When is a photograph no longer a photograph?

[Guest PapaTango]

Another thread here on the manipulation of contest images brought a thought to mind--as this concerns a lot of my images.

At what point does an image become an illustration, due to manipulation?  If an image takes on a 'painterly' presentation, is it still a photographic image, or an illustration?  If a small section of an image is enlarged and becomes unrecognizable as part of a greater whole, is it an abstract 'art' work, or is it still considered a photograph?

Here is an example.  This is a small section of a large 19th century cameo plate.  The original colors were a light blue background, and white/ivory for the cameo image.  Much torturing and colorization in PS gives me this:

 

So then would this be considered a photograph or an illustration--or even something else?

 

[Sanford]

9 minutes ago, PapaTango said:

Another thread here on the manipulation of contest images brought a thought to mind--as this concerns a lot of my images.

At what point does an image become an illustration, due to manipulation?  If an image takes on a 'painterly' presentation, is it still a photographic image, or an illustration?  If a small section of an image is enlarged and becomes unrecognizable as part of a greater whole, is it an abstract 'art' work, or is it still considered a photograph?

Here is an example.  This is a small section of a large 19th century cameo plate.  The original colors were a light blue background, and white/ivory for the cameo image.  Much torturing and colorization in PS gives me this:

 

So then would this be considered a photograph or an illustration--or even something else?

 

Let's just say if you published it and made some money, you'd owe a part of that to the original creator

[Guest PapaTango]

3 hours ago, Sanford said:

Let's just say if you published it and made some money, you'd owe a part of that to the original creator

In this instance, that is not an issue.  The original piece was made in the mid-1840s... ☠️💀👻

[samstevens]

Quote

When is a photograph no longer a photograph?

At the same point a mountain becomes a molehill and a beach becomes some grains of sand. 😊

[Tony Parsons]

There are some who believe that an image produced entirely electronically (i.e. by a digital camera) is not a photograph, and should be referred to by another name - I have heard of EPI being used (Electronically Produced Image). Their view is that a true photograph is only one produced using traditional means - i.e. a film or glass plate to record the image, processed in a traditional wet darkroom, preferably by hand with no machinery involved, the positive produced using a traditional enlarger (I understand that 'colour heads' are permissible) onto photo-sensitive paper, then processed in traditional chemicals, either in a developing dish or a hand-operated roller drum. 

[Guest PapaTango]

26 minutes ago, samstevens said:

At the same point a mountain becomes a molehill and a beach becomes some grains of sand. 😊

Not what I expected, but literally true.

Except for that convoluted world of law and jurisprudence.  But that is still another conversation for another thread...

 

[Sandy Vongries]

When it appears on black velvet?

[Guest PapaTango]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Vongries said:

When it appears on black velvet?

Elvis is watching you with his angry orange tiger and a wolf...

Edited November 17, 2022 by PapaTango

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, tony_parsons1 said:

There are some who believe

Uh oh. Red flag alert. 🚩

I tend to take what an unnamed some believe with a grain of salt (several of which will create a pile, at some unknown point 😎). 

After all, some believe vaccines contain radio waves that monitor our whereabouts. Some believe in Jewish space lasers. Some believe hurricanes are God’s critique of human morality. I’d put some believing that a digital photo isn’t a photo in the category of anachronisms or dinosaurs. 

[Tony Parsons]

6 minutes ago, samstevens said:

Uh oh. Red flag alert. 🚩

I tend to take what an unnamed some believe with a grain of salt (several of which will create a pile, at some unknown point 😎). 

After all, some believe vaccines contain radio waves that monitor our whereabouts. Some believe in Jewish space lasers. Some believe hurricanes are God’s critique of human morality. I’d put some believing that a digital photo isn’t a photo in the category of anachronisms or dinosaurs. 

Sam, this is merely the opinion of 'some' people - probably fewer than those who believe the world is flat, or those who believe it is carried on the back of a giant tortoise. People are free to believe what they wish - problems can arise when they try to force their opinions or beliefs on others. May I also point out that too much salt can be a health hazard ? BTW, are you suggesting these people use an anachronistigmatic lens as well ? 😄

Edited November 17, 2022 by tony_parsons1

[Guest PapaTango]

13 minutes ago, tony_parsons1 said:

those who believe the world is flat, or those who believe it is carried on the back of a giant tortoise.

It's not?  I have to think a spell to resolve this incongruity... 🎅

[Guest PapaTango]

5 minutes ago, tony_parsons1 said:

There are some who believe that an image produced entirely electronically (i.e. by a digital camera) is not a photograph, and should be referred to by another name - I have heard of EPI being used (Electronically Produced Image). Their view is that a true photograph is only one produced using traditional means - i.e. a film or glass plate to record the image, processed in a traditional wet darkroom, preferably by hand with no machinery involved, the positive produced using a traditional enlarger (I understand that 'colour heads' are permissible) onto photo-sensitive paper, then processed in traditional chemicals, either in a developing dish or a hand-operated roller drum. 

As discussed in another thread about forums and our current situation--this was the "thing" that gripped the APUG (Analog Photography Users Group) with the rising shift to digital in the early part of the millennial Oughts'.  Then came DPUG (Digital Photography Users Group) as a solution.  That did not really sooth much.  It's now Photrio.com, and is filterable by interest--analog, hybrid, digital--but still heavily invested in silver.

There are just places one goes for specific things.  PN does a nice job on the silver side, and when @alan_marcus2 steps in, you know that you have the answer!

The world evolves and devolves.  Mileage is by the decade...

[Dustin McAmera]

In principle, there's a continuous scale of degrees of manipulation. Straight out of the camera, you might just decide to darken the whole image a little (obviously still a photograph); or you could darken it, increase the contrast, and reduce the colour saturation just of the sculpture itself; or you could do any amount of burning, dodging, adding blur and noise, painting in a unicorn in the background, and selectively recolouring with an airbrush tool. Somewhere along that scale, you could say the image crosses the line from a manipulated phtograph to an image derived from a photograph; but there's no ISO standard for where that line is. If the same person takes the photograph and then manipulates it, maybe it hardly matters.
It matters more if you do something like that with someone else's photograph because of the copyright. I like that Creative Commons licences let us add a No-derived-works clause. I haven't ever used one, but I like that we can.
The Hope poster was hugely removed from the photograph it was derived from, but the copyright still stood.

 

[JDMvW]

An image is an image is an image.....

There IS a really important difference, however, between forensic/documentary/scientific photography and photographic art (whatever that may happen to be in a given case).

Edited November 18, 2022 by JDMvW

[samstevens]

44 minutes ago, JDMvW said:

There IS a really important difference, however, between forensic/documentary/scientific photography and photographic art

There can be, but a lot would depend on context. The same forensic, documentary, or scientific-study photo could easily become part of an art exhibition. I’ve seen mug shot exhibits, test pattern exhibits, etc. Photographic and other art is often as much about how something is presented as much as what is presented. Art isn’t inherent in the artwork. It can go well beyond that.

Edited November 18, 2022 by samstevens

[mikemorrellNL]

When i read @JDMvW's response, I immediately thought "yes!" A few seconds later, I realized that even the most objective scientists needs to present their results in a way that will best communicate their results to different audiences. The presentation of raw, objective data might not always be the best way for all audiences. So summarized and or enhanced presentations might -for some audiences- be the best way to get their points across.

Edited November 18, 2022 by mikemorrellNL

[mikemorrellNL]

Repost: To Edit or Not to Edit your Photography?

 

[Ricochetrider]

Maybe I’m oversimplifying but does a photograph become an “image” if it’s been manipulated heavily enough that it no longer looks photographic? 

(Edit: as shown in PT’s example above)  
 

Yeah, so admittedly “photographic” leaves a lot of wiggle room but hey it’s a big wide 21st century world. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Ricochetrider

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, Ricochetrider said:

does a photograph become an “image” if it’s been manipulated heavily

Labels are tricky. They can be useful in communication but they can also reveal various agendas. Very often, restricting the use of a label is meant to exclude. “Married” is a good example. Often enough, refusing to call something a “photograph” comes with the implication that post processing is impure. If I think something is over processed, I’ll critique it that way and try to provide reasons. I feel no need to relabel it.

The technical boundaries of certain labels don’t necessarily apply in practice, so there ought to be some leeway for individuality and for looser but more appropriate interpretations of labels. 

I’ve been to plenty of “film noir” festivals that included movies that might not fit a traditionalist’s notion of film noir. Nevertheless, labeling them such draws out certain features that make for interesting viewing. 

A famous philosopher said that meaning is in a word’s usage. That often applies to labels as well. 

[Tony Parsons]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

 

Just a thought - Tony

[Dustin McAmera]

I remember reading about photographs used for evidence in court. I understand they used to take a sworn statement from the photographer that (i) I made this photograph and (ii) the unretouched negative is still in my possession.

With a film photograph, you can develop the film in such a way as to increase the contrast, but you can't develop it so as to change who was in the bank vault, or the wrong bed. So as long as its not retouched, it's definitive.

 

[Gerald Cafferty]

I have no strong feelings either way. But this a site on the Internet (obviously duh) so any photo posted on the www has been digitised and no longer analog or whatever is the correct term (WET). So the amount of manipulation or interference is a difficult thing to police so here in the modern age, good luck.

[Ricochetrider]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:39 PM, Dustin McAmera said:

I remember reading about photographs used for evidence in court. I understand they used to take a sworn statement from the photographer that (i) I made this photograph and (ii) the unretouched negative is still in my possession.

With a film photograph, you can develop the film in such a way as to increase the contrast, but you can't develop it so as to change who was in the bank vault, or the wrong bed. So as long as its not retouched, it's definitive.

 

A good friend of mine is a photographer for a former newspaper that’s now an online (local) news service. He’s not allowed to alter, edit, enhance or post process in any way. At least one photographer who worked with him has been fired over this hard, fast rule! 
 

@samstevens excellent point about labels. Thanks! 

[jnancz]

as soon as someone makes a latent image it's been altered and manipulated

[jnancz]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:39 PM, Dustin McAmera said:

I remember reading about photographs used for evidence in court. I understand they used to take a sworn statement from the photographer that (i) I made this photograph and (ii) the unretouched negative is still in my possession.

With a film photograph, you can develop the film in such a way as to increase the contrast, but you can't develop it so as to change who was in the bank vault, or the wrong bed. So as long as its not retouched, it's definitive.

 

if someone wants to be deceitful they will try to get away with whatever they can, like making an un retouched negative that is a copy negative of a retouched print showing someone else at the bank vault.

[samstevens]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:39 AM, Dustin McAmera said:

With a film photograph, you can develop the film in such a way as to increase the contrast, but you can't develop it so as to change who was in the bank vault, or the wrong bed. So as long as its not retouched, it's definitive.

Of course, you can say the same thing about a digital photograph. “So long as it’s not retouched, it’s definitive.” The key isn’t film or digital. It’s whether we can perceive or prove any retouching. Propaganda and alterations of photos for nefarious reasons were alive and well during the film only days.

https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching

[vrankin]

We're all seeing digitized images here. It's not a problem for me. I worked strictly with film and wet processes from 1970 until 1999. However, I didn't feel as if I left the realm of photography, when recording images on digital sensors. Understandably, for reportage and forensic photography there are requirements that original images not be altered. But to impose those limits on my personal photography would seem artificial. When does an image morph from photography to graphic design? I can't define it objectively. But I know when it crosses the line for me. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by vrankin

[michael_frangos]

On 11/20/2022 at 3:18 PM, jnancz said:

as soon as someone makes a latent image it's been altered and manipulated

This doesn't make sense

[Allen Herbert]

A photo is always a photo.

However, when it has it has lost its character by being over cooked...well, for want of a better word it is a lost its soul.

It ceases to communicate other than being a pretty pretty banal thing at best.

[T. R. Tinker]

I don't view your image as a photograph.  I see it as digital art - and there's nothing wrong with that (plus there's a heck of a lucrative market for digital art).  Personally, I think when we stray too far from what might have been achieved in the darkroom, we leave photography behind and enter another area of artistry.

It's a darned nice image, 'though.

[glen_h]

On 11/19/2022 at 12:44 PM, Ricochetrider said:

A good friend of mine is a photographer for a former newspaper that’s now an online (local) news service. He’s not allowed to alter, edit, enhance or post process in any way. At least one photographer who worked with him has been fired over this hard, fast rule! 
 

@samstevens excellent point about labels. Thanks! 

Seems to me close to impossible in the analog days, and completely impossible for digital.

Printing on other than grade 2 paper, would be contrast enhancing?

Since I believe in Nyquist, sampling at greater than twice the highest spatial frequency, can exactly reproduce the original.

But then you have to convert that without, as above, any contrast change.

Maybe I just have a bad scanner, but I pretty much always have to do contrast adjustment on scans.

 

Most AgBr paper is now exposed by scanning lasers from a digital image. 

Can that be done with no contrast change?

[JDMvW]

On 11/18/2022 at 12:20 PM, Tony Parsons said:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

FWIW, a similar comment is made by Parson Thwackum in Fielding.

"

In Henry Fielding’s 1749 novel The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling:

 

“When I mention religion,” declares Parson Thwackum, “I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England"

Edited February 1, 2023 by JDMvW

[David_Cavan]

When I say it is. And when I say it is not. Nothing else really matters, other than angels dancing on pinheads.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

On 11/17/2022 at 6:32 AM, Sanford said:

Let's just say if you published it and made some money, you'd owe a part of that to the original creator

Not sure that's true.  Do collage makers who sell their pieces owe a royalty to every image maker whose image they appropriated? I don't think so. 

[Dustin McAmera]

If those original works are in copyright, then yes I think they do, unless the collage-maker can argue fair use. If he/she is selling his collage, that will weigh against such an argument.