Is it a photo or graphic design?

Here's a question that may ruffle some feathers...

A little background... My specialty is automotive photography. I'm a freelance photographer for a major publisher that puts out Truckin Magazine, 8 Lug, 5.0, Classic Trucks, etc. I also shoot for a handful of aftermarket accessory catalogs. I have 11 covers to date and a handful more features. I've been doing this "seriously" for about a year now. I still consider it a hobby and I'm an IT nerd full time.

In my opinion, there is a fine line between a photo and graphic design. I've spent a few years refining my techniques and learning how to get it right on the camera before I shoot. It saves me a ton of time on the back-end when I go to edit. Most of the time, I hardly do any processing because I got everything right, or as close as possible, on the camera during the shoot.

I see a lot of "photos" on this site and on Facebook as I'm trolling around. People post a photo and then the results of hours and hours of time spent editing in Photoshop.

So here's my question...Do you consider the end result a photo? I say no. Don't get me wrong, the end results are phenomenal, but I don't see it as a photo at that point. I think it crossed the line into graphic design after about an hour into post-processing.

Call me a purist, I guess.

What do you all think?

You've obviously never done anything in a darkroom.

Numenorean wrote in post #15867273
You've obviously never done anything in a darkroom.

Touche'.

I should say I'm a minimalist. Less (post processing) is more.

bradttu wrote in post #15867798
I should say I'm a minimalist. Less (post processing) is more.

You eat your steak raw with pepper. That is your preference. Doesn't mean the steak at the next table that is well done and smothered in mushroom sauce isn't still a steak.

I can only imagine what movies would be like if Hollywood took that same approach. . . . .

Dan Marchant wrote in post #15867829
You eat your steak raw with pepper. That is your preference. Doesn't mean the steak at the next table that is well done and smothered in mushroom sauce isn't still a steak.

Man I'm hungry now.

Very valid points.

I've found that alot of people who can't edit or get the results they want tend to skoff at PP. Not saying that you're guilty of that brad by the way.

I'm always looking to create a piece that i love, if it's straight out of the camera or edited afterwards the result is the most important to me.

Even if i have to grab my Wacom and create something from scratch it's a feeling i'm after, not a shot or graphic.

steak...p-lease...

darkroom...well, yes...but only to a point? i have spent many many hours in a darkroom, but please correct me if i am wrong: in a darkroom one is still manipulating light with light. one can still go past "photograph" and into graphic design of course.

"photograph" means "recording the light", not "inventing the light".

having said all that--pp is obviously most necessary when using modern digital cameras. no pp and all you have is bland snapshots.

good composition can be achieved in many ways. bending the light thru a lens is not really "truth." there is still the artist's vision/interpretation at work. cropping alone is an act of graphic design. a photo needs to tell a story clearly to be effective. the story is told with light/shadow/color/pat​terns--the very same stuff used in graphic design.

am i talking out of both sides of my mouth?

You design the outcome. Whether you spend the time on the front end or the backend is a triviality.

No, no pp and all you have is a list of sensel (sensor pixel) voltages, or at most a greyscale checkerboard image. You need to think about the nature of digital photographic technology, or learn a bit about it if you don't already know. Post-processing is everything that is done to the sensor data after the Raw stage, whether it is done by the processing application in the camera CPU or later in a larger computer. And the first thing that is done is the creation of the colors, a purely digital operation. So at its most basic level digital photography is about recording only the intensity of the light and inventing its color. And from there the rest of the process is essentially the same wherever it is done; the only difference is the question of who controls it - 90% programmers and 10% photographer when it is done in-camera or 50% programmers and 50% photographer when it is done later.

Oh, and by the way, the darkroom reference included such factors as choice of film and its development, choice of paper, contrast filters for Vari-contrast paper, color compensation filter pack for color, etc. - none of which had anything to do with manipulating light with light. Film photography was mostly about manipulating chemistry with light.

hitting "print" straight from the camera is a bit like only using the first four gears on a six speed.

to answer the question, yes - a digital photo is a digital photo, regardless of the way the data has been arranged.

One thing that should be clarified in this discussion is: what is "graphic design?" Because this is the counterpoint to the "photograph" it may help to have the OP define what graphic design really is. It could mean anything.

kirk

benttop wrote in post #15868234
You design the outcome. Whether you spend the time on the front end or the backend is a triviality.

I tend to agree. Having spent years shooting transparencies & getting it "right" in the camera, I'm happy to be able to get the same effect in a few minutes in PS. I don't care what you call it, and it's a lot cheaper, too.

kirkt wrote in post #15869132
One thing that should be clarified in this discussion is: what is "graphic design?" Because this is the counterpoint to the "photograph" it may help to have the OP define what graphic design really is. It could mean anything.

kirk

It doesn't matter. The idea that a one digital image is more "pure" than another relies on entirely arbitrary distinctions.