Marciofs wrote:
...Have you ever thought about it?

Nope, Marcio I focus totally on my client's expectation...
Little if anything else matters, seriously...
Guess I'm not an artist...  but as long as the client's checks clear life is good...

All the best on your journey...

Marciofs wrote:
In an other forum, talking about the film characteristics which seems to be impossible to get with digital no matter the tecnology, somebody came up saying something interisting:

"When artist depends on machines (not tools) to create; the machines' capabilities are the controlling factors of the joint creations that comes from the union of artist with machine.
An Artist's tools on the other hand can be created by the hand of the artist and is not dependent on the bureaucracy of technology."

Which made me think. How digital photographers and digital artists are limited by the technology.

Have you ever thought about it?






Marcio Faustino
Marcio Faustino - Traditional Prints
Are you an aspiring model?

machines are made by the hand of the artist, no?

Marciofs wrote:
How digital photographers and digital artists are limited by the technology.

Have you ever thought about it?

No more limiting than film.
Just different.

Marciofs wrote:
In an other forum, talking about the film characteristics which seems to be impossible to get with digital no matter the tecnology, somebody came up saying something interisting:

"When artist depends on machines (not tools) to create; the machines' capabilities are the controlling factors of the joint creations that comes from the union of artist with machine.
An Artist's tools on the other hand can be created by the hand of the artist and is not dependent on the bureaucracy of technology."

Which made me think. How digital photographers and digital artists are limited by the technology.

Have you ever thought about it?






Marcio Faustino
Marcio Faustino - Traditional Prints
Are you an aspiring model?

I actually think about it quite a bit.  My main thing is drawing and painting, and although I also love doing photography nearly as much, it is always in the back of my mind just how technology dependent it is compared to the traditional media.

I have in the past made and used my own paints, brushes, charcoals and papers.  They are easy, cheap, no-tech items that can be constructed with only mimimal alterations to the natural raw materials.  Anyone can learn to do it easily.  The techniques have been well known for thousands of years.

The same is simply not true for digital media.  There isn't a single human alive that can posess the skill set required to construct from raw materials a digital camera and a computer.  It is an invention that was not possible until the historical moment of the very late 20th/early 21st centuries.  Moreover, it requires the cultural knowledge and resources of extremely large and diverse groups of people to make happen.

So I guess you could say that traditional art has more potential to be a solitary communion between one person, their tools, and their vision.  With digital, it is a communion between the artist, their cultural support staff, their tools, and their vision.

If modern electronic culture were to ever be seriously impacted (big solar flare, anyone?), the traditional artist goes on, while the digital artist either has to abandon their art or learn a new medium.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
machines are made by the hand of the artist, no?

Hugh Alison wrote:
Just different.

Grin Without a Cat wrote:
[...]

If modern electronic culture were to ever be seriously impacted (big solar flare, anyone?), the traditional artist goes on, while the digital artist either has to abandon their art or learn a new medium.

Exactly, Artsist can't build a computer and digital sensors to create their art with? But they can use a empt box and make their own plates or paper to photograph. Or they can even draw above the image created by the camera obscure.

I don't mean that one is more art the other because today even painters buy everything ready made to paint. But it is interesting to think about how dependent are digital artists and photographer in a certain way.

Marciofs wrote:

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
machines are made by the hand of the artist, no?

Exactly, Artsist can't build a computer and digital sensors to create their art with? But they can use a empt box and make their own plates or paper to photograph. Or they can even draw above the image created by the camera obscure.

I don't mean that one is more art the other because today even painters buy everything ready made to paint. But it is interesting to think about how dependent are digital artists and photographer in a certain way.

why can't they build a computer and digital sensors? is there a law that says you are not allowed?

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

why can't they build a computer and digital sensors? is there a law that says you are not allowed?

They are allowed...
...if they can.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
I suppose there are some violinists who look down on pianists the same way.

The fact is that digital imaging is a medium of its own, just as much as film, paint, chiseled marble, and so on. Like any medium, it has its idiosyncrasies, and a successful artist will learn how to exploit them.

I do not understand why this should be a matter for any controversy.

I don't understand too why this should be a matter for any controversy.

A violinist can build a violin if he wants and a pianist can build something similar to piano if he wants keep playing. But a digital artist or digital photographer doesn't have this flexibility I guess.

It is just philosophy anyway.

Marciofs wrote:

They are allowed...
...if they can.

perhaps the people building the computers and digital sensors should become photographers? or maybe some of them already are....

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

perhaps the people building the computers and digital sensors should become photographers? or maybe some of them already are....

Maybe. But I have never heard about anybody who invested on it just to take photographs or make art fom themselves but only companies who wants sell cameras, computers and products.

Even if there are somebody doing it, they are still limited by the modern and high technology that is necessary to build a computer.

Downtown Pro Photo wrote:
Unless you're a musician singing or whistling, you're dependent on a tool to perform.
Only a sculpture who works with clay found naturally laying on the ground and only with their bare hands can claim to not be using some sort of tool to create their art.
A photographer of any kind can never claim to not be using some sort of tool to create their art.
If it's film, the silver needed to make the film was at some point in time mined from the Earth using a tool.  Film needs mechanical equipment to be made.

Using a tool does not invalidate any form of art.  It's the idea of the creator that is the art and the tools needed to make it are simply a means to the end.  It doesn't matter if the tools have been around for thousands of years, are easy to make or if they require modern technology to even exist.  It's the mind that figures out a way to use them for creating art that does it, not the tool itself.

It is clear thet you didn't understand the quote.

It doesn't talk about tools because it is obvious we all need tools to make art. It talks about machines and de dependence of the machine works to create art.

Marciofs wrote:
...talking about the film characteristics which seems to be impossible to get with digital no matter the technology. Have you ever thought about it?

One reason why film may behave differently in capturing light is because of the basic differences of the materials and the behaviour of the medium.

Film has a thickness. Imagine a gelatin dessert on a plate. Light introduces chemical changes to the grains within that gelatin dessert. When printing, there is once again a play of light going through that gelatin mass, sort of like sunlight through the patterns of a knitted translucent curtain. The light passing through strikes a chemically prepared surface with similar gel like material with paper backing. The whole process introduces accidentals and imperfections that make it unique and interesting.

Digital is different. It is precise, accurate and of minimum tolerance.

A yes is a yes, and a no is a no. Nothing in between.

It is either 1 or zero.

.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
I suppose there are some violinists who look down on pianists the same way.

The fact is that digital imaging is a medium of its own, just as much as film, paint, chiseled marble, and so on. Like any medium, it has its idiosyncrasies, and a successful artist will learn how to exploit them.

I do not understand why this should be a matter for any controversy.

Precisely.

The idea that the intent of digital photography or digital art is to emulate film is nonsense. Sure, some digital artists try to do that. And if they do, so be it. When I was shooting film, I shot a lot of E6 that I cross-processed. Talk about being at the mercy of technology. Engaging in the digital arts for still imagery is not lesser or better than shooting straight film. It's similar in many ways but distinctly different in others.

Whatever allows you to realize your intended vision is what you use. Are painters "dependent" on paint or is that just what they use? Is a saxophonist "dependent" on a saxophone or is that just what he plays? Are digital photographers "dependent" on machines?

Certainly no more so than film shooters are dependent upon a given film type.

Marciofs wrote:
Maybe. But I have never heard about anybody who invested on it just to take photographs or make art fom themselves but only companies who wants sell cameras, computers and products.

Even if there are somebody doing it, they are still limited by the modern and high technology that is necessary to build a computer.

No offense intended, but this is bullshit.

Quite a bit of high technology needed to mine silver, convert it to silver nitrate (not many people making their own Nitric Acid), extract gelatine from cowhides, make glass plates, coat them...

... let alone grind even the simplest lens...

Petzval lenses were the highest technology in 1840 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petzval_lens.

Walter Mandler lenses were the highest technology from 1950 to at least 1980.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mandler

Both were the works of geniuses.
Some of the Leitz lenses couldn't be produced today.

Marciofs wrote:
"When artist depends on machines (not tools) to create; the machines' capabilities are the controlling factors of the joint creations that comes from the union of artist with machine.
An Artist's tools on the other hand can be created by the hand of the artist and is not dependent on the bureaucracy of technology."

That quote is a load of crap.

Artists have always been limited by technology. 

A simple example comes from the great masters like Leonardo and Michaelangelo, who had to use a tempura base for their paintings. The limitations imposed by tempura were substantial and they had to work within those limitations. 

Ditto for pigments.  A whole raft of pigments have appeared only in the last 150 years.

Ditto for sculpture.  e.g. for about a dozen years, Michaelangelo was unable to make any bronze statues because bronze was a strategic metal and his patrons were not releasing any in case they needed to make some more cannons (relations with neighbouring states were a bit rocky at the time.)

Andrew Koenig wrote:
I suppose there are some violinists who look down on pianists the same way.

The fact is that digital imaging is a medium of its own, just as much as film, paint, chiseled marble, and so on. Like any medium, it has its idiosyncrasies, and a successful artist will learn how to exploit them.

I do not understand why this should be a matter for any controversy.

+1 and +1

Marciofs wrote:
In an other forum, talking about the film characteristics which seems to be impossible to get with digital no matter the tecnology, somebody came up saying something interisting:

"When artist depends on machines (not tools) to create; the machines' capabilities are the controlling factors of the joint creations that comes from the union of artist with machine.
An Artist's tools on the other hand can be created by the hand of the artist and is not dependent on the bureaucracy of technology."

Which made me think. How digital photographers and digital artists are limited by the technology.

Have you ever thought about it?






Marcio Faustino
Marcio Faustino - Traditional Prints
Are you an aspiring model?

It not the Tech but the approach that has changed digital that has been the issue. With film you needed to more proactive and had to pre visualize an image before capture. With film you did not get instant feedback even if you used polaroids it would give a very rough idea. So you needed to use your knowledge of the camera, your understanding of how light fell, exposure and film development to create an image.

The greatest blessings of the digital age is also its greatest curses. We have a large amount of this generation of shooters can not shoot manually how do not understand the fundamentals of exposure, and who do not understand how light falls. They tend to be reactionary they base only off what cameras shows them and its auto functions.

If you turned off the auto functions of there camera it would be a brick. That is not tech fault but that of the user.

Photoshop is also a double edged sword. I is like any tool it can be use to create or destroy a beautiful image. The words that everyone should dread. "That Can Be Fixed In Photoshop".

natural beauties of qld wrote:

That quote is a load of crap.

Artists have always been limited by technology. 

A simple example comes from the great masters like Leonardo and Michaelangelo, who had to use a tempura base for their paintings. The limitations imposed by tempura were substantial and they had to work within those limitations. 

Ditto for pigments.  A whole raft of pigments have appeared only in the last 150 years.

Ditto for sculpture.  e.g. for about a dozen years, Michaelangelo was unable to make any bronze statues because bronze was a strategic metal and his patrons were not releasing any in case they needed to make some more cannons (relations with neighbouring states were a bit rocky at the time.)

Yes, all artist have always been limited by the technology but this is not the point. The point is that they wasn't limited by machines works so they could make paintings and sculptures with other ways... But digital photographer and digital artists can only take digital photo or make digital art with computer and/or digital camera. So they are limited by the machine funcion.

de0rbit wrote:
Can't make high quality piano music with just your hands, either.

But you still can make it and play. It is not about the quality of the tool and it is not about tool.

It is about the dependence of machine work and the dependence only of your hand work.

Marciofs wrote:
"When artist depends on machines (not tools) to create; the machines' capabilities are the controlling factors of the joint creations that comes from the union of artist with machine.
An Artist's tools on the other hand can be created by the hand of the artist and is not dependent on the bureaucracy of technology."

Which made me think. How digital photographers and digital artists are limited by the technology.

Have you ever thought about it?

A painter is limited by the capabilities of the paint. A writer is limited by the capabilities of the language.

Marciofs wrote:
Once the computer stop working or the digital sendor stop working, digital artist or digital photographer can't produce their art.

Once a film camera is broken, you can't produce (film-based photographic) art either.

"But, Kade! You can get another camera! Duh!"

And you can get/use another computer. You can get another digital camera. You can use tablets. Because a singular computer stops working doesn't mean the digital artist is without tools.


This is a non-issue. That and people were totally on-topic with the discussion.

Marciofs wrote:
The discussion is about being dependent of a machine to work in order to be able to produce art in such media.

Once the computer stop working or the digital sendor stop working, digital artist or digital photographer can't produce their art.

They can build an other computer or an other sensor but they are highly dependent of companies and modern or high technology to do so. Why a sculptor doesn't depend on a machine to work in order to produce their sculpture nor a camera obscure photographer, nor a pianist or violonist.

They are, however, highly dependent on their chisel, and perhaps the forge/kiln for the casting material. And most painters are dependent on paints they don't /can't manufacture, while those using an airbrush are dependent on more machines, while not being digital. Etc.

Marciofs wrote:
If their tools break (tools, not machines) they are still able to make their tools from basic elements to construct something similar in order to continuous doing sculpture, photography, violin and piano sound.

Can you make a chisel? Can you make paint? Very few sculptors or painters I know can do so, and none of the airbrush artists I know could build an airbrush and/or tank or compressor, so the theoretical advantage of being closer to basic elements is just that: theoretical.

Similarly, you're cherry-picking capabilities: you're assigning the "traditional" artist a greater breadth of skill than that of the "digital" artist. That's sometimes true, but it's not inherent to the media or the art itself.

Marciofs wrote:
No body is saying that digital art or digital photo is inferior because of that. But that the digital art and digital photo has an end once their machines end.

Right. And the airbrush artist has an end once their machines end...

If and only if they can't get a replacement.

The same is true for "traditional" artists who rely on most materials: paint, paper, canvas, brushes, pigments, etc. Most of the things you're inplying are closer to the basic elements still rely a great deal on mechanical help: smelting ore, transporting fur or hair for brushes, looms to make the canvas, molding paper, collecting pigmented material and separating out the pigments, processing silver to make light-sensitive material, etc. They just do it before it gets to the artist, so it looks to the casual observer that they're not depending on machines.

Marciofs wrote:
In resume, traditional art is more dependable of the artist hands while digital art is dependable more of the machine or computer works than from the artist hands, because most of the time they are operating machines and not working with their creation with their hands.

In response, I'll note that you've made the same claim multiple times, but haven't provided any evidence that the claim is correct or valid, while various other people have provided support for the opposite view.

Rather than repeat the same thing again, can you support your argument with more than stated opinions?

de0rbit wrote:
A painter is limited by the capabilities of the paint. A writer is limited by the capabilities of the language.

Yes, every media and tools has their limitation. And yes, limitation is good because it stimulates our creativity. But it is not the point.

BTHPhoto wrote:
I produce negatives from digital, and I scan negatives from 645, 5x7, 8x10.  I print from all those media onto a variety of electronic and chemical processes.  How you capture the image is irrelevant.   How you turn it into a physical product that can be carried home, hung on the wall, viewed in physical form is what matters.

I completely agree. But this is not the point either

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
Once a film camera is broken, you can't produce (film-based photographic) art either.

"But, Kade! You can get another camera! Duh!"

And you can get/use another computer. You can get another digital camera. You can use tablets. Because a singular computer stops working doesn't mean the digital artist is without tools.


This is a non-issue. That and people were totally on-topic with the discussion.

This is not the point, the point is that you can take film photos without being dependable from a machine but using only a armpit box with a pinhole. While digital artists are dependable of machines works working.

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
And, by the way, if you are shooting film and putting it online, that makes you every bit as susceptible to this "when the machine breaks down…" scenario you're formulating as anyone else. It doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital: if you're on this site, you're working in a digital realm.

I completely agree. But the topic is not about divital X traditional.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Marciofs wrote:
The discussion is about being dependent of a machine to work in order to be able to produce art in such media.

Once the computer stop working or the digital sendor stop working, digital artist or digital photographer can't produce their art.

They can build an other computer or an other sensor but they are highly dependent of companies and modern or high technology to do so. Why a sculptor doesn't depend on a machine to work in order to produce their sculpture nor a camera obscure photographer, nor a pianist or violonist.

They are, however, highly dependent on their chisel, and perhaps the forge/kiln for the casting material. And most painters are dependent on paints they don't /can't manufacture, while those using an airbrush are dependent on more machines, while not being digital. Etc.

Marciofs wrote:
If their tools break (tools, not machines) they are still able to make their tools from basic elements to construct something similar in order to continuous doing sculpture, photography, violin and piano sound.

Can you make a chisel? Can you make paint? Very few sculptors or painters I know can do so, and none of the airbrush artists I know could build an airbrush and/or tank or compressor, so the theoretical advantage of being closer to basic elements is just that: theoretical.

Similarly, you're cherry-picking capabilities: you're assigning the "traditional" artist a greater breadth of skill than that of the "digital" artist. That's sometimes true, but it's not inherent to the media or the art itself.

Right. And the airbrush artist has an end once their machines end...

If and only if they can't get a replacement.

The same is true for "traditional" artists who rely on most materials: paint, paper, canvas, brushes, pigments, etc. Most of the things you're inplying are closer to the basic elements still rely a great deal on mechanical help: smelting ore, transporting fur or hair for brushes, looms to make the canvas, molding paper, collecting pigmented material and separating out the pigments, processing silver to make light-sensitive material, etc. They just do it before it gets to the artist, so it looks to the casual observer that they're not depending on machines.


In response, I'll note that you've made the same claim multiple times, but haven't provided any evidence that the claim is correct or valid, while various other people have provided support for the opposite view.

Rather than repeat the same thing again, can you support your argument with more than stated opinions?

I don't mean to convince people that what I say is right. I started this thread as a brainstorm.

I agree with many or most replies here when they talk about tools, etc. My answers, most of the time, wasn't an attempt to convince them to anything but to tell them that what they are saying is not related to what I proposed to talk.

Almost everybody here is replying as it were Digital X Traditional, Digital X Film, etc, to they are taken it personal to formulate their answers and "defend themselves".

I am not here to argue against anything.

About tools, yes every tool has their limitation, every artist have to find alternatives to their tools and media limitation. Maybe painter can't make a acrylic painting at home, or a pianist can't make a piano himself, etc. But they all have alternatives which they can make which allow them to continuous their art. For example, a sculpture who run out marble still can make sculptures with clay or wood. A painter have hundreds of painting material alternative which allow him to continuous painting.

In other words, traditional artists are less limited. Not only because of the availability of alternatives or tools, but also because they can make their work exclusively with their hands.

About machines, when artist depends on machines works to create their tools and for some reason they don't have access anymore to such machine, they can't create their art anymore. They will have to learn an other art medium or build an alternative to their machine to create digital art or digital photo for example. And what is the alternative? Are there basics tools which you can continious digital art and digital photos? Can you create digital art with your hand?

Of course most artists now a days doesn't even know how to make their own canvas. But they can learn to make their tools in order to continuous their art. Or even better, they don't have to paint on canvas, they can paint on walls, cardboards, etc, while digital artists will spend much more time and studies in order to create a computer to continuous their digital art, if he has access to the material needed himself.

After all, digital can only exist through a computer (a machine). No computer, no digital. A painting, a piano sound, a sculpture, a traditional photograph, etc, can exist through many other materials or tools (nor dependable from any machine to work).

It doesn't mean that I am being against digital art or digital photo. I don't mean digital is inferior nor that digital is less art than traditional. I don't mean that hand tools are better than machines. I like machines, I like digital, I learn a lot thanks to computer and the internet.

It is not about being against anything.

M Barnes Photography wrote:
I think if you're feeling your camera, your lights and Photoshop limits you...you're either absolutely amazing on an unheard of scale or you're really, really lacking in imagination.

every media, tools and machines has their limitation and this is why most artists have tried different tools and medium.

The good thing about digital and computer is that it offers an infinite more possibilities than traditional medias.

But again, the point is that digital can only exist through a computer only. Without the machine working you can't create digital.

Jason Fassnacht wrote:
''Digital Artist being LIMITED by Technology''

??? O_o ???

Whhhhhaaaaattttt ???

Computers and more precisely, PHOTOSHOP is thee single most dynamic tool that has ever been created in the history of human kind ...

(Sketching, Painting, Animation, Digital Darkroom, Concept Work, Web Page Design, Printing, Typography, Book Design, Story Boarding, Photographic Retouching, Fkn Etc, Etc, Etc...)

It offers nothing less than a VISUAL INFINITY for anyone who gives half ah sh*t ...

An IF ya wanna try an argue it's value ???

PLEASE take ah moment and tell me what would Michelangelo OR Da' Vinci have envisioned+created IF they were able to get their Genius filled paws on even the first version of Photoshop ...

Marciofs wrote:

About tools, yes every tool has their limitation, every artist have to find alternatives to their tools and media limitation. Maybe painter can't make a acrylic painting at home, or a pianist can't make a piano himself, etc. But they all have alternatives which they can make which allow them to continuous their art. For example, a sculpture who run out marble still can make sculptures with clay or wood. A painter have hundreds of painting material alternative which allow him to continuous painting.

In other words, traditional artists are less limited. Not only because of the availability of alternatives or tools, but also because they can make their work exclusively with their hands.

As noted, you're cherry picking. The traditional artist you cite has the capability to shift to some other medium, yet you're eliminating that option for the digital artist. Spurious comparison.

A sculptor who no longer has access to a chisel (marble isn't the tool, it's the medium) won't be able to operate on other media in the same fashion. He/she may be able to work  on other media, if they have that adaptive capability. In the same fashion,  a digital artist who no longer has access to a computer may be able to work on other media, if they have that adaptive capability.

Your entire point is based on a false dichotomy. And even if it were a necessary condition, there are many non-digital arts that require machines for tools to do the work directly [e.g. airbrush], while most require some form of machine-generated materials before the artist can start.

Honestly, it's an interesting thought, but one which doesn't hold up to anything more than superficial examination.

Kevin Connery wrote:
A sculptor who no longer has access to a chisel (marble isn't the tool, it's the medium) won't be able to operate on other media in the same fashion. He/she may be able to work  on other media, if they have that adaptive capability. In the same fashion,  a digital artist who no longer has access to a computer may be able to work on other media, if they have that adaptive capability.

A sculptor who no longer has access to a chisel, if he can't make sculpture from marble he can make from clay. It means he still can make sculpture. Even if he still needs a chisel it is just a peace of metal.

A digital artist with no access a computer is able to learn an other art and make other craft, but no longer digital art.