When does photography stop being photography? (Page 4): Then consider this ..... if two photographs are combined to form an image that NEVER existed in reality ... is the result a...

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

SharpShooter wrote:

Blackman, sorry about your mobility, that's gotta ... (show quote)

Then consider this ..... if two photographs are combined to form an image that NEVER existed in reality ... is the result a photograph or digital art ...

alggomas Loc: Wales, United Kingdom.

I would say that a heavily tweaked photograph should be called something like ....enhanced photograph...digitally enhanced...
Photographic art.....
Some photographs have been changed beyond the original and may even have items added.. You can even digitally enhance film photographs.
Magritte and Salvadore Dali spring too mind....their
paintings are obviously not real life but some are called say surreal paintings because that is what they are and their subjects, although manipulated are not trying to dupe anyone.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

DEBJENROB wrote:

Then consider this ..... if two photographs are combined to form an image that NEVER existed in reality ... is the result a photograph or digital art ...

it's a photograph as the elements are photographs. If you choose to define it further some would say that any post processing would eliminate it's consideration from even being a photograph. Note: Ansel Adams so darkened his skies that he eliminated clouds. Would you tell Ansel his images are not photographs?

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

Mark7829 wrote:

it's a photograph as the elements are photographs. If you choose to define it further some would say that any post processing would eliminate it's consideration from even being a photograph. Note: Ansel Adams so darkened his skies that he eliminated clouds. Would you tell Ansel his images are not photographs?

all of Ansel Adams photographs did exist in reality ....in photo editing .... yes you can change a color of an object, but the object did exist in reality .... if you add a human head on a bear .... that image never existed .... creating smoke rising from a dish of hot sauce is reality ... adding smoke to a previously taken photo of a dish of hot sauce is not .... there is a distinction ....

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

jfn007 wrote:

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.

That sound like a fellow I know named Tom in Covina.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

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.

Blackmtnman as far as I am concerned, if the image got its origins in a camera, it is photography. Yes, it may be contorted and modified by post processing, but, even film photography could be modified in the darkroom by doing double, triple and more exposures of images that weren't even taken in the same countries much less the same roll of film. And then dodging, burning in, color "correcting" all of the same things we do now in post processing. Your images, if they started in a camera, are still photography.
Keep up the great work.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

DEBJENROB wrote:

all of Ansel Adams photographs did exist in reality ....in photo editing .... yes you can change a color of an object, but the object did exist in reality .... if you add a human head on a bear .... that image never existed .... creating smoke rising from a dish of hot sauce is reality ... adding smoke to a previously taken photo of a dish of hot sauce is not .... there is a distinction ....

Ansel removed clouds and added sky. I don't see the difference if you added smoke or removed smoke. Ansel's work does not meet your criteria.

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

Mark7829 wrote:

Ansel removed clouds and added sky. I don't see the difference if you added smoke or removed smoke. Ansel's work does not meet your criteria.

I guess it dosen't

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

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.

Sorry to hear of your physical limitations. Much of photography as an art is in the minds' eye anyway. I too am gradually facing limitation. Due to gouty arthritis I can't walk far or for long times. Certainly no longer can I bend or lay-down to get odd angles. Eventually I may have to learn to shoot all left handed. But for now I get by with pain. So far I don't think my health has affected my photography style too much aside from the shooting positions limitations.

You are probably getting a ton of definitions for photography vs digital art or graphic art. I've even at school heard the coined term "digography" or "digitography". Too me it is all a sense of degree and a moving line to be crossed and I judge it on a case by case basis.

Personally I tend to leave my images pretty much "natural" and looking like traditional photographs. But I certainly do process them with Ps and Lr to get what I now envision or envisioned or visualized as natural.

If your example is representative, I say you are creating photographs. Yes, you manipulated it a bit and sure it does not look natural but it is far from not being a photograph and instead digital graphic art. To me your abstraction does not cross my line out of the world of photography. Much of my "straight" photography is very abstract right out of the camera. A lot of it you would have to ask "what is it". Some of my shots are just light and colors, nothing fully tangible.

So your surfing shot is not far out at all to me. Sure it does not look like a 1963 surf music album cover. In fact it begs the question from me -- what was your photography like before? Specifically how have your physical issues affected your photography as to style and artistic end result? What really prompted you to ask?

(Download)

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

SharpShooter wrote:

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!!

:thumbup: It may be computer manipulated, but still a photograph.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Heeding feedback from entrants and other jurors, I prefer the categories of "Photography" and "Digital Manipulation." noting that there is not a perfect boundary, here's how they are defined.

"Photography" is strongly based on the shot. Just as wet photographers could burn, dodge, mask, doing the same digitally is still a photo. Added to that would be sharpening and blurring.

"Digital Manipulation" makes use of the computer programs' abilities to use filters, make composites, create colors. As such, the work that blackmtnman posted would be digital manipulation.

Overlaps occur when the computer is used to do what was done through sandwiching negs, or Surrealist photos, or Uelsmann-type composites. Now, those would be, to my mind, "digital manipulation."

As you all can see (and imagine in other scenarios), we have a situation here.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

dsmeltz wrote:

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.

That's great, because Ansel Adams spent hours in the darkroom doing PP.

Phg Loc: Canada

To me it's the final product that counts! How you get there camera/computer/sofware doesn't matter. As long as it stats with a photograph. I liken it to the movies. These days a movie does not even require actors with the advancement in animation. Still many of them are the the ones that get the best critical reviews. Enjoy your final product my friend and others probably will also

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

boberic wrote:

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?

Would that be the same as chopping the model's head off before the shoot, or digitally removing it afterwards? :D

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

If you take the photo, then manipulate it in post processing, then it is a manipulated photograph. See how easy that is? :mrgreen:

Seriously, why worry about it? If it is pleasing to the eye, conveys the message you wish to send, then who should care what someone names it?

Have at it and keep them coming! The one you posted is excellent! :thumbup: