Mutations on the Forest

Having browsed the portfolio which I had not previously seen I am conquered by the imagination and intentions of the photographer and her effective if very whimsical images (Some examples: "In search of happiness", "Knowledge", "Solitude") which have considerable meaning. They are an antithesis in my mind of the present selection of the Elves who seem to be overly captivated by the technical aspects of the creation (Yes, I realize that the objective is not to necessarily show what works best but to raise discussion about the effect of an image, which they seem to have done, although mostly in regard to technique) . Many of her other images are so much stronger and in my opinion worthy of Photo of the Week. The photographer humbly suggests that her intention is not artistic but simply travel, recording what she sees and image editing with Photoshop, but her work in my mind goes well beyond those stated approaches. A portfolio worth learning from.

Arthur, thank you very much for your all too kind words towards my work! I greatly appreciate them.

Anabela's work is very imaginative and quite appealing. She is an exquisite artist. But I'd hesitate to call any of the works Arthur singled out 'photographs.' They might have started out with photographs, but they ended up as 'digital art.' There is a difference. But don't get me wrong, I very much admire Anabela's talent and wish I had just what she does in her little finger, and am glad we were introduced to her portfolio. Your work, Anabela, should be shown in galleries if it's not already. It's certainly worthy of broad attention.

Bill, If one brings together one or more photographic images together is it not still a photograph? When one modifies a photographic image in the darkroom is it still a photograph, or not? The basis of the image is a photograph, so unless I draw or paint on it or assemble it with other non-photographic images it may be questioned.

How would you interpret "Harmonious Flight" a photographic darkroom collage of 16 exposures (if I remember the number), each of which is one of two photographs I made? For me it is still in the medium of photography and therefore a photograph a photograph (A view also held by the authors of a 1989 monograph "150 years of photography")

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17958927&size=lg

Arthur, very interesting and imaginative creation. I'm sure this has been discussed in one forum or another (perhaps multiple) a number of times, but feel it is appropriate here as well based on the chosen photo. I would not call your shot a photograph. I would call it an artwork with a basis in photography. For me, there is a line that gets crossed in manipulations, whether it's in a darkroom or with current technology. I don't know that I can define that line, as it's pretty subjective. Much of Anabela's work crosses my implementation of that line, primarily, I would say, because it presents a picture in a way that cannot appear in reality.

But again, to be clear, I really like her work, including the shots that I would identify as 'photographs.'

If one has a line, but the line is subjective and cannot be defined, the practical application of such a line is limited.

Bill, in what way does what you call it matter?

There is no practical application for such a line, Mr. Days, other than perhaps in photojournalism or any application where modifications are restricted to the 'basics' associated with a photograph (such as a contest, for example). And in those instances, I'd suggest that it is a judgment that determines if the criteria has been met, and judgment almost always requires an undefined line.

Fred, in terms of aesthetic appreciation, what I call it doesn't matter at all, though there is a huge difference in the skill level of one who can create what Anabela creates and one who is purely a 'photographer.' What difference does it make what we call any art? Why call a sculpture a sculpture or a lithograph a lithograph or a screen print a screen print or a watercolor a watercolor, etc? Basically, it's just what we do, and I think there is a difference between a 'photograph' and 'digital art,' for lack of a better term. I just don't know exactly how you deliniate them. It might be slightly different for different people, and it's kind of a you'll-know-it-when-you-see-it feeling.

Most of these categorizations and labels are for convenience, not often of that much interest to the makers as much as they are of interest to curators, art historians, and dictionary writers, not to mention the all-important photo contest judges (LOL!). Now, you've just curiously said that what you call it doesn't matter, yet you brought it up, remembering that we're not in a documentary or journalism context. So it does have some importance to you and that's worth taking a look at.

I think some delineations are in order, as I said, for categorization purposes by those who categorize these things (which can be helpful at times). The aspect you mentioned that stood out to me was "presents a picture in a way that cannot appear in reality."

What about black and white photos?

If there is going to be even a vague line of demarcation, we might want to draw a different, more comprehensible one than a photo's appearing as things do in reality or risk losing a whole lot of photos from history. If we allow black and white photos on the favorable side of that line, what about blur from depth of field, camera motion blur, lens flare, and other such not-appearing-in-reality aspects of photography? It seems to me your line might have to do with what's done in post processing and not with how "real" it appears.

Bill, in your example of a photo contest the line will be clearly defined and clearly explained, that is not the same thing as your line, which by your own admission you cannot define and which is subjective.
The act of photographing something removes it from reality. Reality is filtered through the media and winds up an interpretation of reality. Simply by choosing a composition and exposure and clicking the shutter you have made conscious decisions which alter the rendering of the scene.
If you created the image using photographic processes it would seem reasonable to call the end result photography in much the same way as using brushes and paint on a substrate to create an image is referred to as painting. There are myriad styles of painting from hyper-realism to abstract but they are all still paintings. People have been compositing images together since the first cameras and prints. As soon as artists are presented with a medium they will start pushing the boundaries.

But we are, Fred, in a 'photo' context (re 'Photo of the Week'), and while it truly doesn't matter to me that this is a photo that was significantly manipulated (because I appreciate it for the artistry involved no matter what it is), I thought it appropriate to discuss the 'photography' aspect of it and what defines something as a photograph.

Black and White is the reality for some people as is limited DOF and blurred vision and glare/flare etc., but that's not what I was considering in referring to the 'realness' of a shot. It involves both the subject matter and what techniques were applied and how.

I can take a picture of an alligator an do no manipulations to it, and it's a photograph because it is the capture of an image that existed and was not significantly manipulated beyond the camera's image recording capability. I can take the same picture and shake the camera around while holding down the shutter button, and I get a different result, but it's still a photograph because it is an image that existed and was created using the camera's image-recording capability. I can take my first image, combine it with an image of some trees, and make a composite with alligators leaping from tree-top to tree-top, and I no longer have a photograph because what I've created goes well-beyond the camera's image recording capability and what could exist. What I've created is a 'photo manipulation,' which for me is a different category of art.

Now, I realize that nearly all photos are manipulated in some manner outside of the camera, but there is a generally accepted standard of how extensive the manipulations can be before crossing the line from 'photograph' to 'photography illustration' or 'photo manipulation' or 'digital art.' That standard is somewhat subjective depending on who's setting it, but I do think some works cross nearly everyone's line.

As I suspected, Bill, what you're describing has little or nothing to do with "realness" and everything to do with post processing. That's how I understand all that you're saying. Anything done in camera will come under the category of "photograph" and some stuff done in post processing, subjective and undefinable for you, will put it into the category of "digital art" or some such monicker.

Again, there likely is, but probably not among most artists. Most artists can accept a lot of leeway in what's referred to as a Photo of the Week on a site like PN and many other photo websites. Generally accepted standards are generally what artists push beyond, as Gordon already noted. It's the categorizers and definers that are usually trailing behind them with their broomsticks, wanting to clean things up into neatly-defined categories. As I said, I understand the need and desire to do that sometimes. Curators and contest judges, some art historians will probably have to consider such categories and names. It's not something that often surfaces in my experiencing photos. I may well spend time and energy considering how something was done, as a learning experience and in some cases knowing how something was done will add some depth to my viewing experience. But whether that fits into generally accepted standards of what is a photo or not usually won't be an issue for me.

Speaking of sculpture, I'm sure there are some traditionalists who would walk into museums of modern art and scoff at the fact that some contemporary stuff is being called "sculpture" or even "art." Heck, look at the suffering some folks are undergoing because the definition of "marriage" is expanding. In time, what's new becomes old hat and what once seemed beyond acceptable standards now becomes quite ordinary and sometimes even mundane. We often look back and say, "What was the big deal?" I find artists, even though they may look back with respect and even awe, are forever looking forward and beyond.

Bill, I concede that you can specifically define photography as everything limited to what the photographer and the camera, sensor (or film) and lens have produced and, of course that can cover photography in black and white (or grey scale) spectrum, a full color spectrum of the type humans recognise, X-rays, UV rays or IR rays, or any other electromagnetic radiation emanating from the subject and so captured.

Creating some metal pieces of art is something I have amused myself with at times. Their craft fabrication and assembly from metal pieces might be reasonably classed as metal "sculpture", although for others sculpting denotes instead the altering of a mass of substance to create something else and a piece of art (much wood and stone sculpture are so made). So it is also in a similar way with photography, which can go beyond the baseline definition of the medium and expand into other things the root of which is stil the photograph or a series of photographs.

In the photographic example I gave a page or two before, the two image elements are photographs straight out of the camera, untouched, the combination of which under the enlarger may not represent reality but they still create a photograph in my mind.

When showing multiple facets of a face in the Braque-Picasso cubist manner as Picasso often did at one point in his evolution, does the result depart from what we call a painting? Must a painting only be based upon one view of a subject or one aspect of that subject alone? Perhaps only for a figurative or realist artist?

I'm assuming 'Gordon' is aka 'EndofDays.'

Art has no boundaries. Labels do.

I don't think my hypothetical shot of alligators jumping from tree-top to tree-top is a photograph, even if photography was used in its creation. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't think it was 'cool.'

Arthur, I was thinking of Jackson Pollock as perhaps a different type of example from someone like Picasso, who showed his subject matter differently but didn't necessarily make changes, in those paintings you describe, to the physical way in which the medium was handled. Pollock, who threw the paint at the canvas, might easier (though, IMO, falsely) be accused of not making paintings.

Therein lies the problem of labels. They often do constrict and create outsiders. It's not labels, per se, that are problematic to me. It's how they're used. In so many cases, including these discussions about photography, they are used to exclude and seem unnecessarily restrictive and usually traditionalist in nature.

For me, digital art is a valid label, but not to be applied to or confused with photograph. Much that's made on a computer, with no photographic foundation, is digital art. It's often used to create graphics, often used in advertising but many more solely artistic expressions as well.

Were I hosting an exhibition, I'd allow the artist to determine whether he'd want to label his work as a photo or as digital art. Many might want to emphasize one aspect over the other. Even though something has a photo foundation, I could imagine one referring to it as digital art. I can also imagine referring to it as a photo. I can imagine composites being referred to as collages and I can also understand why someone would want to refer to it as a photo. And I'd accept either.

Just as I don't mind when I see fit to label myself, I generally do mind when others label me . . . especially when it sets up an unnecessary or superfluous difference (which even you, Bill, basically said it did in this case).

Bill, I'm a bit confused by what appears to be an inconsistency between your use of "digital art" in connection with the POTW and your creation of, and guidance over, the Weekly PostProcessing Challenge forum. I believe it's already been stated in this thread that many photographers who produce more straightforward, purely representational images nonetheless engage in postprocessing them. In my humble, the difference between such images and others that take on abstract appearances and features (like the POTW) is a matter of degree. Some images require minimal postprocessing, while others require more - depending on what the photographer wishes to accomplish.

Interesting points to ponder. I personally don't like labels because we often end up trying to fit everyone into one neat little category when it rarely applies, but I'm not sure 'photography' is really a label more than a means of defining a process, with a 'photograph' being the result of that process.

Here's a definition of photography from Webster. Seems accurate enough:
"the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor)"

By that definition, a photograph is pretty much what is recorded on the film/sensor. Anything beyond that is something else. I'm not suggesting we ever apply that limited of a definition, but in purely scientific terms, that's what a photograph is.

Michael, with the WPPC, my intent was to get different ideas on how the same image would be 'developed' (or processed/post-processed). I've lurked in the forum ever since I bowed out, and some of what is produced would indeed be 'digital art' or 'photo manipulations' or 'photo illustrations' in my book. I agree with Fred that 'digital art' doesn't necessarily or even typically involve a photo, so some term with 'photo' in it would be more appropriate. Or, others are free to call them 'photographs' if it suits their definition. There is no right or wrong, and in the end, all art is appreciated by someone, even black-velvet Elvis, so it doesn't matter how it's labeled unless there are restrictions on what is being presented.