When does a photo cease to be a photo?

[prabbit237]

(original, right out of the camera, is attached below.)

[dub one]

Still looks like a photo to me?

[Hayward Taylor]

Hello there - excellent job in post

[pjflan7]

it is all art any way you cut it

[sk66]

IMHO, as soon as it is edited to be other than a true reproduction of what was seen, either B/W or color. Otherwise it is an example of "photographic art".

By that definition a large portion of images are "photographic art" and not strictly "photographs". My work included.

The final version posted qualifies as "photographic art".

[prabbit237]

Originally Posted by sk66

IMHO, as soon as it is edited to be other than a true reproduction of what was seen, either B/W or color. Otherwise it is an example of "photographic art".

By that definition a large portion of images are "photographic art" and not strictly "photographs". My work included.

The final version posted qualifies as "photographic art".

Actually, by that criteria, all photographs are "photographic art" since no person/scene/etc is that small, that flat, etc. But I'm sure ya didn't mean it THAT literally

But then does using a filter make it not a photograph? What about dodging and burning? Etc. By your criteria, I'd say 99.9% of all images would fit into the "photographic art." I probably wouldn't make it quite that strict but I think we both agree that the edited picture I posted definitely WAS "photographic art" (and I was kinda proud of myself about figuring out the blending mode that brought the colors out the way they did, although I used a tutorial for the line-drawing part of it Then later I had been doing some searching for other tuts and found several "water color line drawing" ones that did much like I did so it wasn't quite so original. Oh, well)

But basically, "is it a photo?" is about like "is that art?" or "is that porn?" We can't define what is and isn't but "we know it when we see it" and everyone's opinion will differ.

[martha36]

Interesting question, and of course it is all in the eye of the beholder, but I'd say there can be a very fine line, and it will differ from person to person. You are right about the filters and all that sort of stuff - if you think about it, there is an awful lot that can be manipulated even before you get the photo into some sort of editing software - filters, gels, lighting, camera settings, etc. I think for some people (myself included at times) it's almost like wahtever you do to the photograph while taking it is different than what you might do to it in PP.

In this particular photo you posted, at least for me, I think it is on the fence. There is something about it that looks cartoonish. But it is still obviously a photograph. And a nice one at that!

[prabbit237]

To expand some upon my own answer as to "When does a photo cease to be a photo (and become photographic art)?" I'd basically say it's when it diverges not from what was really there at the time but from "what could have been there?" I.e. a photo that was PP'ed to remove a bush or add some shadows or brighten the colors is still a photo if you could have gotten the same photo by having the sun higher or lower in the horizon or by shining a colored light on the subject or by chopping down the bush, etc. I.e. "is it realistic?" and not just "is it real?" (although I'll allow for B&W pictures to also be "photos.")

In this one, I'd go with the "photographic art" (art based on a photo) because the black lines weren't really there and the colors wouldn't have looked that way, no matter what lights/gels/filters/etc you used.

Originally Posted by martha36

In this particular photo you posted, at least for me, I think it is on the fence. There is something about it that looks cartoonish. But it is still obviously a photograph. And a nice one at that!

I was aiming a bit more towards a water-colored effect than a cartoonish effect but I guess either description works.