Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:

Dillon and Tiffany were shot on location. Tiffany is not a good actress. Dillon was actually shooting the watergun at their grandmother and every time he hit her, Tiffany laughed so I don't think I ever got a good scream. The 12" tall dinosaur was shot against a white background and the extracted and placed into the shot after Grandma was removed. The water splash isn't the greatest but I got what I was trying for. I made the frame and added the text later. All done in CS4.

VOTE

Steve Lease wrote:


These cousins were extracted from the background of their photo and pasted into another photo with a path leading through a forest. Then I finished off with an OOB technique. PhotoShop Elements 5 was used for the post processing work.

vote

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:

Dillon and Tiffany were shot on location. Tiffany is not a good actress. Dillon was actually shooting the watergun at their grandmother and every time he hit her, Tiffany laughed so I don't think I ever got a good scream. The 12" tall dinosaur was shot against a white background and the extracted and placed into the shot after Grandma was removed. The water splash isn't the greatest but I got what I was trying for. I made the frame and added the text later. All done in CS4.

Vote

Tytaniafairy wrote:


Added wings made tones different , added sparkles nebulas and painted by hand .
etc

Vote

Tytaniafairy wrote:


Added wings made tones different , added sparkles nebulas and painted by hand .
etc

vote!

Steve Lease wrote:


These cousins were extracted from the background of their photo and pasted into another photo with a path leading through a forest. Then I finished off with an OOB technique. PhotoShop Elements 5 was used for the post processing work.

vote!

Tytaniafairy wrote:


Added wings made tones different , added sparkles nebulas and painted by hand .
etc

vote

Tytaniafairy wrote:


Added wings made tones different , added sparkles nebulas and painted by hand .
etc

Vote

Muse Photo Artist wrote:
Big change on the 18th!
Also, we will take this opportunity to let everyone know rules will be monitored more closely.  We've let a few slide, but this is a digital art thread and we want to see digital art.
The description of how the image was created is important so share as much as you can.

We will be promoting heavily and ask our loyal followers to help with that.
Have a great day!
Deborah

Hi Deborah,

I look forward to hearing more about the big changes.  I would also like some more clarification on "digital art."  To me, simply replacing backgrounds and dropping a few objects in frame is not necessarily any more digital art than an extensive beauty image retouch where you reshape the face, retexturize it, etc.  However, as I currently understand this thread, the latter would be disqualified as being "routine retouching", but the former would be accepted as "digital art."

Extracting a background and replacing it is as easy as removing a patch of acne. 

I love the thread.  I would just like to better understand at what point a retouch becomes digital art for this thread if there's a clear explanation.

Muse Photo Artist wrote:
JTI - I agree, which is why we plan  to be more diligent in monitoring.  Maybe the rules need to be re-written.

Extract and place = copy and paste
dodge and burn = blur
If no further work is done, then I don't consider it digital art.
A good explanation of process is vital.

We want to see some real efforts here.
Please feel free to join in this discussion with suggestions.

so we don't ever have to vote for an image, no matter how good it is, if the description reads, "Dodge, burn, the usual stuffdone in CS4"

Muse Photo Artist wrote:
JTI - I agree, which is why we plan  to be more diligent in monitoring.  Maybe the rules need to be re-written.

Extract and place = copy and paste
dodge and burn = blur
If no further work is done, then I don't consider it digital art.
A good explanation of process is vital.

We want to see some real efforts here.
Please feel free to join in this discussion with suggestions.

Okay, so here is an example for discussion.  Say whatever you guys would like, I will not be offended.  It's an 18+ image, so I will link it here.  https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/22540533

This image was the product of a ton of photoshop & lightroom work including extensively painting in shadows.  Would this be an image that, if I described my process, I would be able to enter for digital art?

The reason I ask is I did not change the background. I did not bring in stock clouds.  I, instead, took what I had captured and then used it as my canvas to paint away for hours. 

But in all honesty, I'm simply not sure if this would be eligible or not?  I will not be offended or argue either way. 

Thanks for the open discussion...

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:
I know what you put into that image because I've done the same myself. and I am at a loss as to how to define it. There was certainly digital work done, but is it digital artwork or is it a beautiful image that was enhanced? This is exactly where we need to figure out where the line is.
Once we figure out where the line is, we need to stick to it. what I mean by that is, if we decide that the image you just showed us is an enhanced image and not a digital image, than we need to stick to that and disqualify any and all images that the administrators deem to be the same.
On the other hand, and this is to play devil's advocate, if we decide that your image is fine for the contest, than we have to allow all iamges that have 'enhancements' and not just digital artwork.

I am not making a comment either way about what your image is or isn't. I'm just saying if we allow one, we have to allow all.

I like your image, by the way.

I agree with what you're saying.  And based on that logic, I do not think that simple "digital enhancements" should be allowed because that sort of defeats the purpose of this thread in my honest opinion.

The other side, however, is that it is funny that I could take 2 minutes to extract this image and drop it on some other background - and now it's eligible.  But by spending 2 hours - there is no way to qualify it without changing a background or drawing a fireball onto the image. 

LOL - interesting problem to have...

Muse Photo Artist wrote:
It is a beautiful image and very well digitally enhanced and that is what it is.  I would call that retouching.

So what is our definition of Digital Art in this contest.

"Photographs that are digitally manipulated with additional imagery and recreated to be a new art piece"

There's  my start.  Please add your thoughts.

I had a server error so my reply to Rick was not up before you responded too.

I agree.  Based on my own thoughts, this would be an enhanced image.  But, as above, it is ironic...

Cool, I understand now. 

The problem that I am having, honestly, now is that it is tough to enter contests... because I guess I am more of a "compose during production kind of guy" than a run out and get stock images... but that's okay.

Thanks for the discussion.

J T I wrote:
I agree.  Based on my own thoughts, this would be an enhanced image.  But, as above, it is ironic...

Ironic? Here's one for you...
The first time I won the Concept of the Day contest, I did so with a family portrait. Now then, prior to that I entered it in a contest that had international-quality judging and it competed with kore than 1200 images. That one won 1st in 'People.' No other photo got more points than it did, and only one recieved the same number of points: an absolutely beautiful hummingbird.... now here's the irony....
My famly portrait was weeks in the planning. The entire family was dressed in 1950's clothing and the photo was shot at an old train station museum. So it took weeks of planning and more than three hours to get the shot.... there was a full grown dog and a puppy in the photo as well as a girl with a melting ice cream cone.

The hummingbird and the family portrait were againste ach other for best in show. The hummingbird won. The photographer and I have since become pretty good friends. He said the day he took the photo, he set up the camera aimed at his feeder and just snapped photos.... That best in show photo is the only one out of more than a hundred taken that was worth entering.

So weeks of planning, hours to shoot and a single frame from a burst beat it.

Sometimes it just is what it is.  I now love the digital stuff as much as the shooting. Sometimes I shoot all of the pieces myself. Darth and Boba were shot a year apart.

Tytaniafairy wrote:


Added wings made tones different , added sparkles nebulas and painted by hand .
etc

vote

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:
Ironic? Here's one for you...

That's a funny story!  I know that feeling...

The "ironic" part I was talking about, however, is that I would have to take a picture that is great as is, and extract it to drop it on something else in order to qualify. 

LOL -

Post the picture you were talking about!

BTW - Hummingbirds are damn hard to shoot! http://jasontoddipson.com/2011/03/26/pr … mmingbird/

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:
Here you go.

And I can see you did put alot of effort into this .

Tytaniafairy wrote:


Added wings made tones different , added sparkles nebulas and painted by hand .
etc

vote