Had two new visitors to the bird feeder this past week.  I hadn't seen any Titmouse come to the feeder since last fall.  I believe there is also a family of Black Capped Titmouse in the neighborhood, but, have yet to catch them on a perch.  Lily, our Cavanese dog, and I have the greatest time watching these backyard birds coming and going throughout the day. 

Since todays digital technology has pretty much overtaken traditional film photography, how would you categorize these two images?  Photograph, Digital Art, or something else?  Why do I ask this question?  Over the years I have entered digital photographs in juried art exhibits that have been juried by a traditional artist, an artist primarily doing paintings, drawings, sculpture, etc. and not photography as an art form, such as these two images.  Invariably, the question comes up as to what medium should the image be juried as?  Note, in this situation, the original image was taken with a digital camera, processed with computer software, and printed as a inkjet print. Image No. 1 was processed from a digital raw file with pretty much standard computer software enhancements, and basically looks like a Photograph.  Image No. 2 is image No. 1 with further computer software enhancement to give it the look of a pencil sketch.  My experience has been that most traditional artist have accepted image No. 1 to be categorized as a Photograph, similar to one processed in a traditional film/wet/chemical process,  but have difficulty doing the same with image No. 2.  I am making an assumption that to the traditional artist,  making a photograph look like a traditional art form is no longer a photograph, nor, as in this scenario, is it a true pencil sketch.  Therefore, should it be considered as a Photographic image, a Digital Art image, or some other art form, even though it started out as being a photograph taken with a digital camera and not a film camera?
​
Comments are welcomed and I would ask that you share this with your photographer/traditional artist friends for their comments.  Also, if I'm bringing up a non-issue,  I'd appreciate hearing that too.

 I want to expand on an earlier post I made about Landscape Photographs. "A quick tip about what makes a good landscape photograph.  Besides the obvious of having a great subject/location there are three elements that should be in the photograph.  A interesting FOREGROUND, MIDDLE GROUND, AND BACKGROUND, each in tack sharp focus.  A small Aperture setting of f/16 or f/22 will set the Depth of Field needed to ensure success."  It's the tack sharp focus that I want to address.  Although a small Aperture of f/16 or f/22 will provide a good Depth of Field, it might not provide the best focus for the Foreground and Background subjects. Every lens has its best focus at the HYPERFOCAL DISTANCE.  This can become a very technical issue/discussion, but for my purpose I came across this article on the Tips and Tutorials on the Digital Photography School website that gives an excellent description and practical explanation of Hyperfocal Distance.  Getting Landscapes Sharp: Hyperfocal Distances and Aperture Selection   A Post By: Elliot Hook.  

A very general guideline to set your focus at the Hyperlocal Distance is to focus at a point approximately 1/3 up from the bottom of the frame and an Aperture of between f/8 and f/11.

​Also, when I Googled Hyperlocal Distances, there were several other hits that provided more detailed information on this subject.
​Enjoy the weekend.
​