Bridges wrote:
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!
I posted a few days ago asking whether you felt di... (
show quote)
I'm sure the same argument happened before. "only oil paint on canvas is art, NOT photography." It will never end. Just shoot and be happy!!!