Um...let me step back into this for a moment please, let me backtrack for a moment cause I erred here immensly in some aspects. "Digital Art", there actually is 'very much' of this that one needs to be a successful all star artist of quality and wanton noteriety. Can anyone say Adobe? And more Adobe, and yet even more Adobe and then some, and even more of some, and many, many, many more of some Adobe?!! Thank goodness I have indeed been worshipping the God of Adobe for many years because Adobe IS a God indeed, as is basic Photography, as is Life Drawing. Adobe products are considered 'digital art', and in fact they are termed as '3D art', contrary to what many in our 3D worlds seem to have established as 2D art as in postwork and after effects is in fact considered the 'creator' of "3D ARTWORK EXTRAORDINAIR", one of the most ESSENTIAL tools next to the camera and hands and imagination, odd, perplexing strangeness indeed, my brain became eggnog for a short time in awe. Now I will not even try to get into the strange, dull, glassy piercing looks of disapproval I recieved when mentioning some of the high end, (or heavens even low end), 3D softwares, but I do need to tell you I was rather 'stunned' and thrown into some realism unprepared for. Apparently one place even had a Maya course as an extra once but due to lack of interest because it was not an essential criteria, they discontinued that course. Seems many of our good tools are not well established as yet, or just plain frowned upon, or considered extra's that you play with after you get that Grad hat... Have a cool day, I have to go sacrifice some fruits of my labor to the God of Adobe...;-)

Thank you for all your inputs, this is an interesting topic although also very frustrating ;-) Branden, you are right in a sense. Me posting a picture I did in a darkroom long ago and the replies I got did kind of prompt me to ask this. As well a few too many folks asking time and time again about the relevance photography has on an art site, (that just bothers me to no end). And what's more, the opposite side of that coin; just for interest sake I did some research recently, went to several art colleges to inquire what all the credits are that one needs to get into a final year as an 'advanced' student so that maybe someone can get an art degree with substance to hang on a wall and one of those nifty graduation hats to wear to smart parties and being told that 'photography' is still one BIG wampum major criteria as background for any major art program, (in fact forget it if you don't have this). Digital or computer generated art is NOT, they don't even ask and half of them don't even wanna know about it or hear about it. Take care ;-)

...caribbean...(spelling?)...

[in the end, people talk, artists create...]....I like that...well said ;-)

When you say that almost "anything" creative can be art, tis true I think, and I am certain Andy Warhol fans would rejoice, LOL. However, I still also believe there are scales or intensities of art or creativity. Can one compare a Leonardo Da Vinci painting to an Andy Warhol mock up and even dare suggest Andy's wall full of coke bottles is as good or better than a Mona Lisa, to ME one just nullifies the other although I do agree that they are BOTH art, it is just what I may see as more creative as another may be different from what someone else may percieve. The Govt. once paid three million or more for a mural of three straight colored lines going sideways to hang in our proud City Hall, probably because someone had no taste or they needed to minimize their budget or this artist was someone real special. I may sound pretty ignorant saying that and even biased, but I am not trying to be, I just think there are intensities to creativity and not all of them are the same in all of us as artists and least of all in those that are artists' customers or viewing public. Art is like music in many ways, someone's dirt is someone elses pleasantry. But at least music does somewhat work hand in hand?? Or does it??? Opera and Rock? Country and Western and Pop?? Hehehe....they do learn from each other though, artistic mediums can too. CG art and photography are very similar in many ways and really can compliment each other in so many variations ;-)

Well, true enough, I can't argue there, LOL. But I suppose what bothers me is even I myself, thinking back, how long has it been since I actually used a camera in preference to a computer?? And why?? I used to love my camera. Have computers made me forget all the wonders one can do with photography alone?? In reality if we think about it, it is still cheaper to have a home studio with lighting and props and get a real model rather than build your own from scratch and have to not only buy something like 3D studiomax or maya, but then take the time to learn it well enough to create something so very intricate and so real. Same could go for props and animals and scenery as well. Yet when it comes down to it Digital Art does seem to snub its' nose somewhat at photography; I am only going by the mood, I have heard it said, (and not in any particular place, just a general whereabouts), that photography as a medium on its' own is passe' and not as artistically creative in the eyes of the wow computer generation. I actually beg to differ. I think on a visual basis both have very similar ideals and realistically one can aid the other perspectfully and with versatility. The other thing that bothers me is on one end you get the snubbery of CG versus photography, and on the other spectrum you get fine art VS CG. Fine art used to have it in for photography, now it appears as if photography is more acceptable yet CG is not even near a standard unless your going into animation or games. It is almost as if one is concerned the other will take something away from the other, instead of working hand in hand as it should be and as I am certain many, many artists do anyways. What a fun world of art we live in LOL ;-) Tools, that is really all it is about, and I don't know why one has to be better or worse or wrong or righter than the other, it's what we would find more feasable economically, and what meets our needs or works best for whatever moment or project we are doing, no? I think the more mediums we open our creativity to, the better chance we may have to appreciate all possibilities and make it easier to attain our end results with our art; the more tools at our disposal the better. That is just my own opinion, my own two cents for whatever its worth ;-)

It was a sincere intentional "good feeling" I was trying to send your way Alpha, unfortunatly I kind of botched it up, hehe, oh well, I think you understand, that is all that matters ;-) As for where this place is,....it is the tropical island paradise of St. Lucia.

I double posted with you TaltosVT, not trying to ignore you, I am reading you post now. I think this "healthy discussion" is actually quite thought provoking and considerably signifigant in various ways cause it touches on many things too often just ignored and left to fester on ;-)

Hehehe, oh boy, that word benign, I forgot that it could be taken two different ways. I meant the benign as in TUMOR, when a tumor is benign it means that it will not spread or grow. For someone to suggest that photography or any form of "creativity" is not art or a valid medium towards artistic merits is a thought of stagnation, for it leaves no room for growth and utilization of all those wonderful innovations and/or tools of learning available to us as artists. There is so much at our disposal in the world of art and although we cannot possibly be expected to learn each and every form of medium to our hearts content, that does not mean that they have no purpose or role as value or nourishment to the way we look at things and play out our roles and talents as artists. There was a time when photography stood out strong as a major competitor for fine art, which really should never have been the case as far as I am concerned personally, because I feel the two aid and nurture one another extremely well. Today it has become more a battle of wits between Digital Art and Fine Arts, the feud is still quite similar but instead of having a major role as a contestant, photography has been kind of swept in with digital art somewhere and has no real stamina on its' own merits anymore even though it is still a very signifigant "differential" in many ways. This is how it "appears" to be far too often among computer arts people who think photography is just a shot in the dark and not real art; in behind the scenes one cannot even take a legit art course without photography 101 and yet there is nothing at all about digital art as a pre-requisit...strange how backwards it all seems?? Again I find that Digital VS Fine Art is a rather sad stumbling block because I feel that once again the opportunity for a healthy relationship of creativity combining two prominents may well be missed far too often by bias and insecurity and a refusal to grow.

Whatever prompted me to re-upload it so small?? I must be having a shy day...;-)

Just as a moot point, the reason for the "jungle" pic above is to point out how it can be a "computerized jungle" out there for good old snappy, hehe ;-) Um...well, you just put me onto another question now, which is, why do you think cartoons are not art?? I have seen it suggested many times in many places of late, even HERE at Renderosity, that photography is not really an art, much like you say about cartoons. One person recently asked why we even have a photography gallery here. I thought that was very benign. I don't agree on both counts, I happen to feel both are art forms only differing medium types, and very signifigant in their own rights. But I won't elaborate, I am curious how others feel instead of stealing this with my own opinions ;-)

Woohoo, I think I made some headway...some slight adjustments, only thing is, I still find the very top one more peaceful, and as I recall it being; must have been a cloudy day I don't remember, I thought it was always nice and blue there the whole time, hehe. Well, I must have also been tired when I did the top, it was late morning and somehow I thought it looked better, (on a peaceful level), than this, now I am wondering why myself, hahaha. As for where it is, gee, I was hoping someone would recognize it cause it is a popular place as far as island paradises go, probably one of, if not the most popular. See if someone guesses, if not, I will follow up ;-) I have plenty more pics too, some of the BEACHES, yay, LOL!!

This picture was a might HUGE, and when scanning it in on a flatbed I had to do it in five parts and then stitch it together in Photoshop. The picture also came out a might "dark" due to the setbacks of the scanner which meant that I had to not only lighten it, but alter the hue somewhat as well, which most likely is where that flaw you mention comes to play. I don't see it, but that don't mean it isn't there. I will have to take an even closer look. As well, once this was lightened it appeared to have NO sky at all which made it look rather bland which meant once more playing around with the hue only in the sky sections so that it would look as near to pleasantry as the actual picture of reality. So, I suppose this now makes this Paradise Place somewhat less virginal in the sense of the word "pure" since there has been some minor alterations for visual appeal. Let me make an adjustment and see if I can't upload this picture without the tranquility of blue peace. As for the beach, it is there, unfortunatly I did not carry a wide angle lens, hehe ;-) On the left was a beach, on the right a volcano, I wish I could have captured both for aesthetic contraversy.

Just noticed I spelled the name Alpha wrong in the heading,...having a bad spelling day today, please pardon my err ;-)

Hehehe...well, I don't really know how many of you are pulling my leg here or are actually serious, but here goes anyways... Years ago there were these real weird places like caves, but they were usually in real houses or schools or studios or any place you could get a room "dark enough" and just so you could "see" it even had a special light. As if being in the dark wasn't enough, the agony and torture in such a place was just unspeakable, there was this horrible acid that used to smell bad and they made us mix it all up just right, and then they would stick us behind these machines that looked like big giant microscopes and we had to look into these with one eye, it was horrifying cause you never knew who might creep up behind you! Anyways, they used to hang these things around our necks called camera's and they made us go out and take pictures and once we did we were shut into these black rooms of despair until we came out with something worthwhile to show. Many of my dear friends didn't make it, they were overcome by fumes or failed to gaze into the giant machines properly and some just could not take that dark abyss for any length of time and the endurance sent them screaming in the agony of defeat never to be seen or heard from again. Me, I made the best of it, in fact, somehow I liked it, especially when I undured my dark suffering beside some sweet babe caught in the same turmoil. It was fun LOL ;-) Now, all that kidding aside, hehe, this was done loooong before I even had a computer and Photoshop was not even part of my vocabulary yet. I used to spend hours and hours in a darkroom, just as much time as I spent taking the pictures themselves. It WAS amazing the things that could be done in a darkroom, this here one I posted is just a minor triumph and that hazy blur is actually a fluke that ended up being a swwet side effect to too much jiggling about, hehe ;-) Now with computers and photoshop with all its' glorious filters and such this stuff is probably a throwback to the "dark ages" but it was a lot of fun and sometimes even more affordable and challenging indeed. Cheers ;-)