I answered shortly earlier but will expand:
I answered no and here is why. In the old days I made serigraphs and used a process camera in the process but in the end it was a serigraph not a photograph. Here is something to think about, where I think the hybrid people are confused. If you take your negative and scan it into a computer then print it out on inkjet, it is not a photograph. Just because you use a photographic process does not make the final product a photograph. Now, if you print it on a light jet then it is a photograph. The point being that the final product must be made with light. There is no way to argue this point. By this a d... capture printed on silver halide paper is a photograph. Where a 7x17 neg, carefully composed and developed then scanned in, inkjeted out is not a photograph.
Sorry but I think thats completely screwed up and just plain totally 100% wrong.
A print is a print, a light jet print was made with dye, it is a reproduction of a photograph, not the original.
The drawing with light phase (ie: photography) finishes after you finish exposing the original, a drawing of light is conceived and created by one who thinks about it beforehand before the shutter is released, hence the photograph has been created already, it exists in the consciousness of the photographer, what comes after that is the execution of the conception and realisation and physical manifestation of the photograph.
A print is a physical manifestation of the original photograph.
Printing in the dark room or on a light jet is not photography, printers call themselves printers, and what they do printing, it is printing, not photography, you are not drawing with light, you are making a reproduction with dye or silver as opposed to ink of an inkjet or dye again of a dye-sub.
You can blame it on kodak and the other big companies for selling digital as "photography" from the very beginning.
Digital photography is just photography, the tools and workflow differ, as do many forms of analogue photography, between equipment and types of process from bitumen to kallotypes and others.
I call a film or digital originating photography on both RA-4 paper or digital inkjet a print of a photograph, though I could extend that to say a inkjet print of a photograph etc.
Digital art and digital image are incorrect terms to apply to photography undergone a digital process.
It is totally wrong to refer to any kind of print as a digital image, it is no longer a digital image, regardless if it is inkjet or not. Digital image is vague and just refers to an image of any kind that has been stored digitally.
It is incorrect to refer to photography that has gone through a digital process as digital art, it was not created digitally, photographers that use digital equipment have drawn with light exactly the same as those that have used film as their medium, they were created equally by the photographers, who use their medium to bring their photography, their drawing of light into reality and existence outside of themselves.
The fact remains that a light exposure in a digital camera is actually analogue, with voltage instead of film density, it is converted in camera to be stored digitally after the fact, not that it matters, the process the photographer goes through to create their drawing of light and then execute it is the same.
Digital art is something created digitally, the problem with calling photography digital art is not that its a vague umbrella term that also refers to manga artists drawing digitally, digital painters and other things, but the term is totally incorrect and any kind of photography does not come under digital art at all (using a photograph(s) to create digital art is different).
Drawing with light (photography) in the physical world is not digital art, it was not created digitally, it was created with the physics of light, end of story.
What I am seeing in this thread is a lot of armchair elitism.
Last edited by a moderator: