Landscape, but is it photography? I think not, CS6 Oil Paint utility

[Rand47]

a900 file originally.  Near Zabriskie Point.  CS6 Oil Paint. 

[John R Smith]

Well . . . you certainly could frame it and sell it, no problem.

It is, in its own somewhat kitsch way, a work of art. Most visual artists other than photographers do not have this kind of ethical/purist anxiety - they can start off with a photograph, make a small print, photocopy and enlarge it, paste it onto some board, paint over bits of it, stick other materials onto it as a collage, and end up with some art. And sell it, if its any good.

There are no boundaries, no borders, no rules. Except for the ones which you make for yourself. By the end result shall ye be judged . . .  

John

[Tom Frerichs]

Let's see...

There will be some who will claim it's not photography because you didn't shoot film.
Some will strip it of the photography label because you probably adjusted the rendering by changing the exposure, contrast, and white balance.
"Oh, no! A filter that modifies the rendered image! You've violated the pure photograph mantra," will be the cry from others.

However, did you use a mechanical means (electrical included) to capture an image?  If you did, then it's photography.

I'm not crazy enough to judge if it's a good or bad photograph; that's a matter of taste and appreciation -- in short, a question of judgment.  And I'm far from being a quailified judge.

Besides, I think I saw it in my local WalMart the other day as part of a set of decorator prints, and if they don't know art, who does?

 

Tom Frerichs

[Michael H. Cothran]

I certainly agree that you could sell this image, framed or loose print. Personally, I like it, other than the sky. As far as what it is goes, John Miller hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, it is what it is, and how it got here is not that important.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Just out of curiosity, why did you go for that oil effect in the first place? The underlying photograph appears to have enough merit to stand on its own, or at least a potential for further (photographic) post-processing. Besides, the oil effect is not that noticeable, unless closely inspected. I also think the gray sky is the weakest part, oil or not.

[JonathanRimmel]

I certainly agree that you could sell this image, framed or loose print. Personally, I like it, other than the sky. As far as what it is goes, John Miller hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, it is what it is, and how it got here is not that important.

Agreed. It is a fantastic image. It would have made a great photograph. Personally I don't consider this a photograph, but does that really matter? It seems to be a great piece of art regardless.

[Rand47]

Thanks all....

It was worth doing, and worth posting just for the almost falling down laughter at all of your comments!  Appreciate the kudos, and understand the rest . . .  

It looks pretty good on Hot Press Bright ... but I'm thinking some really textured cold press watercolor paper... LOL

The light was so extreme in the original file that it made a lousy straight photo.  BUT, this particular location (about 3 miles from Zabriskie proper) is now on my list of places to spend serious time photographing.  And I won't tell!  

Thanks again for the erudite exposition . . .    I've always loved both photography and the California Scene Painters.... so I've decided to call myself "Elliott Ersatz."

Rand

[louoates]

I'd call it photography +. I like it. I'd like it better with less of the sky texture. Very marketable in my judgement. I agree that the composition is a strong one, despite the lighting problems that you mentioned. Poor composition is where most "tricked up" PS treatments fail.

[Justan]

It looks like reason enough to upgrade to CS6.

Clearly the definition of photography continues to evolve along with the quickly changing pace of PP techniques. This is the kind of change that clearly blurs the lines in ways that will confound the art world. If this were printed on canvas and had a veneer coating such as Glamour ii, I think no one would expect that it is a photo.

By that means, the prejudice that many galleries have against photographs will lose its footing.

[Isaac]

Clearly the definition of photography continues to evolve along with the quickly changing pace of PP techniques.

"From the moment of its sesquicentennial in 1989 photography was dead -- or more precisely, radically and permanently displaced -- as was painting 150 years before."

If this were printed on canvas and had a veneer coating such as Glamour ii, I think no one would expect that it is a photo.

Doesn't that suggest "photo" wouldn't be a useful description?
Given the lack of facture, neither would oil painting.

Is there a better (more useful) description for this than Digital Art?

[chrisj8891]

As my previous life was in graphic design, I can see no problem in using any resource or material to achieve your envisaged result, what it is called (Photo or Art, or anything else), would seem irrelevant, as long as you like the result produced, or in the commercial world the client likes it enough to buy it.

[Isaac]

... or in the commercial world the client likes it enough to buy it.

Isn't what it is called one of the ways that someone would know to look at your stuff, because what it is called is the kind of thing they are looking for?

[John R Smith]

Isn't what it is called one of the ways that someone would know to look at your stuff, because what it is called is the kind of thing they are looking for?

Isaac

You do seem to be trying very hard to nail things down, give them names, define rules, stuff like that. Perhaps, when it comes to creative activity in general (and the visual arts in particular), it really doesn't matter. Personally, I like it when things are a bit fuzzy round the edges, and anarchic - it keeps me on my toes 

John

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It was worth doing, and worth posting just for the almost falling down laughter at all of your comments!...

Hmmm... not sure I understand this part

[Rand47]

Hmmm... not sure I understand this part

The discussion has taken a more contemplative turn on the merits of such work since I posted that comment.  I was referring to some of the earliest humorous responses.  My comment about laughter was not intended as critical, but as sincere thanks for a good warm-hearted chuckle.    

I've been watching the development of the reactions and have appreciated the varying perspectives.

[Peter McLennan]

It looks like reason enough to upgrade to CS6.

Sorry.  Painter does this effect FAR better and with more flexibility.

[Justan]

"From the moment of its sesquicentennial in 1989 photography was dead -- or more precisely, radically and permanently displaced -- as was painting 150 years before."

Funny, Nietzschie made a similar argument about god in the 19th century.

Doesn't that suggest "photo" wouldn't be a useful description?
Given the lack of facture, neither would oil painting.

Is there a better (more useful) description for this than Digital Art?

Digital art works as well as anything. Mixed media would be as suitable. Perhaps some would like mm more due to the ambiguity.

[Justan]

Sorry.  Painter does this effect FAR better and with more flexibility.

Sorry about what?

What is Painter?

[Isaac]

Funny, Nietzschie made a similar argument about god in the 19th century.

I think the more directly relevant (and explicitly stated) comparison is with painting.

[langier]

This one is fine and nicely done, IMO! You've got to start with a good image and that you have. You've put your spin on it and there's nothing wrong with that!

However, too many camera owners start with a turd and once polished using all their filters in PS, it's still a turd. All the tools in the world won't change it.