When does photography stop being photography? I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become...

blackmtnman

I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.

Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.

(Download)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

blackmtnman wrote:

I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.

Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.

Blackman, sorry about your mobility, that's gotta be a tough one if you've done photography freely for many years.
For me, if it starts in your camera, then it's photography, digital or otherwise.
If it starts it's created in your computer and does not involve a camera, then it would be digital art.
They both involve pixels, but it's where those pixels originate.
Lets see what others have to say! Good luck with your art. :thumbup:
SS
PS, the pic you show is clearly a photograph, and a darn good one at that!!

picpiper Loc: California

In my opinion as long as "all" you are doing is manipulating the pixels that your camera captured it is photography. If you were to drop a polar bear onto the skis then it becomes digital art.

Izza1967 Loc: Bristol, England

I personally would call that a photograph, what is it that you have done to it that makes you ask the question?

I see the colours look a little different to what I would have expected but it still looks like a very nice action shot to me :)

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

in terms of a camera, lens, and a sensor or film, photography will always be what it is. as far as what we can do with a picture, we've crossing and re-crossing the lives for the last 100 years. so who but the nitpickers cares.

jfn007 Loc: Close to the middle of nowhere.

I have a great friend who is wheel-chair bound and has only the use of his left arm and hand. His enthusiasm and spirits for photography have not flagged in forty years. I would assume it no longer becomes photography when it is no longer fun but becomes drudgery.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

bull drink water wrote:

in terms of a camera, lens, and a sensor or film, photography will always be what it is. as far as what we can do with a picture, we've crossed and re-crossed the lines for the last 100 years. so who but the nitpickers cares.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

bull drink water wrote:

in terms of a camera, lens, and a sensor or film, photography will always be what it is. as far as what we can do with a picture, we've crossing and re-crossing the lives (lines) for the last 100 years. so who but the nitpickers cares.

Indeed. Anything that helps the photograph tell the story as the photographer saw it is in bounds in my opinion. ;)

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

There is a big difference between a photo and a photo illustration.
Composite images for example would be considered photo illustrations and not photographs.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

picpiper wrote:

In my opinion as long as "all" you are doing is manipulating the pixels that your camera captured it is photography. If you were to drop a polar bear onto the skis then it becomes digital art.

:thumbup:

Except that if the polar bear and the skis were both photographed, I still think it would be photography. Ultimately, you are still painting with light.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Swamp Gator wrote:

There is a big difference between a photo and a photo illustration.
Composite images for example would be considered photo illustrations and not photographs.

But both would fall under the broader umbrella of photography.

I should point out that I do not do a lot of PP in my own work, but I defend the rights of other photographers to do so.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

A rather long definition from Merriam-Webster ....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photography

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

blackmtnman wrote:

I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.

Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.

I'm also believe if it starts as a photograph, It remains a photograph no matter how much you manipulate it. If not, then who decides when it becomes digital art rather than a photograph? It seems a big waste of time to argue where the line should be drawn.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Swamp Gator wrote:

There is a big difference between a photo and a photo illustration.
Composite images for example would be considered photo illustrations and not photographs.

People have been doing composite photographs way before digital came along, both in camera and in the darkroom. And that is what they are, composite photographs. I have done a lot of them, starting with film and now with digital, and I won't be told they are photo illustrations and not photographs.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

blackmtnman wrote:

I've become disabled and my mobility is poor. Because of that my photography has gone off on a tangent. As you can see, it's become heavily digitally modified.

Would you call this photography or digital art? I've built up a portfolio of this sort, and am not sure how to market it.

It seems kinda simple to me. If it starts in a camera it's a photograph. Whatever manipulation done to the original image dosen't matter. A film negative wouldn't be anything bot a photograph no matter what is done in the darkroom. I don't think there is any difference in PP in a computer. Enlarger VS Computer. So what. BTW I am scheduled for a knee replacemant next week so I can sympathise with your disability