Digital art or photography?

<p>For the last several weeks the POW has sparked discussions about digital manipulation and questions regarding a distinction between a "real" photograph and a digital image. Some have suggested that perhaps the term "photograph" is too broad and that the computer has enabled new art forms that have not yet been recognized or defined. Some have suggested that an image initially captured by a camera is a photograph (regardless of what is done to it in processing), while others have suggested that if an image owes "most" of its existence to a computer and is an image that has elements that have never been nor could ever be seen by a person, then it is something other than a photograph (e.g., digital art) or at the very least a new subset of photography that has not yet been defined.</p>

<p>I suggest that this image (http://www.photo.net/photo/11836830) (sorry, I couldn't get an embedded link to work) is a good example of the dilemma or the disagreement. Is it a landscape photograph? Or is it computer art on the subject of landscape? Or is it something else? How can a viewer provide meaningful comments (as I tried to do) without knowing what it is, or at least what the photographer intended? If the photographer intended to pass it off as something they <strong>captured</strong>, that is one thing. If the photographer intended to pass it off as something they <strong>created</strong>, that is something very different. Yet looking at the photo, there is no way to distinguish between these two very different intentions, and they are both in the same general forum of "landscape photography."</p>

<p>What should a viewer and commenter like me do in a situation like this (other than shut the hell up, unless that is the only option)?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What would you have done if you encountered a composite image made entirely in the darkroom, or souped-up using a copy stand, airbrushes, and other tools that were dolling up similar images for decades before computers provided the means to do it in a different way? I ask, rhetorically, because I believe you are conflating two separate issues.<br /><br />The first (the "digital/computer" part) is a non-issue - people have been manipulating photographs, or doing outlandish graphics artsy things to them for as long as there have been cameras of any kind.<br /><br />The second (the "how do I comment on a composite image?" part) is the same today as it was forty years ago. It depends on the context in which you encounter the image.</p>

<p>The context in which I encountered this photograph was on the landscape forum of PN, the same forum in which I post most of my own photographs. Can you understand why I was confused, and can you see my confusion in the comments I made on the photo?</p>

<p>As has been said many, many times before, digital only made manipulation easier. Look up Henry Peach Robinson and Oscar Rejlander. Based on your confusion, those men and others like Jerry Uelsman didn't create photographs. Tradition, historians and critics all consider their works photographs.</p>

<p>The photo is obviously not real but created (as in manipulation). I would be more worry if the photo is less subtle passing for real than this obvious kind...</p>

<p>John, read my post more carefully. I didn't say these were not photographs. I really didn't say anything -- I just asked several questions. I am asking when does computer art comes into its own, what does it consist of, and what are its general boundaries (i.e., what kind of art is considered "computer art)?</p>

<p>Stephen, you commented in part that the moon over that 'scape is too big to be "natural." But almost always is. I have never seen a moon in actual proportion. I mean to the angle it subtends in the sky with a quote normal lens. And photographers have been popping in ice box stored on film moons to photos for years and years. I got an old Kodak "Here's How" pamphlet showing and encouraging us and sayin 'here's how...' That was Big Yellow no less:-)<br /> I don't say it is right or wrong, or how one need react, just how we treat the old moon as a for instance in op cit. As Bob Berman,the astronomer, writes in his book, " ...(moon watching) has always granted it an importance disproportionate to its modest size."<br>

If the taxonomy if you will of photo "art" is expanding/morphing, I think we need to open our latent acceptance of this kind of thing.<br>

Or ignore it. But it is not going away, so then what...<br>

And if we want to put it in a separate category, I challenge one to draw the line on definitions. ( Actually, not a half bad photo art image or whatever).<br>

Sorry, If I have nothing profound to contribute about sorting this one out but that is my reaction so far. Maybe someone else. aloha, gs</p>

<p>Gerry, I agree it's not a half bad photo if the photographer never intended to pass it off as something he saw, photographed, and then posted here. As something he created on his computer, it's not half bad. However, if passing it off as real was his intention, then he did a poor job. But there's no indication regarding his intention. What kind of critique can I give without this knowledge?</p>

<p>Leslie, there will come a point where you think you know but you're not sure. What kind of comment will you make then? Also, you say you'd be worried it the photo was not as obviously created and was being passed as real. But according to some of the responses I read here and in POW postings, art is art, it should be judged only on its artistic merits, and therefore you have no reason (maybe not even justification) to be worried.</p>

<p>Maybe it's a photograph, maybe it's photoshoped</p>

<p>Stephen, I'm more into street photography and photojournalism...does it make more sense now? The obvious don't bother me as much as the subtle ones:) </p>

<p>Leslie, I would agree, but there's still the same question about the subtle ones: how can I make a suggestion to change the position of the camera a bit, wait for somewhat different light, use a faster/slower shutter speed, etc. when the key aspects were created, and created in a way that's subtle, close to being real?</p>

<p>From Encyclopedia.com: "<strong>computer art.</strong> Art produced with the aid of a computer or more specifically art in which the role of the computer is emphasized."<br>

Is it simply a matter of this photograph being put in the wrong forum, especially considering the photographer's statement that it wasn't intended to be real? Is the obvious solution to move it (and similarly created photos) to the "digital alterations" forum?<br>

Trouble is, the landscape forum makes room for manipulated photos (e.g., a wire is cloned out, or a flying bird is added to the sky). That raises two questions: 1) when should a photo be more properly placed in the digital alterations forum, and 2) how can I make suggestions on a manipulated photo when I don't know if the aspect I'm commenting on was captured (in which case my comments might be relevant) or created (in which case my comments might be either completely irrelevant or of an entirely different nature....i.e., how good the manipulation was done)?</p>

<p>One way to deal with non-specific critique requests or those that lack context is to skip any photo in the critique queue that doesn't include a specific request from the photographer. I tend to skip most photos that include only variations of the generic "All comments and critiques welcomed" statement.</p>

<p>If I'm inclined to offer a critique despite the generic critique request statement I may open with a question, asking the photographer to be more specific about what sort of feedback they want. If they respond (I'll check the My Workspace page every few days to check for responses), I'll try to revisit the photo. If there's no response from the photographer I'll skip it and find another.</p>

<p>I'd like to see more people be specific about what they want in a critique: technical suggestions for improvement; critiques discussing aesthetics and interpretation; even gut reactions to a photo or just pleasant philosophical meanderings. This helps open up dialog with folks who welcome that. And it avoids aggravating folks and wasting time on critiques or comments that aren't welcomed. I tend to interpret the generic "All C&C ok" statement as "All compliments and praise welcomed," which may be unfair to the photographer's intent, especially if English isn't their primary language. But I'm happy to try a critique conversation via Google translate - actually works out pretty well even tho' it misses some nuances of meaning.</p>

<p>In the specific case of the photo Stephen referred to I'd probably first check for context. In this case it's fairly easy to interpret the photographer's intent: the photo was included in a folder titled <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=609735">"Digital Landscapes"</a> and features many photos in a similar vein, often using the same moon in the composites. I'd then check for opening statements from the photographer on other photos in that folder to get a rough idea of what sorts of critiques or comments have occurred before. Based on that context, I'd probably include a statement that the photographer's skill in digital compositing has improved significantly compared with some of the earlier images. The recent photos are much more polished and less gimmicky.</p>

<p>Lacking any context I'd ask whether the photographer was interested more generally in whether the photo is appealing (it is), or specifically whether the composite succeeded on a purely technical level (I'd say pretty well - tho' there are telltale halos to the left of the moon from tone mapping, hitting the clarify filter too heavily, contrast masking or other technique that tends to produce halos where they shouldn't be when applied non-selectively).</p>

<p>Or, more likely, I'd just skip it and go to the next photo that does include a specific type of request. I usually haunt other critique queues anyway so I don't often see landscapes. But I do occasionally see some fairly obvious composites and digital alterations in genres that probably shouldn't feature such alterations (photojournalism specifically due to ethical considerations, and perhaps documentary and a few other categories).</p>

<p>Yeah, Lex, you make a good point. The photos that really capture my attention and time are those in which the photographer has asked a specific question or stated some other specific need/desire for feedback. Others, including myself on many (but not all) submissions, state why they took the photo or what they were wanting to say with the photo; that provides a basis for meaningful comments. However, I don't take the time to research the photographer's portfolio to try to establish a context for a posted photo; that, I believe, is the photographer's job.</p>

<p>I hate to make assumptions regarding whether a photo or part of a photo was created. If I'm wrong, I'd feel terrible. Someone once accused me of adding a rock to a coastline photo, and it was a central feature in that photo. Of course, I had not done that, and such assumptions (and accusations) don't contribute to a fruitful or friendly discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"However, I don't take the time to research the photographer's portfolio to try to establish a context for a posted photo; that, I believe, is the photographer's job."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tend to agree. It's very time consuming to research a photographer's portfolio in an effort to get some context for offering a critique. I'll do it occasionally, mostly for photos submitted to the documentary queue for critiques and/or ratings, since it's difficult to fairly evaluate a single photo out of the context of a photo essay or thematically related project.</p>

<p>For me it's photography as long as all the elements in the final image were catured by a camera. Once vector graphics or 3D rendering start to be used then I would call it digital art.</p>

<p>I looked at the moon in the sample photo and thought of the eyes of the girl in the Dove "Evolution" video.</p>

<p>One of our local photographers had a show themed to the idea of manipulating people in pictures to differing sets of standards. As people progressed through the exhibit, the photos of the people became more and more monstrous. In the beginning of the series, there was just a little facial proportion manipulation (enlarging of th eyes, foreshortening of the skull, smoothing of the larnyx, clipping the profile of the ears). Towards the end of the show, the photographer had a picture of his wife, manipulated in Photoshop, to anime proportions. He even included a plastic gloss for the skin. These people looked horrible. </p>

<p>Amazingly, many people would look at some of those early-segment photos and just stare. They would often not have the initiative of imagination to notice ideas like what was missing or changed; but, they would feel that something was making them stare at the photo. In picture ____ this person has no ears; the viewer might not notice. If you saw someone walking around with eyes as big as their fist, one would probably be frightened by their freakish appearance. Yet, think about what kind of butt-ugly person we would make if we piled on all of our expectations for editing and models into one real person. </p>

<p>So I'm still somewhat at a loss as to how to comment on a photo that may or may not have been created. If it was created, I'd have one set of issues to consider and upon which to make comments. If it was captured, I'd have a different set of issues to consider and upon which to make comments. If in doubt as to whether the photo or significant elements in the photo were captured or created, I guess I ask. If they were created, especially the addition of significant elements such as the moon in the example I provided, then the photo belongs in the digital alterations forum rather than the landscape forum. When I know an image has been created, I can comment on the computer art aspects: what meaning I see in the image, what feelings the image generates, alternatives the computer artist might consider, etc. When I know a photograph has been captured, I can comment on those same issues as well as the photographer's skill and/or good fortune in coming away with a particular composition or lighting situation, the experience associated with capturing the photo, the adequacy or appropriateness of the manipulations that are a part of nearly every photo, etc. I'll probably classify a photo as "captured" or "created" differently than many others on this site (especially those who don't see a distinction), but that's just natural for a new art form (computer art) that does not yet have an agreed upon definition or boundary, or an agreed upon distinction from photography, despite the fact that writers of online encyclopedias have tried to provide one. Someone who writes those definitions should spend some time on these forums to learn how very difficult that really is and the breadth of opinions regarding the subject.</p>

<p>((NEXT PAGE))</p>

<p>The instant, the very second I see this:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11836830</p>

<p>It's <strong>obviously a paste up</strong>. Well done but exceedingly fake looking -- perhaps a landscape from a distant star system's planet? For that, it is gorgeous.</p>

<p>Therefore, since it's of terrestrial origin, it is digital art derived from photo paste-ups. A composite.</p>

<p><em>"...the computer has enabled new art forms that have not yet been recognized or defined..."</em></p>

<p>Except in almost all cases there is a history of such techniques if only people would investigate. <br>

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm<br>

http://www.d-log.info/timeline/index.html<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think there's a box where you check off whether an image is manipulated or not before you even post it on the Forum. I'm not sure if everybody uses it though.</p>

<p>I believe that this thread should be moved to the Philosophy of Photography forum.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I believe that this thread should be moved to the Philosophy of Photography forum.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Believe whatever you won't, it won't be.</p>

</blockquote>