Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

I posted a few days ago asking whether you felt digital photography was a plus or minus to the genre of photography. A lot of people were not on the same page as me. They felt the post was about technology vs. traditional photo techniques. It was not. It was about where is the line between photography and illustration.
At what point does a photograph cease to be a photograph and become a different form of art. I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think we need to view photographs and highly manipulated photographs as two different genres.

Of all the responses I think gwilliams6's response was the most point-on (being a university professor of photography perhaps explains why). Here is what he wrote:

I started my photography journey in the 1960s and have used every iteration of the craft as an amateur and as a longtime professional photojournalist and Professor of Photography at a state University.

You can't stop the progression of technology and innovation in photography and in photo processing. But I do believe it is important to know what constitutes art and what is reality in photography.

As I teach my University Art Department photo students, anything and everything goes in art. But I also teach my University Photojournalism students that ethically there is a limit to what can be done in processing and still retain the truth which is to be preserved. That line should NOT be crossed in Photojournalism. But sadly many do.

With so many special effects and CGI in our imagery every day, it is getting harder and harder to know what is real and what isn't.

Yes, I have done layered photos, but then I call them photo illustrations and don't pass them off as reality. I would rather have the experience, adventure, hard work, and yes, some luck to find and capture a real sky than use any sky replacement.

Four examples: first a shot that is a combination of two of my photos to illustrate and advertise the X-Games in Philadelphia, Pa. This is a photo illustration pure and simple, art but not reality.

Second, a real sky found out on a walk along the marina at Disney's Hilton Head Resort, South Carolina. No sky replacement, Nature provided the colors.

Third, a real sunrise over the famed Monument Valley, a scene of countless movies, TV shows, commercials, Navajo lands, Arizona/Utah border. A real sky

Fourth, an actual time exposure, a single frame taken while driving down a New Jersey road at night. Not CGI or special effects. The adventure of imagining this shot, and then making this real shot with the camera set up inside the car was more enjoyable than if I had faked this shot in layers in PS.

To view the beautiful illustration photos he posted, go to the original post on this subject and look on pg.4.

Interestingly enough, I was looking through one of my photo books, "Techniques of the World's Greatest Photographers" and came across a photo by gustave le gray. The photo is a scene of a seascape. The history of the photo points out that the sea was from one negative and the dramatic sky was from another. This wasn't from recent past history, it was from the 1850s -- over 100 years ago! It also said his techniques caused a great sensation however it did not elaborate on whether the "sensation" was positive or negative! The book also told of nine of his prints being entered into a fine arts exhibit in Paris. A jury found the works worthy of displaying them along with lithographs but it was later overruled and the photographs dismissed as being products of science rather than art. Unfortunately, this narrow-minded attitude still exists. I approached a gallery in Bethlehem last year and inquired about hanging some work there. They informed me they do not accept photography!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Where to draw the line between the two genres? How many layer mask applications does it take such that an image then qualifies as "highly manipulated"? Everyone will have a different opinion on the issue!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think at least part of the problem is that for many, the boundary between reality and fantasy, or between art and journalism can be very difficult to see in digital photography. For the crowd who processes every shot, where is the boundary between fine-tuning white balance and creating a whole new palette? Where is the boundary between straightening a horizon and turning a photograph of wildflowers on an open plain into a flowery hillside? Where is the boundary between depicting a landscape with a partly cloudy sky as an afternoon with a life-threatening storm?

Even in the darkroom, one was forced to be honest with and about what he was doing. Now, exactly the same operations are used to "finish an image" as are used to create a fantasy. In many ways, this loss of boundaries mirrors what has happened in society, so maybe it is not at all unexpected.

I've done darkroom work, both black and white and color. I've done (and still do) electronic post processing, both black and white and color. While they can produce very similar results (or not), they are in no way the same.

So to start answering your question, the default level of credibility attributed to a digital image is much lower than the level of credibility attributed to a silver image.

For a little different thought, consider this. I dabbled in magic and illusion for a while. I know exactly how some of the best-known illusions work, including "cups and balls" and "linking rings." That knowledge takes me one of two directions⁰ when those illusions are performed. Sometimes it's complete disinterest. But other times it is utter amazement at what the practitioner is able to present with just the simple knowledge of how the trick works.

User ID

Survey results: 256 layers

classic320

I've been (re)reading Sontag's "On Photography" which explores these and other aspects of photography's place in modern culture and although she addresses then current film/chemical based photography, I would think that electronic photography (freed from the need for even having a physical exisitance and having near instanteous distribution) can only amplify her thoughts on the subject.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A great photographer masters PhotoShop.

Bill_de Loc: US

Are you going to repost this every few days? I hope Mr. Williams is paying you for the exposure? I always thought he handled that job pretty well on his own.

--

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

If you get bored, move on. Too bad someone can't give kudos to someone without someone finding fault with it.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Mike, you posed a good question. Since Kodak's, "You press the button, we do the rest", there will always be "shutter clickers" and photographers. Those who wish to learn photography will go that extra step to learn how to determine basic exposure (yeah, there's a formula), composition, etc. Others will simply want to produce "great" photographs without the necessary background and study required.

Camera manufacturers want to sell as many cameras as possible. So, incorporating as much "photographic knowledge" in the camera alone will allow anyone the opportunity to "press the button" and let the camera do the rest.

However, there needs to be some way to get that photograph out of the camera and displayed somewhere. For some folks, a simple transfer from camera to computer works. Others may want to explore and lean towards processing. Thus, the software folks are more than happy to produce software that easily allows people to process a photograph to produce the previsualized version of the subject photographed.

Your question is a good one but going back to darkroom work, I'll point out the works of Jerry Uelsmann. He produced incredibly intricate photographs using traditional darkroom equipment. Yet, none of his work would be found in nature. Would one consider his work photographic or illustrative? So, where's the boundary?

Almost all of my photography, film or digital, relies on The Zone System to produce my final print. Is the final result photographic or illustrative? I guess that would be a matter of opinion. To some, it would mean by manipulating the chemical interaction to produce the result would be photographic. Using Ps, or other software, to accomplish the same thing would be illustrative.
--Bob

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

[quote=Bridges] "I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think we need to view photographs and highly manipulated photographs as two different genres."

Seems like there's a wide range of opinion among photographers as to the line between what is a photograph and what isn't. One view is presented in this post. Another group thinks unless it's SOOC, it's cheating and not really photography. I have no horse in this race, and it makes no difference to me how someone else views what is or isn't a photograph. For me personally if it's taken with a camera, it's a photograph.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

This whole type of argument (Oops, sorry "discussion") long ago passed the point of being ridiculous. "What's a real photo ?", What's a real camera ?", "Who's a real photographer ?". From what I have seen the only people who give a damn are the ones trying to convince the whole world that their opinion is the only valid one.

leftj Loc: Texas

Who really cares.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Every successful photographer is driven by an inner voice telling them everyone else is using PhotoShop.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...Who really cares..." touché

Which brings to point how many responding to virtually any post on UHH are actually currently supporting themselves with their photographic endeavors...

As the late and great Dean Collins said: "Beauty is in the eyes of the check book holder"
For those who pay the bills with their kit, nothing else really matters.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Not quite right.

I take both types of photographs...real and constructed. But I never attempt to pass one off as the other. Elsewhere on this site is a photo that I took in the cemetery in Terlingua, Texas. Quite a bit of work was done to make foreground and midground details more visible, mostly lightening and similar adjustments. The part of the photograph that no one believes is the sky. It is completely as shot and was not touched during editing.