Mainridge Loc: NW Mich, SW Fla

Thank-you for your suggestions and your encouragement. I appreciate it.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

And that, right there, to me, is the crux of the entire issue... and the photography vs. art discussion will never be resolved as long as post-processing, .jpg in-camera compression, "Auto" settings and other "manipulations" exist. Just create for the sake of creating, and leave the methodology to the academic discoursers.

Leitz Loc: Solms

If you use "Quote Reply" we'd know who you're thanking and for what!

Amator21 Loc: California

Yes! But using the coin is ingenious!

srt101fan

If we expand the category "movies" to include videos of any kind, including news and sports coverage, nature programs and science projects, etc, then we can say that "moving photographs" can range from pure fantasy all the way to depictions of harsh reality. Why can't we accept "photography" as having a similar range? Or do we need new words to describe different types of photography? I thought of "hybrid photography" but that term is apparently already used for something else.

You say: "What some are suggesting is the acceptance of substituting lack of talent/skill, desire to put forth an effort to learn good technical aspects, etc. with computer-aided gimmickry." Fair enough, happens in other endeavors. Training of classical chefs included (includes?) spending hours learning the proper way of cutting up ingredients. Now someone can throw them in a machine and get what they want.

This stuff is interesting. But with three threads with essentially the same discussions going on at the same time, my ageing brain is having a tough time keeping up!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

We already have words for genres of photography where a strict depiction of reality is required, with misleading processing or adding/removing things being considered unethical - documentary photography, photojournalism and forensic photography. And by the way, an experienced chef with a knife can still cut ingredients more precisely and consistently than a machine, and probably nearly as fast.

srt101fan

But we lack the terminology to differentiate the two approaches to photography being argued about in these threads! 😕

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I don't think we expand the category of movies as much as put them into existing categories, already classified by the MPI.

As for "constructing" a photograph, that is for the person doing so to possess the integrity of presenting it as such. For example, look at the works of Jerry Uelsmann.

I'm just not in favor of substituting technology for photographic expertise.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The key is integrity.
--Bob

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

Evidently photographers who create a composite photograph think it lessen the photograph to call it a composite, personally I don't feel it lessen the photo by calling it a composite it's just different. Showing a dog on the moon everyone knows it's a composite, when you show me the Grand Canyon with a sky from Fuji how am I to know, this is where the deceit starts even if it is not the purpose.
Definitions in photography need to change!

srt101fan

I guess I didn't express myself very well. If we lump all "moving image" products together, with Hollywood sci-fi movies at one end and how-to woodworking and cooking shows at the other, we easily accept that some is fantasy and some is "real". Why can't some folks accept that a similar range, from fantasy to realism, exists in the world of still-photography.

Full disclosure: I don't particularly care for sky replacements. Ones I've seen seem to accentuate the sky/clouds too much to make it a co-equal with other subject elements. Maybe that's to cover up that the original image didn't have a strong enough subject/content?

I like Uelsmann, also Duane Michals!

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Amen....

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks for introducing me to Duane Michals. Very interesting work.

Personally, I have no issue with folks who want to put stuff in a photograph that wasn't there at the time of taking the photograph. I have an integrity issue with people who do so and want others to think that's what they captured initially and through some incredible amount of talent, which isn't existent in reality, they produced an incredible photograph. Sure, create a category of "creative spaces" and let folks replace whatever they want. Just be honest about it.

In some of the retouching/restoration work I've done, I did whatever was necessary to recreate the original photograph. I've even had one restoration published in a book on photo restoration. However, it was quite apparent that the photograph was restored.

In my own photography, I alter the processing times to suit the tonal range. I use burning and dodging techniques to make slight additional adjustments to tonal ranges, but I don't put stuff in there that wasn't in the original scene. That is disengenuous.

To expand on your statement, " Maybe that's to cover up that the original image didn't have a strong enough subject/content?" Or, perhaps to cover up a shortage of talent.
--Bob

srt101fan

Bob, I generally agree with everything you say here. And I definitely agree with the "integrity" issue. And you seem to agree that under the "photographic" umbrella there should be room for creative manipulation of images gotten from a camera. As I said before, maybe we need a new term. I thought of "hybrid photography" but then realized that that term was already in use.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

How about Constructive Photography?
--Bob