Is it still a photograph if you.....

Bosscat wrote in post #17203189
To optimize it I used: Lightroom 4 for cropping and correcting the white balance. Photoshop Elements 10 for removing distracting objects (a lamp post, a fence, a billboard and a bird that looked like a smudge in the sky) Nik Colour Efex Pro 4 for tonal contrast. Lightroom 5 to correct lens distortion and make sure both tower and pillars were straight.

Is it still a photograph or is it now a computer facsimile of what you saw.


Discuss

Unless what you capture has the same dynamic range of your eyes it wasn't what you saw anyway. It was the sensor/film saw.

Ansel Adams was a master of dodge and burn in the dark room. He also spent more time on a shot in the darkroom than taking the shot

Pictures have been manipulated long before computers came along.

Luckless wrote in post #17203344
So painting isn't art, because some people use it to just cover up the walls so they don't look so uneven or unfinished?

The original statement I quoted was that photography becomes art when you edit it, and suggests that photography that is done in camera with only 'standard' processing and no excessive manipulation is never art.

all painting isn't art. it can be used to create something that expresses the artist or it can be slapped on a wall to give some color.

all photography isn't art. some is. all painting isn't art, some is. all music isn't art, some is.

art isn't medium specific, it needs to have some intent to express behind it. it doenst matter how you get there, only that you do.

Luckless wrote in post #17203344
So painting isn't art, because some people use it to just cover up the walls so they don't look so uneven or unfinished?

The original statement I quoted was that photography becomes art when you edit it, and suggests that photography that is done in camera with only 'standard' processing and no excessive manipulation is never art.

Which is obviously incorrect...

i don't think it really matters these days !use your own judgement after all its your photo,call it what you will.

mike_311 wrote in post #17203241
no. art is something you create with the intention to express something.

photography can be used to create art, but all photography isn't art, sometimes its just used to document.

And here I am thinking that every picture I take is an expression of myself. You'd make a case to say snapshots aren't art... but a proper photograph that you took the time to plan out, think about and capture surely is. When I am out and about I am always considering what exactly it is that I like about a scene and focus on that to bring it out in a photograph. If that isn't art, no amount of editing in Photoshop is going to turn it into art.

archer1960 wrote in post #17203199
My personal opinion is that cropping, adjusting white balance, curves, etc are still part of photography, but that adding or removing elements in the image move it from the realm of photography to art.

Yupe

Photojournalism can be art; that's usually what sets an exceptional photojournalist apart from others. Art isn't simply a product of swishy manipulation.

For the most part, if the image was largely spawned from a camera, then it's a photograph---I'd rather err on the side of equivocation than on pedantry, particularly when the narrowing of such definition usually incorporates petty ulterior motives.

I've said enough in my "Photoshop" missive linked below.

I'm out, but PM's always welcome...

It seems that everyone who was ever considered an outstanding photographer, producing images for sale, used every bit of technology available to him or her. The photographers who did it best, in the opinions of the masses, sold more of their work.

So don't bother looking for a definition or a line in the sand. We just need to do what we do, very well. And use whatever techniques and processes needed to present the image as we want it to be seen.

so you mean SOOC jpegs are the only true 'photogrpahs'?

thanks for today's laugh

Slide film......fake that smart guys!!!

Bosscat wrote in post #17204186
Slide film......fake that smart guys!!!

So you really don't think that there aren't ways to manipulate images shot on slide film? It's quite as possible to do manipulations with slide film as it is with any other photographic medium. As others have said it is generally just a case that it requires more skill to do it well.

Alan

Bosscat wrote in post #17204186
Slide film......fake that smart guys!!!

And the color can change on slide film. Just 1/4 degree one way of the other or slightly depleted chemistry can also change the color.

Then there was ciba-chrome and die transfer for prints where a lot of things could be manipulated.

Bosscat wrote in post #17203189
To optimize it I used: Lightroom 4 for cropping and correcting the white balance. Photoshop Elements 10 for removing distracting objects (a lamp post, a fence, a billboard and a bird that looked like a smudge in the sky) Nik Colour Efex Pro 4 for tonal contrast. Lightroom 5 to correct lens distortion and make sure both tower and pillars were straight.

Is it still a photograph or is it now a computer facsimile of what you saw.

Even if you did none of those things, it's still a computer facsimile of what you saw.

Jerry Uelsmann is still photographer. He did this photo with film.
http://walls4joy.com …-sea-288490-2505x2065.jpg