Photography vs manipulation

[damnengine]

I think this is an interesting topic. How far can you manipulate a photo and still call it a photo, and can you call photography still an art if you manipulate the pic to no end? Or does it fit in the category photomanipulations then? I ask this question since I when it comes to photography, I never alter my photos and still call it photography, the reason why I do this is because I also manipulate photos in very extreme ways (as can be seen on my site). I wonder how the people here think about this.

[rkhndjr]

Dennis, I felt the same way and asked around on some forums. Not a lot of help, other than standard remarks about the need for enhancements on digital photos. I do think that you need some editing on digital images as opposed to SLR, but I don't go along with the extreme measures adopted by the Photoshop gurus. Have to work it out to YOUR satisfaction is the way I feel. If pics look good to you as they are, don't enhance.

[damnengine]

Thanks for replying, I usually hang around on digital art forums, and they have different categories for photography and photomanipulations, I just try to discover where people put boundaries (it's out of curiosity and perhaps I want to write an article about it)

[gandini]

A very interesting topic indeed. Unfortunately it may not elicit much traffic, since while many have opinions, they will feel that nothing may emerge from a discourse on a topic that bears considerable likeness to discussions of faith, religion and the value of reality television...
That said, I will offer my position, which so far will appear extreme. I believe that the end result is the *only* thing of value, and to be judged. Consequently, what ever it takes to get the end result you "previsualized" is OK with me.
That said, and perhaps more to the point of the original post, a photograph, however manipulated in PhotoShop, must have at least started life as an image made in a camera (I consider a pinhole camera to satisfy this definition, but I have always considered Man Ray's "'Ray-o-graphs" not photographs, for example.)
Moreover, since judgement is in the eye of the beholder, a photograph should *look* like a photograph for me to appreciate it as such, rather than some massively processed poster image, or abstract image.
But merging two digital camera images, editing, enhancing, changing colors, desaturating, etc. are all bona fide manipulations that are consistent with photography as a craft and art. The big difference for me between film/paper and digital photography has been the ease with which such manipulations can be achieved digitally, whereas they were such a pain to do manually!

that's my first salvo.

cheers,

[Jorge]

Well it’s an interesting subject, but also one that can easily lead to fruitless dead end discussions. I agree that the end result is what matters. This however does not imply that the question of manipulations doesn’t matter. Every visual piece of work needs credibility to contain value or meaning. A photojournalist who presents a rare shot of the president with another mans wife (to pick an example) cannot have achieved this by stitching photos together in PS without the photo is loosing its meaning. Photos are often perceived as a documentation of a situation, a place, a person etc. Manipulations will often work contrary to this common perception as it alters what was captured in the first place. If the value of the photo does not lie in its documentary properties alterations in my opinion is no problem. Or perhaps they are even necessary to add value to the photo. The main concern with all visual work should be to focus on value. What name you give it is secondary.

These are my preliminary thoughts.

By the way your site is really interesting.

[G2Jim]

I generally don't make a distinction as to how far a photo is adjusted or enhanced and still considered to be just a photograph until it is obviously apparent that it has been digitally altered beyond natural appearances. Once it's readily apparent, whether by extreme saturation, object duplication, software effect filters, or whatever, I then consider it a digital image or digital art.

Maybe a distinction hard to quantify, but never the less I get a little irritated when some sites have categories especially for digital art vs. a natural photo, and sure enough people still try to pass off their obviously drastically altered shots as natural photos.

That's my opinion, and luckily we're all entitled to one! :)

[onehotrx7]

Well, there is one ruling on this huge grey line that I can relate to you, and that is that the South Australian Photo Federation, and the Australian Photo Federation, have commented that there are no longer to be divisions between 'Photographic' and 'Digital' images... all will be seen as equal, and judged as so... the comment was passed on by a judge, who said that she was not going to rule an image any better or different just because someone had spent hours working on a computer with it... which made many comment 'and the difference to spending hours in a darkroom is...'

Cheers,
Stuart

[G2Jim]

Well at least they took a stand one way or another. I suppose the outcome depends partly on the subject and criteria of the judged category, and those that look more real may appeal more to the judges.

I don't mind someone spending hours on a computer or in a darkroom, but at least the ones coming out of the darkroom still look like a photograph! :)

[Longwatcher]

For me a photograph becomes not a photograph but only an image, when you have changed the basic content of the information presented from when it was originally imaged to a substantially different content.

Changing contrast, brightness, color, hue, saturation, etc. do not make it not an photograph no matter how much is done as long as it is done across the whole image.

When selective portions are changed then the change can not change the basic information of the image. using clone or heal to fix blemishes does not change the recognizable features of a person to any great extent and thus does not change the information content of the photograph. However, changing hair, skin or eye color beyond what is a normal range of human colors tend to turn it into an image versus a photograph at that point.

I would tend to adhere to the 10% rule for a basis to judge by. If more the 10% of the image has been manipulated from the whole, then it becomes an image instead of a photograph. Of course, how that 10% has been changed makes a difference. If only some extra contrast has been applied to one area, this would still be okay, but if color had been changed noticeably in that one area, then it would no longer be a photograph.

Just rambling about my beliefs on this matter.

[damnengine]

thanks for all your time (I would like some more responses though since I will write an article for the raster website about the whole issue). Then 10% rule is an interesting one Tim. Some people say that it's like spending lots of time in a darkroom, but will the following example than still be a photograph? (it's entirely build out of photographs)

http://www.damnengine.net/images/artwork/birdhouse0.jpg

[Leighow]

DENNIS

PHOTOGRAPHIC ARTS
*****************
I took a few minutes to look for a seasoned answer to your question and came up empty. As I proceeded, It seemed to me that manipulation just opens up new vistas as far as the "photograhphic" arts go -- arts that I know little about. So, just as an acrillic painting is not an oil painting - but still art, so to ( and what follows is a poorly structured comparison on my part); a deeply manipulated photograph is not a phototograph , but still within the domain of photographic art. Or some thing "profound" like that!

YOUR OWN PHOTO MANIPULATIONS
****************************
You own manipulations are fantastic. Very professional. You know your tools and you are filled with creative energy. I especially love the tones in the image that you posted above -- but others on your site are super too.

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC ARTS
*****************************************
I think that you would be deligted to review the digital postings on the Canadian Association for Photographic Arts at http://capa-acap.ca/digital/instruc2.htm. By the way, their annual conference will be in Ottawa this June. Also, you may want to prob this forum's membership to see if there is any interest in a "manipullation" topic. However, one of the problems you will face is that not all members are fluent in PS.

MY LATEST MANIPULATION
*********************
I am a novice. But here is an image of tulips that I shot yesterday and manipulted with:
- filters (smart blur edges)
- mode Prophoto
- filter brush e-sumi
- filter brush splatter
- layers, curves, et al.
Now if only it had been a cloudy day!!

http://members.rogers.com/hleigh/TULIP.jpg

HOWIE

PS: See Yah at the CAPA in Ottawa ! I think that you convinced me to attend.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It is interesting to me tha the original question in this thread was "is it still art" and not "is it still Photography"

To me that makes the answer very easy. It is of course Art,.. there does not need to be any photography in an image for it to be art.

O-kay so maybe I'm nitpicking symantics,.. but I still feel the same way. Art is produced in hundreds,. or thousands of different media. None of them need to be "pure" to remain "Art"

Any mix of different media is fair game.

So Yes,. to me it is all Art. "in the eyes of the beholder"

[Longwatcher]

Dennis,
I really like that image, I had to look at it for quite awhile.

It appears to be a composition of at least two probably three different photos. Namely the scale of the wood seems off from that of the bird and egg, which in turn seem off from the background.

It is off course ART, but I would lean towards it being an image versus a photograph because of the scale differences, but with out knowing the individual sources and your statement, I could believe it was all one photo, so would give the benefit of the doubt if challenged that it was a photo.

Since you stated it was a composition of photos, I would consider that the overall content of each of the photos has been changed so it becomes an image instead of a photo at that point.

two examples of mine that would be appropriate maybe
are

http://www.longwatcher.com/images/yard-BW-bird.jpg

and

http://www.longwatcher.com/images/Huntington%20Park%20-%20Sea%20Gull02.jpg

The first even though I have only changed it to a two tone image, I have changed the photograph sufficeintly that it is now an image versus a photograph. The picture of the bird has become a different thing

The second while not as extreme remains a photograph, because the content of the object as a bird remains.

It can be tough which is why I use the term changing the information content of the image. In the first, it may no longer be a bird, in the second it is still a bird.

Just my rambling,
Good topic though

[Longwatcher]

BTW:
I need to fix the second image, it looked better on my home computer in the TIF version. but frequently when I covert to jpeg I forget to recheck contrast as in this case. I need to lighten up the background.

[Conk]

Dennis

I took a stroll through your site. Absolutely stunning work. Thanks for sharing.

[Cristian Vidmar]

Is it so important being it photography or not when it's art and not journalism? I (we) like photos or not depending on what they communicate, in a general sense. When I see a painting maybe I like it maybe not, it depends on how the image can communicate, create sensations. The same with a carbon pencil drawing or any other form of "imagery". I like good images, maybe I like more the ones that are 90to100% photography than the ones that are 10% of it, but communicating is what matters to me. Disregarding of the technique. And in this sense I welcommed the new digital tools as nothing but that one more tool to create images. To communicate.

Cristian