How about those photographs that have been made "artsy" with a Photoshop filter and then brushed over "artfully" with acrylic medium to add a hand-done texture. I have nothing against a well done and honest art photograph, but photos masquerading as paintings, the "artists" who push them, and the collectors who are fooled by such non-brilliance all drive me to distraction. I think this foolery is here to stay. It is up to real artists to do better.

Hi Robert, regarding your comment
"Paintings are distinguished by texture. Texture is a mark of integrity and passion that the digital world has not yet mastered. Fine artists abandon texture at their peril."
Do you mean that a watercolorist, unless they use salt to create texture, their work would not be worth a second glance?

I fear you have fallen victim to the "artful" sin of generalization. Quite apart from the giclée technique of duplicating - or is it faking - of artworks, usually in large editions, and often enough desired by the "artist" wanting to please customers who will settle for having it on their walls, it would not be not fair to claim that photography - or rather all photography - is inferior to all painting.
Many people who take photos believe they are creating something they want to and can share thanks to the marvellous digital technology we have at our disposal. And there is a long tradition of wonderful art photography that has documented the passage of time in its architecture, historical events and fashion for well over a century. In those areas photography is simply unchallengeable.
Whatever happens to the photos taken by Joe Bloggs every second, photography is the artistic medium of the majority these days.
Maybe some will remember the way Japanese tourists used to be portrayed: as dashing around Europe in 3 days brandishing their cameras so that they would have something to look at, remember (and brag about) back home. Fortunately that cliché has been ditched thanks to the availability of cameras, though of course the custom of visually recounting where one has spent one's last vacation, party night etc. is here to stay.
Maybe visual artists - and here we go again because here we are not talking about "artists" in general but about PAINTERS - should be grateful that so many people are content to snap photos with their mobile phone or other equipment. It's a harmless pursuit (unless done for some evil purpose) and leaves the painter space enough for his or her output.
I'd also like point out to the moaner who wrote to you that creative energy is not the prerogative of "artists".

I used to have a close friend who was a professional artist. He taught me a bit about creating pictures. His rule of thumb was that for every 100 photos he took about 10% could be used and about 1% or less would be stunners. The conclusion was that to generate a lot of stunning pictures you have to take a lot of photographs

I've never ever forgotten this and now take masses of photos each year. I don't post many online - instead I review them all on my computer. They help teach me about composition and design - what makes a good design, a good balance of masses and, to a lesser extent (because of the problem of accuracy with values), a good value pattern.

Taking a lot of photos has helped me enormously in finding the four lines to put round the subjects which I choose to draw - and I commend the practice to others.

After 30 years as a film photographer, I have returned to painting. The juried shows now are crowded with "artistic" photography that is frankly boring. Ignorant judges are not ready to sort out the lazy. The new iphone snappers are deluded into believing that they are the new Robert Franks and Garry Winogrands. You also have to blame the low quality of visual education at our universities. The saving grace is coming from the new atelier movement and instructors like Juliette Aristides. I am seeing success in my painting again.

Edgar Whitney said, and I'm paraphrasing now - "Photos transcribe life while paintings translate life".

Where is the "print this page" button? I have to keep this one! I think ever since photography was invented, artists have been defending their artistry against photography. Original paintings well kept last for generations. I have some that were my grandmother's and I grew up looking at them and imagining myself in them. There is no photograph that can rival the handmade craftmanship of an original painting.

There are plenty of paintings executed with the same type of thoughtlessness you accuse digital photography of. Meaningful images, whether in the form of a painting or a photograph come from a unique place: the heart and mind and eye of the individual artist.

I wouldn't suppose this would be a subject for discussion were it not for the competition for buyer dollars. Just as I believe in the brilliance of our Founding Fathers in creating the framework for a near-perfect system of governance, it merely required, in lieu of a benevolent or brutal dictator, a responsible, educated citizen who understood the issues and took great care with their freedoms. Relative to other forms of government we may still have a gem, but the mismanagement (bankrupt) and corruption in high places have us positioned scarily parallel in our evolution to the Roman Empire during its decline and fall. We reap what we sow. We get what we deserve.
We paint for many differing reasons, but if the buying public is voting with their dollars for photography instead of paintings we may take that as valuable marketing information. Are you going to give speeches against this practice? Are you going to rail against what is? The sample size of all painters is an indication of the discrimination of the buying public or wealthy patrons, just as the sample sizes of all realistic painters to abstract painters gives us another slice of marketing data. If the selling of art is distasteful and an abomination to you, then you should have no quarrel with the proliferation of photographers. I paint to sell, but simultaneously I paint because I love to do so, because I love the never-ending challenges and potential for learning, because I love the end result (usually). Whitney may have been correct about photography transcribing life and painters translating it, but I feel that would be true only for the photographer who attempts to capture snapshots of moments. Those who manipulate their photographs also translate, just as the computer initially allowed us to conquer accounting, it was later also used by some dreamers to allow us to walk on the moon.

A bit of a touchy subject. while I agree that painting is not the same as photography, both have their place in art. As a painter myself and also a photographer, I can appreciate the thought, selection process and the keen eye it requires to come up with a fine art photograph. Manipulating it with the computer is just another tool at our disposal now which also requires some skill. I don't have a problem with calling these processes an artform, the problem is, however, that many copies can be made..... the discussion continues I guess!

The observations in this letter are correct. Everyone needs some sort of creative outlet. With all the digital snap snap snap going on, potential painters are denied the need to develop skills necessary to make fine art. This in no way denigrates the fine artists who happen to make digital art.

Painters record images on a 2-dimensional surface using certain specialized equipment, materials and skills.
Photographers record images on a 2-dimensional surface using certain specialized equipment, materials and skills.
There are some really excellent paintings, there are tons of mediocre paintings, and there are far too many bad paintings.
There are some really excellent photographs, there are tons of mediocre photographs, and there are far too many bad photographs.
Great paintings are created by people with a good eye for composition, colour, drama, whatever it takes to produce a great image.
Great photographs are created by people with a good eye for composition, colour, drama, whatever it takes to produce a great image.
Both photographers and painters need a good understanding of the physics of light.
When they do great work, they are artists.
When they do mediocre or bad work they are just people who paint or take photographs.

Peter Kiidumae, you've said it all. Whatever the medium - brushes or pixels or stone - the qualities of excellence, mediocrity and outright garbage co-exist. Thank you.

I notice that my name became a link (above) but the place it takes you to is no longer a valid site address. I have tried repeatedly to change it but apparently to no avail. For anyone who is interested the new address is http://www.karenmcconnellartist.com

Paintings are for an elite crowd. Is that really a good thing?

This is a great news for those of us who get our paycheck from digital storage businesses. I wonder when the green movement will catch on with this horrendous pollution…any idea how much infrastructure is required to move around those billions of worthless files? I don’t know exactly but I can tell you it’s a darn good business…

The dot com bubble was a tiny dwarf comparing with this new click-send monstrosity.

Your statistics are very interesting. For several years now, artists I know in Minnesota have been expressing this concern about our own Minnesota State Fair, which is one of the largest in the U.S. We also have a very active fine arts community here that deserves celebrating. The fair has several categories including photography and in each category takes a certain percentage of what is submitted. The amount of digital and other photography has been increasing over time so that more and more the exhibit is taken over by photographs.

Last year, when I went to the fair, the time that I had to look at the art was less than I have had before, so I decided to just focus on what my eye told me was fine art. Many of us recognize that there is an art to photography as well and that photographers also deserve to be celebrated. We have friends who have chosen this path. There was one photograph that drew me in despite my plan. This is a competition for space in the exhibit. It has always been a stiff competition to get in, but painters now have less chance than before. I think that this is discouraging to those who spend so much time putting their hearts into their painting as you describe. I hope that creators of art will always paint. For some, a painting is an inspiring thing! I hope we can find a way to value both without diminishing the other.

I am disappointed in your latest article, "What digital photography isn't ".

The proliferation of the digital camera does not lessen the impact or relevance of photography as an art form. Sure, there are millions of people who can call themselves photographers due to the digital age, but that is no different than everyone calling themselves a graphic designer because they have access to clip art. There are still professionals in the field that prove what they do is more than just 'click a button' or 'cut and past'.

In addition, how many people do you know that sell sub standard art just because they can push a brush onto paper or canvas? Countless! Applying your rational to this, what painters do is nothing more than applying oil and dirt to a substrate. How easy is that?

Was Ansel Adams one who just "...pressed a button..."? Sure, he used the 'old fashion' mechanical camera, but the principles of photography have not changed since the inception of the digital age.

I recommend you look through the images on this site to see photography beyond the snapshot.

http://www.thephotoargus.com/inspiration/40-great-photographer-portfolio-websites-for-inspiration/

I am not a photographer by any means, but I appreciate masterful photography when I see it. One could argue that great photography is equal to many of the masterpieces of fine art. Who knows what Da Vinci could have done with a Nikon D700 in his hands.

Why the close minded view?

Your readers should be taking digital photos of their work and posting them on Pinterest. Photos should be "watermarked" with the artists name because as the paintings are shared, the name of the artist can be lost.

I agree with those who think that the moment is being lost in the process of photography. That was probably always true, but the proliferation of digital cameras means that more people are missing more life.

My paintings are in several countries of the world and they all look at it and admire them. I have comments from them, as to how much they love looking at them. Painting is art in capital letters. It is the wonder of a paint brush in hand to perform the music of art like a conductor. Art created is a wonder in itself, every time a paper or canvas is used. Pressing a button on a camera can be done by anyone, but art is created from the mind and sight and is not created by all. You can play with a photo and its color but you cannot with a painting.

As a serious photographer, I must disagree somewhat with what you have stated in this letter.

You have compared apples and oranges. You have compared the serious art of painting with popular non-artistic digital photography. However, serious artistic photography, now mainly digital, while not in my opinion, in competition with painting, is a valid and important art form or genre. There are as many variations to this genre as there is to painting, from realism to abstract expressionism. Perhaps the common thread of painting, as an artistic genre, and (digital) photography, as an artistic genre, is the integrity of the image rendered, drawing upon whatever techniques the genre has available for the artist to achieve his or her purpose.

Thanks for your elucidating remarks.

Digital photos are appearing more and more often in juried fine art competitions as "giclee'' on canvas, convincingly appearing as paintings. While I enjoy photography immensely, and have been fortunate to have had some images published, I still have a problem with them being included with other 2D and 3D handmade work in competitions. The thought and labor processes for photography are separate and unique from drawing and painting.

I'm hoping the appreciation for the creation of painting doesn't fall to the sidelines like the 'rotary' phone! Perhaps if artists continue to provide thought- provoking, visually -appealing and emotionally- moving works, we will insure our history along side those museum pieces that the public respects and celebrates.

Digital photography is a new medium, and like any new medium, it inspires controversy and speculation. While it is true that many people that own a digital camera think they are photographers, and even artists, it takes much more than simply pushing a button to achieve more than a simple snapshot. Creating art takes an artists' eye for color, composition, texture, perspective, and more. It takes a mindset that is very different than the 'norm', a different way of looking at the world that provokes emotion and inspires. An artist can use any medium to create art. Perhaps we should take a closer look at digital photography as a medium. It is a blending of technical skill and the artistic mind in the right hands. I am a painter and a photographer, so it is natural progression for me to create a fusion of the two. I work by layering multiple exposures, and blending them meticulously into an entirely new scene that has a painterly feel. Everything is done by hand and takes as many hours to create as a painting. There are no shortcuts, no downloaded filters, or tricks. Even the appearance of texture is created by photographing a texture, such as wood grain on a crosscut of wood, and layering it into the work. My work takes into account scale, lighting, perspective, composition, and all the skills used to create a painting. I blend and mix much like I would do with paint. I am inspired by more painters that photographers, and it shows. The following is a link to one of my galleries.
http://www.melaniemyhrephotography.com/p989900808

Perhaps you have never seen anything like this before, but don't be so quick to judge a medium that is in it's infancy. Don't think of as a threat to the painting medium, but as a welcome addition to the arts. I am sure that oil painters felt similar resistance to the introduction of watercolors and acrylics, yet these only added variety and richness to the art world. Art is a constantly evolving creature, and part of it's nature is using tools from our daily world in conjunction with imagination to reflect what is in our hearts and souls and return it back into the world.

As both a, so-called, fine art photographer and painter (acrylics and w/c’s), I absolutely agree with you. A painting is truly a creation, regardless of the school the painter embraces and nothing can detract from that creation.

However, there is a world of difference between a clicker of snaps and someone who is trying to create a printed image that is representative of his vision. I have labored for weeks to get an image right and sometimes don’t succeed. And I must confess that both the creation of a good painting and/or a truly fine photograph gives me an equal degree of satisfaction. The advent of digital photography has expanded the world of color photography to an astonishing degree and I would submit that we have, so far, just scratched the surface.

On the other hand, I am appalled at the visual tsunami that results from an event such a wedding or christening. A number of years ago, I was asked by two of our children to “send us all your photos of such and such an event.” When I refused, everyone got a bit snotty, so I no longer take a camera to family events and now, everyone is happy.

Last night there was a documentary on Picasso! It followed the connection with early film and cubism of Picasso. Picasso was utilizing film to acquire his inspiration.

When it comes to other mediums other than paint and canvas, I say draw from it, make it your friend, what a door Picasso opened!

This year I took a nine week drawing course at Studio Escalier in Paris to improve my skills. The mornings were spent drawing from a live model in their studio and the afternoons at the Louvre drawing from the Masters. I spent much of my time in the Cour Puget with the eighteenth century French sculpture. Usually I would sit in front of one sculpture for two or three afternoons, sometimes more, savouring its every detail and marveling at how it was even possible, say, to make marble look like skin or fabric or water. Some of these pieces had taken a year to execute. Often with the smaller ones they were the artist's ticket into the French Academy and were some of the best pieces they would ever do. Flowing around this very still place was a flood of people from all over the world and I would say fully eighty to ninety percent were snapping digital photos, sometimes of themselves imitating an unusual pose, but mostly of everything in sight, including the labels. The looking at the actual piece was limited to a glance and a quick point and shoot and on they went. I wondered how looking at a photo of something later that they had not been interested enough in when it was right in front of them to take time with could be in any way satisfying. It would probably get even less time.

Sometimes people would stop and exclaim over our drawings. When I would point out that the thing I was drawing was right there in three dimensions in front of them they seemed unimpressed. Did this just mean that they could relate more to the art when the artist was there? Maybe it became less abstract for them?
In any case, I treasured that privilege that setting aside a camera and picking up a pencil gave me: the permission to sit and gaze and drink in the magnificence of human creativity.

A camera is only as good as the eyes of the holder of that camera… if you don't stand still and observe, you miss the moment and the capturing of it… The camera might be a fast capture, it is by no means always accurate, or always able, when printed, to capture it's viewer. Those photographs that do, are most often made by people who have an eye to see to start with…

I use my own digital camera as a tool to help as a reference points when I'm back at the studio, however the best paintings still come from the sometimes/often long moments of standing, observing, painting, wrestling with the light and the materials at hand. As with the desktop publishing programs readily available to the wider audience, it doesn't make them designers, nor does the availability of a digital camera make one a photographer or visual artist. We've had pens available to all, but not all are writers…

As predominantly a landscape artist, I paint what catches my attention, and that can be something that takes my breath away, or something that gives me the opposite – a place to catch my breath, and funny enough, they often coincide :). I've come to realize that as artists, we have the ability to see beyond the ordinary, and maybe that is our task. Painting the ordinary, lifts it out and makes it a focus point for those that passed it by, but who have now, through us putting it on canvas, been given the opportunity to do a double take. In doing so, I'm hoping the viewer can appreciate what I saw, and have that same moment of catching up, breathing in, breathing out, letting go and recharging… The world still needs us. So here's hoping that when people look at my landscapes, they can feel the breeze I felt, the stifling heat, or that musty smell or chill of that early autumn day…

Capturing that in a digital shot is just as hard, so here's a cheer to those photographers that are capable of doing just that.

There is a vast difference between casual digital and large format fine art film photography. I will spend as much time in the process of capturing an image on film and processing to produce an archival image as an artist would to produce a painting of the same scene.

We both, I suspect, spend a similar amount of time cruising to find THE location to set up our tripod or easel.

Good photography still lives.

Perhaps this growth of photography is coupled with the growth of art galleries and museums who are exhibiting photography as an art form, often to the detriment of paintings

I have always been aware that as I am taking a picture I am removing myself from the moment and the action by being in the camera, and the photo is the only memory I have of it. A memory of a photo of the moment. Another reason I am a painter?

What about glicee prints people make of their paintings for people who cannot afford to buy a painting. Please comment on this. I personally think it is awful. Who would buy a painting if they can buy a reproduction of it made by the artist.

I am exploring collage as fine art and am a member of the National Collage Society as well as the Northwest Collage Society. We are working to maintain the art form as a true fine art and much thought, planning and time go into creating a piece.

There are some members who use digital programs using photography and this is a constant debate. Some say "it's cheating". I don't really know or care much for that matter, but it was refreshing to read your letter.

Try to find a cellphone without a camera; the stats become less impressive.

Then there is digital painting and the end product is digital print and believe me these take much talent. This is a wonderful sample of a fantasy artists works. It takes a great deal of skill to do this. He also paints on canvas but not very often but you cannot tell the difference when you look at them in the internet. The canvas paintings are usually larger. He prefers to paint digitally as he has allergies to paint solvents. I did not ask his permission to send this link to you but did want you to know that not all digital photography is from photos because the end product of painting digitally is a photo.

http://www.toddlockwood.com/galleries/new_art/07/spellbound.shtml

I beg to differ. Have you seen the marvelous works of photographers using digital images, then manipulating them into evocative paintings? I refer you to the website of Robert Slatkoff
http://www.robertslatkoff.com/
who will be showing at Agora Gallery in New York in November http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistpage/robert_slatkoff.aspx
There are many art photographers out there. It's time we recognized that.

I have always been a fan of the great B&W photographers. Colour photos are reflection, B&W is art. Lighting, lighting, lighting lighting.

I'm sure similar comments were offered when photography was first invented. Always, the panic doors fly open when a new method springs to the fore. I feel that enough discerning collectors and art admirers will continue to see the difference.

Remember the Kodak Camera Craze? The computer is just another TOOL. No need to get dismissive about it. Photography is another form of Art. Photographers have watched as the commercial market has taken over the availability of photographic materials for a long time. Wham, certain papers are not available anymore, but photographers have moved on and kept working away in spite of these changes. Painting is not better than photography. These different mediums are all means to the expression and manifestation of the artist's inner light. Remember when photography was invented in the 19thC, how there was a rumor that painting was dead? Well, that was two centuries ago and painting is still alive and kicking. Art will out.

Robert, I can only think you printed that letter to get the hair up on the backs of some people's necks. I am a professionally trained Photographer. I have taught photography, lighting, and many lectures on design to photographers and painters alike. I create my "artistic" photos for hours behind the camera as well as whatever I feel like doing to them afterwards. Photos hang in Museums and grace the walls of serious collectors who collect the "person". I have an Elliot Porter that is way over 10 times worth what it was when I bought it. I refuse to distinguish an artist by his or her medium. Next you should try saying that 3D is not art. Anyway, I forgive you and will continue to read your colum as I have for a couple of years as most of the time you trully make us think. Not the case in your last letter.

I find that the less I photograph, the more in the moment I remain. To make art by hand is to be supremely in the moment - even if it's an hour.

So many images are being made by everyday people and none have any lasting effect on anyone save the person taking the picture. Many images don't even leave the camera's disc file or computer file to which they were uploaded. So many are taken that after awhile they become all one photo with little discrimination between scenes and thereafter mean nothing.

They are fun and a fad. The problem is they do diminish the idea of a permanent painted image to many with a digital camera. But they are probably not the one ever to buy a quality painting in the first place.

What artists have to not paint from photographs. Paint from life. Our work should never be from some fabricated image already mundane by the process by which it was made. Photos are one nanosecond of an event and the camera can't discriminate what to include or exclude. What to make important and what to leave out. Even with all the advances in color development, the human eye sees more variations of color that any camera to date. Photograph is in a field by it's self. Painting, either in Oil, Acrylic or Watercolor is also in a field by itself and the two should be separate as far as what we expect to get from them. I truly believe there are people who will always want both.

I feel the need to point out the difference between mass capture by the general population using digital media, and digital media used by the few professional talented photographers that use the medium to display their visions. There is a place in our world for digital imagery, at family get togethers, for the first step taken, and to quickly capture that moment no one will believe happened... without proof. That being said, very good photography using digital means to portray beauty, art, nature, composition and excellence is still a necessity. It's very important for everyone to distinguish between the two main types of photography, the snapshot photography, for everyone, on every 'phone' out there, and the beautiful image captured by a skilled crafts person, enlarged to be hung on your wall for years and years of enjoyment, captured by a DSLR, medium or large format digital camera.

My DSLR captures the most beautiful, memorable, shareable, high quality images for me as a professional, never to be shared upon sites that take away your sole rights on the image as creator. My phone captures, the first step, the funny face, that moment that everyone used to wish they had a camera for, and it is shared on community sites with friends and family across the country. I appreciate both kinds of photography, and I hope the world can appreciate and differentiate between them as well.

So glad that you addressed the issue in your usual "big view" manner - we agree, photography can never be considered equal to a painting - they are not even comparable mediums. We have explored and hopefully thoroughly explained why this is so in two articles on our site, www.theartistsroad.net , The Artist's Guide to Digital Cameras, Parts I and II. Digital cameras are basically hand-held computers with a lens attached, and they are programmed by well-meaning engineers to interpret light in certain predictable, formulaic ways which appeal to the largest group of people. Not a reasonable basis for artistic inspiration! Furthermore, while we can see up to 10 value steps, the camera can only see 5. If one shoots in the uber-common JPEG format instead of RAW, the pre-programmed algorithm throws away parts of the image before we get a chance to decide what we want. No wonder our photos of wonderful places often disappoint. The camera cannot adjust to the difference between bright light and deep shade the way our brain does - one has to choose one or the other. The differences go on and on, and we offer helpful suggestions on how to get the best out of your digital camera despite these limitations, especially for archiving art works.

I work in the digital world (online marketing) and one of the things that I love about painting is it's intrinsic ability to withstand the next solar flare. Even Michio Kaku, the well-known modern-day physicist has said it's not a matter of "if' but a matter of "when" another coronal solar flare will do catastrophic damage to our digital infrastructure.

I began painting about a year and a half ago and since that time, I have realized that "analog" art may be our only insurance if there were to be some type of electrical disturbance that could potentially wreak havoc on everything digital.

Yes there are so many “worthless” photos, that may never even be seen again; however you may want to address the more sophisticated use of the digital camera, along with manipulation to get only the outlines of a shape or face or building group, and use it as a base for a painting, which many of us have tried I am sure. In fact for a commissioned watercolor of a building familiar to the buyer I did just that, to make sure he would recognize the proportions. What can we say about such a trend?

Wow! In one fell swoop, you have categorized all paintings, from magnificent to dreadful, as fine art, And you have suggested that all digital photographs, from magnificent to dreadful, are the equivalent of snapshots taken with a phone camera. Do you really believe this, or were you just stirring up some conversation? If you have not had the experience of being mesmerized by a magnificent, framed, fine art digital photograph, hanging on a wall (not sitting on a cloud), I hope you will have an opportunity to do so.

Just as each of us has the unique genome, fingerprint or soul, each form of artistic expression is delightfully unique and VALID. The Redemption we learned in our finding the way in it all, since the dawn of ANY Photography.

It is the lesson that was begun with us when photography was invented and first popularly applied.

Before that, painting was one of only a few ways to record an image for posterity.

For a bit, when photography shoved its way to fore, there was madness and that is the madness that is not feared, but celebrated today in painting.

But a hundred fifty years ago, the services of the painter were no longer needed by practical society - a photo was fast, cheap and accurate.

It was THEN that the world was rocked by the whole thing with painting and the actual setback and threat.

The cataclysm was so severe that no one would talk about it, like the Emperor's new clothes...a pretty obvious and dramatic scenario that all feared to discuss, or even identify.

The sudden onset of digital photography did it again at first, and takes the brunt of setbacks in fine art that have had to do more with recessions and poor marketing during wartime than any intrinsic digital sinning.

Respect the diversity. Celebrate the diversity and we've got it?

Digital can be printed on canvas - becomes tangible and ........ my work in the Museum of Fine Art Houston is printed on canvas, stretched on canvas bars and .........

Digital can be handmade - you have to spend time learning and using the digital tools just like you have to learn to use a brush and paint- just a tool box. I have spent hours and days working on my digital images.

My canvas has texture, grain and etc.

What I DO know is that I will be printing out this thread and sharing it with my Digital Pictures students and my Visual Arts students at the high school at which I teach. I love Elle's comment of respecting and celebrating diversity. Hopefully with some thoughtful discussion my students will eventually see this.

All I can tell you is that it can be a dreary experience to click through the weekly photo challenges that my Digital Pictures students diligently tackle and submit to me. Some have the latest and most expensive equipment while others borrow obsolete point and shoots from their uncles. But there is always one or two that raise my eyebrows and have me sit up straight with a audible 'ooooh!'. Without fail there is a small percentage (from both the high and low/borrowed tech camps) that capture a distinct, almost divine, moment. A moment that allows you to experience the subtle dance of light, a texture, or brilliant hue of an ordinary object. These students have a gift of 'the hunt', which isn't a quick or violent act, but more a coaxing. If their compositions aren't art. Well... I'll eat my hat.

Taking photographs to "remember" means you don't take the time to really see things while they're happening. The photo is a substitute for the experience of vision that you should have enjoyed at the time, but it prevents you from actually seeing anything and yet you don't realize it. It puts me in mind of how museum visitors behave: they spend five minutes reading the information that the curators have so thoughtfully provided on those great big labels, and then they actually look at the painting for only about thirty seconds. They hardly looked at the painting and yet they believed they "saw" it. So what did they really "see"? I'd like to go to a museum that had no labels at all and watch what kind of "seeing" went on there.

Thank you so much for your "twice-weeklies". Thank you, thank you, thank you. Lately, I have been struggling with "over-working" my paintings. In that light, your letter from 6/25 contained a real gem for me: "The art of painting can be an "event" that is felt by the viewer". That is so right-on. But may I suggest that it might read: "The art of painting SHOULD be an "event" that is felt by the viewer"?

Best always,

Couldn't agree more with your article though I still have respect for photographers' images, some of which are really very good. However, what really disturbs me is the computer enhancement and manipulation of photos reproduced on canvas, wood or metal and then sold for "art."

Certainly not fair in a show, to the painter. I like it when a gallery is smart enough to separate the two art forms, featuring either photography or fine art.

Thanks for your letters; I share much of what you write with the artists in my plein air group, many of whom use their cameras to record scenes just for reference.

We're not talking about fine digital art here. We're talking about so many of the masses satisfying themselves with that tsunami of unregarded image making.

What about the scrapbook craze? Where does that fall on the richter scale of artsy? Ithink that scrapbooking proves that human beings have a need to embellish and manipulate images to fit their psyches. Also, I read a post somewhere (Wet Canvas?) of an artist who printed out digital images of toy soldiers photographed and then painted over top of them in casein, for his historical paintings. I feel often that digital or any kind of camera is a crutch, but when I do portraits from photos, esp. pet photos, I like to include the photo in the finished piece to allow viewer to see where I got what I painted. My plein air stuff is scritchier and looser, cartoonier than my art painted or drawn from a photo. I especially do house portraits.

cataloging for life - I started painting six years ago, around the same time I learned to use a computer - and have kept files of my work ever since (photo of model/painting/date) (photo of still life/painting/date) (photo of whatever else I've painted-date) . . . also folders by year of exhibits showing the venue-date-what was entered/accepted/rejected) . . .also an excel list for tax purposes . . . and finally a *removable thumbnails board (24"x36" with 1"x1" images of my art) so I can easily see what is on exhibit, and where it (hopefully) will be going in the next months.
*I've tried to do this on the computer, but hands on is so much better for me. Now that I've written this I'm wondering if I should call my therapist.

After reading this essay, I come up with : 
All or either/or? All is never either/or; either/or is All. Now I need some ether. This in turn lead to thinking that every painting takes its place in the history of painting. What we know of that history, we are aware of this when we see a painting and use it to help us see it. Photography has a shorter history and yet a quantum difference in what we consider when seeing a single photograph. Don't know where this goes, it just occurred to me. Have to stop thinking in words now now and get busy thinking in colors.

I limited myself for years to photography, not believing I could draw and paint. I resisted Photoshop, then caved and felt as if I were cheating a "real artist" with "fake" effects. Now I paint and draw. Also I still do photography. I have a datebook of women photographers in history and one quote is the the effect of "the photographer, more than any other type of artist captures an exact moment and owns it more than any other form of art." I agree with the concept that the legions of folks behind the cameras nowadays cheat themselves of actually being in the moment. I have set aside the camera on trips because either I am expwriencing the moment and living in it, or I am anxiously behind the camera, snapping away, out of touch with the present and then somewhat mystified upon return home, to look at pictures of places I was and wonder how it was. But what you wrote leaves out the whole realm of art photography and people who created it like Stieglitz, Mapplethorpe, Ansel Adams and so forth. Anyway I still do both or all kinds of art including photography from which I learned a lot about composition for paintings. As a closing comment, I would add re. The billionsof digital photos snapped on cellphones daily, as a society are more connected, yet more isolated from each other than ever before. An artist who is painting a subject sits and contemplates. We need to stay connected in a real way to the real world around us, not as bystanders passing through on rapid transit and lonely digital images. Thanks. Rachael Ikins www.rachaelikins.com Ask the Girl Arts on FB

I have to add a comment about owning a print- instead of the original. My bad- I'm sure.

I have a friend who is an exceptional painter- who painted a wondeful image that held much meaning for me metaphysically- that wasn't actually totally flat as he'd glued some interesting objects to the surface. And I wanted it.

As a working artist I have no funds for buying art. I did- however- have a stack of mixed music cds that I'd just given him. So he made up a print that was only 16" square, much smaller than the original and a perfect small size for my space, and we made a trade. And I have the (print) image and am 100% happy with that.

So digital prints of original art can serve a right purpose.

While most photographs taken can be classified as point and shoot, or click here..., those of many photographic artists are indeed done by hand, take hours or days to complete, and are in many cases more imaginative and creative than many of the works of artists (painters) I know. To get an example of this good work, go to John Paul Caponigro's website for digital and also find the work of his father Paul Caponigro who is still working in film. Both father and son have achieved outstanding acclaim as nature and fine art photographers. There are many such, and I can attest from personal experience that it is as rich and challenging a medium as one wants to find.

Couldn't agree more with your letter though I still have respect for photographers' images, some of which are really very good. However, what really disturbs me is the computer enhancement and manipulation of photos reproduced on canvas, wood or metal and then sold for "art."

Certainly not fair in a show, to the painter. I like it when a gallery is smart enough to separate the two art forms, featuring either photography or fine art.

Thanks for your letters; I share much of what you write with the artists in my plein air group, many of whom use their cameras to record scenes just for reference.

"Paintings, like bars of gold, are assets of investment and hoarding; a treasury that may span generations." Really? All paintings? Even that one of Elvis done on black velvet hanging on your rec room wall? Or that one of the dogs playing poker?

As a photographer, I had sort of hoped this debate ended in the 1860s. It's not the medium, it's the message. Yes, it takes more physical dexterity to create a painting than it does to create a photograph, but not more vision.

Today's world is undoubtedly flooded with billions of photographs and the vast majority of them are banal and meaningless. But that doesn't mean that the photographic medium itself is banal.

What frustrates me the most is the huge and growing number of painters who are unable to create a painting from life. They have to make a photograph of their subject first and then paint from the photo. Is this art? Their results are so obviously photographic, but since it's done with paint, not gelatin silver or ink, all of a sudden it's 'art'. Can't we just agree that not all paintings are art simply because they're paintings?

Thank you. I'll calm down now.

There are photos I've taken that look cheesy as all getout, or really boring, and yet they make good paintings. There are photos I've taken that look great, but they do not make for good paintings. Go figure. There is a line that can't be crossed between both those mediums. And yes, there's nothing like good drawing skills. It's possible to capture something subtle andmagical in a drawing that the camera will miss.

Ten years shooting photos on film underwater, I begin at thirty six exposures per dive; now with digital - unlimited shots.

Ultimately the photo only becomes worthy of being called art, when it meets the same standards as paint, drawing, or art of other media; this way, the photographer is as creative in this medium.

Let’s welcome Digital photography as a new medium, especially when combined with digital post processing

Using digital photography as the painting medium itself … progress to applying photos directly to the canvas via photo silk screens. Now use digital photography as the painting medium itself. The completed images are computer files, printed as Giclée images on archival paper.
This way, you paint in unique layers. Every image aspect, on each layer, is 100% controllable at any time in the painting process. Color, size, contrast, tone, saturation, etc. Erase part of an image layer to reveal the image below or push a layer back, bring others forward, you can warp, distort or add perspective at will. Enjoy an endless array of pressure sensitive brushes, a flexibility not possible with conventional painting tools. The trick is how, what and when to take advantage of the serendipitous opportunities.
I work with a large 18" electronic drawing/painting tablet, a pressure sensitive pen and a 27" very high resolution iMac. I miss the smell of the paint, the feel and push back of the brush -occasionally I open a tube for its aroma while I work.

Is it just me or do others feel the same? I enjoy responding to Robert's letters from time-to-time but if you'll notice I keep my responses to 40 words or less. I find I simply don't have the time to read some of the responses that seem to go on forever. Heck, I'm starting to feel guilty about the length of this email. Maybe Robert can, with heaps of kindness and discretion, suggest to everyone to 'get to the point' otherwise their responses will likely go unread.
Doug Mays Stoney Creek, Ontario

I suspect that many of the digital images made will be lost forever within a generation. As a professional photographer, I have plenty of experience…..
Paul Delaroche, a painter in the ‘realistic tradition’, (when) he saw the first examples of the Daguerrotype process in France in 1839, he is reported to have said, “From today, painting is dead’. Fast forward 173 years later.
Digital photography may well make it easier to use up one's creative energy; a majority of people who use digital media, do so to communicate with people as one used to do by telephone and by letter. Digital media has very little to do with ‘creating’ anything but making connections with people.
Whether you expose an image using digital technology, film, the Daguerrotype or Collotype processes, and whether you print that image to produce an inkjet print (Giclee), a Silver print, a Cibachrome print, a Platinum print, an Albumen print or simply view it on your computer or television monitor has nothing to do with ‘creating art’ per se - All are simply tools. It is the person, behind the tool, whether it is a camera, a chisel or a brush, that ‘creates art’.
It requires considerable knowledge and skill to process and translate that digital capture of 0’s and 1’s into a fine image. It is anything but quick and easy. In a posting on the web site ‘Aardenburg Imaging & Archives’, Mark McCormick-Goodhart comments that “Digital image quality at its highest levels requires more photographic knowledge and skill than ever. Human talent and creativity has not been taken out of the equation.”
Personally, rather than conceptualizing or setting up a photograph, I prefer to react to a situation, to discover what is in front of me. Looking is not ‘seeing’. Composition is required by all artists working in any medium.

Mark McCormick-Goodhart comments “the broad scope and history of photographic technology has always made it more difficult to convince skeptics of the merits of photography as an art form.”
I recognized that only 40% of the best photographers work was purchased from anywhere between $ 600,000 to $ 4.3 million! ‘Moonrise, Hernandez, Mexico’ (1948) by Ansel Adams - ranks 19th down that list of 19.

The photograph is a sumptuous color landscape of the natural world; my experience is that it is not taken seriously by art galleries, at least here in Canada. In contrast, color photographs in the ‘landscape genre’ are very much valued just south of the border. I also believe that we are so immersed in ourselves as the main subject of our art that ‘the natural world’ is simply not on our radar screen.
Digital photography is indeed very popular but I don’t believe it is de-popularizing fine art.
Digital photography is simply the latest technology that allows us to make photographs.

Touching piece about what painting is. Really moving!
Netherlands.

It's very hard to make a photograph of what's going on in my head.