then it is a photograph.  Even though it may have started as one.  As someone who uses the Coral program Painter, I know of several photographers who take the image and give them more of a painted look then a photographic one.  I use it more in a 50/50 way.  I want to keep the integrity of the photo where as they want a full oil painting type look.  They are not skilled "real" oil painters but their photos they turn into "oil looking" paintings can look very realistic.  I would call that digital art more than I would a photograph.

Heavy use of PS tools?  Again, so many before us did all kinds of things to manipulate their images.

I see this more & more when I'm doing my Image searches. Seeking "white hummingbird" yesterday, 2 images turn up close to each other. They show up in "oil painting" as well as "photograph" & oil painting is OBVIOUSLY a paint program done on someone else's photo & involves little, if any, hand painting. Yes, I call that "digital art" far more than a "photograph" & certainly isn't "oil painting".

Dan Howell wrote:

You're certainly free to your opinion. I don't happen to agree with it.

Skill at an application like Adobe Photoshop does not imbue a different job title. That is quite reductive.

as a point of argument look up:  focus stacking

It may or may not be art; it certainly does require skill.

I have done focus stacking before.
There is also hdr that will be the combination of 3 photos.
It all takes skill. Taking the photo then editing it takes skill to be pleasing.

Zack Zoll wrote:

You know what requires physical skill? Sports. Playing darts requires physical skill ... But depending on who you ask, it's probably not a sport.

I wish we could live in a world where an 'artist' was 'someone who makes pictures we like to look at', and that was the end of the definition. But people gotta feel like they're better than others, and so it goes.

'An artist who uses ...' used to seem like an egotistical title to me, because it slapped 'artist' on everybody. But now that's my preferred term, because I strongly believe anybody that captures interest is an artist. I call myself a photographer, because it's simple. I'd rather be an artist that uses photography,if that didn't have an egotistical connotation.

You have to have the skill to get a good capture in order to have the details to manipulate.
That does make sense what you are saying.
If someone combines others work into there own work to make art then could that be considered photography? To a certain degree photography is involved but much more work went into digital than photography.
It is just a feeling I get at a certain point of editing a photo that I took that starts to make it feel not like a real photograph but more of a fantasy or digital art.
When I 1st started my own photography I felt like I had to edit everything that isn't basically perfect out even to the point of skin smoothing. Now I look at works like that and say to myself how plastic they are.
There is that one program (can't think of the name at the moment) that even changes facial features to make them more perfect. I really don't think that that can be considered photography because it completely changes everything from the original photo.
I wouldn't call a photo that is corrected in post not photography. There are many photographers that do more in post and pay less attention to getting the image right in camera. I still consider that photography.
I think as digital has become the normal for photography it has brought more flexibility to editing. I was trained by old school but I am not stuck. I am more than willing to evolve to what the current specs are.

Cat Camp wrote:

I see this more & more when I'm doing my Image searches. Seeking "white hummingbird" yesterday, 2 images turn up close to each other. They show up in "oil painting" as well as "photograph" & oil painting is OBVIOUSLY a paint program done on someone else's photo & involves little, if any, hand painting. Yes, I call that "digital art" far more than a "photograph" & certainly isn't "oil painting".

I see the same thing in a lot of art these days. Pencil sketches that are digital manipulations of a photograph passed of as a sketch. Isn't that a scam? For a person to sell a sketch that really isn't a sketch but takes credit as a sketch artist?

Justin Matthews wrote:
I've always hated this pigeon holing. Honestly, photography is an art full stop, and frankly, if its been taken with a digital camera, then it is a form of digital art, whether it is manipulated or not. If the end product is something that is beautiful and well constructed then does it really matter how it was produced and how much manipulation was done, especially if it was a single artist who took the image then also did their own post work on it. In the end , to me at least, is in the artists ability in creating something from their mind or the way they see the world, so that others can also see it and appreciate it, manipulated or not.

I think you put it very well.
I think that sometimes where it becomes a issue is in the request. As art in photography it is what people like to look at. As photography goes however it needs to be a true representation.

I do some Real Estate photography. They want a beautiful representation of the property. I cant say well that tree is in the way and remove it. Power lines and poles etc... To get the best shot it is a combination of lens choice and lighting, composition. In post is just fine tuning the white balance, brightness, contrast and colors to match what I seen with my eyes. Maybe just a little more vibrant but very little.
Same goes for product advertising. It has to be realistic enough to pass off as the original item. How ever I do see changes being made in the backgrounds and elements around the product in commercial advertising. A few photographer do the edit themselves. Many times the photo of the item gets sent to a companies art department where a graphic designer puts it together with other elements. These companies do refer to it as original photo and final product.
I happen to notice that the schools now offer a digital artist degree separate from a photography degree.

Caitin Bre  wrote:

I think you put it very well.
I think that sometimes where it becomes a issue is in the request. As art in photography it is what people like to look at. As photography goes however it needs to be a true representation.

I do some Real Estate photography. They want a beautiful representation of the property. I cant say well that tree is in the way and remove it. Power lines and poles etc... To get the best shot it is a combination of lens choice and lighting, composition. In post is just fine tuning the white balance, brightness, contrast and colors to match what I seen with my eyes. Maybe just a little more vibrant but very little.
Same goes for product advertising. It has to be realistic enough to pass off as the original item. How ever I do see changes being made in the backgrounds and elements around the product in commercial advertising. A few photographer do the edit themselves. Many times the photo of the item gets sent to a companies art department where a graphic designer puts it together with other elements. These companies do refer to it as original photo and final product.
I happen to notice that the schools now offer a digital artist degree separate from a photography degree.

When schools say 'digital artist', they generally mean 'graphic design, but also took courses in photo and video.'

Another example of why labels don't matter, since people can't even agree on what the label means.

If you work with found photography, I would call you a photographer; you are, after all, working with photos. Some would call you an archivist, and I think that's fair too.

But look at what happens in another artistic medium: if you record, alter, and loop sound and samples, you might be a musician, a recording artist, a producer, and engineer, a DJ, a sampler, an electronic music artist, or even a talentless hack with a computer.

crx studios wrote:
Digitally manipulated photos can certainly be art, but more often than not, what we’re seeing is excessive digital manipulation that's used as a gimmick to cover up a serious lack of photography skills

+1

Looking at sites like 500px, Fstoppers and other social media, there is no doubt that heavily retouched pictures are all the rage right now, and that the focus is more on the initial wow of the picture rather than on the interest of the subject itself. It's so easy to get caught up in the whole production side of things, whether that's makeup, lighting, styling, post-processing, etc, just because everyone else is doing it.

For me a photo becomes digital art when it looks absolutely nothing like the original scene, or if the person in the photo is unrecognisable.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
I think you put it very well.
I think that sometimes where it becomes a issue is in the request. As art in photography it is what people like to look at. As photography goes however it needs to be a true representation.

I do some Real Estate photography. They want a beautiful representation of the property. I cant say well that tree is in the way and remove it. Power lines and poles etc... To get the best shot it is a combination of lens choice and lighting, composition. In post is just fine tuning the white balance, brightness, contrast and colors to match what I seen with my eyes. Maybe just a little more vibrant but very little.
Same goes for product advertising. It has to be realistic enough to pass off as the original item. How ever I do see changes being made in the backgrounds and elements around the product in commercial advertising. A few photographer do the edit themselves. Many times the photo of the item gets sent to a companies art department where a graphic designer puts it together with other elements. These companies do refer to it as original photo and final product.
I happen to notice that the schools now offer a digital artist degree separate from a photography degree.

I have run a successful commercial photography business for over twenty years, this also includes a large Real Estate client base. Unfortunately here in Oz,  clients expect a lot more post processing than what I have seen from the US market. Most work here is done by less than experienced photographers who then send the images onto retouching studios over seas, mainly China and India. i would say that the number that run this way is close to 80%. I am little more forgiving when it comes to the more commercial aspect of digital images where a team does the work creating a digital product as apposed to a work of art. However I do not think this way in my own business and believe that when I produce an image for a client that it should be all my work. That is what they are expecting and it is what I deliver (no matter what time I go to bed 😴) This philosophy I take across all aspects of my work.
Getting back to the digital art side again. I myself consider it photography art more or less across the board. Art is different to everyone. Therefore no real label can be put onto it. I personally agree that a phone photo filter does not art make, but you ask the person who did it and they would probably say it is.
I personally need to seen skill to take it as true art manipulated or not.....I think I have rambled enough now.

crx studios wrote:
Digitally manipulated photos can certainly be art, but more often than not, what we’re seeing is excessive digital manipulation that's used as a gimmick to cover up a serious lack of photography skills

Especially now, with prefab filters available on your phone designed to give even the most ordinary snapshots an “arty” look, expectations need to be raised.

Technique, including digital manipulation, is there to serve an artist’s vision, not the other way around. When it becomes something amateurs depend upon to automatically add the “art” part, it’s usually apparent who's driving the car, and it ain't the photographer.

You are in no way wrong.

However, I would like to point out that for a few years now the trendy thing to do in painting is to go to town on the canvas with a blade (like a metal squeegee) and sandpaper.

Those people are still called painters.

What you're suggesting is that bad art(and I don't disagree that what you're describing is bad art) needs a special qualifier to distinguish it. It has one - BAD art. Only the most ironic will use that term themselves ... But remember that late Impressionists were called 'fauves', which means beasts. You can use whatever term you want, but Matisse and Brauque are who they are,and the other guys were largely forgotten.  Regardless of title, they had about the same hit rate as any other movement.

I think this emphasis on names is just because photography is so young. Painting, sculpture ... Those things can be carbon dated. I think 100 years from now, when we've gone through 'retinal artist' and 'holographer' and some others, we'll be at that same point: instead of implying that someone isn't really a photographer (or whatever the term is then), we'll have cachy names like 'fauves' to explain what sort of bad photographers they are.