Discussion: When does photography turn into digital art?

[Hoptography]

So, with all the photoshop, photo editing, cloning, smoothing, morphing, post processing in todays photography world, I've been wondering...

When does a photograph stop being a photo and turn into a digital art piece?

Some would argue that cropping, some light level changes, B+W conversion, etc is fine... but with other photos, like magazine covers etc, that have drastic modifications, is it really still a photograph?

If you change the hair, smooth the skin, add make-up, shadows, longer eyelashes... reshape the body to look thinner, etc... all these things are done to the majority of magazine covers you see in the checkout line... is it still a photograph, or has it become digital art?

So, where is the line? What is okay to do in post processing that still keeps the photograph legitimate? Should doctored photos be stamped?

Discuss!

[Mark_Cohran]

Hmmm, should images modified in the darkroom be stamped too? If it's photojournalism, the editors determine the limits. In other genres of photography, why does it matter?

[Radtech1]

Please define "Photograph".

[Hoptography]

Please define "Photograph".
I'd say, the result from pushing the shutter, straight from the camera, be it digital of film.

[Mark_Cohran]

So, an image that has had a minor level adjustment or color correction is no longer a photograph? What about if I use a Grad ND filter on the lens? Is it still a photograph then?

[Radtech1]

I'd say, the result from pushing the shutter, straight from the camera, be it digital of film.

There then is your answer. Anything else is "Digital Art"

(See, didn't need us - you had the answer all the time!)

Rad

[gjl711]

I'd say, the result from pushing the shutter, straight from the camera, be it digital of film.What about the processing in the camera. The pic is adulterated before it is ever written to the memory card. So for me digital art begins as soon as I press the shutter button. How much is all a matter of degree so I make no distinction.

photography = digital art.

[Hoptography]

That's what I want to discuss! See where you guys draw the line.

This comes sparked from a discussion I had in my communications class today. We were looking at magazine covers, and discussing how doctored they all were, and how that affected those who read the magazine. We determined that they were digital art, being passed off as truth. And that maybe it should be known when you are looking at a true photograph rather than something doctored and no longer truthful to the original image. But that begs the question of where the line is.

I was wondering where the line ends for each individual here. When does the truth and legitimacy of a photograph stop, after how much processing?

[Hoptography]

Hmmm, I didn't see the "Ethical Issues" thread already on here...perhaps I started this thread preemptively!

If the discussion should be focused in that thread, feel free to close this one!

[SOK]

We were looking at magazine covers, and discussing how doctored they all were, and how that affected those who read the magazine. We determined that they were digital art, being passed off as truth...

Hmmmm - the words 'magazine covers' and 'truth' are rarely appropriate in the same sentence (paragraph in this case)!!!

[FlyingPhotog]

My $0.02 worth:

If the result is beyond what could be done in an analog darkroom (exposure, density, color correction, dodging, burning, etc) you've moved beyond photography and into the realm of "Art" and this also applies to doing things to an analog print (physically cutting and pasting of elements.)

[chauncey]

Straight from the camera...does that include all the in-camera corrections that the camera makes automatically if you shoot jpeg.

If you shoot RAW, it is a "more pure" image but usually looks like $hit.

Define terms.

[Mike-DT6]

You can't draw the line anywhere in particular, but I think it's all art whichever angle you approach it from and whatever you do with it.

If a camera was used to capture the image then I think it's safe to say that it can be referred to as a photograph. If it looks like a photograph then I think it's okay to refer to it as one. If it has been manipulated to the extent that it loses its photographic appearance then maybe it could more accurately be described as an example of digital art.

I don't think traditional photography should be used as the sole benchmark for validating digital images though. Digital photography is a new discipline which comes with its own process, so it should also be judged in that context. You can still have a digital photograph that has been processed using techniques with no traditional equivalent.

Mike

:-)

[Tryco7]

If the image is captured with film and analog processed then, it is a photograph or snapshot. If the image is captured digitally, then it is a digital image. Either could be considered art, at varied levels and personal taste.

[Mark_Cohran]

If the image is captured with film and analog processed then, it is a photograph or snapshot. If the image is captured digitally, then it is a digital image. Either could be considered art, at varied levels and personal taste.

So, if I print one image from a negative and another from a digital file, does that make one print more or less a photograph than another? What about if I scan the negative, manipulate it in photoshop, then print it? Does it change categories then?

[Tixeon]

IMO a photograph becomes Art when it's framed nicely & hung for display, be it a museum or a wall at home. It doesn't matter what type of camera was used.

If you like the image viewed you might consider it Art & if you don't then you might consider it garbage. It all depends on the viewer. Many consider the work of Andy Warhol to be Art but I consider it very stinky garbage.:p

[airfrogusmc]

My $0.02 worth:

If the result is beyond what could be done in an analog darkroom (exposure, density, color correction, dodging, burning, etc) you've moved beyond photography and into the realm of "Art" and this also applies to doing things to an analog print (physically cutting and pasting of elements.)

Jerry Uelslmann's photographs we once totally created in the dark room and camera.

http://shutterbug.com/images/archivesart/0907uelsmann03.jpg

And what about John Paul Caponigro mostly digital.

http://goldwynfamily.com/images/books/procession_ii_4_5.jpg

So your saying that these guys are not photographers? :confused:
Are these not photographs?

[airfrogusmc]

Anybody???

[SlowBlink]

I think intent has a lot to do with it and that starts before you look through the viewfinder. How you frame, compose and light all contribute to the aesthetic qualities of the image. Whether you change the image in Photoshop or move a light three feet to the left, both are manipulation and unnatural.

I used to say it's not art until someone buys it, until then it's just something I did.

Air: Sure looks like photography to me.

[John_B]

ErikHoppy,
Well for me it goes to what the definition of a photograph is
Here on Wikipedia.com
A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip. Most photographs are created using a camera, which uses a lens to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction of what the human eye would see. The process of creating photographs is called photography. The word "photograph" coined 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek φώς (phos), "light" + γραφίς (graphis), "stylus", "paintbrush" or γραφή (graphê), "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph)

So referring to what you asked
If you change the hair, smooth the skin, add make-up, shadows, longer eyelashes... reshape the body to look thinner, etc... all these things are done to the majority of magazine covers you see in the checkout line... is it still a photograph, or has it become digital art?
This to me is manipulation and not a photograph.

[MCB]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?

How does the digital manipulation of a magazine cover have anything to do with the difference between a photograph and art? That seems to presuppose that a photograph is NOT art. Saying that that a photograph is only art after some arbitrary amount of post processing seems more than a little demeaning.

When does a photograph become a digital painting? ummm... who cares? Was your class shocked to learn that advertising is less than fully honest? Maybe some of the text in that magazine is misleading as well. Does that make it literature instead of journalism?

Even with no digital manipulation, photographs can be very misleading and not accurately represent reality. I've seen some shots of models while they were hanging around waiting for the shoot. Pre-makeup, without the lighting, in just a candid snapshot they looked BAD... B-A-D BAD. wow... the magic lights and makeup can do. The camera angle makes all the difference.

So I ask again, what does digital have to do with it? You can mislead and misrepresent to an amazing extent with no darkroom or digital manipulations. Reality and advertising rarely intersect. Why bring art into the equation?

[SlowBlink]

There seems to be a mythical middle ground where the processing becomes magic and converts a photograph into something else. Maybe a can of white paint will make my lenses sharper, worth a try. :)

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Let me quote what David duChemin (http://www.pixelatedimage.com/blog/) said at the photography talk in New Delhi recently, when a similar debate was sparked off during the Q&A session:

We are artists and not photojournalists or documentarians, we do not show what was there, we show things the way we saw them. If you wish to see what is actually there, then you should go there personally.

Photography is not supposed to be a scanning technique; designed and built to produce duplicate copies of a given scene or subject.

Photography is art, and a photograph is the artistic representation of the artist’s perspective and it should be left to the artist’s discretion, how much post processing he/she wants to do.

[SlowBlink]

Dave's right and those other guys are wrong. :) And only if Jesus is using his Dad's microwave, it goes up to 11.

[codex0]

They really aren't so much passed off as truth as they are assumed by the viewer to be truth. One of the problems with the photographic medium is that we assume that there is an "accurate representation."

We determined that they were digital art, being passed off as truth. And that maybe it should be known when you are looking at a true photograph rather than something doctored and no longer truthful to the original image. But that begs the question of where the line is.

I was wondering where the line ends for each individual here. When does the truth and legitimacy of a photograph stop, after how much processing?

[NZDoug]

:p An artist is some one who can project their own idea in a new way.
The important thing is to be noticed.
Or, if for money, you can project some one elses.
Thats a commercial artist, or , ???
Mostly.
Some one else judges you.
Everyones an artist.
GET REAL is always a good start. :D
HEY! HO!
LETS GO!
:rolleyes:

[PlayersZ28]

I'd say, the result from pushing the shutter, straight from the camera, be it digital of film.

In that case there's no such thing.

If you take film in for processing they adjust the levels/color before printing.

If you shoot digital then you end up adjusting settings and sharpening.

Even the camera adjust the final image if you take a JPEG from it.

[sjones]

If birthed from a camera, it is a photograph; maybe manipulated, doctored, distorted; even if used for the most pernicious of propaganda, or even if shaped by that most wretched 'Dave Hill look,' a photograph it still is.

The issue of misinformation or disinformation should not fall on the definition of a photograph or 'digital art' (as though such manipulation never existed in the age of film), but instead on what message an image can potentially convey, particularly in relation to how it is presented and under what context. A photograph with the most minimal of manipulation, let's say a Polaroid right out of the camera, can still be appropriated to disseminate misconceptions and half-truths.

[Mike-DT6]

I had Brian Sewell's voice in my head when I read that! :lol:

[Pekka]

Here's more discussion on same subject: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=117661 and http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=363762

[northlander]

Even though I tend to not agree with over the top photo manipulation I think it's just the progression to photography that's been taking place over time. The same argument could be made for switching from dry plates to roll film to using strobes etc. Like it or not it's opening up more possibilities all the time and will continue to progress long after we're gone.

[mooner-one]

The whole idea of photography is to be creative..., the camera and equipment are your tools. We all want our work to speak clearly its intent and we arrive at that end by our ability to express our intended outcome by our ability to use our tools. Now, that said, all photography, manipulated or not, to me, is irrelevant since we control the outcome of the work. I think being free to express ourselves through our pictures is truly a great gift. Use it wisely.

[tripsis]

I think what you mean to say is "Photomanipulation" rather than "Digital art."

Either way, I don't think there is really a "line." Each case is different, each person will have different opinions, etc. My personal opinion is that changing levels, contrast, saturation, cropping, and other simple things like that is perfectly fine. All of those things could have been what the photograph originally looked like, had you taken the picture under more ideal circumstances (better lighting, longer lens, etc.).

But once you start changing the actual picture by smoothing the skin of a model, changing the features of a model (i.e. hair colour, height, make-up, etc.), adding something to the image that wasn't there, etc., then it's no longer an actual photo but a photomanipulation.

[Tomillo]

Of course, quite often the model or scene itself is manipulated before the photograph is even taken. It is impossible to present a completely objective photograph of anything, as the choice of lens, film/sensor type, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, lighting, etc., all affect how the image is initially recorded. The photographer's job then, is to record an image that reflects, as nearly as possible, his or her interpretation of the scene. What that interpretation is can be widely influenced by the reason for the shoot, be it artistic, photojournalist, or commercial, but the basic task is the same. For as long as photographers have processed their images there have been arguments regarding the limits of legitimate post-processing. As with any other art form, a hard and fast rule is simply untenable - lots of people disagree. But then, if we were all doing the same thing with our cameras, there wouldn't be much point.

[gjl711]

I guess I look at it as a photographers job is to present an image where photography was extensively used, but that’s my interpretation. It seems as if we put so much importance on the how’s as if purity were somehow sacred and we should be limiting ourselves to the limits of the camera.

[GinoE]

The difference between "photography" and "photomanipulation"?

photography means: "writing with light"
photomanipulation means: "manipulating light"

Ergo: photography is photomanipulation

A photograph is not the scene that was before the camera. It is a representation of that scene by means of the manipulation of light, so that at a later time that representation can still be viewed. Any photograph is a manipulation of reality, it simply cannot be otherwise.

[conbu19]

I agree with Gil711 and GenoE,generally. Every picture ever taken was manipulated before a finger pressured a shutter button. Makes no difference why the photo was taken,by whom where or when.
As soon as the photographer moves his or her position to enable a "better" shot (fill in the blank for "reasons " for a better shot,the picture is manipulated.
How many of us go to sleep thinking of getting up earl,early..to capture the old dockyard with the rising sunlight... cause at 1 pm it looks like a stinky old backwater,we manipulated that photo the night before we took it!
I understand all of these arguments or points of view can have relevance but in the end you create a photograph,not just take one. Your very being in that place and time may or may not change the scene or the object of interest,just being there.
Create pictures,stop worrying about manipulating.The clock is ticking,don't fuss over unanswerable supposes.Just go do it!

[obanaga]

Here's where the divergence begins........

[bjordan]

Very interesting obanaga. Is that you shooting? While reading this thread, I was thinking about traditional archery... you can fight about about what is "traditional" all day - it's a semantic argument and it's a loser.

The point is, when people see a "photograph," they believe that it represents an actual image that they would have seen themselves had they been there. We've been conditioned to think that. Magazine covers and advertisements decieve the nieve, and they do it intentionally.

I don't believe in protecting the nieve with stickers though. If you're so worried about it, educate people that the photos are not reality. Save the stickers to voluntarily label what is "genuine" to some standard... like the term "organic" for food products.

I would say that an "organic" digital photo is one that is only cropped, and/or processed with algorithms that run against the entire image (B/W conversion, unsharp mask, curves, rotation, etc.).

When you make edits based primarily on a selected region, it becomes a 'chop, and is no longer suitable to represent reality in any way. Sure, you can make some crazy alien images with the "organic" techniques I mentioned above, but it becomes very obvious that the image has been altered.

That's my two coppers. I'll go back to "traditional" archery now: shooting carbon fiber arrows with a fiberglass bow strung with high modulus polyethylene...

[obanaga]

Not me. Photo of somone actually performing in a competitive primitive archery event. The actual photo did not come out very well - and so it lent itself to looking a better via some trickery. I labelled it for the guy in it. He's a traditionalist sort.

[Spacemunkie]

Photographic manipulation begins as soon as you look through the viewfinder. You make a decision where to point the camera, what to put in the frame, exposure settings and the point at which you press the shutter.

Reality has almost always been distorted by these processes alone!

[chauncey]

This debate is about as productive as a college debate at the local Pub..

Why aren't we discussing "what is truth"...or does that depend on what "is" is? :lol:

[gjl711]

This debate is about as productive as a college debate at the local Pub..

Why aren't we discussing "what is truth"...or does that depend on what "is" is? :lol:
Chauncey.. Why are you bring it back. It had died. :)

[Jared Byer]

I was wondering where the line ends for each individual here. When does the truth and legitimacy of a photograph stop, after how much processing?

Truth and legitmacy end when you put the camera up to your eye. A photograph is not reality and it never has been.

I think the only acceptable definition of truth or reality has to be how we experiance it. The normal human experiance is three diminsional and constantly moving through time. A photograph is two diminsions frozen in time. Black and white is even farther away from normal human perception.

Wide angle lens, telephoto - these all distort the field of view in one way or another.

And if you want to get into fashion photography, even if there was no photoshoping on the cover of a magazine, even if the cover went out exactly as the camera recorded and all camera settings were set to natural, that isn't reality. the lights that are used on a shoot like that, the make up and wardrobe on the model aren't what you see in reality and the five foot eight model that wieghs 95 pounds and has a C cup isn't real either.

The only thing that you can ever say is real or true is what you see through your own eyes - so in my opinion the whole digital art/reality/truth/photograph conversation is pointless.