Serious question about "Award Winning" photography trend

In the past year (and I know it's been around longer) there seems to be a rapidly growing trend with contests sponsored by PPA, WPPI and others to lavish photography awards on pieces that are composites subsequently heavily processed so that they look for all the world like paintings evocative of the "Old Masters." Waterson is a popular artist to emulate, but it runs the gamut.

Without trying to offend anyone who works in this style, can someone tell me why this is considered photography in the case for awards? Understand, I'm not saying this isn't art, or that it doesn't take a high degree of skill, vision and talent to pull off. But the photography itself is a comparatively minor part of the finished product, akin to painters in centuries past using camera obscura in their work. What's the rationale for defining this as photography? At most I'd consider it mixed media. Thanks!

Personally I think photography should represent reality...although the line where 'a little retouching' might come into play blurs it a bit. However, like the courts said about porn and community standards, you know it when you see it.

Once someone takes their photo image and turns it into a graphic illustration then it ceases to be a photograph, but just that, a graphic illustration.

EDIT: Wrong tab open. Woops.

There has never, ever been an image printed that hasn't been subjected to some form of post processing. Those of you that think otherwise are somewhat less than knowledgeable of the photographic process.

chauncey wrote in post #12002827
Those of you that think otherwise are somewhat less than knowledgeable of the photographic process.

Disagree. Anyone can tell the difference between a landscape, for example, that's been dodged, burned and parts bleached while still retaining a fairly one to one correspondence to reality as opposed to the obvious painterly aspect of a photo being put through the digital grinder.
Burn, dodge and bleaching has more to do with compensating for the limitations of film and paper than wholesale transformations that is used within the digital medium.

That has more in common with an artist that uses a photograph of his subject next to his painting easel in order to copy from than anything else.

GtrPlyr wrote in post #12002891
Disagree. Anyone can tell the difference between a landscape, for example, that's been dodged, burned and parts bleached while still retaining a fairly one to one correspondence to reality as opposed to the obvious painterly aspect of a photo being put through the digital grinder.
Burn, dodge and bleaching has more to do with compensating for the limitations of film and paper than wholesale transformations within the digital medium.

That has more in common with an artist that uses a photograph of his subject next to his painting easel to copy from than anything else.

I agree with Chauncy on this subject, and I disagree with the statement that "anyone can tell", maybe a decent photographer but most people would never know the difference, and if they liked the photograph, they wouldn't care if you explained it to them.

My response to this type of thing is pretty much "who cares?" -- the nature of the contest is determined by the promoters and judges to be whatever they determine it to be. There are plenty of contests/publications/​sites that have firm rules against such things, and "who cares" about the variety that is out there? If it doesn't appeal to you, go elsewhere -- nobody is forcing you to participate!

chauncey wrote in post #12002827
There has never, ever been an image printed that hasn't been subjected to some form of post processing. Those of you that think otherwise are somewhat less than knowledgeable of the photographic process.

True

tonylong wrote in post #12003074
My response to this type of thing is pretty much "who cares?" -- the nature of the contest is determined by the promoters and judges to be whatever they determine it to be. There are plenty of contests/publications/​sites that have firm rules against such things, and "who cares" about the variety that is out there? If it doesn't appeal to you, go elsewhere -- nobody is forcing you to participate!

True

Reality, what reality...the dynamic range of a camera cannot begin to approach that of the eye/brain. The printer is even less efficient. So I ask, what reality are you referring to?

tonylong wrote in post #12003074
If it doesn't appeal to you, go elsewhere -- nobody is forcing you to participate!

You misread my post entirely. I'm not knocking the style. I admire a lot of it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around its classification as "photography" when it aspires to present more as an illustration. The whole "quacks like a duck" thing.

chauncey wrote in post #12003918
Reality, what reality...the dynamic range of a camera cannot begin to approach that of the eye/brain. The printer is even less efficient. So I ask, what reality are you referring to?

What the heck does dynamic range have to do with anything. That's a piddling argument.

When a normal photograph is taken, be it color or black and white, it handily represents reality in that one could be standing there as a viewer inside the photograph looking on to that scene.

OTOH, turning that photo into some Van Gogh certainly does not. When you're awake in your daily life, does everything around you look like a bloody painting? No.
If you took your camera an snapped a picture, would that not look like a fairly true representation of what your eyes see?
Emphatically Yes!

GtrPlyr wrote in post #12006271
When you're awake in your daily life, does everything around you look like a bloody painting? No.
If you took your camera an snapped a picture, would that not look like a fairly true representation of what your eyes see?
Emphatically Yes!

I do agree that photography should represent the reality, the thing we see with our eyes. However, we also could transform the 'photography' we used to know to something different, such as this. I think the purpose is just for fun, expressing the art. It may or may not be classified as photography depends on how you see it.

It is classified as photography because the basic of the picture is taken by a camera, or not because it doesn't look real, it doesn't exist in the real life.

In an effort to sustain its definition, photography is not under any obligation to represent reality.

jblaschke wrote in post #12005048
You misread my post entirely. I'm not knocking the style. I admire a lot of it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around its classification as "photography" when it aspires to present more as an illustration. The whole "quacks like a duck" thing.

But my point was why waste the energy trying to wrap your head around it?

No, it would not.
You would benefit from some education to learn how we humans "see" as opposed to how a camera "see" as well as learning what happens within the camera when you "snap a picture".