digital magic

In response to Greg + Peppa
I think it's mostly the demands of selling software that prompt people to make it feel like you just push a button, and stuff happens. It also has to do with the fact that code/algorithms can be abstracted (hidden, kind-of). You cant hide photo chemicals that way. Or can you? Maybe the drug store photo lab is to developing photos by hand as photoshop is to writing code.
I'm not sure I understand the incompleteness, or difficulty with narrative in this context. To some degree it feels like there are infinite possibilities - but we've all seen images where instantly say : 'oh I know exactly which photoshop filter made that' - software can be huge and complex but it's still finite.
To bring it back to Manovich a little - it's surprising how similar a digital image is to a spreadsheet. They are all databases. I think we always experience it as narrative though, despite the fact that we understand database structure. I think it's something about language and movement.
Also, peppa : "I feel we are therefore not producing art in its original form, but all we do is manipulating it..." You'll have to explain what "art in its original form" is ;) - as far as I know, we're all always just manipulating things that already exist...

Greg's article made me thinking about our definition of art and our art works, which no doubt has changed so much with the digital media area. In regards to digital media, we are working in a completely different way. We don't work the tools, we have them work for us. I feel we are therefore not producing art in its original form, but all we do is manipulating it, taking it to another step, having the knowledge to do so. We can change just about anything! So, where do we cross the line? Is there one?
This makes it so much harder to actually find a narrative while creating. In painting you got to have a narrative beforehand.
It is still all art and plus, all very subjective.

Manovich's article was interesting in regards to digital imaging and process. The tools available now create a situation where an image is never complete. Now, like in painting a digital photographer has to decide when to stop working on an image. Process in terms of infinite ways of working imagery is new to photo. but process in terms of understanding how your image actually came into existence is somewhat missing. You simply press a button, plug in your camera's USB cord and you have an image to play with in Photoshop. Traditional Black and White photographers are part artist part chemist. You had to understand the process from lens to negative to print. I wonder if something is lost by having infinity to work on making your image perfect instead of screwing up and having to start over. It really is two different but related art forms because they require two different but related ways of thinking and working.