When is a photograph no longer one

[ramirez0715]

We are all here because we have at least one thing in common. We all enjoy photgraphy. While some of us enjoy it just as a hobby and will always be looking for that one great shot and then the next. Some of the people here do it for a living. We all love photographs.

One thing I think we can all agree on is the fact that we each have our own style. Whether it's extreme HDR, or that grungy look, or just simple and elegent photographs. We may or may not like certain styles for ourselves, but does that make the photograph worth less?

I bring this up because I have taken pictures that friends and family have enjoyed. While I enjoy great photographs, occasionaly I like to push the limits with what I can do in photoshop or similar software with them. I enjoy making them look almost unreal. Not to the extreme sense but to almost an artistic feel, Almost as if it' san illustration or painting. And people will look at it as a "PHOTOGRAPH" and say it looks too "fake". While it does look "fake" I believe certain pictures look good this way. Otherwise, the actual picture may look flat.

So my questions to you is this, at what point is a photograph no longer a photograph?


Bigger Pic


Bigger Pic

[outamyway]

I think when you add or subtract or otherwise alter major elements. Is this photograph "Art" or "Journalism"? I don't feel that there is any difference with changing the colors like you did vs. B&W. Everybody knows it wasn't "grayscale" in real life. Even if your picture showed a dinosaur attacking those people with pancake syrup and cotton balls, as long as it doesn't show up in the paper as an actual attack that happened...

[sk66]

As always, My opinion is when what is shown is not how it originally appeared it changes from "photography" to "photographic art".
And no, IMO photography in and of itself is not an art, it is a skill.

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by ramirez0715

And people will look at it as a "PHOTOGRAPH" and say it looks too "fake".

They say 'fake' only because it does not mesh with their expectation of reality - e.g. in your enhanced picture above, the colours are perhaps hyper-realistic, not what they are expecting to see with the standard human eye. This is especially the case when it is a common place that the viewer may have experienced.

When they say fake, they are really saying that it doesn't look like it would if I was standing where the camera and lens were. 'Fake' is probably just their easiest way of expressing that it appears unreal to them.

I would suggest that most people have an expectation that photographs are reasonably accurate renderings. I wouldn't suggest that there is a common point at which a photograph transcends the point where it no longer becomes something realistic and becomes something more artistic/unreal/fantastic (depending of course on the editing).

Personally, I like photography for the skill associated with trying to capture a realistic portrayal of what I am seeing. Call me a realist.

If an image has too much saturation, unrealistic tones (e.g. tonemapping and HDR), or even selective colour, it tends to cross beyond the point (in my mind) of being a photograph, and becomes a piece of art that had its origins in a photograph. But the resulting image is no longer a photograph - it is only derived from one.

But that's just my opinion

[Sterling]

Originally Posted by sk66

As always, My opinion is when what is shown is not how it originally appeared it changes from "photography" to "photographic art".
And no, IMO photography in and of itself is not an art, it is a skill.

So those 180 degree fisheye shots and 1000mm shots of the moon aren't photography? How something "originally appeared" is a pretty grey area.

[Raoul Isidro]

"Otherwise, the actual picture may look flat."


I am just pondering which picture looks "flatter".... the top or the bottom one....

If an image is captured by a light sensitive medium, it may be called a photograph. Manipulation after this event is fair game.
I recall the Marilyn Monroe poster...
Cheers!

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Sterling

So those 180 degree fisheye shots and 1000mm shots of the moon aren't photography? How something "originally appeared" is a pretty grey area.

IMO, magnification is not "altering' and yes, weird perspectives (i.e. fisheyes) are more photographic art....
decide for yourself, art is in the eye of the beholder.

[LeeR]

Their are a lot of techniques I don't usually care for; most notably, HDR, which has a tendency to destroy the natural sense of light in an image. However, I have seen HDR images that really worked well. As a matter of fact, show me nearly any overprocessed technique and I can probably show you an image with similar processing that "works." Why? Because the photographer carefully matched the image to the technique. For that reason I think that any technique is fine as long as it is handled with sensitivity. If your viewers are sensing "fakeness" they may be telling you that you have not matched image with process as well as you should have.

[junglebear]

When you double-click 'Photomatix Pro'

[milosh]

IMO, a photograph is always a photograph. It can be totally documentary or artistic, or anything in between.