But is it "Art"?

[Jakaleena]

statements such as " digital is crap" are unwarranted

Actually, I believe what I said was that my friend's prints "look like crap."

[Jakaleena]

Would you pay $20,000 for a giclee Ansel Adams print? $2000? $200?

You know it's funny. As I was reading this thread and beginning to consider resurrecting it, Ansel Adams was actually the one in my thoughts... I could not imagine an Ansel Adams digital print as anything less than sacreligious.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of Ray Atkins or not, but he was the Photographer Laureate for Oregon for many years. He made some wonderful images of that state. I used to live in Oregon, and one of the clients at the lab I worked at there was Ray Atkins' son. He used to bring in negatives of Ray's work for us to print for his gallery. I thought of those prints too, and how wonderful and rich they were. Ray was gone, but whenever we printed those prints he came back to life. Seeing them as digital images just wouldn't be the same at all.

[thomasgeorge]

I stand corrected, however, what was wrong with the D1 prints you saw? That particular cameras chip has an exaggerated blue response due to a design feature, and improper white balance, which those cameras are very sensitive to, will produce a truly awful photo. Properly balanced and with filters as needed, they do a very good job..but not as good as some of the Kodak ones or the new Olympus. Noise and color fringing are being lessened by the improvement in chip manufacture and the internal hardware/software of these units. Mostly though, the problems are in the printing area...but as paper design and ink technology and printer technology continue to advance, the differences between the traditional print quality and digital quality will fade away. Traditional photography too faced severe challenges, much the same as what digital faces today, but public demand drove it on to evolve to where it is today, and the same holds true for digital. Neither are going to fade away, both are unique in what they can do and what they cant...thats where the complementary nature of them comes in..what one cant do do the other can and with scanners/film transfer both can produce true Art work...heck, any photo, regardless of its process origin is a work of art...a piece of frozen time and history....Tom

[Doug Nelson]

Then again, we have Nash Editions, dedicated to this very topic. (yes, THAT Nash, sans Crosby and Stills).

[G. Couch]

Originally posted by Doug Nelson

Again, my own theory is the rarety factor. Coming from tradtional photography, I'm familiar with the techniques they use to drive value (limited signed editions, destroyed negatives, etc.). All to guarantee that thousands can't be cranked out by the same machine that made the one hanging on the wall of the gallery.

Part of me wants to throw the entire idea of "limited editions" out, even though, as an artist, I understand why galleries use that to market prints. Think about this, if you produced an interesting image that was popular, would you rather sell only a few at inflated prices, or would you make thousands in order to keep the price down and reach as many people as possible?

Digital printing is akin to CD's in a lot of ways. Every copy from 1 to 10000 is exactly the same. Maybe things like Giclee prints, will open up new markets for artists and photographers.

The only historical equivalent I can think of is during the 15th century, after the invention of the printing press. The ability to produce multiple images allowed artists like Albrecht Durer to reach a much broader audience. Art became something to be enjoyed by everyone, not just a select few who could afford it.

[Jakaleena]

That particular cameras chip has an exaggerated blue response due to a design feature, and improper white balance, which those cameras are very sensitive to, will produce a truly awful photo.

Noise and color fringing are being lessened by the improvement in chip manufacture and the internal hardware/software of these units. Mostly though, the problems are in the printing area...

But see - things like that were the whole point of my original post to begin with. That's why it ended with:

At least not yet, anyway...

[Lampy]

I'm not going to get into all the arguments here I'm just going to state my opinion. I prefer digital photographic prints over digital prints (inkjet). Why? For one thing most inkjet inks fade and are water soluble. Of course color photographs have their fade issues as well......But the main reason is I just think they look better and are more substantial for the client.

No need to respond or argue about my opinion....it is just that an opinion.

Cheers!

--Heather

[Brandee]

A single quote comes to mind when reading over this thread:

ART, n.
This word has no definition.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


As far as rarity goes, though, look at Warhol-- he was famous (or infamous?) for making massive copies of his some of his screenprints, some of which he admitted he only "helped" with by letting assistants work with him. Now, you may not like his style of art much, but you can't deny that he made a good living creating it.

Would I pay huge amounts for a print from Ansel Adams? Probably not, but not because I deny it as art-- I just don't care to hang that kind of work on my walls.

And digital vs. film, well... that's another thread in itself. (:

[fugitive]

This is like asking one to see into the future as to when, if ever digital art will be accepted in the traditional art world. Photography didn't make it for a hundred yrs or so. So how can we, with our limited experience and knowlege surmise on this weighty subject. I have a hard time with the term art in the first place. Is what I make art, am I an artist? I don't know and can't decide. I went looking for Gleecee while you guys were chatting. I found this one. The original is $20,000, and the 48" X 36" print is $500. Is this art? Can I paint a better superman? Who knows. Is this off topic. I can't judge that either. Help me find it, where is and what is the art.
Da Vinci was a fool for experimenting with mediums while doing the worlds greatest masterpieces, he didn't know either.