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

I hope that when Pekka puts the new system into place it includes an option to block messages that refer to Ansel Adams dodging and burning in the darkroom. I've reached the saturation point on that observation.

Burning and dodging with Adams was just tweaking when it got that point. He articulated a system that controlled the entire process to give him what he saw in his mind and was rarely the way anything looked in reality. That system was the zone system and was a full manipulation of the process to give the photographer total control over his vision.

Tedder wrote in post #17204367
I hope that when Pekka puts the new system into place it includes an option to block messages that refer to Ansel Adams dodging and burning in the darkroom. I've reached the saturation point on that observation.

I am absolutely sick of hearing about that, too. No need to remind people of it every single time this topic comes up!

As far as the OP's question is concerned, in my opinion his image is certainly still a photograph, but it is now also more than a photograph.

The way I see it / define it, his image is now a combination of a photograph and graphic art. I see it this way because he has used two disciplines in order to create it - the disciplines of photography and that of computer manipulation. That doesn't make it not a photo any more. And I realize that others may define things differently.

Merriam-Webster defines "Photograph" as "a picture or likeness obtained by photography".

They also define "Photography" as: "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor)."

So, technically, what you have done is created a photograph when you recorded the original image in your camera. Altering it afterwards, as you have described, tells me that you are also a skilled graphic artist.

Clear as mud?

So what is Uelsmann?

Tedder wrote in post #17204367
I hope that when Pekka puts the new system into place it includes an option to block messages that refer to Ansel Adams dodging and burning in the darkroom. I've reached the saturation point on that observation.

Adams totally would have used a Nikon 'cause Nikon's got so much more dynamic range than Canon - way way way more latitude for him to dodge and burn till the cows come home on the dynamic range.

There you go...I just combined two of the most over-stated things on POTN for your entertainment pleasure.

On topic I'll suggest this as my own perspective: I am caring less and less about "photos" and more and more about "images". I get that many kinds of photography are, of necessity, documentary in nature, but, where not thus constrained, I want to move past that in my own practice.

Dont forget mirrorless, because NO ONE in their right might would shoot with an obsolete mirrorbox

Art involves a leap of the imagination.

texkam wrote in post #17204579
Art involves a leap of the imagination.

True. And photographs (unmanipulated documentaries) emanate from those who have little.

Art = imagination, and imagination derives from intelligence. Those who have great artistic talent have great intelligence.

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17203598
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.

i agree. at what point did i say you needed to edit an image to make it art. if you set up a shot with the intent to create an expression, then its art. if you are taking a picture to document something, it isn't art.

Also, I didn't see Ken Rockwell thrown into this soup. Remember - he's a potential ingredient that can take it to a new level ! Hmmmmm, I wonder what Ken has to say about manipulating images, art, and so forth.

benji25 wrote in post #17203318
I am color blind. My own body messes with hue and saturation. Does that mean what I see isn't real?

I'm color blind also. I try not to think about it too much but it certainly makes post processing a challenge. When I do think about it, I wonder.... I know what green looks like to me, but is that what anyone else sees? I'm not red/green color blind so it gets even more complicated when I ponder it.

I'm fortunate to have a wife who can look at my stuff and see if I'm heading in a wrong direction. I do use a lot of the "auto" features of both Lightroom and the Nik Collection.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17204769
True. And photographs (unmanipulated documentaries) emanate from those who have little.

Art = imagination, and imagination derives from intelligence. Those who have great artistic talent have great intelligence.

Weston called it the obvious I call nouns or faithful representations of the object. Weston said he had no desire to photograph the obvious nor do I...

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17204813
I'm color blind also. . . . I know what green looks like to me, but is that what anyone else sees?

People with full color vision can ask the same question. Is my green your red, or is it your blue, or is it perhaps a hue that no one else sees? It's a classic problem in philosophy.

OhLook wrote in post #17205119
People with full color vision can ask the same question. Is my green your red, or is it your blue, or is it perhaps a hue that no one else sees? It's a classic problem in philosophy.

Yes we all see color slightly different and colors can evoke different emotions depending on our life's experiences, how we actually see color and culture.