THIS is what photography is all about!

[407370]

To push the boundary.......
Is this a photograph?

This image was produced by a virtual camera in a virtual environment:

All the constraints of a physical camera still apply and the rules for composition, lighting etc still apply. So what makes this image less of a photograph than this ?:

 

[timor]

^^^ Technology. Photography is energy of light changing photosensitive substance. Digital is a mathematical deduction from optical image projection. Nobody is saying it is worst, it is just one more way to make an image which looks photo like. Still fun.

 

[Jim Walczak]

To push the boundary.......
Is this a photograph?

This image was produced by a virtual camera in a virtual environment:

This is just my own opinion, however I think the key term there is "virtual". On the one hand, as I was learning 3D myself, I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of the concepts of photography...lighting, composition, focal length, etc., etc., were a TREMENDOUS help...particularly since the mid term project for 3D Modeling & Animation I was a "still life". I watched several of my fellow academicians struggle with this, as many had little or no background or training in art, let alone photography. Likewise being able to take good reference images can be an enormous benefit, in the creation of both models and textures (I frequently use my own photography for textures).



If anything, when it comes to 3D I actually think there's probably a greater need to understand concepts such as lighting, as that (IMO) is really what makes or breaks a great model (just as it does with a photo). You can have a really sensational model that's been perfected down to the last vertex, but if the lighting is poor, the model is REALLY gonna suffer...one of the big reasons I suspect why you have "specialists" with pro 3D animation (the modeling department, the rigging department, textures, lighting, cameras, yadda, yadda).

BTW...for the sake of full disclosure, while I did some rather extensive work on that '57 Chevy, the base model was actually a download (and some parts, such as the windshield wipers and side view mirrors were taken from other models). I would credit the original artist(s), however since the car was used for a couple of college projects a few years back, I no longer have the info on who originally created the model (sorry). That said, "the photo"...the position of the car, the camera setup, the lighting, the textures...even the tires and rims, etc., are all my own work.



One of the lovely things about 3D, in my opinion at least, is that you can indeed mix "real" photography with virtual. In the case of the jukebox image, I was lucky enough to obtain some outstanding reference images to create the model of the jukebox itself and I was able to supplement the textures with real images (the background of the record chamber and the wood cabinet, not to mention the "Rebel" poster), making the virtual work, much more realistic.

I would also be so bold as to suggest that if anything, doing "photography" (aka stills) in 3D is actually far more complex than working with a traditional camera. In addition to all the basic principles involved with photography, you also have to understand the nuances of the software...particularly when it comes to rendering. I do the majority of my work in AutoDesk's Maya and yea...the difference between Maya Software and Mental Ray can be rather extraordinary....



In essence most rendering engines more or less do the same thing, however with my Ralph Goings Tribute there, in order to obtain that shallow DOF, I just wasn't able to use the Maya Software rendering effectively...ended up being a 1/2 hour Mental Ray render instead. And then of course you have lighting options...I can't speak to all 3D software on this (Poser and Daz can be quite limited here), however with a program like Maya, you can create incredibly elaborate lighting setups that can be rather difficult to duplicate in real life...after all, you can't really do "light linking" even in the best equipped photo studio! LOL!


Now with all of this said, "Is it photography?"...in my mind, having some experience with both, I'd actually have to say no. In my mind, it's two very different things...even though I've done prints of all these images, I call them "3D renders" and not "photos". I used my Ralph Goings Tribute there specifically for reference...if you look at the work of Goings and other "hyper-realists", while such work may look like a photograph, clearly the work isn't photography...it's painting. Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs in terms of definitions here, however 3D, like painting, is a different medium than photography is. Many of the very same concepts can be applied, but at the end of the day, the difference is greater than acrylic paints and sidewalk chalk...totally different disciplines.

Again sorry for hijacking the thread...interesting question though

 

[timor]

You not splitting the hair Jim. Everything, everything comes down to perception. And that changes with the time. For cave man paintings of bisons on the cave wall were as realistic as your 3D models are to us.

 

[407370]

I have always had the belief that any digital image is just a digital image. It does not matter whether it was produced in 3D, Photoshop, camera, scanner or what the image origin is. A scanned camera film image is just the same as a 3D model.
I dont agree with any rule that limits creativity like:

• cropped photographs are failed photographs
• SOOC (this particularly gets my goat as all images are edited by the camera)
• HDR / Tone mapping is not used by real photographers
• Only expensive cameras produce good photographs

I could go on..........

 

[Jim Walczak]

I have always had the belief that any digital image is just a digital image. It does not matter whether it was produced in 3D, Photoshop, camera, scanner or what the image origin is. A scanned camera film image is just the same as a 3D model.
I dont agree with any rule that limits creativity like:

• cropped photographs are failed photographs
• SOOC (this particularly gets my goat as all images are edited by the camera)
• HDR / Tone mapping is not used by real photographers
• Only expensive cameras produce good photographs

I could go on..........

While I do absolutely agree with your thoughts regarding limits on creativity (or lack there of), I have to disagree with the comment regarding any digital image being a digital image. This is, quite obviously, my own personal opinion however, I think that just as with art in the "real" world, it's important to recognize distinctions in the digital realm as well. In the real world, one typically recognizes "a painting" as being something completely different to "a photograph". In a VERY broad general sense both can be considered "pictures" and both are based on concepts of "light/shadow", "composition", etc., however they ARE very different things. A person who may indeed be a proficient painter may have NO CLUE what to do with a camera and a great photographer may be totally inept using paint brush and canvas...as I said earlier, VERY different disciplines. Likewise, in the virtual world, the differences between raster and vector graphics (including 3D) are truly worlds apart. A person adept at adjusting/manipulating their own images in a program such as Photoshop, could be totally lost in Illustrator...and 3D takes that into another very distinctive realm.

I do in fact consider myself a "digital artist"...my chosen medium is that of the computer, mouse, monitor and printer (and occasionally a graphics tablet). I have done more traditional art work (painting, drawing, etc), at least as a student and as with my earlier comments regarding photojournalism, I have a great respect for such artists (well...most of the time...there are notable exceptions), however it's not what I do. That said, I do very much consider the differences in digital art to be quite distinctive. My vector work is not the same as my digital photography, which is not the same as my 3D work. To try and lump all of this under the term "digital images" seems rather ignorant to me...if you're not going to draw such distinctions, then why even bother with the term "digital"? After all, if we're simply going to apply such broad generalizations, then ultimately whether we're talkin' da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" or the latest cutting edge virtual images, it's all just "pictures", yes?

I won't speak for others, however I think such distinctions, in both the real world and the virtual are quite important, at least in terms of what we do and how we do it.

Something to think about.

 

[Vtec44]

With photography, you get to the decide on what to exclude because your canvas has already been "painted". With painting, you start with an empty canvas and get to decide on what to include. It's actually not that complicated. We just make it to be because we love to talk about it rather than actually go out there and take beautiful photos.

 

[407370]

I have always had the belief that any digital image is just a digital image. It does not matter whether it was produced in 3D, Photoshop, camera, scanner or what the image origin is. A scanned camera film image is just the same as a 3D model.
I dont agree with any rule that limits creativity like:

• cropped photographs are failed photographs
• SOOC (this particularly gets my goat as all images are edited by the camera)
• HDR / Tone mapping is not used by real photographers
• Only expensive cameras produce good photographs

I could go on..........

I won't speak for others, however I think such distinctions, in both the real world and the virtual are quite important, at least in terms of what we do and how we do it.

Something to think about.

Looking at an oil painting hanging on a wall is a totally different experience to looking at a photograph of it on a website, but when it is digitised it is just another image.
The software used to create or manipulate an image is irrelevant. The end result is important in the sense that the image is what the artist envisioned before they started. Various bits of software create images associated with that software, 3D software like Cinema 4D can create images that cannot be created with Photoshop or Illustrator, but my point is that someone who is very proficient in a certain piece of software will tend to use that software and that is a limitation.
A lot of my artwork is based on photographs (textures, backgrounds etc) but is firmly in the digital sphere and I use whatever software I need to create the image in my mind.

 

[limr]

Why the resistance to calling something "graphic art" instead of "photography"? Changing the label doesn't stifle creativity - it simply assigns a more precise name to an image that didn't start its life in a camera. It's not a judgement on the quality or validity of the image, either. For me, the only muddied water is when an image starts as a photograph and then becomes so heavily manipulated that it becomes something more akin to graphic or digital art. There's no good word for that kind of hybrid.

 

[timor]

You see Jim, your perception is waaay ahead from general populus. It will take us a generation to get there. Or maybe never.
But unfortunately this all are only pictures, entertainment to which huge philosophy was added.

 

[Achaicus]

It seems to me that the issue isn't what is used to create an image, but whether the image is true representation of a physical reality or an artistic derivative. A large part of the argument is due to individuals drawing the line at different places and differences of perception.

A good part of the reaction against whatever "process" is a reaction against something being presented as a true representative of physical reality and it isn't. It is a bit like my reaction when my parents went vegan when I was a kid, and put dishes in front of me with "cheese" in it. I eventually came around and grew to like the concoctions they were calling "cheese" for what they were, but still to this day have a distaste for the imitator. Either it is or it is an impostor and deservedly hated for the deception. Call cheese, cheese, and call a sauce, however 'cheese' like, a sauce.

However that is not to say that there is not merit in the works that stray from that idea of true representation of physical reality. There is a lot of merit in these works, provided that they are represented as what they are. A photograph is to broad a term these days.

 

[limr]

Either it is or it is an impostor and deservedly hated for the deception. Call cheese, cheese, and call a sauce, however 'cheese' like, a sauce.

However that is not to say that there is not merit in the works that stray from that idea of true representation of physical reality. There is a lot of merit in these works, provided that they are represented as what they are. A photograph is too broad a term these days.

This was my point as well.

 

[407370]

. A photograph is to broad a term these days.

Could not agree more.

 

[Jim Walczak]

Why the resistance to calling something "graphic art" instead of "photography"? Changing the label doesn't stifle creativity - it simply assigns a more precise name to an image that didn't start its life in a camera. It's not a judgement on the quality or validity of the image, either. For me, the only muddied water is when an image starts as a photograph and then becomes so heavily manipulated that it becomes something more akin to graphic or digital art. There's no good word for that kind of hybrid.

For myself at least, the "resistance" is because what I do as a graphic artist, even if my art work includes photography, is different from what I do as a photographer. In other words...

This...



...is different than this...




...which is different than this...



...which is completely different than this...



The first is a photograph (albeit a creatively captured photograph using a "painting with light" technique), the second is a vector illustration, the third is a 3D render (just fired off this morning for the sake of this conversation) and the last is a photo manipulation. If we simply choose to lump all such pictures under the category of "graphic art", then essentially all we have are 4 pictures of guitars....which for some people is fine. After all, it's all just CG right?? As a freelance however, for myself at least, it's important to distinguish such differences...what I do with vectors as a graphic artist is quite different than what I do as a photographer which is quite different from what I do in 3D. They are distinct and unique disciplines. From that perspective, again it's no different than traditional artists...a person who paints does something quite different than someone who draws/creates sketches, which is a different discipline still from someone who does sculpting. All may loosely be considered "artists", but you generally wouldn't call someone who paints a sculptor (unless of course they do both, LOL).

In very loose definitions, I do in fact consider all of those images to be "digital art" and likewise consider myself to be a digital artist. If I were doing a mixed exhibition of my work (as apposed to an exhibition featuring just my photography), I would label it as such ("The Digital Art of..."), however when I'm dealing with clients (or even other artists), such distinctions are in fact quite important. If someone hires me for my photography work, they are not hiring me as a graphic artist to do vectors and vice-versa (and I do typically charge different rates depending on the gig).

For myself at least, I hope the explains why I feel such distinctions are important.

 

[Jim Walczak]

It seems to me that the issue isn't what is used to create an image, but whether the image is true representation of a physical reality or an artistic derivative. A large part of the argument is due to individuals drawing the line at different places and differences of perception.

I can't help but feel that first sentence begs the question "what is artistic derivative"? It seems to me that the ONLY true "representation of a physical reality" is the simplest snapshot, taken with a simple point and shoot camera (and I could even question that). I honestly don't think I'm too far off base here to suggest that a good photograph...something beyond a simple snap shot...is in fact an "artistic derivative" of a given scene. After all, is it not the photographer who decides what to include and exclude from a composition? Is it not the photographer who decides which lens is appropriate for a given situation? And what about concepts such as long exposure/short exposure, high key, low key and even the use of flash...could these all not be considered as artistic considerations? Even if a photographer chooses to use full auto mode on his/her camera, has that photographer still not made an artistic choice? For that matter, given the limitations of both digital AND film in regards to how they capture this thing we call light (i.e. latitude), can either really be considered true, genuine or faithful representations of reality? Are the concepts of light and color not completely subjective within themselves? And none of that even considers the classic paradigm regarding how people can often see the exact same thing quite differently.

So where exactly would one draw the line in what's considered an artistic derivative? To me that seems to be a large part of what good photography is all about...presenting an image that represents a given photographer's own vision.

With this in mind, I also have to seriously question your use of terms such as "imitator", "impostor" and particularly "deservedly hated". Once we step beyond the specific confines of photojournalism, where...exactly...does one draw the line with such terms and definitions? After all, a LARGE portion of photography, including that which pre-dates digital, has OFTEN been less than faithful regarding it's representation of reality. Let's be honest...do you look at the picture of a Big Mac combo meal on the menu and expect the sandwich stuffed in your "to go bag" to really look like that? And gee...what about all those Covergirl ads or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit pinups...what happens when the model wakes up on the day of the shoot with a big ol' zit on her forehead? Don't you think that get's "retouched" in one way or another? People seem to have this preconception that photography is supposed to be about some faithful representation of a given scene, however once you look beyond the likes of The New York Times and other such publications, soooooooooo much of the photography you see around you every day has been altered to one extent or another...most people simply never realize it....and until the digital revolution came into play, most never even questioned it.

If I'm looking at a newspaper, yes, I expect a given image (that accompanies an article) to be a reasonably faithful representation of the specific event. That said however, if I'm just looking at pictures on the internet...say Google Images or wow, even an internet forum...unless I see something that's obvious or badly done, then taken in such a context, I really just don't see why it should matter. As I said earlier, if a picture is an otherwise beautiful image, would the fact that it was altered from how it was captured really detract from that beauty? Outside of what's already been discussed, if someone chooses to alter their own work in the name of artistic license...why should anyone care at all?