MarkoKovacevic
Well-known
Not bashing digital(I use it myself) but I find it difficult to use in an artistic fashion, especially for BW. It feels too clean, too restrictive, too unorganic versus traditional. What's your take?
andredossantos
Well-known
Of course it's possible.
Sparrow
Veteran
... art and digital in the same sentence eh? interesting
Nomad Z
Well-known
Define 'art'.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Whether or not art is produced lies with the creator and the beholder. The medium is irrelevant.
(I'm sure you knew that.)
(I'm sure you knew that.)
wallace
Well-known
Have you ever heard of Andreas Gursky? You can easily spend $ 1000 000 and more for one of his prints.....
Richard G
Veteran
Art from 1s and 0s? Look, there are 10 types of photographers in this debate: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
dave lackey
Veteran
In a word. Yes.
I think I understand your question as one of being unsure about the clean digital files, etc.
But, absolutely, art is not created by the tool but by the photographer.
Have done it for years.
Here is a good example of a friend who is doing quite well since he went from film to digital when the D700 came out:
http://www.billynewmanphotography.com/
It is quite common. Different in some regards, but common.
I think I understand your question as one of being unsure about the clean digital files, etc.
But, absolutely, art is not created by the tool but by the photographer.
Have done it for years.
Here is a good example of a friend who is doing quite well since he went from film to digital when the D700 came out:
http://www.billynewmanphotography.com/
It is quite common. Different in some regards, but common.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Sparrow
Veteran
... 'accurately describe'?
btgc
Veteran
yes, one can create digital art
thegman
Veteran
If it can be done with film, then it can be done with digital. It may not "feel" like though, IMHO, due to the disposable/duplicate-able nature of digital and maybe strange feeling of a lack of authenticity.
I think that there is no difference between film's ability to contain "art" or a file on a computer, but it's hard to imagine a time when someone buys an original photo at Sotheby's or the like for £100k, and the auctioneer requests an email address to send the file to. Or perhaps you just get an FTP login to download your purchase.
A print and a negative at least has a uniqueness.
I think that there is no difference between film's ability to contain "art" or a file on a computer, but it's hard to imagine a time when someone buys an original photo at Sotheby's or the like for £100k, and the auctioneer requests an email address to send the file to. Or perhaps you just get an FTP login to download your purchase.
A print and a negative at least has a uniqueness.
btgc
Veteran
Just got insight - to make a limited set of prints an art, all memory cards with files used to make them have to be destroyed
kossi008
Photon Counter
There are two things to distinguish here:
(a) it's possible
(b) I still can't do it.
(a) it's possible
(b) I still can't do it.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
interesting. I feel that digital records authentically, while film already filters the image through all the defects and imperfections it imposes.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Too many people are assuming digital needs to follow in the footsteps of analog photography to have any artistic credibility.
Digital is it's own master and needs to bow to no other medium IMO!
Digital is it's own master and needs to bow to no other medium IMO!
efix
RF user by conviction
Ken Rockwell says only pictures taken with analog cameras can ever be considered art. And he must know. Question answered, end of discussion.
You can't be asking this as a serious question right? You can't really believe this... :bang:
crispy12
Well-known
Maybe.....
regularchickens
Well-known
It's about the content, not the medium.