Aphasia wrote:The problem is drawing the line. If you take a look at VelvetG's images there, those are clearly on the photography side IMO. The thing that matters is taste.
VelvetG's images are on the photography side. They are greatly enhanced, but still true to the original photo. If you look at 90's edit, on the other hand, you'll notice that the second photo is completely different from the first. The feel is different, the colors are different, the hues are different... the list goes on. 90's edit is not photography. It is digital art. There's a grey area, but dude... this isn't even close.
And also, its not like theres a huge influx of images right now as it is, and i doubht two concurrent threads would live on.
I think a thread about digital art would be a great idea. It can live alongside a photography thread just fine, being as photography and digital art are completely separate topics.Yes, there's a grey area, but that happens even with regular forums. We move threads around if they're in the wrong forum, so whatever small grey area there is between photography and digital art can be handled in a similar manner.
There's lots of artistic merit in 90's digital artwork. I especially like the render that he has removed since earlier today and would like to see more stuff like it. His photograph is beautiful, considering the difficulty of capturing such a majestic scene. His edit is nice, too, but I'm aghast that you can look at his edited photograph side by side with the original and consider them both photography