stp Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 <p>I was about to ask a very similar question in the casual conversations category, but like any good photo.netter should be, I did a google search before posting and ended up here. And I found a way to better frame my own question.<br> <p>If I make a photograph with a camera, and then use software that emulates a colored pencil drawing, a black-and-white sketch, an oil painting, a watercolor painting, or some other artistic medium to thoroughly modify my photograph, is what I have still a photograph?<br> If an image is 25% derived from a photograph and 75% derived from computer-based emulations, is it still a photograph? Is there a point at which a creation derived primarily from software, despite having started its life as a photograph, no longer a photograph, but rather an entity that currently seems to have no category name other than "computer-derived creation?" Or will it always be a photograph, no matter how hard it is squeezed through a computer?<br> Photography has to do with light (photons). If I create something primarily with electrons rather than photons, is it a photograph? </p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisha jean-angela Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 <p>Lannie, in response to your question regarding the flower by Ron Jones: yes, it is a photograph; it is digitally altered and definately not a photograph of traditional description, but it is still a photograph...just heavily digitally altered. I like the work of Ron Jones.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_c._fernandez Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 <p>One could argue that from the onset of photography, the essence of photography was described as "the ability to capture the now". However the capabilities to manipulate images have been around since the begining as well. First in the form of films and dark room techniques. Most recently, with the use of sufficsticated computers, this allows for the creative side to reach even new levels of enhancements. So in reality, photography has always had a level of alteration that was obtainable so as to enhance "the now". With time, the enhancements capabilities have grown but in my humble opinion, it is still an acceptable part of the art of photography. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now