Berries (macro)

[handrawn]

Oh I understand John - its just the way you put it sometimes - sounds like you are critiquing the rationale not the art.
After all, its no different to tracing over a picture with the shape editor tool and producing an interpretive drawing, just using a filter instead

[raynerj1]

I try not to degrade anybodies art. Whatever they create is great if they like it. I just have strong feelings for a very well done piece, and like any artist like to express my viewpoint.

[handrawn]

I don't think anyone who is a regular on these forums could not know your viewpoint on photographic art John, that's fair enough.

[Did I just hear ' Stay on topic!' - I do believe I just did ]

[Snow`Star]

Rich - As always your photos are gorgeous. You demonstrate such artistry in enhancing them to new levels. Also, your genius with SBP is something I'm hoping to achieve.

[Snow`Star]

.... The true test is which one would folks pay more money for. Anything else is just opinion.

It should never cease to amaze any of us the things for which some people are willing to pay a great deal of money. Unfortunately, much of it results from an aggressive agent and a great deal of "hype". Surely that isn't the "true test"?

[Jimi King]

The berries are stunning as captured.

Nature is the best artist of all.

[handrawn]

I'm prepared to accept the anthropomorphic statement at 'face value' but that said you would need to see them in real life would you not - otherwise the artist is the photographer.

This is one of the [agreeable] differences John and I have - he thinks a photograph can be 'perfect' - I 'know' it is never going to be like the real thing no matter how good you are.

[germaine]

Rich
very nice
maybe the berries would give a nice map
greetings

[Jimi King]

I'd prefer to think of an artist as someone who creates something from an idea or mind driven image, although I appreciate that the borders are fuzzy.

I've manipulated and tweaked enough pictures in Photoshop to know and appreciate how the efforts of nature can be enhanced and how the limitations of the camera can be compensated for. Granted it takes an artistic eye to be able to see where the adjustments can be best made, but that ability does not necessarily make one an artist.

I personally take photographs. I also produce graphic interpretations to present services and websites for my clients. I don't claim to be an artist on the basis of those efforts though.

Based on the evidence above, Molucca is a photographer, You, Steve are an artist. My comment above was to say that personally I thought the photographic shot of the berries was stunning, but for me personally the ice filter didn't add anything to it, it took something away.

[handrawn]

Well I cannot at the end of the day speak for Rich.

But to me it is not a question of adding or subtracting anything as far as the photograph is concerned - its more a question of going off in a different direction and experimenting with what can be done - I repeat: the original photograph is still there - why does the filter version keep having to be compared with the original? - that is so narrow minded [no offence] - it would not be the case if Rich had traced it, so why is using a filter so different?

It's as if you were not allowed to do anything with a photograph except 'improve' it