How Would You Classify This Image?

i've always called them digital paintings.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Thats what I thought, and Isabella said pretty much the same thing. However, there is no Digital Paintings category. Only paintings and digital art. Its really a hybrid. I dont want to mislead anyone but they look more like paintings than digital art. Am I worrying about this too much?

I wouldn't call them paintings if they're not. I would find that deceptive. They are photographs with the second category of digital art, or digitally enhanced. If there was never a physical canvas or board with paint on it, then you can't call it a painting. My opinion only.

Digitally enhanced photograph. If it is a photo, that needs to be specified IMHO.

In the media block, I state "Photography - Digitally Enhanced", and in the description I state "Painterly Effect applied to this image".

I would click on the Digital Art box only and not the other categories. It's never been clear to me whether or not the system only recognizes only one category. I think some members may click on all boxes that apply, but that may lead to confusion when searching.

I agree with all stated here,,no longer confused,,thanks

Painter effect applied is a great way to describe them too!

I have many images that are created this way... After much reading of the discussions, I'm calling them Photoshop Painting or Photo Montage as the Medium, in the Digital Art category. Previously, I had the ones that began life as photographs in both the Digital Art and Photographs categories, but I see this is being frowned on, even though they are photographs, because they have been modified. I had other digital paintings that are not photo-based in both the Digital Paintings and Paintings categories, but I see this is being more than frowned on, it’s practically sacrilegious! and I guess I can understand why, even though I do think of them as paintings… they are painted with light, as opposed to pigment, otherwise the techniques are very similar.

Edit - I meant to say "...in both the Digital Art and Paintings categories, but I see..."

The few that I have are categorized as Photographs, Digital Art.

In the description I state that the image started out as a photograph and was manipulated in photographic software to produce the final effect.

Kathy K. McClellan
http://keppenart.com

I call them Photographic Art.
I put them in the Photography category because that is what they started out as, and Abbie declares them to be ( although I am not satisfied that a purchaser would be looking in that category ) .

Digital Art does not feel right as they do not look like what most people expect to see for Digital Art , but that appears to be no problem for Mike.S

In description I explain Photography with Painterly effects...so that in hopes Google will use that to categorize too.

No worries, the world will adjust shortly.

Digital Art - Photographic Art

Like Greg, I use 'painterly effects' to describe this type of enhanced photograph.

Yeah Janine, I kinda agree with you that they do not look like digital art. But,,,,They are not paintings. And they look more like a painting than a photograph. I dont believe that a customer looking for a photograph would be interested in shopping for paintings. Thats the dilemma, they really are a forms a painting. They dont start out as paintings like the items in the painting category. HOWEVER, they are definitely not photographs.

I also dont see much difference in the final output when ordering a canvas print of a painting or ordering a canvas print of a photo that has been transformed into a painting. Wouldnt they look the same?

Digital Painting.

Artistic Photographs.

--Roz Abellera

Jon,

For images that have obviously been created from a camera and then altered with software, I have a category called : "Digital Paintings from Original Digital Captures",

then: Here is a "collection" of images that I've taken originally from a digital camera and now have created these beautiful pieces of Art! I hope you enjoy!

And then in the actual descriptions of each image, this" This image has a slight "painterly" effect that can best be seen using the "green box".

I think that buyers don't really care HOW they were created, but more as to what the finished product looks like, especially here on FAA. If in an actual gallery, I would not call them "paintings"

Rich

"...Digital Art does not feel right as they do not look like what most people expect to see for Digital Art..."


I concur, Janine. I used to have the ones I've done categorized in both the Photography and Digital descriptions, but went back and removed the digital category. Hopefully, I got them all corrected.

I am uploading new ------ "digitally enhanced images" -------- that resemble paintings. I did not paint them, but they look like paintings. How would you classify them? Digital art, Paintings or both?

Digital art / painting / image.

I'm thinking that it must be classified as Digital art. I think it is deceptive to call it just a painting. I think digital painting or digitally enhanced is more correct.

The image was created with a camera and to not say that somewhere is confusing. I agree with Greg Jackson on how to handle it. I can't put it in words exactly but it seems obvious to me this is a digitally manipulated photo not a digitally created painting.

I think we're splitting hairs here. EVERYTHING here is digital art and when printed on a digital printer, whether a "real" painting or a digitally created "painting", it's ALL digital. Only originals, sold as originals are true paintings.

The only way to get ANYTHING here, is to convert that artwork, into a "digital" file and then uploaded.

To me, a "true" digital painting, is one created on a tablet, from scratch. There is no other name for it, technically. Here's an example from my friend Frank Bright, created entirely on his tablet:



If buyers are looking for an image, that is or resembles a painting and they see this:



or this:



And this image, regardless wht it's called, fulfills their needs, do they care what we call it? As I mentioned above, I thoroughly explain what and how this image was created and that should be enough. This is FAA and not some high end gallery, where the artwork NEEDS to have a complete "provenance" in order to be shown, not the case here and not needed,

Rich Franco

What the customer really wants - is to be satisfied. They want to find what they are looking for - easily.

No one wants to be misleading (ok, somebody somewhere wants to - but who cares about them. Short career ) We complicate things because it is a moral dilemma - amongst other Artists.

Buyers just want what they like. Category : ART. Lol

I do both styles. The only time I do not want to compare against another style - is in a contest. That has nothing to do with a purchasers preference.

Janine,et al,

I agree! What the buyer wants, is an image that looks like a painting, whether it started as a painting or was originally a digital image, captured by a sensor, the thing they want is something that looks like a painting. There maybe those buyers that ONLY want a painting that started as a painting, but the vast majority just want what they "picture" as a painting. (pun intended!).

So the only logical solution, is to have a category that is "Paintings" and then 2 subsets, Hand drawn "paintings on canvas" and "paintings created from digital files" or some such.

Take one of my images from above, or better yet, BUY one of my images from above and get a Gallery Wrapped Canvas and you won't be able to tell it wasn't a "painting". Actually, buy 2 or 3, to really be sure! LOL!

Rich

Great Points Janine and RIch

Very good idea Rich, though we should keep in mind that digitally painted images are also "hand drawn" :-)

Just because the programme you use calls the outcome/tag a 'painting', you know, I know, it is a photo enhanced and it's nice you explain the process to enhance the work to 'look like ' a painting. So, yes, you are selling an enhanced photograph - pure and simple................no need for a laborious history of your 'process' with a program.....the audience doesn't care, anyway......they see it, they like it, and you have been honest. This is a good thread for clarification

A painting occurs on a 'support', not out of a camera.!

Ha ha , & Becky throws a wrench in to the mix.

& technically they are - whatever they are printed on.

The big problem here...which has been discussed on several occasions but never resolved.....is this site does not offer a category for photo manipulation (I personally hate this term) or for photographic art (which I think the public would understand just fine). I also tend to think of digital art as being actually 'drawn' on a tablet, not an enhanced photo with textures and layers.

fyi, clicking two categories when you upload an image is somewhat pointless as the search is ONLY going to show the image in ONE of those categories...so why there are two, I have no idea.

There are painters that have made the decision to use digital brushes and they call the final result paintings.

I would not call a photo to which I had applied a painterly effect “enhanced”… I would call that one “transmogrified” into a digital painting. I think of enhancing as what I do to a photo in terms of improving lighting/contrast/color fidelity/sharpening, etc., but the end result is still the photograph. For me, the digital paintings are far more complex - there are layers upon layers of blended filters/effects/pieces of or whole other images/meticulously Wacom-painted strokes and/or sliding around bits of the image/custom made patterns/blaa, blaa, blaa. The program does not do the work; I do the work… the program, plug-ins, & Wacom pen are the tools I use. I think many people are under the impression that you just click on a couple of buttons and poof! out pops the picture.

When you say “painting”, it elicits an emotional response from people, or at least it does for me, because I can practically feel that delicious sensation of paint daubling and slip-sliding around on canvas or board, and because it’s incredible what some people can do with paint and a brush, plus there’s all those hundreds of years of art history… but when you say “digital”, it just sounds rather sterile and like the computer did it for you. Hence the endless quest for something more, let’s say… romantic, or at least, artistic… to call these images besides “digital art” or “photo manipulation”.

....like photographic art....

Yes, and I like “photographic art”, but sometimes it’s hard to see any resemblance to a photograph in the finished piece, so then people get confused. How about “utter confusion”?

Ms. V.

"A rose is a rose" and a painting, to a buyer, is a painting. We are ALL here to sell stuff. And that stuff is what sells to that buyer, regardless of that label. To limit the instrument used to create that label, is limiting! To think that a painter is above a photographer, is wrong, both artists and I think we ALL need to recognize that fact. Whatever "tools" one uses, does not determine the quality or ability of that artist!

Rich Franco

A painting is a painting and a photograph is a photograph. But if they are both a printed on canvas, what is the difference to the buyer.Semantics?

This is a whole new genre for me, digital painting,and I'm just trying to be honest with the potential buyer. I don't want there to be any confusion. But , I want my work to be seen

Jon,

Is the subtle question here that's not being asked, is that a piece of art created by a DSLR of less value than a piece of art that was created with a paint brush?

Rich

Sorry for the extra posts, on my tablet and it doesn't always show my first post,

Rich

Jon your biography says "NOTE: All photographs have been minimally processed with Photoshop (very minor manipulation/adjustment). Images depict a true representation of both location and visualization."... Some of your recent uploads look highly manipulated, very well done I might add. Maybe a re-edit of your biography is in order. I'm not at all purist when it comes to photography; I used to be, but not anymore.

Thanks Stephen. I only added the new digital paintings today. I will have to look into my bio and tweak it. Thanks for catching that

I am a purist but the camera is limiting in what it can see or translate.

I just call them Original Photography with a Digital Brushstroke finish.

I do have a question though. I have viewed this particular image of Jon's through the High Resolution Preview. I'm not being critical or looking for critiquing the work (the display looks astounding), but it just seems to break apart on the preview with loads of detail becoming blurry and with stair stepping edges.

Will FAA print what I'm seeing in the preview? If they will, great. If not, would Jon, or anyone with this possible issue, be better served to downsize the image?

I agree that a painting is a painting, regardless of whether you created it on the computer or on an easel, but I seem to remember from a previous discussion that calling a digital art piece a painting is considered spam. I can see the logic behind that, because many people who are looking for a traditional painting would be annoyed if digital paintings came up in the search. Maybe the distinction should be "traditional painting" and "anything goes". There are people who make a digital image, print it, then paint or draw on it. Alternatively, there are people who draw or paint something, scan it, then draw, paint, or otherwise alter it using computer software. I guess you’d call that “mixed media”, but again, you might need to make the distinction between traditional mixed media, like glass art + feathers, vs. drawing + digital.

Becky,

Why do you feel this way? " I can see the logic behind that, because many people who are looking for a traditional painting would be annoyed if digital paintings came up in the search." I would understand, if the "many people" were buying "originals", but that isn't the case here.

I think that people are looking for "images" and really don't care how they were created, but how they look over the sofa!

Maybe under "digital art" there should be another category, "digital paintings". I wouldn't try and get buyers to buy any of my digital "paintings", under false pretenses, but also would want them to have the opportunity to see my stuff and then decide for themselves, rather than FAA trying to make that decision and limiting any categories.

Here's an example where trying to limit art, can get confusing:



This "image" was from a painting I did, with PAINT! Here's the original:



So one is a "painting" for sure and one is still a painting, just has been run through Topaz, but still a painting, not a digital capture from a camera's sensor,

Rich

Rich, I totally agree with you and I hope I’m wrong about the annoyance thing! If it was me hunting for paintings, it would be fine by me if I got to see the traditional paintings and the digital work side by side, but I get the feeling that there are plenty of people still out there that don’t really consider the digital work to be “legitimate” art. I’m not among them, of course :-) It took many years for photography to be considered an art form among the snooties, and I think the same is true of digital work. Luckily, lots-o-people love it!

Becky,

"Snooties" LOL! Alive and well!

I think that there is an on going "shift" in the Universe, where painters and paintings were considered the top of the food chain, by most and now, over the last 20 years or so, it's changing. With the ability to create art, with devices like smartphones and tablets, the vast majority of people that couldn't "do" art, now can, of course, "art" that is created is up for debate, but still art. This generation and the coming generations won't bother to learn true painting techniques, but will continue to use and improve "their" art tools and then, the "art" that is created by them, will attain a higher place in "their" art world and thus, more value. This has already started.

Not saying of course, that painters will just go away and disappear, just that the way actual paintings are considered has and will change. AND NOT talking about the "investment" art that hangs in museums and wealthy homes, just general art,

Rich

Rich, I think that may likely be the wave of the future...and don't forget 3D art too. But I think today, just for the purposes of FAA/Pixels, we need to list our works using the correct categories. There was a thread recently regarding the search where there was a lot of hubbub because people were searching Paintings and finding Photography mixed into the search. And it was because the artist posting was not choosing the right major category. People admitted they were sometimes careless about checking that they were entering the right Category in that spot on the Edit Image page. Not entering the correct category pollutes the Search, and we all know how much consternation the Search causes us as it is. So getting it right the first time saves buyers' frustration and also side-eye looking at one another wondering if someone is trying to claim something's a painting when it's not. As always, my opinion only.

Joy,

I agree with you about spam and trying to check as many boxes as possible, for the benefit of search results, but still am confused over the "painting" thing. Do people actually want ONLY art that was created with paint and a brush? WHY? It's just a print when they get it.

I guess then, there should be indeed 2 categories, "Paintings, created with Paint" and then something like "Paintings, from Digital Art" and then there would be NO confusion and also easier to "police".

So ion the example of my 2 "paintings" above, one would be in the "painting/paint" group and the other in the "digital art" group, and "never the twain shall meet!"

Rich

All but maybe 1% of my work is either digitally created from scratch or digitally manipulated. I have a few that I have digitally painted so for the description mine is "Digital Art - Digital Painting" and I also state in the picture description that the piece was digitally painted.

"WHY? It's just a print when they get it."

They just do Rich. They are the customer, do does it matter "why"? Search is there to facilitate people finding the art they want, if they only want to consider a print of a painting that was made using traditional materials does the "why" matter? The thing is they do, and if they can't find it they won't buy. The phrase "The customer is always right" comes to mind here.

Rich, I really don't know what the people want! lol...but the way I'm understanding it is, consider what the image started out as...is it a painting, photograph, or digital work...or maybe mixed media? Then consider the subcategory....was it digitally enhanced after being photographed (in order to post it online). I realize that everyone is getting a digital print ultimately, but I would think at least some of the buyers would be interested in knowing if something was, for example, a photorealistic painting, or a photograph. And it's just to keep the search clean, too. If I want to buy a print of a photograph, I don't want to wade through other media....or have a question in my mind about what something is :)

(Edited to add) ...and I totally agree with you about the large number of people buying who don't give a rat's tuchas if something started out as a photograph. They just love the way it looks and can't wait to see it above the sofa :)

I second Greg's statement:

"In the media block, I state "Photography - Digitally Enhanced", and in the description I state "Painterly Effect applied to this image"."


The argument about everything here being digital is ridiculous and people need to stop repeating it. Everyone knows that what they see on the internet is digital. People also understand that when they watch television there aren't tiny people acting out scenes in there. It's a hack argument and I can't wait until I never see it again.

We list mediums so the buyer knows how the image was created. To that end, I think it's important to be precise and as as forthcoming as possible. In the case of the original post of this thread, I think Greg's description is perfect. Easy to understand, true, and not misleading.

Asked a question regarding the image up there... and not one person seems to want to take a stab at it. I've seen lots of Original Paintings corrected for not being clear enough here on the discussion boards, and the artist directed towards retaking a photo of it. Is it the same standard for Digital Paint finishes?

The question I'm asking is a legitimate concern about Photographic Digital Painting work. Would this (Jon's Original Example) print clearly in it's present state at 60" x 40"? Is it the same standard as an original painting photographed?

Print quality wasn't really asked for here. But yes, there some blockiness, but it's not overwhelming. If it were my work, I'd knock off the largest size. I noticed something when I clicked on the print options available that the title of the work changes from "A Glass of Sunrise II" to "A Glass of Sunrise Ii." I've noticed that about mine, also, and it must be a system glitch. Strange. I'll mention it in the bugs thread.

Totally agree with Cynthia that the digital debate has been done to death. Try this: If the original medium was photography, and it looks more like a photograph, then use Photography as your category. If it looks more like a traditional painting, then use Digital Art as your category. The Painting category should be reserved for paintings done by hand. Please don't get into a debate of what "hand" means, now. LOL.

Patricia,, Yeah, i think i will knock off that largest size! Im going to keep my description as it is now,,no need to change it!

Jon,

Might want to knock off the High Resolution preview also because it will still show the image the same way.

Yes Patricia...

Thank You. I understood what the question was. I also answered it up there... with a caveat that may be useful to others that are doing the same type of work. I even tip-toed into it. :)

Print Quality is what it is "all about" here. I was just wondering out loud for everyone's benefit, and to see if the observation was valid.

I'm with Cynthia... this digital issue has been racked around many times here.

...my tv has real little people inside it...

Okay, on a more serious note, isn't the problem what the choices are that you pick/check when uploading? The ones buyers will actually see from the FAA subject menu?? That is where a more accurate choice of words would help....if only everyone would agree to those 'choice words'.

That's how I'm understanding it, Melissa. When you upload, you are only given so many categories. In this case, Digital Art or Photography would apply. There is no box for "Other." He has further described his work under "Medium" as Digital Painting. I think he's got it right.

If you grab a digital brush and paint, you should call it a painting and use digital in the sub category of you want . Why should you loose out on the painting searches? And no one will stop you. I see painters you have obviously added digital embellishingments with no mention it's digital.

We don't have sub categories here. If you mean adding your own words to the "Medium" box, then I guess that could be your sub category. This thread will keep going around in circles unless Jon elects to close it. In the five years I've been here, it keeps going round and round. Members have to decide for themselves what is appropriate.

I agree Patricia!

To me, it is digital art and "digital painting" is a good descriptive term. Almost all digital art starts with something else, like a pencil sketch that is scanned and uploaded. So starting with a photograph is like starting with a drawing or even a watercolor painting. It is digitally manipulated and thus is digital art. It seems like the reason you are trying to decide which category is based on how people will find your art when they use search terms. I think most people type in various search terms for subject and that is the area to concentrate your keywords on. For example, if you decide to choose the "Digital Art" category, then make sure the words "photograph" and "photography" and "painting" are all somewhere—in your title, in your keywords, and in your description. That should cover it for search engines. I am new to FAA and I have not seen anywhere what algorithm they use for their search--ie what is the most important place to put your search terms. But if we could have that information it would help a lot to know what categories, keywords, and titles to use.

Karla,

I agree and if you look up, about a day ago, said the same things,

Rich

I just browsed over a few other sites and only one listed "Digital Painting" as a category. One site did have an area for digital art. And another made you chose photography with no other option at all. HMMM! Glad im here on this site!

And, I just came across thompsets work that sells a huge amount here, classifies as digital art but the describes it as watercolor . And no where does say painterly.

Since we're on the subject, I have a question regarding definitions of digital art. Janine you mentioned it's not what people expect to see when they think Digital Art. What exactly do you mean? I've been calling my artwork digital art for years (created entirely in photoshop or paint programs), and I'm wondering what other people think in their mind when they hear Digital Art. Have I been using the wrong terminology?

Two nights ago I was at the bar where I work. A woman asked what do I do? I said I make digital art.
If I can read minds she expected weird video game stuff.

I said I do something very different and completely conventional. That got her attention.

Dave