Will PN need guidelines for what constitutes a photograph?

This week I got involved in a debate on the appropriateness of an <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?

photo_id=1644494">image</a> that is currently occupying a prominent

spot on PN's Top Photos page. I made a couple lengthy comments on

that photo's page which you can read there, so I won't repeat all my

assertions here, but suffice it to say that I don't feel that images

belong in the PN gallery unless their primary elements are at least

derived from photography. My posting here in the forum is not really

about this particular image but rather about the larger issue it

raises.

<p>I don't see much point in debating whether heavily Photoshopped

photos belong on this site. That horse is already out of the barn,

so to speak, and I myself am an occasional, relatively light user of

Photoshop as you can discover from reading the technical details of

my posted photos.

<p>However, I do think it is valid to question whether images belong

on this site whose primary elements did not begin as photographs.

Leaving behind for a moment the endless debates and frustrations on

all sides about whether the most popular images deserve their high

ratings, do we not all agree that photography, as opposed to other

artistic media, is the sole focus of Photo.net?

<p>As 3D graphics become more powerful and more accessible to the

layperson, which I assume could easily happen in the future, do we

want to see 3D-based images multiplying on this site? I happen to

love 3D graphics, having worked in the field for several years, but

I come to PN to learn about photography. What am I to learn about

photography from images that were never photographs? How are those

who are not familiar with 3D graphics supposed to give informed

ratings and comments to images that would be dazzling examples of

genius and hard work if they were indeed photographs, but are

actually straightforward and possibly cliched images in the 3D

graphics context? I don't think the "Manipulated?" flag is actually

designed to cover situations where there mostly wasn't a literal

photograph to manipulate in the first place, so without full

disclosure by the artist, people get duped into thinking the image

is something it is not.

<p> I can easily imagine a time when it will be literally impossible

to tell the difference between a photograph and an image that was

entirely created within a 3D computer program; to a degree we are

probably already there. Will we (PN community) still care at that

point how the image began? (After reading some responses to my

comments on the image, does anyone care <i>now</i>?)

<p>I am merely suggesting that the administrators and active

community members of PN think about whether they want to open the

gallery up to images that, by the subjective standards that I've

tried to elucidate, are not photographs. I freely admit that there

is no clear demarcation that I could point to of when something

becomes sufficiently "photographic" to qualify. But I do think there

will be instances where, as they say, you know it when you see it.

And that's hard to document as a policy for the site. The example I

gave on the photo's page about the pencil sketch was an attempt to

draw an analogy that didn't involve computer graphics, which I

thought people might understand better.

I agree with Philip to a point but I can't determine just where to set the lines separting unmanipulated photos, those that a PS'd and those that are created "elsewhere". When I first developed an interest in photography I hated being confronted with powerlines, telephone poles and other debris. Today I don't think anything of removing items from an image, such as those mentioned above. I am not usually trying to document something but to capture a setting or event that is attractive to me. In that sense, cleaning up an image doesn't bother me in the least.

 

On the few occasions, however, when I've added something that wasn't there I've tried to make that clear, like calling it a "photo illustration" as opposed to a photograph. This isn't my forte and I've done very little of it. But I think it is entirely different than cloning something out.

 

Secondly, If we can use filters and dedicated films in taking an image and filters and special papers in printing that intensify a color or change the contrast to something more pleasing than what was really there I can't see where doing the same on a computer is "cheating".

 

It might be that photography is a hideout for people like me who can't draw or paint. When I go to art shows I am turned off by multi-media efforts, which can be very attractive, but don't seem like they belong in the show. My favorite paintings where probably the landscapes from the Dutch or Chinese and the more they looked like photographs, the better I liked them. My taste, however, isn't a standard for judgment of others.

 

I think that images that are computer generated are graphics and not photographs and should be labeled and judged accordingly. Even photographic material in the images may not be the work of the graphics artist. I've used software to convert photographs to watercolors and the like, sometimes to my satisfaction, but I've never been able to feel that it was my work. It was just the predictable outcome of applying software that a team of people created to an image I created.

 

If I merged components of two photographs I've taken to make an "illustration" I can feel it is my creation but not a photograph anymore, even if it is very convincing.

There should be a "modified" section and a "non-modified" section. That way we can judge the pure'ists from the artisan. There is a place for both, but not mish mashed into one grouping. The 'judges' of the site tend to blur one group into another - drooling over the modified menageries and overlooking the simple photo.

Allow the coinsures of modification their place � and the workers of camera magic � theirs.

Then let the judges render their verdict on either of the two categories

This comes up periodically, and the "party line" is that images posted to photo.net should be photograrphs or "photo-based". As a general rule, we leave it to the submitters to interpret these terms, only second-guessing them in obvious cases of bad faith. Also, if a person uploads images that are technically in violation of this policy, we might accomodate them anyway if they are only a few images in a portfolio of otherwise photographic images -- in order to give a photo.net member an opportunity to put non-photographic products of his "vision" on display. This would especially be the case if the person was a subscriber. Hopefully people will have the good sense not to rate these images so that they achieve "Top Photo" status.

There is a difference between what is a *manipulated* image and what is a *generated* image. Darkroom manipulations, composites, or even heavy artistic alterations that derive from one or more original photographs can stand in the context of the photographic medium as manipulations.

 

A ball on a checkerboard, rendered by a raytracer is a generated image in its totality. It does not derive from the process of capturing the imprint of light. Instead it derives from a programmatic synthesis of an arbitrary but formally described pseudo-world, generated by a computer software in photo-realistic rendering.

I think relying on people's good sense to do anything is probably hoping for too much. That's why the put "do not eat" messages on packets of silica gel desicant.

 

 

We do have an "unmanipulated image" check box. I use it, I don't know how many other people do. What might be a good idea is the ability to select using this data field, i.e. to request the "top 20 images" which have the "unmanipulated image" box checked.

 

 

Then, of course, we could look forward to endless arguments and complaints over what is an isn't "unmanipulated". Hey, we have to argue over something, so it might as well be that as anything else. There's no argukent now of course because since it doesn't help or hinder ratings, nobody cares.

There's another thread on ratings that reminded us of Michael

Spinak's idea of comparing pairs of images. If you put a straight

shot up against a similar manipulated shot, which shot would

win most of the time on this site?

 

It's a matter of good taste and an educated eye more than good

sense.

I don't think it will or does. <p>

Somewhere I have a "Images the making of 50 Photographs" by Ansel Adams which I quote from time to time (and I can't be sure I've got it verbatim) "Only the print carries the photographers meaning". <br>When I first started taking pictures, filters were all the rage, and some people would say things like "that's cheating you used a graduated filter for that sky", Now the same cry goes up "that's cheating you used photoshop". Personally I'm with Adams, only the print counts. Do people really care if I bathed a print in Selenium toner, and hand brushed out a dust spot or a wrinkle, or if I used software to get to the same result ? <br>

You also get the people who say painting is art but photography isn't. Same applies, who cares how the image got onto the paper? Or the purists who beleive you must not crop, or burn or shade when printing (and I guess always use the same grade paper and never tone it yada yada yada). <br>

Personally I don't mind if people upload any kind of image, digially originated photos, scanned film, manipulated, digitized paintings and drawings or digitally drawn, or digitally created pictures. It doesn't matter because this site is for photographers, and most of the interest is photographic. Pictures that are not mostly photograph will not be that interesting to that many of the community here; but if someone has a non photographic image and would like the views of photographers, why not ? Provided of course they're not trying to deceive anyone. The case Philip brings up wouldn't be mistaken for a real photo surely ? The author of that picture said "let me choose the tool which will help to create what is on my mind." Amen to that, and if you don't like the tools someone uses, another picture is only a click away.

OK the Adams book is "Examples, the making of 40 photographs", (not 50) but one of his is worth 1.25 of anyone elses.

And the quote was "The endless discussions of creativity appear to me to be pointless intellectual carousels ... Only the print contains the artist's meaning and message"

 

Amen to that