...You CAN use Photoshop to do digital art. I should have said "if you're using Photoshop correctly as a photo-editing tool..." But if you use "liquify" in an everyday photo, it's going to be obviously manipulated and people are going to question everything else about the photograph. The power of Photoshop is in the ability to subtle-y manipulate certain portions of a photo that improve the photo as a whole, but don't LOOK obviously manipulated...
Hey, it seems to be a reprieve for some to do what they like, and as such, why not? I pretty much feel the way muckpond does and, anticipating the results, didn't enter. When I went to vote, I found one photo I considered for a 5, all others below 5. Obviously, I decided not to vote at all.
What is commonly considered digital art, has nothing to do with art and very little with photography, apparently (as seen from this here perch). But then again, I don't drink Pepsi either, probably for similar reasons. ;-)
Hey, it seems to be a reprieve for some to do what they like, and as such, why not? I pretty much feel the way muckpond does and, anticipating the results, didn't enter. When I went to vote, I found one photo I considered for a 5, all others below 5. Obviously, I decided not to vote at all.
What is commonly considered digital art, has nothing to do with art and very little with photography, apparently (as seen from this here perch). But then again, I don't drink Pepsi either, probably for similar reasons. ;-)
thanks for what would have been a 5 ;)
I'll preface this by saying I'm NOT a photoshop freak.
But Zues really, how can you say it has nothing to do with art? Maybe it's not your taste of art, but it's art nonetheless (for the record, I'm not necessarily referring to anything in this challenge). Hell if rotting meat is art, digital manipulation of photos is art. And it has everything to do with photography, since it's created from a photograph.
5 years ago (and there are still the relics today)most would have said photography without film isn't even photography.
I say all that partially as the Devil's Advocate since I really don't like massively manipulated images either. I'm just saying that Coke IS much better than Pepsi, and digital art is still art.
Hey, it seems to be a reprieve for some to do what they like, and as such, why not? I pretty much feel the way muckpond does and, anticipating the results, didn't enter. When I went to vote, I found one photo I considered for a 5, all others below 5. Obviously, I decided not to vote at all.
What is commonly considered digital art, has nothing to do with art and very little with photography, apparently (as seen from this here perch). But then again, I don't drink Pepsi either, probably for similar reasons. ;-)
thanks for what would have been a 5 ;)
I'll preface this by saying I'm NOT a photoshop freak.
But Zues really, how can you say it has nothing to do with art? Maybe it's not your taste of art, but it's art nonetheless (for the record, I'm not necessarily referring to anything in this challenge). Hell if rotting meat is art, digital manipulation of photos is art. And it has everything to do with photography, since it's created from a photograph.
5 years ago (and there are still the relics today)most would have said photography without film isn't even photography.
I say all that partially as the Devil's Advocate since I really don't like massively manipulated images either. I'm just saying that Coke IS much better than Pepsi, and digital art is still art.
:)
You're welcome, Pedro. ;-)
I really don't want to go anywhere near the what is art threads, we've had here in the past. And yes, there probably is a percent or so in that trough we call digital art , I would consider art. Much is garish, gift-shop drudgery (to me). Some (to me) is good craft, with a graphical merit.
Rotten meat, certainly, is not art, although there may be a context somewhere, you and I have not addressed, that would make it so.
Now, if you had a decent wine as old as the time it takes to go anywhere with this subject, I'd give it a go. ;-)
Now, if you had a decent wine as old as the time it takes to go anywhere with this subject, I'd give it a go. ;-)
I've got a 1997 bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape waiting for a special occasion...the last of the case :(
My meat reference was that ridiculous display a decade or so back (Montreal had one, and I think NYC as well) of a meat rendering of the human form. of course the display didn't last that long as it began to decay. yuck.
To me, you can't call it art unless it has Elvis, Poker Playing Dogs, or at least a little Velvet (preferably all three).
We'll save that discussion for the next time i get out to the west coast(which better be soon, because it's ridiculously cold here)
if i were you, kostia, i'd blame quark. other than diet coke and photoshop, a good chunk of my day is also spent fighting with quark and acrobat distiller. %*#&%*&%(*#%&#*$^#$&^@!!!!!
if you can't blame it on microsoft, you can blame it on quark.
Quark would have fewer "problems" if Adobe didn't control both Pagemaker/InDesign/FrameMaker and the PostScript language, not to mention Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, and most font technologies.
Although, with the adoption of System OS X.x.x I'm going to have to reserve a share of my ire for Apple as well ....
