Can a photograph stop being a photograph?

Lynton

Lynton

awkward customer
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,606
Name
Lynton (yes really!)
Edit My Images
No
OK, bear with me, the point of this thread is for healthy lively debate, not pettiness nor squabbles, or comments such as "I hate HDR" or "I love XYZ"

It is NOT directed at any individual or group, here or elsewhere, all i am asking is "Do you think a photograph can be post-processed to the point it becomes more 'Digital Art' than a photograph?

For example I will quite happily use photoshop to eidt a raw file and I will clone things in and out if I believe that improves the result. Some would say that's too far. On a "fine art" B&W I'll dodge and burn to get it just so (IMO). Some would say thats too far.

For me, it loses reality when it looks CGI - i.e. extreme HDR, or some other techniques I have seen in the last 6 months - but each to their own.

Some of the "filters" available on photoshop, to me, turn it to a non photograph.

Just interested in peoples opinions and please, keep it nice.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any problem with dodging, burning, increasing saturation and so on - even if it is selective. Did every one of Andell Adams' shots come straight off the film, or did he use the darkroom as a tool to enhance the photos? In that respect, some kind of tone mapping is okay too...

But things like introducing lens flare, or rendering clouds? Creating a mosaic texture? That, to me, is when it turns into digital art...
 
Whatever does it for you - you're right this will stir up a hornets nest but for me if you like it what the hell!

Don't matter what you do there will always be someone to tell you...... meh, meh, meh what about this or that 'rule':razz:
 
photo - image - artwork - diagram... all slightly different things, ad at the peripheries one thing becomes another
 
I agree, a photograph, well the original way still gave an option of burning, pushing development, filters, etc
for photography I try to do as little as possible post-processing.
when I start mucking around with it, then it's digital manipulation
I have dry-brush effects etc, it's no longer a photo, only based on one.

I saw an interesting effect today on a wedding album
cheesy as hell, but very saturated(very rich colours) and then people selected and, quite obviously, the background was defocussed. so that's photography plus serious manipulation
looked quite good for the purpose of wedding shots. but no longer just a photograph. very clear that it wasn't just a thin DOF though
 
I think if something is processed beyong making it anymore a photograph, it becomes art.

We all have our likes and dislikes, as it`s all very subjective anyway :shrug:
 
I think bits are borrowed from all over the place

You could shoot a clean photo, and produce a sheer artwork, portraiture princciples are borrowed from painters etc.
 
Too much PP defeats the purpose in my book ... the question i always ask myself is ... does it look natural .

Take a look in the "your best LS thread " there are a couple in there that are OTT IMO
 
Without doubt there is a point when a photo is no longer a photo. I'm just not sure where that point is. I don't think it's as simple as when you apply this filter or that technique - where that takes the end product depends entirely on what you started with.

I'm not sure that it really matters that much either. As long as what you end up with fits the purpose and is aesthetically pleasing, is it really important what label you choose to put on it?
I have more of an issue with filters and techniques being applied willy-nilly just because they're there. As far as I'm concerned any technique is fair game as long as it's applied for a reason and with some thought about the direction it'll take the starting photograph.

p.s. Let's carry on keeping it nice ;)
 
The way i see it is, there are two seperate fields -
1) 100% photography
2) 100% digital art

It is easier to blend digital art with photo's to improve digital art, but I don't think it is works the other way round..

When the two start blending to be called photography thats when the line starts to get crossed, but as Sarah said earlier, where that line is, who knows!
 
I guess that this question will be subjective to each person - some will say that any PP work will 'invalidate' a photo, others point to the manipulation of D&P in film as evidence that it is not 'invalidated'.
It is hard to see heavily digitized photos as photos anymore IMO, I like HDR and some HDR like tone-mapping will enhance a photo whereas some other (what some call over-cooked) will turn it into a pseudo-painting/comic.
I guess it's a case of on the one hand a photo being produced whereas on the other it is a case of a photo being used to produce something else.
Either way I think that there is a place for both.
 
I think the saying "you can't polish a turd" comes to mind.

Far too often PP is used to "save" a picture that would not be particularly interesting with no PP.
 
boliston said:
I think the saying "you can't polish a turd" comes to mind.
Click to expand...

no but you can sprinkle glitter on it.

But yes There does seem to be a lot of it going on, I mean take any womans glossy celeb magazine like vogue or cosmo. Every cover artist has been photoshopped using clone stamp to rid any zits or blemishes, and all the filters to basically change it into something different.

I even believe a few make up companies have been seriously told off even fined and sued due to false advertising due to photoshop and not the end result of the product they are promoting.
 
SarahLee said:
Without doubt there is a point when a photo is no longer a photo. I'm just not sure where that point is. I don't think it's as simple as when you apply this filter or that technique - where that takes the end product depends entirely on what you started with.

I'm not sure that it really matters that much either. As long as what you end up with fits the purpose and is aesthetically pleasing, is it really important what label you choose to put on it?
I have more of an issue with filters and techniques being applied willy-nilly just because they're there. As far as I'm concerned any technique is fair game as long as it's applied for a reason and with some thought about the direction it'll take the starting photograph.
Click to expand...

What I would have said if I was more articulate...:)
 
stupar said:
The way i see it is, there are two (three) seperate fields -
1) 100% photography
2) 100% digital art

It is easier to blend digital art with photo's to improve digital art, but I don't think it is works the other way round..

When the two start blending to be called photography thats when the line starts to get crossed, but as Sarah said earlier, where that line is, who knows!
Click to expand...

Overly manipulated photos can become digital art or a digital mess/novelty pic! IMHO.

3) 100% Crap ;)
 
SarahLee said:
Without doubt there is a point when a photo is no longer a photo. I'm just not sure where that point is. I don't think it's as simple as when you apply this filter or that technique - where that takes the end product depends entirely on what you started with.

I'm not sure that it really matters that much either. As long as what you end up with fits the purpose and is aesthetically pleasing, is it really important what label you choose to put on it?
I have more of an issue with filters and techniques being applied willy-nilly just because they're there. As far as I'm concerned any technique is fair game as long as it's applied for a reason and with some thought about the direction it'll take the starting photograph.

p.s. Let's carry on keeping it nice ;)
Click to expand...


this pretty much sums up my feeling too. The point at which it stops being a 'photograph' and starts being 'digital art' is not a set point, it varies person to person, so whilst I know where I would draw the line [and even that will vary depending on the techniques used], my line is unlikely to be the same as anyone elses.
However, there is also an argument to say that photography is art anyway, and most is created 'digitally' these days, so does it really matter anyway - just enjoy each image for what it is, no manipulation, some manipulation, or an absolute bucketload of it. As long as you like what you are seeing, then it is worth your appreciation ;)
 
Can a photograph stop being a photograph?


Yes I think so. I it's down to the degree that the image has been modified and manipulated that determines whether an image is looked upon as a photograph or not. I'd guess it's only the extremes that we'd ever get the majority to agree either way.


A slightly enhanced, levels tweaked, dodged, burned, slightly sharpened image wouldn't upset most people if you described it as a photograph. Conversly one that has really been "gone to town on" would more probably be accepted as digital art of some form or another. The difficulty is deciding at what point the changeover happens.


Personally I don't have a problem with either, I tend to just look at an image and either I like it or I don't.
 
I don't mind either way but choose not too over PP, I like some photo/art that has obviously been seriously messed with, I would not dismiss a great manipulated image because of the over PP..

but my personal pref is to not, I have taught myself PS to a level where I could create such a thing but I just don't get any enjoyment from it, a crop here a tweak of levels there is about it for me, other than that its warts and all.
 
What is it you set out with in your mind that a photograph YOU take is intended to be?
Meaning, do you pick up your camera to simply record a particular scene, ie, landscape, cityscape, or just a face in a protrait?
Or do you set out to capture a beautiful landscape to produce a piece of 'fine art photography?
Do you pose your sitter a step or two beyond a standard 'head and shoulders' shot?
If you want to use your camera as a recorder of time and place, simple photography in my view.
If you want to produce fine art photography then it is indeed, fine art and what you do to it in PP is a reasonable part of the image production process.
At its heart, it is a photograph and can not, surely, be given another name simply because the creator/owner, the photographer/artist chose to alter it to achieve their goal after the shutter has closed?
 
boliston said:
I think the saying "you can't polish a turd" comes to mind.

Far too often PP is used to "save" a picture that would not be particularly interesting with no PP.
Click to expand...

Not only can you sprinkle it with glitter but it is actually possible to put a shine on a poop; as demonstrated on Mythbusters (that episode was repeated last night).
Overprocessing (and IMO, that includes HDR) should be avoided at all costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top