Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-03-2008, 06:18 AM   #61
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
what I don't get is why reelitupandup is arguing for something being art as if it is fact. art is not fact, art is opinion. opinion based on the eye of the beholder. not only is it opinion, its likely the most subjective opinion known to man. so what is the real argument here?

12-03-2008, 06:34 AM   #62
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada eh!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 673
Photography is, at it's fundamental, art.

Like music, the computer will have an influence, but there will still be a fundamental reliance on the artist to create.....something.

Did the computer make a pure guitar solo by Knopfler or Clapton, or a vocal solo by Bocelli or Pavarotti any less beautiful, no matter what the computer did those artists still needed to "create" something that no computer could ever do with such passion, emotion, vision, "humanness".

The computer is a tool for the artist to use or not use, but it's not going to fundamentally alter the "art".
12-03-2008, 09:55 AM   #63
Pentaxian
RoxnDox's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington, USA, Terra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,494
QuoteOriginally posted by reelitupandup Quote
Blah Blah Blah...

thats my last word

Blah Blah Blah...
If only that were true...

I'd say "nice trolling" but I'm afraid you actually believe what you're saying. In which case all I can say is "I'm sorry you have such a limited view of what Art is".

Jim
12-03-2008, 10:27 AM   #64
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
digital is not art and never will be.
ill say it again. art is not fact, art is opinion. how can you argue it as such?

12-03-2008, 12:30 PM   #65
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 31
QuoteOriginally posted by reelitupandup Quote
digital is not art and never will be.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. To introduce myself, before photography interested me, I was hooked on 3d graphics. 3d graphics are virtual, the result is meant to stay intangible. And still, it is art.

Probably the reason why you refuse to include digital workflow in the same group as other artistic techniques is its virtuality. The intangible matter of what the digital photos (or anything else is made of, those damn bits in RAM) compared to working in darkroom with all those chemicals films and whatever else might be a bit frustrating. But the fact you cannot exactly see what's going on in the computer doesn't mean that digital photography (or anything else digital) isn't art.

The artistic aspect of photography doesn't come from the use of film. It's the photographer. A crime scene documentation cannot be considered art generally (generally because there are surely people who consider it art) because it wasn't created for that purpose.

Another reason why digital workflow might be harder to accept as artistic workflow is its easier use. Generally you don't need much talent to manipulate, improve and digital photo (to get appealing and/or different result) than with film, because of the possible automation in post-processing application. And this might be main gripe, the possibility and insurance if the piece was created by mindlessly or unknowingly clicking buttons, or if it was hours and hours of hard work to get it right.

But in the end, digital isn't any less art than chemical, drawing or capturing holograms.

QuoteOriginally posted by reelitupandup Quote
its easy to do digital as it is controlled by computers, a bit like having traction control in a car
No, it's not controlled by computer, it might be. You might meet a digital photographer who only uses automatic procedures, and you might meet another one who actually knows the algorithms behind and uses them carefully and with hearth. There's huge difference in the man sitting behind the computer, but there is always risk that there isn't any and everything is automated... Welcome to digital era.

There is a similar dilemma among 3d artist, whether using character generating programs is art. In those programs you just move sliders to get the desired character in desired pose, instead of doing it from scratch polygon after polygon. I think the worst thing about computers is that we don't know if what we see was created directly by a human who left a lot of his/her time and passion in it, or it was just some quick adjustments possible made only by some more clever program.

Last edited by Myn.pheos; 12-03-2008 at 12:47 PM.
12-03-2008, 12:34 PM   #66
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by reelitupandup Quote
anything artistic is unique and hand crafted

digital is neither therefore is not art

its easy to do digital as it is controlled by computers, a bit like having traction control in a car

digital guys are always asking how to make there prints look more like film,they wont and its terribly sad and pathetic

why not just get a real camera not a kids toy
way to completely ignore what I said and what I asked to say the same thing you've said a dozen times over, which has noting to do with what I asked.

and I do use a film camera. look at my signature, and stop being a troll.
12-03-2008, 03:35 PM   #67
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 261
Wow, this argument went to pot fast. What an ass our troll is making himself out to be. I sometimes prefer the analog side of things, before things got so complex and there was only one way to balance a tungsten light shot instead of multitudes of layers and options in the process. A glass filter is pretty simple stuff.

But I'm offended beyond words at the statement "digital is not art". There are hundreds of artists out there who draw, from scratch, in painting programs and spend hours creating something that only they could create, with their own vision and their own talent. I have tried before, many times, to elicit a decent drawing with my pen tablet and Photoshop, and I always end disappointed. However, a friend of mine who's been an artist for years recently made the jump from drawing on paper to drawing on tablet, and her work is still amazing. It looks the same as it did before, except now, instead of having to re-trace all her work in Photoshop before she can color or modify it, she can simply draw, color, correct, and save. Her creativity and level of skill never changed, but her workflow certainly became less constraining.

For all of analog's glorious "feel", you have to admit that the digital era has lent us wonderful workflow improvements. I can now shoot hundreds of pictures within a few hours, and have the good ones singled out and ready to send to the lab a couple hours later. No wasted time, no wasted film, no wasted effort, and no wasted expense. Just because you shoot with film doesn't mean every shot will be a masterpiece.

12-03-2008, 04:25 PM   #68
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 38
funny thing, he is spending an insane amount of time in front of a computer screen, eating chips and drinking yoo hoo, just to antagonize everyone here. Maybe its time for the troll to be kicked back under the bridge
12-03-2008, 04:36 PM   #69
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 38
but you are online, in front of a computer....thats BAD, Its Digital, you will become corrupt and want to digitize all your self proclaimed art

after all, computers are a kids toy as you say
12-03-2008, 04:41 PM   #70
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 38
Its Finished and sold while you grow old in the dark
12-03-2008, 04:44 PM   #71
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 38
Who is the kid anyway, with the demeaning titles to your posts here
12-03-2008, 04:48 PM   #72
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 38
QuoteOriginally posted by reelitupandup Quote
it takes NO talent using a computer NO TALENT at all

its for kids, so grow up and be a man/woman
Read your OWN posts!!!!!
12-03-2008, 05:44 PM   #73
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 38
Nice, real nice
12-03-2008, 10:17 PM   #74
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,133
Code:
photography works out cheaper for me than digital ever could. thats because you have to take 3000 pictures and all i need is one atempt.
Hold on now... is this some new math thing? While film and chemicals are an ongoing cost, a digital camera only needs a storage card. Where are you getting this idea that film photography is cheaper?

And in regards to your "one attempt" comment - yes, one attempt is all you need to fail too. You can't predict the unpredictable - wind, a sneeze, floating spec of dust, a blink, a bad spot on the film...

I remember reading about the national geographic photogs going on assignment and shooting an average of 300-1000 rolls of film for one assignment, depending on the complexity of the shoot. Do you think they are going to take the risk of missing the shot just because they think they got it in one shot? Ha!
12-04-2008, 01:21 AM   #75
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogroast Quote
Code:
photography works out cheaper for me than digital ever could. thats because you have to take 3000 pictures and all i need is one atempt.
Hold on now... is this some new math thing? While film and chemicals are an ongoing cost, a digital camera only needs a storage card. Where are you getting this idea that film photography is cheaper?

And in regards to your "one attempt" comment - yes, one attempt is all you need to fail too. You can't predict the unpredictable - wind, a sneeze, floating spec of dust, a blink, a bad spot on the film...

I remember reading about the national geographic photogs going on assignment and shooting an average of 300-1000 rolls of film for one assignment, depending on the complexity of the shoot. Do you think they are going to take the risk of missing the shot just because they think they got it in one shot? Ha!

National Geographic Explorer's aren't real photographers according to reelitupandup because they have been using reversal film for decades. which of course involves no negatives.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This will blow you away. The future of photography. Peter Zack Photographic Technique 31 08-30-2010 05:37 AM
Future of DSLR's LeDave General Talk 10 03-07-2010 11:58 AM
Pentax ...the future. lesmore49 Photographic Industry and Professionals 26 02-26-2009 02:25 AM
The Future of Photography mithrandir Photographic Technique 5 09-18-2008 01:12 PM
touching story: my way of helping future photography students - long read Marc Langille Photographic Technique 4 02-25-2008 06:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top