Is it normal that i think of digital photography as a ripoff of art?

you just don't get it do you bro.

Digital photography is a different form of art. I'm sure painters thought the same thing of film when it was first introduced. Portrait artists probably thought photpgraphers were lazy and untalented.

And if you think it is as simple as point and shoot, you haven't seen my mother's attempt at it.

Wow just wow.

I think it's normal to think that way, but it's wrong. Many artists like to tear down other art forms and put theirs and themselves on a higher level. It's common, but wrong.

i can see how you could cultivate this opinion, you can pretty much excel at anything though, and there is a demand for good photographers/filmers etc..

it's mos def an art, anything than leads to pleasing of the senses is art

If only artistic photography were that simple! Yes, essentially you can snap a photo and call it art, but normally artistic photography has so much work put into it. I spend nearly an hour just prepping for the shoot!

Art is rather subjective, anyways. I personally don't consider it art when someone just splashes a bunch of paint on a canvas, but I respect the opinions of people who do.

Photography still requires all the same skills of composition that you find in other art forms. Art isn't just about the technique, it's about the composition too. In fact it isn't about either really - it's just about the expression. In a way I like it more than a lot of other art forms because it often captures and immortalises what would otherwise be ephemeral.

I think its normal to think of digital photography that way--but I believe its a narrow perspective;
Why can't the artistic process be a fast one?
Is the process more definitive of art than a viewer's reaction?

Photography is a lot more than simply snapping a photo and calling it art. One has to have an eye for great photos.

That said, most photos are not art. Do you look at photography art books or are you judging the art by just any old photos you run across? There's a big difference and you should learn it before being too critical.

I agree

I think that photography usually takes other skills such as patience, endurance, and a good eye. Though not all photographers are good at traditional art such as drawing. So some people think that it takes less artistic talent, since you are capturing something, not creating something. I think photography doesn't take as much creativity, but you can really tell when someone is good at it.

I can see your point but I think that there are several different art forms that are not really excepted as art forms among the art community. Digital photography definitely being one of them.

While I realise that digital photography is a "newer" form of art I still hate it. It looks fake and it can be edited many times before the finished product thus making it more fake.

I love analog. I love it because the things it captures are real. The photos are full of emotions and properties that digital will always lack. This is partly why I had to give up becoming a professional photographer because of my sheer hate towards digital and I was told by none professionals (family members) that I couldn't have a career or go learn if I only a analog cameras. Twits! They fail to realise that 1. There's a growing movement towards reviving analog cameras and 2. There are quite a few professionals who still use them.