Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

If you worked in news or sports photojournalism you would certainly be told that by your editor and you had better take it seriously too if you want to keep your job.
I know news photographers that have been fired for doing even fairly slight manipulations to their photos.
What you do on your own for fun is another matter and you can do anything you want and tell yourself whatever you need to if it makes you feel better.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Photojournalisim is also part of photography. Not all of it, just one part.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Thats another topic by itself. Whats the difference (as far as photo manipulation is concerned) witha model applying make up prior to a sesssion or cleaning up the photo after the shoot?

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I am one who on a philosophical level does not make a fine distinction between photography and digital art. If an image starts with my camera I consider it photography regardless of how much digital manipulation I apply. For me, the amount of manipulative editing is far less important than the impact of the final image.

However, having said that, my distinction between an image being called a "photograph" vs. "Digital art" does take on some added significance when I go to market my work. On my website and at art festivals i bill myself as Jim Ludwig Photography & Digital Art". I make this market place distinction despite my personal view that the distinction is not really that important.

I do a significant number of images where I combine the original photo with digitally added textures and color manipulation. In cases where my editing becomes a noticeable and important component in the image's final presentation, I market the piece as "Photo-digital Art". My reason for doing this is really to make a concession to the buying public's tendency to discount images that are obviously manipulated as being "not really photography". While I may not agree with that distinction, in the market place I find no reason to argue the point. And if anything, making that marketing concession does seem to work; many buyers will inquire as to what I mean by the term "photo-digital art", which allows me to talk about the techniques I utilize, and often that engages and intrigues the buyer in ways that can lead to a sale.

In summary, while I believe that photography spans a wide range of image types, in the market place it can make sense to draw a more narrow distinction between photography and digital art.

This is an example of an image I market as "photo-digital art".

"Ten Dead Soldiers"

(Download)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I certainly support anyone's right to call their own work whatever they want. It's when someone insists that someone else's work is digital art when they consider it photography that irritates me. I'm curious where you draw the line in your own work between photograph and digital art. Is there a hard and fast line in your mind, or is it case by case?

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

In my mind, John, I don't really concern myself much with which label I use to describe an image. In my mind every image is just an attempt to create something which has aesthetic value. When I go to market the image, however, I usually apply the "photo-digital art" label to images where manipulation is both obvious and plays an integral role in the aesthetic appeal of the piece. In the image I posted above, both of those conditions are met, hence I market it as digital art. My biggest seller however is a landscape which had extensive editing (hand blending two very distinct exposures), but because the manipulation is neither very obvious nor is it a distinct visual component of the overall image aesthetic, I present it as a photograph.

People are free to call my work whatever they want. Just don't call me late to dinner! :P

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

It's both. Market it the way you believe would be more profitable to do. 8-)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

That's one of the most arrogant things I've ever read. The OP wasn't talking about photojournalism, and I am very serious about my photography, It's a deeper thing to me than just "fun" and I don't need to tell myself anything to feel good about it.

One interesting historical note, the standards for manipulation in photojournalism have gotten much stricter now that digital has arrived. One of our greatest photojournalists, W. Eugene Smith, did extensive darkroom manipulation, going beyond just bringing out detail in highlights or shadows. He would darken backgrounds or lighten his main subjects to make them stand out, use selective bleaching, or anything that told his story. It wasn't an issue at the time, but today it would be considered unethical.

picpiper Loc: California

I wrestled for a few moments with that concept, but personally drew the line at "if the arrangement of the pixels in the image represent a real moment in time in the "real world" it is a photograph no matter how the individual pixels have been tweaked." If you combine images with masks, layers or other techniques you have moved into "digital art". But that's just my take on it.

Overall - I think Photographer Jim's comments, being based on marketplace experience, are the most valuable in this thread and most directly address blackmtnman's question.

(I'm just here enjoying a bit of applied pedantry. :lol: :lol: )

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

What would you call composite images created in the darkroom? If they aren't photographs any more, and they aren't digital art, what are they? I think they are still photographs, as are composite images done on the computer. Take my avatar. It is a multiple exposure on film, scanned and enhanced on the computer. I consider it a photograph.

picpiper Loc: California

I think you misread something. Composite images would be covered by: "If you combine images with masks, layers or other techniques you have moved into "digital art"." HOWEVER, since your avatar (which is really nice BTW) is based on multiple exposure "real world" images it still remains a photograph - according to my slightly modified rule below. :thumbup:

Your avatar does require a subtle additional clarification thusly: "If you combine incongruous images with masks, layers or other techniques you have moved into "digital art"." (Or "creative art photography" if you want to steepen the slippery pedantic slope :lol: )

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Whenever you combine images digitally it is done on with layers. If I had taken the same exposures I used for my film multiple exposure, and combined them in layers on the computer, the result would be basically the same. People have been using masks to create composites with view cameras for a long time. The techniques aren't that different.

The "slippery slope" is the problem. Everyone is going to have their own notion about where photography crosses over into digital art. I think everyone should define that for their own work. I don't want anyone defining my work as digital art when I consider it photography.

Bala Loc: Huntington Beach, Ca

I am sorry to hear about you mobility. The question is doing what you are doing, does it make you happy…if it does then what its called is immaterial..

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

I would call it photography. But, I can also see why someone "might" refer to it as digital art. Either way, it is a beautiful image and one to be proud of.

Photography is a hobby for me. I am definnitely not an artist in any way. But I don't really understand why some photographers become so angry and defensive when their image is called digital art. If you spend many, many hours manipulating an image, changing it into something totally different than what first came out of the camera, and someone refers to it as a work of art I would think you would be proud. It should not matter whether that piece of art was what the artist saw when looking through the lens of the camera or what he saw when looking at the image on his computer. It was turned into something special and enjoyed by many.

I admire and envy the artist's talent, no matter what the medium used to create the art.

Nikonista Loc: England

I am a painter and if I produce a portrait or a landscape it's a painting. Nobody questions this.

My hobby is photography (I should get out more) and it's not finished until I say it's finished - even if that means a dozen sessions in Photoshop. What I end up with is a photograph which I present to the viewer and they don't need to know how it was achieved.

Boberic is right. If it started in a camera then its a photograph whatever trials it has gone through in the interim.