When is photography no longer photography?

<p>Just a thought I had when looking at images today.<br>

What I'm asking is, Is there ever a point when a photograph is manipulated, digitally or otherwise, to the point where it is no longer really a photograph? </p>

<p>I ask because there seems to be a lot of images these days that have been manipulated to the point that they only bear slight resemblance to the original photo. </p>

<p>The manipulation I refer to is not basic color correction, cropping, sharpening, softening, or any other subtle technique to help create a better image.</p>

<p>I'm referring to large manipulations like replacing a boring, drab, overcast sky with a more pleasing sky.<br>

OR changing the reflection in a pond/lake to make a more pleasing image.</p>

<p>When is the manipulation of a photo enough to no longer consider it a photo? Is there even such a line to cross?</p>

<p><em>(All opinions are welcome...I'm looking for everyone's point of view)</em><br>

<em>RS</em></p>

<p>When it does not use glass plates and contact printing.</p>

<p>"What I'm asking is, Is there ever a point when a photograph is manipulated, digitally or otherwise, to the point where it is no longer really a photograph?"</p>

<p>When it no longer photographically describes what was in the scene at the taking. Some people here are really sensitive about this. I don't know why. It's the choice of the artist to describe such work as photography or as computer art. Gerhardt Richter's paintings look more like photographs than some of the images you are referring to -- or that I think you are referring to...so, link to an example, please.</p>

 

<p>I guess my question is does it matter? I mean I get your point but is photography about creating a photograph or an image? The revered photographers of yesteryear that purists point to a lot used every tool in their arsenal because the image was the work. In my mind the goal is to have a work in mind and from that start at the most basic level to map how you will get there. As a type perhaps photography can be picky and its up to the gallery or show or whatever as to the qualifications. As an artform use whatever tools are available to you that will bring your final image where you want it. I personally prefer slide and black&white film but I appreciate the work of those that spend time and energy stretching a well captured and thought out image into a unique work of art. Who cares if it's a photograph or graphic art? Is it good?</p>

<p>Christopher -- I agree that if it's good, who cares if it's photography or graphic art...I'm just trying to get an idea of other's feelings about this issue. I'm by no means a purist and use all of the tools I have at my disposal, (and can afford).</p>

<p>Don -- here's a link to Marius Romila's "I'm Not Alone" which he describes as a Photoshop Montage:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9244712">http://www.photo.net/photo/9244712</a></p>

<p>Same Artist, "Untouchable Things"<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6788215">http://www.photo.net/photo/6788215</a></p>

<p>These are great depictions of what I would call "the blurred line between photography and graphic art"</p>

<p>RS</p>

 

<p>Richard, I'll recommend this article on the topic:<br>

http://www.euroartmagazine.com/new/?page=1&content=166</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The camera seems to have moved steadily from an instrument of documentation to a starting point for a creative process. Some protest this evolution, others welcome it.</p>

<p>I see no evolution. It has been with us since immediately after the first astonishment at seeing a photograph. Compositing 3, 5, 7 individual photographs into one has been practiced since the 1840s. Thereafter, a generation of photographers attempted to create images that looked as if they had been drawn by Bouguereau. And following, another generation of "straight" photographers whose goal was to make an art of photography distinct from the art of drawing and painting. Documentary and photojournalism are compromised by ideology and the (melo)dramatic, and the fake.</p>

<p>Photographic description in itself is considered banal and uninteresting by the above practitioners. The history of photography is comprised of attempts to subvert photographic description, with not many exceptions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think it's a fair question, though it's asked or implied constantly on P.N. This may be the best Forum to address that question.</p>

<p>I think "photograph" implies that a mechanical (chemical, digital, whatever) device recorded something <strong>independently</strong> of the eye/mind of a human being.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams did confuse things a bit, by talking about <strong>previsualization</strong>... done with his degree of exquisite visual and technical control it meant that his photograph was for all practical purposes completed by the time he made the exposure. Before the click of the shutter. Ansel's photographic goal was simply (!) to render (including his darkroom work) what he previsualized...</p>

<p>IMO "photograph" is little more than a word until it's used in a context. "Photograph" can refer to something recorded optically on a glass plate, in a certain context, or it can refer to a pure Photoshop dream, with arguably zero optical input, in another context.</p>

<p>I started to insist that it's <strong>not a photograph</strong> without some kind of optical input, but wouldn't that rule out photograms of leaves or fish skeletons?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If extreme manipulation can make it so that a certain image is no longer photography, then what exactly is it? A painting? A drawing?</p>

<p>DN - "Photo art" or "graphic art" are terms used fairly commonly for images which have been changed fairly radically. </p>

<p>If the changes are not so extreme (e.g., digital cross-processing, blown hilights, and other such techniques currently portrayed as arty in the wedding industry), it is termed "the photographer's style". If the style has become passe (e.g., heart shaped vignettes), it's just kitsch.</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What I'm asking is, Is there ever a point when a photograph is manipulated, digitally or otherwise, to the point where it is no longer really a photograph?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A photograph can give the illusion of reality, not only by manipulating the photograph but also by <a href="http://www.cielvariable.ca/archives/en/reviews-of-current-events-cv68/thomas-demand-by-johanna-mizgala.html">manipulating that which is photographed</a>, in such a way that it <a href="http://www.vvork.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Clearing.jpg"> presents a reality to the viewer which it isn't</a>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is photography about creating a photograph or an image?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also when staying in the realm of pure photographic description ( *photograph* ) an <em>image</em> can be created, like a "double vision of the real and unreal seen through the same lens".</p>

<p>When Chuck Norris says so.</p>

<p>After Dec 21 2012.</p>

<p>Photography is "writing with light" undo that, and it's something else. Probably a graphic of some kind.</p>

<p>There are photographs made without any mechanical devices.</p>

<p>Previsualization means the photographic process is <em>decided</em>, or committed to, not completed, by the time the exposure is made</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DN - "Photo art" or "graphic art" are terms used fairly commonly for images which have been changed fairly radically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, if a radically changed image is "art", then that means everything else is not art? "Real" photography is not artistic?</p>

<p>Another question: If too much darkroom processes can turn a photograph into a non-photograph, doesn't that mean that the darkroom itself is not part of photography?</p>

<p>A photograph is a picture formed in a sensitive surface by marks chemically generated as a consequence of that surface being penetrated by light.<br>

If the marks that make up the picture get there any other way then the result might be an excellent picture but definitely not a photograph.<br>

Photography is the name of a particular process among many ways of making pictures. Well, which process is it? Ask Sir John Herschel! He is the scientist who invented the word "Photography" and told us what it means. Quote: "Photography or the application of the chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation...".<br>

Curiously, "Photography" doesn't depend for its identity on the existence of cameras, lenses, silver, developer, fixer, plates, films, and all the other gadgets. These are just conveniences to help achieve the heart of the process: light strikes a surface and causes marks <em>in that surface</em>.</p>

 

<p>Anything seems to go nowadays and the lines are blurry and irrelevant. Not to dismiss your discovery, however this topic is now getting to be one that is leftovers microwaved over again and again. I could be wrong. <br /> Looking through the MOMA catalog, photos have been played with, collaged, futzed with and fiddled with for a long time it seems. And they, MOMA, no longer even defines the sections of their museum catalog collection as- Photography Section,- Sculpture Section,- Eames Chair Section. Does that not suggest a loose interpretation is in force...<br>

I think that is how I see it, but am seriously open to other taxonomic declarations re what constitutes a <em>real photograph </em>vis a vis a warmed over photo that has been run through the photoshop "microwave"...I await the Final Judgment.</p>

<p>This question repeats often enough that the question itself is revealing. What can be done with digital manipulation is apparently disconcerting to a lot of people. They want a line of demarcation that on one side says photograph, and on the other non-photograph. That line was broken very early in the history of the medium, and it's gotten blurrier since.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, Don Essedi, I too have read the history of photography. Still I believe the ongoing development of especially digital technology is evolving the use of the medium farther and farther away from straight photographic documentation.</p>

<p><em>"Previsualization means the photographic process is decided, or committed to, not completed, by the time the exposure is made"</em> ... Luis G</p>

<p>Not quite.... "previsualization" means accurate visualization OF THE FINISHED PRINT before the film's exposure is made. I don't know how to apply that concept to digital photography because it's so much more...flexible and adaptable.</p>

<p>When the photographer is technically masterful (eg Ansel Adams, Minor White) the execuation phase (includes exposure, film development, specific printing techniques) are nearly (nearly) completely automatic. </p>

<p>Previsualization, qua Zone System, doesn't mean guesstimation of the finished print in one's mind, it means virtually seeing the finished print before the film is exposed.</p>

<p>Check the original sources (AA or MW) to confirm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"...this topic is now getting to be one that is leftovers microwaved over again and again. "- </em>Gerry S</p>

<p><strong>Gerry, it's great to see your posts in this Forum... you're a good writer, not just a convoluted sentence jockey.</strong></p>

<p>I think now its time to create two groups. 1) Photography: No manipulation is permitted - as Richard Snow mentioned - other than basic color correction, cropping, sharpening, and softening. The message and the essence of the photography must be there. 2) Artography: Sky is the limit. Do whatever you want. Make it as per your fantasy.</p>

<p>But please, for the God sake, do not mix both. Let something original in this world. Let make photographers judged by their own skills and eye, not by Photoshop.</p>

<p>"...the ongoing development of especially digital technology is evolving the use of the medium farther and farther away from straight photographic documentation."</p>

<p>I agree "digital technology", but that is not limited to cameras, and not just the photographic medium, but 'media'. The virtual is analogous to the spiritual in that it has no extension in space and so you can't photograph it, but it can photograph you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think now its high time to create two groups. 1) <strong>Photography: </strong>No manipulation is permitted - as Richard Snow mentioned - other than basic color correction, cropping, sharpening, and softening. The message and the essence of the photography must be there. 2) <strong>Artography:</strong> Sky is the limit. Do whatever you want. Make it or break it as per your fantasy.</p>

<p>But please, for the God sake, do not mix both. Let something remain original in this world. Let make photographers judged by their own skills and eye, not by Photoshop.</p>

<p><strong>Rizwan - </strong>The sky's always been the limit. Straight photography is still with us. They've been mixed from the beginning. I love the appropriation of the medium's name to suit Rizwan's biases. Classic.</p>

<p>[ What is it with the Puritanical hierarchies (& put-downs and games) and this forum? It's spreading. ]</p>

<p> God was happy with both being mixed for 170 years or so, I doubt She'll change Her Mind now. Count me out, Rizwan. Besides, if you had any faith in straight photography, you'd be confident that it will continue to hold its ground.</p>

<p> You ought to write a longer, manifesto - like an expanded version of your idea. I love manifestos, and they're scarce nowadays.</p>

<p>_______________________________<br>

<strong>JK - "...</strong><strong> just a convoluted sentence jockey."</strong></p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645">John Kelly</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 25, 2009; 08:14 p.m.<br>

Luis, you're a fine writer.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6007448">TM: <br /></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>DN - "Photo art" or "graphic art" are terms used fairly commonly for images which have been changed fairly radically.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6007448">David Ngo</a> , Jun 14, 2010; 09:19 p.m.<br>

<em>Okay, if a radically changed image is "art", then that means everything else is not art? "Real" photography is not artistic?</em></p>

<p>Errr.... not quite: If the animal standing over there is a cow, does that mean that every other animal is not a cow? Obviously, some of the other animals in the world might be cows, others might be other species.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>