[navcom]

No worries Seamus... just thought I'd voice my suspicion. No prove of course, but you've heard the old saying...

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck!

which in this case would be...

If it looks like a focalplus and talks like focalplus, it is probably a focalplus!

Attachment 23332

...and uses the shift key like a focalplus.

Quack quack...and another "Amen"!!

[Marc Sabatella]

yes you can create fast food pictures and i will take my time and create a banquet .

Yes, since your experience and skills with digital are quite obviously very limited, you will only be able to create very limited results with it. No big surprise there. The same is true, of course, with film - most people have limited experience and skills, and produce limited results.

[séamuis]

and photography uses chemical light sensitive process, digital does not it uses electrical pulses that are translated to a appropriate computer program to interpret.

first, from my experience anyone who says they know all there is to know, is usually full of shit.

second, you are trying to skew the definition to suit your liking. making a photograph has nothing to do specifically with a chemical process. yes that's how it was done when the term was coined but the term is not specific to it. the fact remains the same. both film and digital capture light to create an image, thus when printed, a photograph.

you want to be so technical to try an prove your point, have you failed to notice that the film itself, the development and transfer process is very different from what it was when the term was coined? in a very real way from your point of view, making modern film not really photography. you don't see how ridiculous that sounds do you?

you can skew it how ever you please, it wont change the fact that both modern film and digital is photography.

[Blue]

The most amusing part is when film snobs go get their films scanned and printed.

By a digital scanner. Printed on a digital printer.

So, moving the electronic sensor to a scanner rather than the camera is "shooting film" now?

Huh....

How the hell else are you going to post a film based photograph on the net?

[Blue]

No worries Seamus... just thought I'd voice my suspicion. No prove of course, but you've heard the old saying...

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck!

which in this case would be...

If it looks like a focalplus and talks like focalplus, it is probably a focalplus!

Attachment 23332

What is focalplus? Is it an old brand of k-mart film?

[George Lama]

This is a non-argument. The future of photography is within the photographer, not the tools used for it. Many photographers in this very forum offer more than proof that whether digital or film, profound art is being created on both formats/platforms and the line continues to get blurred.

On another note, we all just need to accept Ashton Kutcher's view on photography - nothing but a marketing tool that allows you to have "babes" want to steal your camera and take naughty photos of themselves, only to sneak the camera back in your man-bag. Or as of recent, a tool that lets you clown around at a wedding while hollering "Yes!" and "Sweet!" during the event.

Wonder what a bride would do to me if I screamed "Got it!" every time I made the shot.

[navcom]

On another note, we all just need to accept Ashton Kutcher's view on photography - nothing but a marketing tool that allows you to have "babes" want to steal your camera and take naughty photos of themselves, only to sneak the camera back in your man-bag. Or as of recent, a tool that lets you clown around at a wedding while hollering "Yes!" and "Sweet!" during the event.

Ashton Kutcher...yet another reason to stay with Pentax!

[Marc Sabatella]

photography is not art. darkroom printing is.

Maye you are not good enough photographer to produce art, but plenty of others are.

digital is a copy, it can be reproduced billions of times if neccessary, even if it is a complicated picture.
therefore ceases to be original and unique.
ie art

I see. So it is not possible to create art with poetry, prose, or musical composition, either. Interesting definition you have there.

DIGITAL is not art and will NEVER be so.

Of course digital is not art. It's just a technology. Film is not art either - it is also just a technology. Nor is a paintbrush and a canvas art, or a pencil and paper. It's what you *do* with these things that makes it art. Again, I am sorry your skills are so limited that you have not been able to create art with digital. Luckily, not everyone is so untalented.

[navcom]

photography is not art. darkroom printing is.

digital is not art and has no possibility of being so ...i will explain


when i create a complicated print in the darkroom with layers ,sandwiches, double exposures tilt and shift,paper contours,dodge,burn,masking,borders. etc, it is impossible for me to repeat what i did due to its complexity and difficulty. in fact evem some fairly basic manouvers in the darkroom are very difficult to recapture/impossible.
therefore it is individual and a one off ,it could be rephotographed but it would be ruined and therefore inferior and a copy/illegal

digital is a copy, it can be reproduced billions of times if neccessary, even if it is a complicated picture.
therefore ceases to be original and unique.
ie art

this is just one reason i have many

DIGITAL is not art and will NEVER be so.NEVER NEVER NEVERRRRRRRRRRR..

live with it

So let me get this straight. If I take a generic picture of my naked "posterior" (as unsettling as that may be ) with a film camera and then proceed to develop and alter it through an intense chemical process, that alone is art? What the photograph contains is meaningless? You haven't seen my posterior! Of course, I'm sure you would like to kick it right now.

No thought needs to go into the composition of the photograph what-so-ever?

Are you high on the fumes from your lab?

Wow! For so many years I've been struggling to become a better photographer by studying photos from master photographers and trying to figure out how to improve my own composition and style, when all the while all I needed was more chemistry classes to improve my lab technique. Now you tell me!

This is no different than saying that you need Photoshop to create art, as it's the development process that is the art, not the subject itself.

Do you hear yourself? From my perspective, it's kind of scary. You are telling us what art should be. Art is created from straw, wood, iron, oils, acrylics, pastels, pencils, film, plates, digital, etc.

Film cameras process light to create an image. Digital cameras also process light to create an image. They don't use oil paints. They don't use pastels. They don't use pencils or iron or wax. They use light. It's just the developmental process that is different. The outcome is the same...a photograph made from light. You just don't get high from the chemical fumes.

[navcom]

i said darkroom printing is art not film, at least qoute me correctly.

painting is art
manufacturing paint brushes is not art
sculpture is art
chisel production is not art
photography is not art
darkroom printing is art
music is not art
composing music is art
chopper design is not art
painting the tins is art lol

do you see digital has no unique property that makes it art....

im sure you will have something to say.. so lets hear it....

Let's compare apples to apples here. If you are comparing digital to film, neither is art. They are just the equipment...which is what we have all been saying.

What is produced FROM digital equipment is art, just as what is produced FROM film is art. Art comes from the artist. The product of your darkroom technique could well be considered art, but so could the product of Photoshop.

Film camera = digital camera
film = JPEG
dark room = Photoshop

Both produce art. We can argue all day about the final print quality. For a long time film's chemical process produced better quality prints, but that is no longer the case. But that does not mean that photos created from digital are not art, no more than statues created from cement are less art than those created from marble because of poor detail quality.

[navcom]

photography is not art. darkroom printing is.

digital is not art and has no possibility of being so ...i will explain


when i create a complicated print in the darkroom with layers ,sandwiches, double exposures tilt and shift,paper contours,dodge,burn,masking,borders. etc, it is impossible for me to repeat what i did due to its complexity and difficulty. in fact evem some fairly basic manouvers in the darkroom are very difficult to recapture/impossible.
therefore it is individual and a one off ,it could be rephotographed but it would be ruined and therefore inferior and a copy/illegal

digital is a copy, it can be reproduced billions of times if neccessary, even if it is a complicated picture.
therefore ceases to be original and unique.
ie art

explain this then, i can reproduce a digital file perfectly how would you care to reproduce two hours on one print in the darkroom

I read your post the first time you put it up. I understood what you were saying. You are saying that in order for something to be art, it cannot be duplicated. Hmmm....my wife is an accomplished oil artist. What you are saying is the folks that buy prints of her originals are not buying art?

The photos I take with a digital camera and then alter with photoshop are an original. I cannot go out and take the exact same photo again. And in many cases I cannot duplicate my photoshop techniques either. I can duplicate the orginal forever if I want, but you can make copies of your film photos as well. That doesn't diminish either as art.

[navcom]

but your images are not art if they are digital, i cant do digital because i like art.

you wife makes art, her reproductions are just that repros not art.

a orchestra composition is art a recording of it is not

i dont think you will understand this concept as you have vested interests in digital.

digital will never be seen as art unless you add a human unrepeatable aspect to it, of which you cannot do with digital.....full stop

film is not art, but a original well printed darkroom print is most definitely as valid as a oil painting, unrepeatable

thats my last word as this concept seems to go over you head.

I have vested interests in both digital and film. I do both and have been in photography for over 25 years. The fact is, it is the image created by the photographer that is the "top level" art. Any processing done after the picture is taken, whether done in a dark room or on photoshop, is only an enhancement of the original. I don't care if it takes 20 minutes or 10 weeks to alter the original to get a different "effect" or feeling on a unique print, or whether the same was done in Photoshop...without the original shutter snap, it is meaningless. That is where the rubber meets the road. That original can be created with either film or digital technology.

Before I snap the shutter on either my digital or film camera, I have put several hours (if not days) worth of work into the image already. When I trip the shutter, the art is done. I have composed the image to get what I want. Any technique I use in the dark room only enhances or adds to the art I've already created.

Also, I would never assume something is "over your head".

Full stop.

[mudnmoto]

film is not art, but a original well printed darkroom print is most definitely as valid as a oil painting, unrepeatable.

So transparencies are not art either unless they are made into a print in a DARKROOM.

And not one of my prints ever to come out of one those developing machines in Walgreens is not art either, whether composed and exposed to perfection or not.

I read sometime ago, an "artist" I believe in NY City threw feces at something and wanted it to be displayed as art, is it art only if it comes out differently each time?

I had some really good "art" prints I made long ago that I have since scanned and digitized, I am guessing by the definitions here, it is no longer art. Not one of my thousands of transparencies is art, because they are not in print form.

All this art-nonart stuff is giving me a headache.....

Art is in the eye of the beholder, not the creator as all art is not art to everyone...

[mudnmoto]

and a darkroom print also is not art in itself. It has to be seem as Art by the viewer, not the creator. The creator of a darkroom art print only hopes that it will be viewed by others as art, otherwise it is just as worthless as any digital print.

[mudnmoto]

You seem to be trying to make yourself better than everyone here. Kind of like a watercoler artist saying he is better than a visionary using oils. From the looks of your gallery, you chose B & W medium to create art. It is best to compare yourself side by side with other B & W photograph artists. A quick google search found these STUNNING black and white film prints; Tim O"Connor Photography

When you can display images as posted on this randomly selected photo artist, please feel free to make your case again

As for theft, all an artist has to do is regularly copyright their material, then you can go after anyone stealing your images