I've just been messing around with some pictures in Gimp (Photoshop-like programme) and wonder if people would consider it to be "art" Here goes! http://photos-c.ak.************/photos-ak-snc1/v273/31/1/526586168/n526586168_636954_4811.jpg http://photos-a.ak.************/photos-ak-snc1/v273/31/1/526586168/n526586168_636816_6649.jpg Neither of them is too serious, but I'd just like people's opinion on whether or not photoshopped photos can count seriously as art And here's another artwork of mine. Not great and a lot of the colour got lost in the rather shitty photo I took, but lemme know what you think! PS. The new smilies suck Image changed to URL--- too big
And the originals, inverted. Looks kinda spooky and alien to me :S: Sorry about the double post. Couldn't have more than 4 pics in my posts
those are def. cool. in fact, my brother is a photographer for a magazine in phoenix atm. the other day i was watching him work with photos, and he digitally enhanced them all. like, taking blemioshes and what not off people's faces, shading their skin, lighting, etc. so it is a good skill to have, i can't remember, but i think it is "digital media"
in my eyes its not art if you invert a picture and add some effects on it, but art is personal. maybe a picaso is also not art in my eyes, who knows.
Anything we create can be art in our own eyes. It's up to you to decide if it's art and if it's "good". If someone else decides that it's not art it doesn't mean that it's not, that's just their opinion. I really like the picture you chose for your signature and if you want to know my opinion then yes, I would consider it art.
I think they are great! But remember...............no matter how good something is.........everybodys not gonna like it!
Thanks for the feedback people I'm glad some of you liked them. A lot of what you guys have said makes a lot of sense. I can understand why some would not consider this art as it really was just a play-around kinda thing, but I've been having ideas of how to take this more seriously. Seeing as half of the process involves photographs, one could actually set up a scene or find something to photograph with the specific purpose to edit it in a specfic way that makes it more meaningful. That'd probably be considered art more than what I have done. The fact that I was wearing colourful stripey toe socks on my hands while playing a guitar kinda adds to the composition and psychedelic look to it
Sorry about the big files, but here are more. I don't like them so much, but I'm interested to hear what people think: Image changed to URL--- too big Just I note: I do not and never have taken drugs apart from the nice kind the doctor prescribes These ones lost a lot of quality because I stupidly saved them in MS Paint >_<
Thanks guys. Changing the colours...There's this tool on Gimp called "Curves", which I just play around with til I get the right effect. Fairly simple actually PS. Nice sig, droopy
The images are pretty cool... I did take the liberty of editing the larger width images to links in deference of smaller resolutions. They are art IMO.
i dig it, i see in peoples beginning photoshop art alot of what i did when i started anyone who digs my stuff now then just know it begins like dude is doing here then you move on as you learn eventually you get all badass n shit but no matter how good you get there's an anti digital prejudice in the world too some people will never accept digital even if it's great
