A lot of people love to create digital graphics and take real photos... which one is better? I know that the abstract ones are impressive, yet they lack meaning... which one is better????

I can't say which is better, since photographer will say taking real photos is better and vice versa..., but i prefer taking real photos, although the result is still in question (and this does not mean I'm a photographer).

i was thinking about this recently....

in that this is really a "graphics" blog and not a photo blog...

i resisted for some time, and only posted photographs, but have recently put in a few photoshop jobs.


i don't know how - but i do know that ever since photography was invented people were "photoshoping" their negatives in the darkroom and making interesting effects. Of course, it's much easier in the digital age.

And sometimes we fall into the trap of saying that a photograph is real. A photograph is not real. It is a flat 2D representation, it is only a part of the spectrum... it is dependent on the camera sensor, camera movement & position, the resolution, the bit-depth, the image format, the lens, the flash, the shutter-speed, the aperture... even the viewer.


But to make a distinction, I always put a "photoshop" tag on any image that isn't strictly a photograph - an image that has been severely processed and/or had some compositing work done on it too.

Sometimes it is obvious that a photo has been digitally manipulated, but sometimes it isn't... and I have to admit, I like to know.

Well, thanks for the replies, I think i've gotta stop posting Gimp entries!