Can it really be called photography anymore?

[samstevens]

how about the case where the whole image is computer generated?

How 'bout it? We're living in a world where that's possible. And it's done. Why not?

 

In any case, how it's done and what it looks like and expresses to me when it's done is more important to me than what I call it or what someone who wants to protect their photographic "territory" calls it.

[AlanKlein]

How 'bout it? We're living in a world where that's possible. And it's done. Why not?

 

In any case, how it's done and what it looks like and expresses to me when it's done is more important to me than what I call it or what someone who wants to protect their photographic "territory" calls it.

There's nothing wrong with computer generated pictures. But it will kill photography if they're compared with photos taken with a camera. Hopefully they'll be a fad and they'll die out like those grungy HDR pictures or these effects in photoshop that turn pictures into depictions looking like a watercolor, or an oil, or graphic pen picture. After you've done a couple of those, it gets boring to do more and even more boring looking at them.

[AlanKlein]

OK, but how about the case where the whole image is computer generated?

 

Just the solutions of some mathematical equations, but then converted into a visual image that, in our imagination, represents some scene?

 

I believe that the Pixar movies have some actual photographic input, but much smaller than the ones discussed above.

What's even more interesting is that it's not the photographer's art but rather some programmer's working in Silicon Valley writing the algorithm who is the artist. It's like taking a picture of some artist's sculpture.

[samstevens]

it will kill photography

Is there a point of too much worry about the end of photography as you've known it? What benefit is there in this concern with what other people do in the visual arts? Can you find and keep your own place in all this? I doubt very much any of this is going to affect your slice of the photographic world, the slideshows you make that seem to give you such pleasure, etc. It seems a theoretical exercise/distraction, a paean to victimhood in the face of time marching on and of media and art changing. Maybe consider processing some of that angst through your photography. I'll wager that will do both you and your photography more good than worrying about its death at the hands of those who are doing things you're not.

 

What's more boring? Looking at effects you don't like in Photoshop or complaining about things you can't do a thing about? There are so many fascinating things to photograph and inspire you in life. Why not explore those the way you want and leave the rest to others?

I think we all seek values and standards to give purpose to life.

One of the ways I've found purpose in life is NOT to accept the standards of others. In many cases, it's those standards that would have negated me as an individual. It's those standards that so many past photographers and artists leaped ahead of and refused to be intimidated by.

[glen_h]

What's even more interesting is that it's not the photographer's art but rather some programmer's working in Silicon Valley writing the algorithm who is the artist. It's like taking a picture of some artist's sculpture.

 

When I wrote the previous quote, I was thinking some about oil painting, which is often meant to accurately reflect a real subject.

 

But also often, oil painting is done as an artist imagining some scene which never existed, and never will.

 

Both can be done with electronic imaging, and in the latter case, with much work over the years,

can look very much like a real scene.

[tholte]

I think of photography as a means to remind my self (after a period of time) what I saw or to show someone else what I saw so I try to keep the image as true (?) as possible.

Nothing wrong with that view. Kind of liking writing a personal diary and not worrying about anyone else reading it.

[tbarrent]

Is there a point of too much worry about the end of photography as you've known it? What benefit is there in this concern with what other people do in the visual arts? Can you find and keep your own place in all this? I doubt very much any of this is going to affect your slice of the photographic world, the slideshows you make that seem to give you such pleasure, etc. It seems a theoretical exercise/distraction, a paean to victimhood in the face of time marching on and of media and art changing. Maybe consider processing some of that angst through your photography. I'll wager that will do both you and your photography more good than worrying about its death at the hands of those who are doing things you're not.

 

What's more boring? Looking at effects you don't like in Photoshop or complaining about things you can't do a thing about? There are so many fascinating things to photograph and inspire you in life. Why not explore those the way you want and leave the rest to others?

 

One of the ways I've found purpose in life is NOT to accept the standards of others. In many cases, it's those standards that would have negated me as an individual. It's those standards that so many past photographers and artists leaped ahead of and refused to be intimidated by.

 

 

there is no difference anymore between photo edited photography, and what ILM has done for movie magic. Look at the craptacular movie Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow.

 

90% of what you see in the movie was digital CGI models with live action shot on blue screen.

 

Whats the difference between that and what people are doing with photoshop to manipulate their photos?

[samstevens]

tbarrent, I don't understand why you quoted what I said to Alan when you obviously didn't bother to read what I said or address what I said. The point of my post to Alan was to ask him why he cared what others do and that they manipulate their photos. And you respond simply by restating that people manipulate photos, as if anyone reading this doesn't already know that people manipulate photos.

[samstevens]

In other words, why does how others create their photos affect you and how you make your own photos? Do you, for some reason, think because others do it, you're expected to do it? And, if you feel you're expected to do it, are you that weak that you can't stand up for yourself and say you're going to do it the way YOU want to do it. The only reason I can imagine others' manipulations of their photos bothering someone so much is if they feel insecure with their own way of doing things and somehow threatened by the way others are doing it. What the hell is the threat to you personally if someone else creates a photo with software. If you're confident in and happy with your own photos, why isn't that enough for you?

[AlanKlein]

You raise good points Sam. Maybe it's the competitive ego in me that sees it as a problem. If someone can get better pictures pressing a button than I can do getting up at 4am and working all day, you start questioning what's the point.

[rodeo_joe1]

If someone can get better pictures pressing a button than I can do getting up at 4am and working all day, you start questioning what's the point

Alan, when I used film I worked at printing those negatives in the darkroom, spending hours sometimes trying different dodging/burning techniques and times, to get the exact print I wanted - as I visualised it at the time of taking it.

 

If I do the same thing more quickly and efficiently in PhotoShop, and starting with a digital 'negative', is that cheating in some way? And does that undermine the worth of your way of working?

 

And we already have the abbreviation CGI to describe computer generated imagery, as opposed to 'photography'. If there's no directly (i.e. from life) captured image, it's CGI. If there is, it's photography. If combined, they're mixed-media.

 

I don't see the need for any other nomenclature, nor to exclude any particular usage of technology in the creative process.

 

Myself, I look back on those hours spent in the darkroom, and only regret that more efficient means to an end weren't around in those days.

 

You mentioned earlier that you took up photography as a creative outlet, because you weren't gifted with drawing/painting skills. But you can hardly get any more 'artificial' than putting pigment onto some base to form a representation of an image. In fact the words 'art', 'artifice', 'artefact' and 'artificial' all stem from the same root.

Edited October 30, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[samstevens]

you start questioning what's the point.

Careful. Someone might think you’re a philosopher. :)

 

Seriously, though, photographers who’ve inspired me and who I’ve learned from (and the kind of photographer I aspire to be) give their photos personality and character. That can’t be accomplished just by Photoshop or just by getting up earlier in the day!

 

Stieglitz, Brassai, Goldin, Parr, Meyerowitz, Evans, Lange, Weston, Eggleston, Moriyama, Arbus ... name dozens more ...

 

What they have in common is an individual uniqueness, a personal approach and vision. No one else can “construct” that or even really compete with it.

 

I humbly suggest that the point is to be Alan and to photograph like Alan would think of photographing. No one’s going to do that no matter how much Photoshop they employ or what buttons they push. What someone will do with Photoshop is their own thing. I will assess their work on the personality and character they imbue their work with, including their use of Photoshop.

 

Dare to be yourself.

[jose_angel]

From Wikipedia: The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".

And photograph is defined as "the art or practice of taking and processing photographs".

 

So basically, if there is a registration device, and light, it is photography. There are variants, as a succession of consecutive photographs that is called "film", "movies", video or whatever. And so on.

 

The main issue here is if we like it or not. I assume the most photoshopped, assembled, modified images are considered real photography by their authors.

 

This topic is a quite ordinary reaction to what is changing or is new. We don't like it, and we negate it. It's not exclusive to photography, nor to arts or many other things.

What Steve said above... Realism or Pictorialism?

Is Impressionism pure painting? For sure some could think that it was pseudo-painting, made to be fast and cheap for the incipient social classes in the time. For others, it is the art in its highest purity. What about abstract painting? Is it art too?

 

I sincerely think that humans evolute to their own self-destruction, so everything must run in accordance, art included.

But technical advances are not bad at all... they use to great things (although it may seem contradictory). I take the most of them, although my heart is with what I first discovered when I was a child, I'm just so basic...

Edited October 30, 2020 by jose_angel

[rodeo_joe1]

-evolute-

That's a new one to me as a verb.

A portmanteau of 'evolve' and 'convolute'?

 

I like it, but can't think of a sentence where I'd use it yet.:oops:

Edited October 30, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[jose_angel]

LOL, I actually wanted to mean "evolve".

But you are right, I like that mix with "convolute"... thanks :D

[stephendunphy]

Just a quick thought on the topic, after perusing the entire thread, as I've long struggled with this very debate.

Though I would say that, as with most here, I would place myself in the opposite camp to that of the OP, it seems that most are being a tad too harsh. To my mind, if there's anything to be gleaned from the discussion, it's that this isn't a mutually exclusive, binary situation here. Ultimately, the decision falls to to the individual alone as to whether or not something qualifies as photography or not; there is no objective criterion. And so, if the OP elects to opt for a stringent, narrow definition, then that's just as legitimate as any other. I certainly don't fall into such a purist representationalist camp, but neither do I so much as bother to play with PS anymore. Regardless, my perspective has no bearing on that of the OP. Ultimately, the question the OP poses isn't problematic because we cannot agree on a definition but rather because the question itself is not legitimate.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

If I scribble* on a Polaroid**, is it still a photograph?

 

What about if it were incorporated into part of a larger piece?

 

And, most importantly, would anyone even care what it was classified as when they were viewing it?

 

 

 

Unless, of course, they were a museum employee and that was part of their job.

 

 

 

* Approximately my level of talent.

 

** I'm sure someone could convincingly argue that a Polaroid/Instax isn't a photograph to begin with.

Good question for Duane Michaels :)

[Moving On]

You see these same arguments in many discussions of activities.

Hunting, fishing, shooting, cooking all lend themselves to variations in their practice along a varying scale of difficulty concurrent with developments in the process.

 

It appears to me that it is Human Nature to devise shortcuts in everything we do.

And to a lesser degree, Human Nature to explore was is possible under the constraints of the past.

 

It’s all good.

I cannot think of a better time for photography than to be able to still experience a reach back with some really excellent old equipment, and at the same time, so simply and efficiently capture unique as well as utilitarian photographs.

[markminard]

If you can regularly create better results sitting at a computer, what's the point owning a camera? Why put in all the effort to go out and shoot pictures?

Because it beats sitting in front of a computer! Why would one sacrifice an experience in nature to the fact that a scene you encountered possibly could've been created and/or altered digitally on a computer? Don't lose sight of the end result: the experience of being in nature, with a hardcopy print as a memento, one you might see fit to present to the word as "art." And regarding that print: few if anyone will care whether it was photoshopped or not. And, if the answer to that is: "well I care," then the solution is easy: make contact prints, unmanipulated, and present them as such. Don't surrender your passion to the whims of the masses.

Edited November 3, 2020 by markminard

[Moving On]

Don't surrender your passion to the whims of the masses.

 

Unless it’s on a park bench........;)

[samstevens]

Don't lose sight of the end result: the experience of being in nature, with a hardcopy print as a memento

1. Beautifully said.
   
2. Doesn’t apply to some photographers, who don’t want their photos to be mementos.
   
3. I have a good friend with m.s. for whom being out in nature is rarely possible, so she enjoys doing things at her computer as much as anyone might like being in nature.
   

few if anyone will care whether it was photoshopped or not

YES! It’s a question rarely occurring to a lot of viewers. Just like many listeners don’t think to ask how many different takes were put together into one studio musical performance or how many electronic manipulations were applied to a singer’s voice or what “tricks” a movie director used to create some of the appearances in a movie or how much the actor on stage might have had to go off book to cover for the missed line of his co-star.

present to the word as "art."

One of the beauties of art is that it’s a human fabrication, different from nature, a man-made reality. It may represent a naturally-occurring experience or be an obvious artifice meant to be an experience unto itself, or anywhere in between ...

[Dieter Schaefer]

Someone did a timely experiment on this very question: Illustration 001 (the link opens an image on flickr)

Would you call this a photograph or not?

Do you care one way or another?

[samstevens]

Would you call this a photograph or not?

I wouldn't think about it. If asked, I'd assume it was some sort of test or trap and move onto the next question.

Do you care one way or another?

No. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't care if it were a painting, a lithograph, or any other form of visual media. No matter what it was called, it would affect me as a kind of Hallmark card photo or calendar art nicety and I'd quickly move onto something more meaningful to me.

[mikemorrell]

Like it or not, digital tools now enable photos/videos to be modified 'out of the camera' to a greater extent than has been previously possible Some digital artists/photographers have embraced these opportunities. Others prefer to avoid them.

 

IHMO both (primarily) 'visual artist's and (primarily) 'narrative photographers' - who both may use digital tools to a greater or lesser extent - have more in common than their differences:

- both generate ideas and a goal for a 'visual project' (which may continue for months or for many years)

- both 'envision' how they want to express these ideas as visual images

- both develop, execute and adjust these plans to produce the images/videos which best express their ideas and goals

- such plans include things like locations, lighting, photographic and - especially for digital artists - PP techniques

- both evaluate their progress based on their 'envisioned' results and adjust accordingly

 

IHMO these 'basics' apply both to 'traditional' photographers' doing photo projects on a specific theme/subject and (primarily) 'digital artists' who incorporate and post-process photographic images in their work.

 

1st bottom line: Narrative (video)photography is much more than wandering around hoping to find something interesting to photograph, however well. it's more than taking 'good' photos' in your locality or on vacation. Or photographing whatever you happen to come across that you you find interesting. It's a different approach to both photography and visual art.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with photographers who (digitally) create the best images that they can from their original photos. I have equal respect for photographers who eschew PP and post 'straight-out-the-camera' photos.

 

I recently came across two very different but in some ways 'game-changing' works by visual artists who use their own photography in their works:

- Corry van Hoof (who processes her own photos non-digitally to produce 3-D art works)

- Wenxin Zhang (who in her work ' Memory Caustics' ) uses her own photos to create 3-D models as the backdrop to a digital video. Some of her other works are based solely on her traditional photography'

 

2e bottom line: the lines between 'art photography' (digital or otherwise) and 'traditional photography' (being able to use a camera) are IMHO becoming ever more blurred. From what I see, being able to use a camera and set up lighting and shots is a necessary precondition for incorporating photos into 'digital artworks'. On the other hand, camera, lighting and even PP skills are in themselves insufficient to produce memorable photos and even less in producing photo series that tell a story. IHMO, 'photography' has moved on from 'taking a good photo of something interesting' to 'expressing ideas/themes' in the best way possible. IHMO, the 'great' photographers of the past' fully understood this principle. Their primary focus was on projects/themes but they made the best use of the technology that was available, often pioneering this. Contemporary 'visual artists' and 'photographers' are IMHO doing no less

[Moving On]

The biggest issue I have with post processing is in trying to learn from the photograph.

“How did you get such a great result?”