rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

That may be so, but nothing wrong with a little curiosity on how it may have been accomplished. Like a magician trying to figure out how a fellow magician pulled off a particular trick, and learning from it.

bcrawf

The photographer makes NO claim in the link you've given that the final image was as the camera "saw" it. In fact, she says that the real fun in creating the image came "after" the camera work.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Most likely, she photographed the meadow (or whatever it is) then photographed herself In the meadow (tripod necessary, as she announced she had one). In Photoshop, you can place one photo above the other, in layers, then erase the top layer in the mirror and let the meadow show through. She could do the same thing to let the meadow show through in place of her hips, shoulders etc.

The technique is fairly simple, it's the idea and the choices that count.

bcrawf

Your phrase, "digital art and not photography," indicates you are using a woefully simplistic concept of photography, and not only in its digital mode. It is an absolutist attitude which may even rule out any post-processing at all.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I think your comment presents a fine sentiment, but a poor consideration of how photography really works. It's easy for us to talk about pixel altering as if photography began with pixels and we are setting the standard for everything that exists, including images that existed before digital photography. Here's my point: I don't know what the size of a pixel is--I'm fairly convinced the size varies from camera to camera, from post-processing manipulation to post-processing manipulation--but let's arbitrarily say it's .0001-inch. (It could be .1-inch or 1-foot; that's irrelevant.) According to these digital purists, who believe that altering one pixel propells the image out of the realm of photography and into that of digital art, changing one pixel alters the image irrevocably. Okay, so does that mean that dodging, burning, spot removal, and so forth, things that we did freely in the age of the negative changed what we were producing, changed it to art? Mr. Adams, if you subscribe to the "any alteration = art" theory, never produced a photograph.

By definition, photography is the capturing of images through the use of light (I'm ignoring, for the sake of brevity, thermography and other wonderful but highly esoteric forms of imaging.) Does that mean that we cannot manipulate the light. If you follow the inflexible logic of Sir's statement, placing a UV filter on a lens moves the result from the realm of "photography" into the realm of "digital art." Heaven only knows what the use of a polarizing filter, or, God-forbid, a lens baby does. I hear calls of "HERETIC" echoing in the background.

I don't do much "digital art." It's not that I don't like it; I just don't do it. I do a lot of tone mapping, HDR, cropping, dodging, and burning, but not much "art." My work is mostly focused on capturing the beauty of what I see. Often that beauty is an amalgam of reality and the embellishment that grows from my gut, but it's nearly always the product of what I've encountered and who I am. I don't see myself as a graphic artist. I'm just another photog who takes photos and then wonders how they can reflect a better, kinder, more loving light. The image below is an example of my work. I did almost nothing to it beyond cropping and a bit of spot healing. Since I did remove one blemish and did use a UV filter on it, I guess it's not really a photograph. So it goes...

ARTIST4EVER

1ST What she has done is very simple... I have done what she has done in many varations iMAC... (No outside APP's needed)... She may have discovered some secrets that Apples program is capable of doing.. Which is what I do with Apple programing.... you can manipulate a 2 Dimensional Photo in any format, any background, change your original photo which she has done. I can tell you how it can it's done, but i won't.... Photo Shop is not needed. Simple manipulation with Apple's program.......

ARTIST4EVER

Sorry about error in typing my comment.... 1st line error....(many varations on my iMAC)... 2nd line error...(I can tell you how it can be done, but I won't....

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

I'm not saying Photoshop is required, I'm only saying you can do this in Photoshop.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I did not hear her say it was taken in one shot. And of course that would be impossible unless what was behind the camera matched almost exactly the background. And it really does not matter if it were a mirror or empty fame as I am sure she used Photoshop or something similar with layers. Looking at her portfolio she is quite talented with PP. More so than I am that is for sure.

Even if she was laying in the video or article, I'd have a problem with that, but not with her art. I can figure out pretty quickly how she did many of her photos. How many of us would think to try though? Many photographers made "composites" with multiple exposures and printing with more than one negative and even cutouts and physically removing silver from negatives for ages back in the film days. Photoshop just made it easier and faster for us mortal photographers. One example of "weird" or "surreal" is Wynn Bullock. The masters of the past did it all with film!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I like your last paragraph there, and love your flower image. For me personally that is nicer than the young lady's graphic art.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Good to read some common sense. Never understand why ordinary people question talented artists. Photography is subjective isn't it? I wish I could come up with something unique!

thephotoman Loc: Rochester, NY

It is possible, especially if this is the first time she used a mirror for a selfie, she eliminated the legs, without realizing it made the image a little less believable. I think this is a great shot with a few minor flaws of thinking.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I am laughing a lot while I am typing this - What are your credentials to say what is and what isn't photography? I think what you were trying to say is that it is your OPINION right? Which everyone has one. Is black and white photography photography? Can you also please explain why you are ok with having your camera do the post processing and not if you were to do it after you took the shot? And here is another question for you. If you were to take the same shot at the same time with 9 different cameras (3 canons, 3 nikons, and 3 sonys for example) each having different setups, which one is the one that produced a photograph and which ones are digital art?

Lastly, was Ansel Adams a photographer or digital artist?

Thank you for your reply.

Ralloh Loc: Ohio

Photography is photography and PP is not? Utter BS.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

In that Michangelo chiseled away every bit of marble he felt that didn't contribute to his statue--what difference does it make? The image could have been done as stated--but it would be hard--also would maybe be harder to do it the other way--certainly not easy
Stan