Today's artsy

[plugsnpixels]

Created this piece today using a lo-end 3D terrain app (TerraRay for Mac) with included ship model, then post-processed with Topaz Texture Effects.

[envirobob]

Great work...I really like making "Artsy" images. I never heard of TerraRay before. I just bought it in the app store. We'll see what I can do with to too. Nice job on the images you made.

[Shadowman]

Nice, very nice.

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks! I've also been working with Terragen 4 (much higher end). I've had these apps plus Vue Infinite forever but didn't do much with them. Trying to step it up though.

[Rent]

is this photography ?

[Donald]

is this photography ?

What is photography?

[Rent]

Donald To me it's something taken with a camera not artificially built up on a computer

[Donald]

Donald To me it's something taken with a camera not artificially built up on a computer

And I think that could maybe be the point of difference, because the definitions of photography talk about light being put onto a sensor or some other sensitive material such as photographic film. They don't actually mention the word 'camera' at all.

[charzes44]

And I think that could maybe be the point of difference, because the definitions of photography talk about light being put onto a sensor or some other sensitive material such as photographic film. They don't actually mention the word 'camera' at all.

Interesting view, but an image created in a computer surely is not "light put on a sensor", and doesn't photo come from a Greek word meaning light? Therefore, I concur, this image, whilst being very artistic and creative, has little to do with photography!
What does anybody else think?

[Manfred M]

Interesting view, but an image created in a computer surely is not "light put on a sensor", and doesn't photo come from a Greek word meaning light? Therefore, I concur, this image, whilst being very artistic and creative, has little to do with photography!
What does anybody else think?

is this photography ?

If the image was taken with a camera, then the resultant image is indeed a photograph. Every digitial or film image is manipulated along the way to becoming an image we can see (even SOOC jpegs are), so I'm not really sure what else you might want to call these images?

doesn't photo come from a Greek word meaning light?

I believe the translation of "photography" is "light writing". There is no mention of using a camera. In the film days, it was fun to drop objects onto a piece of photographic paper and expose and develop the resulting image. These were definitely "photographs", but no camera was used to create them.

[Rent]

After rereading the original post I come to the conclusion that this image was generated purely by computer thus in my opinion is not a photograph

[Manfred M]

After rereading the original post I come to the conclusion that this image was generated purely by computer thus in my opinion is not a photograph

That I will agree with. This is a computer generated image that was then post-processed with an image editor. High end graphics software can generate excellent images. Likewise I can use standard image editing software to create effects that can be applied to an image; anything from adding text to generating "lighting".

The lines between these two forms of graphic arts can be extremely intertwined and not necessarily easily distinguishable from one another.

[Donald]

If this is a wholly computer generated image and is not a photograph, as that is defined and understood, then it should not be on here. There are many other fora where, I'm sure this would be appropriate and be welcomed.

[mknittle]

http://www.deviantart.com/ may be a more appropriate place for this type of image. There are a lot of talented people there that would more in line with this kind of art.

[Marie Hass]

Yet, in terms of image manipulation (albeit graphic), would it not qualify? Or are we just talking about origin of the image and not the byproduct thereof?

Marie

[Donald]

Yet, in terms of image manipulation (albeit graphic), would it not qualify? Or are we just talking about origin of the image and not the byproduct thereof?

I think the test, Marie, is not about image manipulation, but whether the base 'ingredient' of this creation is a photograph. If the act of photography was not involved in its creation then it doesn't really belong on this forum, which is about photography.

[plugsnpixels]

But is photography art? (That was the original dispute in the 1800s...)

Either way it's only pixels in a square. But no worries folks, this type of work will be restricted to this single thread ;-).

[Marie Hass]

Yet, it is still a digital image...

[Manfred M]

But is photography art? (That was the original dispute in the 1800s...)

Either way it's only pixels in a square. But no worries folks, this type of work will be restricted to this single thread ;-).

I don't think this is at all what is being argued here. CiC is a photographic site. Your image is not a photograph. If it is not a photograph, does it belong on a photographic site?

Donald's answer and Mark's response clearly suggest that the reason this piece does not belong here is that while it is a digital image, it is NOT a photograph. If CiC were a digital image site, then the answer would be different.

[Tronhard]

But is photography art? (That was the original dispute in the 1800s...)

I agree with the definition that photography is defined as writing (or by implication recording or drawing) with light. The question whether photography is art is a bit of a red herring. Photography is photography, and CAN be an art, as can any creation. When one looks at a piece of elegant engineering it might be described as a work of art because its lines appeal to us, regardless of its intended purpose.

Photography embraces many disciplines: its range goes from the purely factual (scientific, forensic etc.) to the purely abstract. Somewhere in between those two lie the various applications and uses we make of photographs for social, emotional, journalistic, cultural and political purposes. In the end though they all come down to an origin of photons landing on a light sensitive surface.

I think that while what was created so well in this post is art, it is not photography if it was created without the use of the energy transfer of light. That does not in ANY way imply it is less worthy as a piece of art, but it is, to me, not a photograph.

That said it's good to have the discussion!