I have a nagging question in my mind......

[ingie01]

My major emphasis has been photography for many, many years. I have graduate level courses in photography. Then computers came along.
When I saw the potential for this electronic media I jumped in with both feet. I should have been wearing boots!
Here is my nagging question- How can I use my photos in manipulation and tracing and still feel that I am a creative person?
Ahhhhh, that feels better...........

[Aged P]

Hi Ingie,

Set up your own medieval style studio and get the apprentices to do the boring stuff and transfer it to the wall or canvas?

Make a small model in clay and get your students to chip the full scale version out of a big piece of rock?

Do a tiny sketch and hand it over to the local Art college to duplicate over the entire side wall of their building?

Paint some really fashionable clothes on some canvases and set off round America painting local dignitaries heads on to them for cash?

Do the faces only and get a drapesman to do the clothing?

All legit methods.

I too have been challenged by the problem. Eventually I realised that I was working my way back to using a bit of charred antler on the living room wall. So I stopped worrying about it. :lol:

Phil

[D Akey]

What can I add to that, but:

'Who cares what they all say? All the mediums'r here to stay."

Why do you ask? Are you hoping to sell, or are you looking to impress the critics, fit into a genre or win the esteem of your peers?

There's mostly a different answer for each.

But I think that if you manipulate a photo and it ends up looking very much like a photo then it's a photo. I like photography. I also like painting. And Computer 3-D imaging. And I especially like them when they're good.

Having said that, I say play to your strengths, and if you care about such things, find your audience that shares your enthusiasm.

I like your stuff, Ingie. And you seemed to get a big response to most all your stuff.

[Fashmir]

Personally I don't give a hang weather it's a painting or a photograph that's been cleverly smeared around. If it looks good I can appreciate it.

What I DON'T like is people not saying up front what it is and allowing others to believe a manipulated photo is a painting. That's just being dishonest and in a way robbing people who do paintings and robbing one's self of the chance to be known for being a very artistic photographer.

I am almost never fooled by a photo manipulation. There is a certain signature to the light and color shifts that few painters duplicate. Those who do have the skill often move into different uses of color that are subtly exaggerated or expressive in some way.

On the other hand the photographer captures pure light. Some would think "ah they just push a button" but that only happens when the photographer has framed the shot, accounted for lighting, exposure, film speed, focal depth, and a load of other factors. Often times having hiked into unbelievable locations and then had the patience to wait for the subject to happen just right.

I can say without reservation that if it were not for photographers my own art would not be what it is. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to photographers for their art.

For any photographers out there who feel shame about "paintizing" their photos, please don't feel that way. Embrace the art and be clear about the new expression you bring to it. You will find yourself revered rather than reviled within the freshness of your honest approach.

[ingie01]

http://homepage.mac.com/keithingersoll/
Thanks for the supportive replies! I put this link in because I am using a different application and feel it is not appropiate to post images not done with ArtRage alone.
Integrity is something I am still dealing with. And do people really care?
More photo/manipulated images to come

[RobertSWade]

I have some photos that I plan on manipulating at some time. To me, the point is that they're my photos and if I choose to manipulate them, that's just extending my creative process. I own the rights to them and what I choose to do with them is my decision to make. Should we criticize photographers who burn and dodge in the darkroom?

[Aged P]

Hi Ingie,

Camera Obscura or Camera Lucida?
A camera like the one owned by Van Gogh's ace photographer pal?

Anyone can fake stuff with ArtRage but there can be little satisfaction gaiined from it.

I agree with the other comments, just tell people how you did it.

I have vague memoriies of pictures with "All my own work." associated with them. Is there any other crumbly who can recall where I might have seen that? Pavement artists perhaps?

Phil

[Lee]

Dear Ingieo1, being of simple mind,skills and experience, i have simply wondered about this since i found ArtRage, ( ain't it great!), anyway, at first i thought, 'it's your photo, you can do whatever', but, NNNOOOOO!!! what do you call it if you are presenting it,?, a painting over my photo, a manipulated photo, ditigized photo, if it is a painted over photo what do you call it, 'a painted over photo???!!! i think not, if it is truely a painting using your own photo as a model then that's different ,it's still a true painting like any other,,,guess there should be some new terms since it is really a new media form,but it's got to be honest, and if a particular program,like ArtRage,is used ,does it get credit too??,,,, am attaching a photo i took and and the photo gone over with the ArtRage pallet knife, looks like a painting but it's not, and not done as a reference either, so what is it???, a rose done any way is still pretty :wink:

[jvolkel]

Good questions Lee. Maybe something done like the Rose here should be called a 'rubbing'???

[D Akey]

Interesting question.

Because of the embarrassment of photography being considered less than art in those early pioneer photography days, photographers tried to make their images look like paintings.

Nothing's changed it appears.

But photography came and did far more than painting ever could, except in creating paintings.

I think it's the shock of the new that has people fishing around for precedents.

It's its own thing. It's not painting, though it uses painting sometimes. But filters do similar things often with the press of a button. But using filters could definitely be taken to the level of an art form. Don't need to go into why and how.

I would be concerned, in my humble opinion, with making dynamite pictures. As a viewer we like or don't the image for subject and technique and all that stuff.

How a picture maker got there is interesting. But it's not essential to the value of the work except for people who aspire to a particular style and technique, and they're operating primarily on that level.