Is it cheating?

NO Its not cheating....

I tend to agree with you Jon - generally speaking anytime a photo undergoes significant modification.... addition or subtraction of graphic elements, other images, etc.... that is technically referred to as a Photo Illustration.

Our local paper often runs very nice images that have been heavily modifed in PS for explanation, that accompany an in depth articles. They always have the credit: "Photo Illustration by John Doe" They NEVER say Photo By Mr. Doe.

That being said, I feel you've assembled an attractive piece of art, or more accurately a nice photo illustration. As long as you represent it as such, you maintain artistic integrity. And no, I don't feel you cheated. When creating art, how can you cheat, unless you steal somebody else's work? You're simply being creative.

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #5791332
...........Don't understand how TWO photographs can be labeled as A photograph.

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #5791332

living in Irvine, I know pretentious

yes you qualify

Ad Hominem Argument That is just too easy. An ad hominem attack is perhaps the easiest one to counter simply by pointing it out. It is used when a person has an untenable position, and rather than admitting they are wrong, they attack the other person. By saying "yes you qualify" in reference to pretentiousness, you're basically said that you have run out of any intelligent defense of your statement and you are resorting to name calling. Which, by the way, is in violation of POTN's rule 4:6.

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #5791332

The photo attached was made out of two photos with a bit of PP.

Don't understand how TWO photographs can be labeled as A photograph.

Fallacy of Presumption (Exclusive) This is a little more subtle (congratulations), however, it does fall under the umbrella of the fallacy of presumption, which is a variant of circular reasoning. To break down what you said, you have a presumed definition of a photograph as being singular if and only if it is singular. Your statement is that a single photograph can't be sourced from two photographs is supported by the fact that two is not one. Since your definition of a photograph excludes the possibility that two can be combined into one, you are using your conclusion to support your premise. Circular reasoning based on a presumption.

Either way, you sidestepped the point, so I repeat it: Please post at least one link to a dictionary or glossary in which the term Photograph is defined as "that which is unmanipulated".

Just one credible source is all I ask, you show me where a photograph can't be manipulated, and I will publicly apologize for being wrong on this.

Rad - interesting post.... thoughtful. Formal definitions aside, how do YOU feel about the concept of photographs vs. photo illustrations as is usually accepted in the publishing industry? - Stu

I ask everyone about Jerry Uelsmann. Sontag classified his work as photography. Wrote about it some in her book On Photography.

http://www.mocp.org …oads/Uelsmann19​82_224.jpg

http://www.tfaoi.com/c​m/4cm/4cm146.jpg

http://www.photoworksh​op.com …lsmann/uelsmann​_image.jpg

http://www.agallery.co​m …617Philosophers​DeskLO.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Jerry_Uelsmann

Now THAT'S some really slick and fascinating work there air. Without reading the write-up, the first thing that immediately pops into my mind is: perhaps this is what Dali would have created had he used cameras instead of paint and canvas.

Nonetheless, these are beautiful and I would label some of these as fantasy images, stretching my definition on photo illustration. Excellent visuals air, thanks for sharing.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5792823
I ask everyone about Jerry Uelsmann. Sontag classified his work as photography. Wrote about it some in her book On Photography.

http://www.mocp.org …oads/Uelsmann19​82_224.jpg

http://www.tfaoi.com/c​m/4cm/4cm146.jpg

http://www.photoworksh​op.com …lsmann/uelsmann​_image.jpg

http://www.agallery.co​m …617Philosophers​DeskLO.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Jerry_Uelsmann

OK, To really understand if multiple images can be combined to create a "Photograph", I suppose it is first necessary to understand what the actual word "Photograph" means, and where it came from.
According to Britannica online, the word "Photo" means light in the Greek language. Graphe or Graphein is Greek for "To draw".
See link, http://www.britannica.​com …51/photography-history-of
This makes me think that the photograph is first drawn in our minds eye, then transferred through whatever means to a receptive medium, ie, film, CCD, CMOS, computer screen, or whatever.
Photoshop then allows us to manipulate this image even further if so desired.
Now, when you push the button on your camera, do you actually think you are waving a light sensitive instrument, thereby actually drawing with light on something? I think not, Yet, We still call the result a photograph, don't we? So my contention is, YES, even though multiple images have been used to create one, we "still" have what we can refer to as a "Photograph".
-Bruce

Ballen Photo wrote in post #5793001
OK, To really understand if multiple images can be combined to create a "Photograph", I suppose it is first necessary to understand what the actual word "Photograph" means, and where it came from.
According to Britannica online, the word "Photo" means light in the Greek language. Graphe or Graphein is Greek for "To draw".
See link, http://www.britannica.​com …51/photography-history-of
This makes me think that the photograph is first drawn in our minds eye, then transferred through whatever means to a receptive medium, ie, film, CCD, CMOS, computer screen, or whatever.
Photoshop then allows us to manipulate this image even further if so desired.
Now, when you push the button on your camera, do you actually think you are waving a light sensitive instrument, thereby actually drawing with light on something? I think not, Yet, We still call the result a photograph, don't we? So my contention is, YES, even though multiple images have been used to create one, we "still" have what we can refer to as a "Photograph".
-Bruce

Bruce great observation. Also the first cameras were based on drawing aids; camera obscura. They helped painters get perspective right.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Camera_obscura

sapearl wrote in post #5792777
Rad - interesting post.... thoughtful. Formal definitions aside, how do YOU feel about the concept of photographs vs. photo illustrations as is usually accepted in the publishing industry? - Stu

Stu,

In almost all things I shy away from narrow definitions. So for me a "photograph" is that which eventually results from light projected through an aperture, acting directly with a tangible medium, and is intended to permanent.

I have not consulted any dictionaries on that, but that should cover it. The definition Includes pinholes, film, digital, - even if the result does not turn out to be permanent (fading), the intention is there.

But it excludes that which is not intended to be permanent or tangible - even if light is used, for instance: Laserium. By saying "acting directly" also excluded are paintings done in an actual "camera obscura", or "dark room", in which an artist would paint the projected image on to a canvas (Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) was a master at this). But by saying "that which eventually results", I allow for any and all treatment of or on the medium, including (but not limited to) darkroom and computer based manipulation.

So for me, if it involves light, an aperture, and a medium, then it is a photograph.

Rad

Then theres the work of John Paul Caponigro.

http://www.johnpaulcap​onigro.com/gallery/doc​uments/Allies.pdf

Are these photographs?

And my favorite of Pauls in this portfolio is #12 enchambered

Thanks airfrog.

airfrogusmc wrote:
Also the first cameras were based on drawing aids; camera obscura. They helped painters get perspective right.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Camera_obscura

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with this concept. I remember observing a ray of light entering the room through a pinhole, while I was actually seeing someone walking by outside transferred (albeit upside down) onto the wall. The shadow detail was amazing.
-Bruce

Ummhhh... Photograph or not, I feel more comfortable calling it Photo Art. I don't really like the term "image illustration", it makes me think immediately of a drawing (even a drawing made out of a photo).
Regarding using two photos I also label a B&W photograph with some colour Photo Art. After all you are using two photographs in layers, albeit the same photograph twice.

it's not cheating ,
Just quibble ..

=)
Keep your hoppy up !

Please do share how you created this photo...

Regardless of the name you attempt to tie to the image in question, it is still technically a photograph. The problem is that some folks are trying to impart the legal definition of a photograph as it applies to news or evidence. When using a recorded image for news or evidence purposes, it only has to pass the following test...The shooter or a "qualified" witness must be able to assert under oath that the image is a "fair and accurate" representation of the scene at the time of image capture. Obviously, a highly manipulated image can not pass that test, but it is still a photograph, just not one that would be legally admissible in a court of law.