When Is A Photograph No Longer A Photograph?

[Raoul Isidro]

When is a photograph no longer a photograph?
With so much digital manipulation of images taken from real life events, then cooked up and stewed over an array software manipulation and graphic techniques, where does the reality of an image end and fantasy and creative digital painting begin? Is there really a demarcation line or is it an ever shifting standard uprooted and planted from one goal post to another?
As an example, I still view minimal digital manipulations on news and sporting images. On the extreme side, images in advertising and fashion magazines are so worked up with digital steroids that they start to look like Avatar characters...

[gturner]

There will be some educated, technical answers by some learned members... but I think that once you start adding to the "story" or emotion captured in the original image, it becomes an artistic impression. That is why I like news and sport pics more than anything.

Fashion photography has just lost the plot completely IMO. Unrealistic and mostly fake, done for profit. That is not to say there is no skill involved, there is enormous skill.

[TheDarkReaver]

When it's a horse!

...

I think when you start adding things in, or noticeably change the visual reality. Then it become a photgraphic manipulatuon.

[Dangelica]

What's the difference between an Orange? A window ... because you can't kickstart a biscuit.

That will be about the most sensible objective answer you get on the subject. Personal opinion on the subject varies so widely it is akin to talking religion or politics.

[zappo]

As an example, I still view minimal digital manipulations on news and sporting images.

Are you sure about that? The hard truth is: There is no such thing as a "pure" photo. Every photo is "manipulated" by the person who takes it. The act of photography is an act of manipulation.

Do you now someone that makes photos by incident? Randomly? I don't, all photographers I know take photos with an intention. This whole myth about the "pure" photo came up with digital photography completly denying two facts:
- The act of photographing is a manipulation of the "reality". There is an old saying, a picture is part you part the subject. So true.
- Manipulation has always been done. Adams spent weeks in the darkroom to get his pictures right. Also most historical pictures we now are "fakes". You know this one (it's pretty well known, from WW2): http://www.bundestag.de/blickpunkt/b...ldej_1185p.jpg The smoke in the background has been added, the person holding the flag darkened.

A photo shows only one thing: What the photographer wanted it to show. I could take this a step further saying there is even no reality, because what you percieve has been editied by your brain to fit into your world, but that's a step to far.

[teaking]

Something captured by a camera gets labelled a photograph, so it will always be a photograph, wether its a photograph composite, manipulation or what ever it is the medium is a photograph... the same as something painted is a painting.

But saying that..... thinking about it ..... I agree when its a horse its no longer a photograph

[dakwegmo]

When does a cake go from being batter to a cake? When you mix ingredients in a bowl, it's obviously batter and when it's done baking it's obviously a cake, but during the time that it's baking and changing from batter into a cake, there are an infinite number of stages that are somewhere in between, but there's no line that you cross that says, on this side you have a cake on this side you have batter.

The same is true with photography. You have the two extermes and an infinite number of possibilities in between. Some may lean more to "pure" photography, and others more to photo illustration, but there's no clear demarcation line that you can draw that says up to this point it's one thing, then after it's something else.

[kencaleno]

When it's a bitmap-Pure black and white

[WooD]

I just finished up a 5 hour couples shoot. Their a goth couple, and wanted images of things that just couldn't be done without a professional special effects team. I'm not talking about your standard MUA. One shot I posed them in a way that a photoshop wizard will slit open their chests, and each will be holding the others heart in their hands.

Still in the end, I took the shot, even thou the final results will be done by someone in Canada that has years of experience doing this kind of work.

Now if they had took my images, and had them edited without my approval, that wouldn't have been cool. We had been planning the shoot for weeks,and I had a special model release granting a 3rd party rights to manipulate my images, plus I get credit, and a copy of the shots for my own use, giving credit to the wizard of course.

Team work can be most cool. They posed, I shot them, and someone else will do a few edits. No worries.

[candleman]

Originally Posted by Dangelica

What's the difference between an Orange? A window ... because you can't kickstart a biscuit.
.

.......................................