Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
Photoshop is great fun, but when you capture something that needs no fixing, it's even more rewarding, except when people don't believe you when you tell them it has not been fixed. Can you tell if this is fake or real?
Difficult to tell but if it is Photoshopped put it on the description and then we know. Sadly a number of "artists" on FAA label their posts as paintings when it is obvious that a photo has been altered by a computer to ape a real painting. I know of a member, or members, who have countless comments and votes for work which is clearly fake but under the rules they cannot be named but I suppose they get a certain satisfaction in fooling people.
Only today someone thought one of my works was a photo and left a comment to that effect. Now I am probably the world's worst photographer and would not have a clue how to make a photo look like a painting via a computer, but I can make a painting look like a photo via my brush.
No, they get a certain satisfaction of selling stuff that people want. Welcome to the free market. Buyer Beware. If you think its such a horrible terrible thing that these people are selling something as a painting that isn't take the time to actually use the reporting system.
Never would I put in a description if I used photoshop, I use photoshop on all my images. Buyers don't care about how your image got to look the way it did, they just want an amazing looking piece of work to hang on their wall. People that ask me at shows or whatever only do so in order to figure out if they can do the same thing.
as said, if you don't post the actual image with close up you can't judge with a small image. getting a picture of a hoverfly is pretty easy because they stay in one place and don't sting. when someone cuts something out they almost always show the wings sharp and not a blur like this, so this is probably not photoshop and if it was i wouldn't have chosen this subject matter.
but post the full size. also if you set your store to galleries, and you have none - it makes it look like you aren't selling anything at all. and left as is, it will be hard for people to look through things if you don't separate them.
I also use Photoshop to tweak contrast, etc., but if I like a shot and it looks really good filtered with a specialty filter, I always call it a "digitally enhanced photo". I would never call a photo a watercolor, etc. if it was a photo with a watercolor filter. I don't get that, but to each his own.
If someone does fake it and it blends into the reality of the scene,then in my opinion, it is good digital work, as that is the intent. I find one of the best ways to tell the difference is with the negative of the image, as it shows any objects that were not in the original image up far clearer, I also use this method to proof my digital work.
…Can you tell if this is fake or real?...
No I can not. I don’t want to. I don’t want to decide, don’t understand how I can determine “fake” and “real” in this case and never even think about that. The only thing, which is important for me, is weather I like this piece of art, or not? Art can not be “fake” or “real” in this sense. It is not a reality itself, only a piece of paper, canvas or something like that with an image on its surface, more or less eloquently mirroring reality or inner imagination of the artist. If it is a real ART to be appreciated, it doesn’t matter too much what methods and tools you use for creating it. Is it important for a viewer or a buyer what size of brush have you used, when making your painting? Is a painting “fake”, if you make it with a synthetic brush, while “real” can be only a painting, which you create with a brush, made of natural materials? Absolutely the same is with photos, more or less manipulated in computers. Why should we think too much what digital, or non digital cameras, lenses, computers, software we use, if we want to create ART? ART is not documentary exact evidence for a court, mind you.
@If you think its such a horrible terrible thing that these people are selling something as a painting that isn't take the time to actually use the reporting system.
Horrible isn't the word I'd use personally but if you regard selling fakes as part of the free market it just illustrates how far standards have been eroded over the years. Some people will buy a fake Rolex without knowing it but it doesn't give it any real value, and as for reporting it I am a little hesitant because these fakers are rather old and appear unhinged and perhaps exposure could finish them off. The reality is that I pity them somewhat but still despise them for lying and also that a lot of members seem fooled by their antics.
Fake is not really the word though Mike, very often an artist will paint purely out of their own imagination, does this make the painting a fake, no it does not, and the same applies with digital work. If you added an image of yourself next to a famous celebrity and called it a real photograph, it may be a different scenario. If the artist adds that photo manipulation has taken place, then all should be right in terms of what the buyer knows before purchase.
A painter sells an original painting to people who love paintings. If other artist use a camera or computer programs to render art it is just their tool. I am a pretty good and experienced photographer, but I enjoy making digital pictures just as much and in some months more. However I call mine digital art and simulation paintings, as I am not going to lie about it. I also do jewlery design, and I can oil paint. I dont think there is to thick a wall barring one from the other. Speed maybe. You still need the mind, vision, and skills to use any "tool" to make a thing look good. I will note though that I personally do hold oil painting as a higher art form. I am weaker at it, but not bad. Takes more time than I have really. A good oil painting deserves a higher admoration, because a lot of mess, time and, in some cases, some deep puzzeling skills go into it. Now, in the same vain, it is like comparing a photographer that only has one small area he can do his craft in, and another that can travel the world. You really can not do it. Still if I love an image, any image, from a great oil painting to a child's coloring paper, I am just loving that image, the other stuff is just fluff.
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
"A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words."
"Dodging and burning are steps to correct mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
The above are all quotes made by Ansel Adams, who was well known for spending as much of or even more time in the darkroom than he did capturing an image. As a visual art, it's not relative whether a photo is "real" or "fake." The end product is an expression of art that was created by the photographer. NOW if a person were presenting an "enhanced" image as a piece of documented evidence, i.e. forensic photo, etc., then it would matter.
Ok, sorry folks i thought it was too good to be true to be able to just copy and paste into discussion thread, my mistake! i will add to my page so that you can enlarge it. regret using the word fake, i realised afterwards wrong choice of word. it doesn't matter to me either if it has been photoshopped as i have improved so many images when the light was just not good, at the end of the day we are just controlling the light, which can improve or destroy the original image. I suppose my sense of disappointment if and when someone thinks it has been photoshopped when it hasn't just makes me think I may be improving my photography. Thanks for the questions, comments and humour. I will reveal all when I have put it onto my page and you can see better, if you care to. No offence to those fantastic digital artists out there.
Arthur..........that's downright rude and unproven, and , off-topic. I'm surprised at you.(imo)
Seeing as this is a pod site, I'm not surprised at the level of knowledge of our buyers as to 'originality' of an image........they're here to buy prints, overwhelmingly, so: that's the 'given'. I doubt they investigate the origins of the image much. We who paint just don't like it when somebody uses a camera and programme, and calls their work 'painting'........but, the buyers don't care, m'thinks.
Well to some of us it does matter I'm afraid, I am not talking about digital art verses traditional painting but the deliberate false description given to a piece of digital art as being a piece made by traditional painting and by that implication make the artist appear to have an almost unbelievable talent or skill . I greatly admire some digital art and photography but object to having my intelligence insulted by blatant lies about how a piece was created and when I question its authenticity being told that it's my lack of painterly ability that makes me question the fake.
Also just because a politician lies it is no reason for the rest of us to emulate such behavior or use it as an excuse to cheat.
I totally agree with Heather, and Maria for many many years now Hollywood has used paintings as their backgrounds to make people think that they are in another country or place, does that mean they should put all their tricks of their trade in the credits or just let people enjoy the movie?
I'll take that as a compliment! LOL!
And, how do we know anyone's avatar is REALLY them? Just cause you put up a photo doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be you?
It IS proven FACT. Do a little research on it. The long form that he released at the White House web site was examined by many Photoshop and digital forensic experts. They found it to be totally faked and Photoshoped. It was made of many layers pasted together.
This is a very popular discussion with 306 responses. In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts. Everything in the middle has been skipped. Want to read the entire discussion? No problem: click here.
Of course you are. How dare someone, come back at Mike. Funny how you had no complaints, when I was being labeled an instigator.
If Mike wants to make it personal, by accusing me of "instigating", then I am happy to point out both sides of story.
I did not start this thread. I am sharing my opinion, no different than anyone else on this thread. If you read the last 100 posts, I would say that Charles has had the most to say, when it comes to the "other" side of this discussion. He has been just as strong and heated in his opinion, as I and you are in ours. Why not start labeling him?
Why do you say, I have attacked people on this forum?
Just because you do not agree with my position and I present a different side of an argument does not mean I am attacking.
It is funny you bring this up. It seems to me, that when a person shares an opinion that others do not agree with, that person all of sudden becomes attacking and condemning. Why is that?
If I share my opinion (debate) regarding major societal issues, I am told that I am judging and condemning, even though all I am doing is sharing my opinion on an issue. No different than the other side shares theirs.
Why is it that in society, both sides of an argument can't be shared, without labeling one side as "attacking", "condemning" or "judging"?
someone asked me what category I would place the work in, other than "Photographs". I have looked around and it seems like most work, similar to Mike's, is being classified as "Mixed Media"
I do not want to post examples, but some great looking stuff is being labeled this way. It is obvious that some parts of these images, originated from photos, but no one is classifying the end result as a "photograph".
Sorry for the delayed response, just wanted to see what else was out there on FAA.
This is better than Greek drama! lol. But I can't help but love the passion of individual beliefs and how they fight from their corner to defend them. Photograph means lightwriting or drawing with light.....does this change anyone's opinion on what a photograph is? Or should I say, what a photograph originally was, and what a digital photograph is.
When I take a photograph and this is speaking from an amateur's perspective, I am watching the light, maybe even drawing around an object with light, or rather follwing light until it falls where i like it, which happens more often now than it used to.
how would you describe to me the ability to draw with light ..and should i begin a new thread for this?
If we all picked up our cameras this minute and walked outside to draw with light...how would we go about doing it.?
Charles, you asked a reasonable question I didn't answer:
"Are you aware of any reasonably reputable photo contest that would permit the submission of an image such as Mike's chess board as a photograph (not in a special composite / digital manipulation category)? I've never encountered one."
You're right about that, in general. However, don't forget that it was a photography contest. The composite/digital manipulation category is a SUBcategory. of the major category photography. IE, it is first and primarily a photograph. The manipulated or digital or composite remains a minor description. The primary designation is photography.
Your argument merely proves that photographers generally consider these photographic manipulations to still be (drum roll) photographs!
It would be nice if FAA had subcategories for categorizing the medium. I would fully support that, and have suggested exactly that elsewhere. But to suggest that it is improper to categorize work in your contest category above as a photo, when it a photography contest, is self contradictory.
37 e-mails more… but quantity far exceeds quality… all the same all over again, while the initial topic hardly worth speaking at all…
It doesn’t sound funny for me any more and I have to be dead serious this time:
All over the world, in all nations from time to time we meet persons, who are capable to speak, but can hear only themselves and totally unable to hear others. Even when some contradiction, vaguely heard or supposed in words of others, makes them to hear something, they hear contradictory words for one purpose only - for striking back. Discussions between such persons always end up in the same manner, though may be expressed in different words. Simplifying the typical end of discussions of this kind I can express it as something like the following dialog:
- You are a fool!
- You are a fool yourself!
Mike, Charles, Tiny, sorry, but I do think that writing so many words with so little meaning and showing so much disrespect to each other for so minor reasons, you have not deserved much respect for yourself.
When I found out that I am kissing ass of Mike Savad, I understood that it is an occasional side result of the typical final dialog, which has passed already. Nothing interesting can occur in this thread any more.
Maria, I don’t know your plans, but this thread is closed for me anyway. Thank you for unexpected entertainment, its pathetic finish is not your fault. Hope for better discussions in future.
listen, customers by from me because they like the IMAGE. i doubt ever so much they gave it a thought whether it was a photo, painting, combo, they like the image. i don't know why everyone is so hung up over that. it's the end result that matters not how you do it. i don't enter photo contests, i have no need for them, and as near as i can tell most of them are shams anyway, pay to enter, end up in third place - i've seen that pattern over and over online. in either case even if i won - what does that mean to me? nothing. i make things to sell, that's my challenge. your challenge may be getting the perfect shot without having to edit. at present time there are no descriptive words that fits me. a while back someone coined the term SDR - for Savad Dynamic Range. but it never stuck and i dropped it.
having to explain what i did in each image is a pointless waste of time, it's like explaining all the ingredients used in a mixed media painting - no one cares. and it just creates more questions. and i still don't see the difference between setting up a shot before hand and doing it afterwards - why should the name change when the end result looks the same?
@tiny - you are an instigator. you attacked me here, and in almost every thread - SINCE YOU JOINED. people call it like they see it. your always screaming your answers, and lately mostly attacking me for no reason. i can't call charles an instigator because he is stating his opinion on what the label is. but instead you, on the other hand are just attacking without really giving any ideas of your own, especially when you admit your a beginner.
and it can't be called mixed media because it isn't. it's all digital from a camera. mixed media would indicate that i used - paper, paint, grass, sticks, buttons, and glue - that's mixed media, meaning many items - the media.
"Your argument merely proves that photographers generally consider these photographic manipulations to still be (drum roll) photographs!"
Not really. :) Most of the contests I have encountered simply prohibit composites entirely. Others have a separate category specifically because they do not consider them to be photographs.
"It would be nice if FAA had subcategories for categorizing the medium. I would fully support that, and have suggested exactly that elsewhere. But to suggest that it is improper to categorize work in your contest category above as a photo, when it a photography contest, is self contradictory. "
As someone else pointed out, there are already categories that suit collages of photos and non-photos with heavy manipulation: mixed media or digital art.
Yuri: "Mike, Charles, Tiny, sorry, but I do think that writing so many words with so little meaning and showing so much disrespect to each other for so minor reasons, you have not deserved much respect for yourself. "
I think you have lumped me in here with Mike and Tiny, who are having a personal-attack-fest I have not participated in. I'm simply discussing the topic.
"i doubt ever so much they gave it a thought whether it was a photo, painting, combo, they like the image."
You're rehashing. Again, if they don't care, why spend so much effort justifying miscategorizing images *based on your own standards*?
"having to explain what i did in each image is a pointless waste of time, it's like explaining all the ingredients used in a mixed media painting - no one cares."
And again, rehashing a straw man, since nobody has ever said you should do that, just stop describing photomontages using clip art as "photographs".
"why should the name change when the end result looks the same?"
I dunno -- because it's honest?
"and it can't be called mixed media because it isn't. it's all digital from a camera."
If you consider a photograph and clip art to be different media, as you said, then the chessboard is mixed media. If you consider the use of digitally-created elements "digital art" then it's digital art.
i think the problem here is, your convinced, photograph - and - camera are together. when in fact they are not. photograph is a break down that means written light - it's latin. it's been grouped up with cameras like kleenex is now a tissue - even though it's really a name brand. not all photograph's have to be from a camera, technically defined by it's latin name - it's written light.
the word photography was used as a term, just like everything else is.
you can't call it dishonest, because it's not. if you lived in the world of art you would see that in all other forms of art. how you didn't doesn't matter, and honestly what form of art you call it doesn't matter as there are new forms every day. it's the end result that matters and i don't see how that can be dishonest.
look up photograph at it's most basic level and tell me what it means? - light and written. thats what it means.
some use paper, some use pixels. there is more than one way to make a photograph and it doesn't always involve a camera, think outside the box.
and once again this is a FINEART site, not a photo competition, there are no lies present because what i have and what i made are created with a camera somewhere in the chain, and how i type things is none of your concern. lower case is just as acceptable. honestly, is this how low this thread has become?
"Most of the contests I have encountered simply prohibit composites entirely. Others have a separate category specifically because they do not consider them to be photographs."
Forget about most photo contests ( they are mostly genre specific and usually don't cover the whole scope of photography ) to determine what is and isn't photography and look instead at what hangs in the major museums and galleries of photography, study the history of the medium, learn about all of its important practitioners, read photography critics, etc... It's called education, after which you can still have your opinion but at least know that it isn't a fact, : /
"i use a screen as my medium, photograph still fits fine, and it's not as dishonest as you think."
If you do create 'light' out of nothing ( drawn with pixels ) and strictly through the use of a computer, then that isn't a photograph.
that is what I was meaning, when I considered Mike's "gun image" to be "Mixed Media".
He may have used photography, to capture some of the images. But by the time he cuts them apart and blends them into a collage, then "BRUSHES" in the flame and surrounding light, the image does become "Mixed Media"
"Mixed Media" has nothing to do with sticks, stones and grass!! Just as I thought your argument could not get any more ridiculous. "Mixed Media or Mixed Medium". You used a camera to capture some of the subjects. (multiple photographs and scenes) - that is one. Then you used a brush in Photoshop to create the flame and lighting. - that is two.
"Mixed Media" - there are examples of this all over FAA, where artists have used both photography and brush, to create an image. They are not calling theirs "Photographs". Why are you?
I am arguing the "labeling" of your work (or work like it), no different or less than Charles is.
You do not like your position argued with, which shows so well in your weak comebacks, regarding "NO-ONE CARES".
how is the gun image mixed media? what is it mixed with? - they are all photos as is the flame.
mixed media by defintion is mixed media. if it's all oil paint, then you call it oil paint. if you mixed in something else, it's mixed media. mine are all pixels.
mixed media is not penning in something and adding a photo. that isn't mixed. it's all graphic work. and as i said, i can't draw yet. everything in there is a photo.
my comebacks are weak? who cares.
i sell photography that's what i do. that's what is said on my cards. anything longer and i have to explain it to each person that asks. and i don't like explaining myself more than once. people understand what photography is. they know in today's reality nothing is what it seems. those ads in the the magazines showing the models off, are they mixed media? or are they photography? when they use photoshop to distort things, remove or add things, to add make up and eye color, pupil size etc - it's a photograph, that's what they call it. you don't see - mixed media made by so and so. .
i don't know why people, well you two anyway, are so hung up on definitions and exactness. clearly your not an artist, otherwise you can look behind the legal definition of the word and just look at the image like your supposed to.
WE need a dynamic voice brush to get all this into dialogue out of the speakers.... Man what a busy thread.. so much to read... wish i could just hear it... i wonder where max volume is.?.. decibels are inverse logarithmic i believe so perhaps we could get to the milli dbs... lol OOF all i know is that paintings come out of a camera and paint brushes are electronic. that said the cave man didnt use either. back to basics anybody? *grin*
This is an interesting thread. I am not a photographer but I am a digital artist. I understand the crux of digital vs real only to well. I have for many years come to the thresh hold of is what I do art? Is what I paint in Painter 12 painting or pretending to paint. This article gave me the breath of fresh air I so badly needed. I no longer feel I need to feel uncomfortable of whether my work is on canvas, or my monitor, and my tools in hand is a digital pen replicating brushes. I am painting. I no longer call my work a picture, I call it a painting.
One also has to consider no matter whether the work created and sold here from canvas and so forth becomes a print, digitally reproduced. Has it changed form I wonder?
so i did a quick look to see how people look for my art by name. across the websites i'm on i got a few odd ones. but mostly i see:
mike savad art
mike savad paintings.
neither look for mixed,multimedia,photography etc.
so it's all kind of moot to call it anything.
like old prints, they were airbrushed after - even just to add pink cheeks. they are called photos. same with the ones that are touched up. there are technicals to every art, but it's easier to lump it under one category, unless you make totally different things like paintings.