- This topic is empty.
Seascape
-
SteveD wrote:
Working with the above definition Thorsten, then any file created from RAW would not be a photograph?
I agree – one could certainly argue that point!
And what of montages and alterations made yesteryear in the darkroom?
Interesting discussion!
– Thorsten.
So many comments on this one already, and I keep coming back to look at it. Digital art or photography or whatever, I love it. Great image Thorsten, and to hell with the debate 8)
I just read your thread there.
WOW< great picture. Absoloutley love it.
Not too sure what to say about the Camera Club.
I’ve had a few run ins with clubs too (not photography) and they can be horrid places..
too many people thinking that they rule the roost!Winkauss wrote:
So many comments on this one already, and I keep coming back to look at it. Digital art or photography or whatever, I love it. Great image Thorsten, and to hell with the debate 8)
Thanks Winkauss. I suppose you either love it or hate it!
As for the debate, I’m quite enjoying it – at least it’s a healthy, interesting and educated debate. Unfortunately there are some places where they are not interested in discussing something like this (did I mention a particular camera club? :wink: ) I’ve only been on this forum a short time, but I’m liking it quite a lot already!
– Thorsten.
CreativeA wrote:
I’ve had a few run ins with clubs too (not photography) and they can be horrid places..
too many people thinking that they rule the roost!But they can also be excellent places too. Much depends on who’s running the club and what their agenda is. If it’s personal, then you can kiss the club goodbye, but if it’s to promote, encourage, foster and grow, then it can only go from strength to strength. There are some fine photographic clubs in Ireland – I was a member of one once, so I’ve seen both sides. True, it’s never going to be a bed of roses 100% of the time, but whether it’s predominantly strong or predominantly week is up to the committee running the club (and I suppose ultimately up to the members that voted in the committee!).
Thanks for you comments.
– Thorsten.
A bit late posting on this but I like it and I think I will try this shot myself. Heads I try it in camera, tails I do it in photoshop :-)
“I would never enter the ‘digtal art’ version in a competition as I feel that when I start moving pixels, rather than changing their colour/luminosity, I am going too far. (I dont class ‘retouching’ with the clone brush as moving pixels ;-p ) “
You can do a helluva lot of manipulation to an image without moving pixels, Steve, and end up with an image that bears little or no relation to the original. How many layers and adjustments do you go before you stray from Photo to Art, and, if you take a straight photo out of focus while panning how do you draw the line there between it being a photo and Digital Art?
I’m not convinced merely moving pixels is enough to define something as being Digital Art rather than a photo, or to disqualify an image from being called a photograph. The images which are easy to spot as having been retouched may be easy enough to dismiss, but what about the ones you’ve seen where you can’t tell pixels have been pushed: are they any more a photograph simply because you haven’t noticed, do they become less of a photograph when you’re made aware of the work done to them?
RAW information is the same as information on a film, they’re both just means of retaining data on what was seen through the lens; they’re both merely a record of a moment in time. I can take a colour neg or trannie and go into the darkroom and feck with it during processing, mess about with the lens on the enlarger (filters, angles, moving the neg during exposure, etc), the paper (by moving, spinning, warping putting stuff on it, etc), then faff with the paper during processing, tint it, tone it, rephotograph it and go through the whole process again if I so wish and the end result could be a million miles away from what was shot and captured on film – as I did do way back in my college days. Yet, just because it’s gone through what’s fast becoming an archaic methodology of getting a print some would see this as a more photographic than a RAW image put through the photoshop wringer.
Unless you have an objective set of guidelines for what defines something as being what it is all that’s left is subjective interpretation.
Maybe the question shouldn’t be whether the image is/was a photograph or digital art.
Maybe the question should be what defines a photograph as being a photograph?Nice to look back over the archives and find such a great story! Anyone else out there with a similar tale? Photography Soap, I love it.
Rob wrote:
So many comments on this one already, and I keep coming back to look at it. Digital art or photography or whatever, I love it. Great image Thorsten, and to hell with the debate 8)
This is exactly how I feel about this image.
Well done ThorstenPat
Thanks to NFL-Fan for bringing this back up – I hadn’t seen it before and it was an interesting debate. Also, I really like the image too – eyecatching and compelling.
Orla.Funny… I missed this too…! Very interesting arguments made… I cant believe the judge did that…! Unreal…! Anyway, I really like the image and would be very happy with something like this hanging on my wall…!
Richie
Wow.
Much ado about nothing.
Reason No.78 why I won’t be joining a camera club anytime soon. Get enough of crap for 10-12 hours a day at work without more being thrown by so called experts in a club.
I enjoy my photography too much, much more a gentle release than a rigourous pursuit. And thats the way I want to keep it.
Thorsten, if that image does it for you, than thats all that matters.
tbh i think it is fantastic, manipulated or not you don a great job on it, its difernt from the normal pic of a seaside, great job Thorston, i realy like it
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
