So you think the painters should to throw away all the bruss and paint they still use, and should to develop some afficient fast and easy to use computer controlled techology wich replace all the skill, all the hand work, so who can't even draw nor a stickman, finaly can be a painter artist?
Or the real talented painters should use a brush, a paint, all the skill, and everything, but we should give a chance for the retarted, to became a popular even famous painter, not having a talent but having the techology, what help them to pose as a talented painter?

That is what you try to say?
And what about the real talents, if everything is replaced by computer?
Who is cheat can succeed, who is honest and real talent starwe to death?
Interesting thinking!

If you was a pro and skilled photographer for 40 years, you should to able to capture an artistic picture without the help of the computer.
Before computer manipulated digital pictures, there was many artistic photo! Or they are worth nothing, they are a garbage now? All the Wildlife photographers of the year who won with slides (not prints) was able to do artistic pictures without computer manipulation. Why suddenly we can't live without it? Or just the talent is missing and need something to replace it?
And again, I have no problem with all the digital art and manipulation, and etc. I have pronblem with calling them photography, wich make the viewers cunfused.

If you buy something what was made in a factory, you accept it was made by modern technology. But if you buy a piece of art, you expect it was really crafted! If it wasn't you are victim of a swindle.
I wouldn't pay more money for something what was made in an easy way as everyone can do it!

I really do not think I am qualified to comment - but will give a layperson's perspective on this topic.

I personally do not care what was done to create the photograph - I only care about the end result. I could care less whether the end result was achieved through film or digitally. I also could care less if it was taken with a $5K or a $200 camera...

I do care if someone added subject matter, or moved things around in the photograph without noting as such. But that applies whether they did that manipulation in the dark room or the computer.

I see a number of photographers that advertise that their work is entirely film - without digital processing. That does not matter to me - I only care about whether the shot "moves me"... And yes - I also used a darkroom for years - I grew up with a darkroom, so understand the challenges.

Similarly -- I could care less whether a good book was created with a typewriter or a wordprocessor.... I know the typewriter would be harder...

Dave, I love your response. No one is standing next to the image on the wall and explaining how it was executed. A museum may give you headsets to explain about the art, but I doubt if I have to worry about being around to add the text to any of my work that gets into museums -

Since the digital age I have been more worried about the longevity of our work but again, will I be here to worry about it?

Regarding qualifications for our opinions...... ha, we all get one vote!

If we cared how it was made we would not shop at Walmart.

But we do.

I could not make a living on film. If that makes me a cheater, then I am.

I don't care either the picture was taken with film or digital camera. Also I dont have to know and I don't care about details how the picture was captured.
But I know that, taking a good photogrpah need lot of skill and talent, and I want to believe a photograph I take look on, was captured with skill and talent. So I care about if someone pretend to have all the skill, and talent, but actually just manipulated a picture in computer and have no photogrpahy skill.

So if an artist can't capture a good photograph because a lack of skill, but can create a great art from it using a computer, I don't care, just please don't call it anymore Photorap, because the end result was created by computer not by camera.

If an artist never had a brush in his/her hand, just printed pictures with a printer, why should we call him/her a painter? Just because the picture what he/she created looks like a painting? If it wasn't painted just printed, why we should call it painting? Just make the people believe the artist is so good with brush? (what is not true or in other words it is a lie) So a painting which wasn't really painted is fake, and if the people still believe it is a painting it is actualy a cheating. Because if we call the picture painting we expect that, it was created by hand, by brush.

I know and already I said, why digital artist want to keep call their work as photographs. Because as a digital artist they are still not enough or should to do much more, but as a photogrpaher they can beat real photographers even without as much photography skill, because the computer give them lot of advantige over photography, so they can compete unfearly which give them more chance to success.
Otherwise they are would accept the name like "digital artist". I can't see why this name is not good for them? Actually this name describe better what they are doing! Because the end result of their work is created in computer, not with camera.
Actually if we take a closer look on the digital art, we find out it is much closer to the painting than to the photography, just a picture is more photorealistic than a painting.
A painter can paint only what he/she want, or what is in his/her mind! Doesen't matter the real colors, or real subject, the painters don't have to paint all things what is front of him/her, and can add anything to the picture, which wasn't there.
Digital artist can do, and actually they are do a same thing! Photographer can capture what is front of the camera! We can't capture a picture with cahnge a color on a detail, or if we want to add something, that we have to ad for real, place it into the composition. So photography is more limited but this is the chalenge and this is why not easy. Digital artist like painters doesen't have this limitations. So digital art actualy closer to painting than to photography. Why you guys who do digital manipulations, don't call yorself painters?
The digital art is looks like a mixing of photography and painting.
Who don't have a talent and good hands to painting, can take a picture with camera so not need to worry about how to paint, but who don't have a talent to photographing either can use same tools and freedom as painters to manipulate the picture, with a help of the computer.
But this is not photography.
In a common knowledge the photography is hard. Almost everyone had some experience with it.
But because the computer was created to replace the human effort and skill, doing something with computer in a common knowledge is an easy thing.
So you can get bigger recognition and respect as a photographer than a digital artist. So I understand why the digital artist are insist on call them photographer. This is the way to achive a bigger success with the less effort.

No, you are not a cheater if you photographing on digital!

You can photographing with digital in a same way as you do it with film camera. The question is, you do it that way?
If not, you still not a cheater, if you not call your picture as a photo.

If you create your picture in a computer from a photograph, and the end result is not a same what you actually captured, and you still call it photo, taht is a cheating. Cheating, because if you call it photograph, that makes the people believe that, you captured the picture as they can see it. But this is not a true.

If you create a picture in a computer, from a photogrpah and the end result is not what you captured with a camera, and you call it digital art, or photo based digital grafic, or anything you like but photograph, you are an artist and not a cheater.


When you are shoping at WalMart you know what you pay for. No one want to make you believe, the items on the shelfs are the highest quality.
But if you go to shoping to GUCCI you expect the best!

But what about if you find out actually the items you got at GUCCI was made in china by underage workers in a factory?

What about if you buy a photograph, where you expect that, it is a real photograph captured by a talented photographer, but actually it was made by some guy who don't know to much about photography, but with a hundred try and error he was able to made a picture in a computer.

What about if you go in a quality five star restaurant, where you expect that, the food is gonna cooked by master chef in the kitchen, but actually just a waitress called some food service to deliver a frozen food and they are warm up it in a microwave for you?

It's all about what you expect, and what you really got! And if it is a photograph, you expect that, it is a photograph, which was captured by an artist as you actually see it, and wasn't made in a computer using an easy to use computer softweare.

If it is a painting, you expect that, it was painted by an artist with free hand using brush and other painting tools not inkjet printer!

If it is a wood carving, you expect that, it was created by an artist, with free hands and hand tools, not by Computer controlled router machine, where the "artist" has nothing to do just place a piece of wood in the machine and push the start button.

The real crafted things are always has higher value, but if that things are not really crafted, just manufactured by an easy way, but still they make you believe that, the item is a craft, just for raise the value, that is cheating.

You almost sound like somone who is bitter because they chose film. And people shooting digital are getting your business. (some might be editing like you say, some might just be better photographers and you used the excuse of editing like you say) and it effects your bottom line.

Not EVERYONE who edits their digital photographs is doing what you say is the problem.

Yesterday my son came to me complaining how somone elses actions was driving him NUTS. My advice was that he cannot change anyone but himself. And his energy was better used concentrating on where he wanted to go and NOT concentrating on the people that frustrated him.

There are solid digital photographers out there. Many are here at this forum. I personally include myself in that list. And there are pleanty of photographers who manipulate their photos to the extreems that frustrate you, and never disclose it.

All you need to figure out is.

1. How to compete with other photographers wether they are digital or film...and wether they edit ethically or not.

2. How to re-direct your passion back into your photography instead of getting frustrated by what others are doing.

3. Maybe consider investing in some digital gear and show us all how it SHOULD be done. :~)

I would say that your frustration actually will end up effecting your photography (negativly) proving it isnt really the wisest posisition.

Peace to you...

Roman

We are all allowed to our opinions, but I think calling digital photographers cheaters and dishonest is a little harsh. You sound quite bitter. Are you saying that the photographers who get up at ungodly hours of the night, drive for hours park out just to catch the HOPE of a good sunrise are not photographers? People who travel to the ends of the world in some of the harshest conditions are dishonest cheaters?

Digital photographers still have to learn the rules of photography if they wish to make a living at it. There will still be people who will have decent, but cheap cameras, take nice snapshots, but will they actually make a living at it? No. Why? Because the competition is really stiff out there. There are amateur and hobbyist photographers that take some spectacular photos, but they take the photos for the love of photography, not for money. Are they cheaters and dishonest also? Professional photographers will continue to go to school for their trade, invest thousands of dollars in equipment and marketing, spend hours upon hours shooting a variety of subjects before settling on their genre of choice.

Who knows what another 10 years will bring? 3-D hologram cameras? X-Ray cameras? There are already Infrared cameras, are they cheats as well? Should we be derisive in our attitudes towards them or should they be encouraged to explore new technologies?