Is it Photography?

John Chardine started a very interesting thread in OOTB to challenge our thinking of photography.

(Note: that thread was deleted as off-topic; OOTB is a critiquing forum. Arthur Morris)
(I moved it to General Photography Discussion. John Chardine)

It brings up a great point that I felt should be further discussed here in general. Similar to the thread on ethics here http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...221#post827221 ....... it wil be contorversial and may not have an agreement....but should be discussed.

While I personally use filters/HDR rpograms, and other effects to create my vison in photography......I don't consider those images "photography" but rather visual art. My belief is that "photography" is a capture in camera. Yes, I use external filters to balance the tonal range of an image. HDR or exposure blending is starting to grow on me as "realistic" photography....although I do feel to many photographers hide thier lack of technical skills behind a program or filter. Too many times in the field I have heard: " I will fix it later in PS or similar program"

Using plug ins and programs such as Dap and fractalus....don't seem to be "photography" for me as the program is doing much/most of the work for you!....so not photography. Again....photo art. I feel that if you give a "painter" and idea......then have him paint it....this does not qualify as your artwork or make you an artist.....so the programs that does the work for you should get the credit. Not really yours although it did start with your base image......but perhaps technically not great. Like I said before.....very controversial and not sure there is a real answer.....but where do we draw the line in this day and age? What would we call the "new" art?" I call it photo art and represent it as such.......thoughts.....ideas. Please keep it civil as I know this will fire off a few buttons......and we may never agree! If you do feel merging programs is photography.....please explain why!

Roman, I guess I am unsure of what you mean here.
Are filters, HDR etc., not "in camera".
While I agree that Fractulus and some other programs which really render and distort the in camera
image may be considered not a "real" part of photography, most PP in the digital era is as much about
photography as the film era was.
Were Ansel Adams images photography?
His film processing was as much a part of the process as taking the picture.
I am not sure where you are going with this, but art and photography have always been mixed unless
you consider only snapshots "photography".

Hey Dan,
I always chuckle when someone brings up Ansel and compares him to todays digital manipulation.....remember....he did the darkroom manipulation......not a program or another person. He spent hours/days/ weeks......dodoging and burning.......the programs I mentioned....Dap and Fractalus in particular.....rely on a computer algorigthum to do the work. Yes.....you can control how much or little....but you ddin't actually do the work.....the program did.....so I would call it photo art. I would not compare dodging and burning and other darkroom tricks (emulsion fixing/tweaking etc.) as comparable to a program doing the "painting" for you. So by no means did I wish to imply that snapshots are the only form of photography....quite the opposite. I am in fact questioning whether according to John's link we are "not thinking outside the box" because we don't use filters or plug ins.......or it should be called something quite different. After all.....Ansel didn't add subjects to his image as we can easily do today. Like I said.....I do this type of photo art......I just don't consider it "photography".

Roman,
I think we are on the same page here, just not with the same terms.
I think photography is and always has been "art".
I think the fliters, HDR are "in camera" and are part of photography.
I agree that extreme digital distortion like fractulus is a different form of photography, but filters, exposure, processing
in the digital world is much the same as Adams and others in the film world did and thus, no real difference.
I don't think what you do with just ordinary photography and processing is any different than what photography has always been.
I agree that removing and adding things to images makes that much different, but a natural scene captured with modern lens, modern fifters and even HDR
is not much different (except more convenient) than what photographers have always done.

I call anything that I have manipulated with creative plugins, etc - DIGITAL ILLUSTRATION and DIGITAL ART, even my photomerges and HDR's. If I have created a photo/like final product and I have added, removed or adjusted, I try to disclose that of course but I don't label these as DIGITAL ART. But I guess I could? I guess if it comes from a digital camera, it's DIGITAL ART? Art is, after all "IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER" !

Hi Roman and Dans- Of course the take home message of the piece by Mark Applebaum is that we should be asking not "Is it photography"? but instead "Is it interesting"? This then takes the discussion in a completely different direction. For me everything is photographic art as soon as the shutter button is pressed- agree with DanK here. But is all photographic art interesting? Not in my opinion!

Ansel and the f64 Group worked hard to move photography into recognition as an Art. It wasn't recognized as such until the late 50's.

One need only look at Jerry Uelsmann's work to see the use of wet chemistry (rather than pixels). Jerry's photography is highly regarded.
Its all too easy now to do in Photoshop what Jerry worked on in the darkroom -- with 16 enlargers and multiple exposures (all large format - not 35 mm).
http://www.uelsmann.net/

Would Ansel have moved on to use Digital and Photoshop? One of his assistants (actually Ansel's last assistant) tells me that he believes Ansel would have (John Sexton, private communication). No one will ever know. But John points out that Ansel always tried new tools and techniques - he wasn't wedded to the early pictorialism that he started his career with. BTW: Not well known is his work with color -- both Ansel and Edward Weston gave large format color some effort before deciding it wasn't for them.

I think this is another one of those personal decisions -- and discussing it merely devolves into people trying to convince others that their view is the only valid one. Bottom line - use what you like. Show some images, no matter how you created them.

For years, film users argued that pixel-based imaging wasn't real photography. Anyone still wanting to argue it isn't?
Earlier in history, it was the wet plate users arguing that dry plate and celluloid film wasn't real photography.
And then there was the earlier Daguerreotye makers saying that wet plate wasn't real photography.

Hey Gang,
Not really arguing that Ansel would have done it.......but would we call it photography if he let someone else do the work? That is what DAP and Fractalus are doing......the work for you with no direct inuput from the maker other than how much or how little. I too call that photo art.......and like it BTW!!! Now the question: "is it interesting?" is a whole new can of worms......and I am sure that the maker feels it is. My question is should we come up with another name for what the process is when you use a program to do most of the work for you? PS and other programs are relying heavily on your input and control.....digital darkrom so to speak. Ansel and the other masters were not able to walk away from their process.....get a cup of coffee.......have someone "paint" their image......and call it photography. I think photo art is a good name and is something I am comfortable calling my own work when using those type of programs....I just don't think people should call it photography.

Hey Roman,

Great topic of discussion ... but I think you're whistling into a tsunami. :bg3:

The world at-large has already come to accept applying the term 'photography' to the sum total of actions that are taken from the click of the shutter to the image on the wall or computer screen.

As a lifelong professional journalist, I take care to always be transparent as to whether an image is a 'photo' or 'photo art.' I apply the 'photo art' identification when my actions extend beyond basic processing of the image taken in-camera.

And of particular importance are the cloning in or out of components of the photo that were't there when the shutter clicked.

We've all heard of cases of surreptitious image manipulation that cost people their jobs in news organizations, or banishment from photography competitions.

So whatever term we apply to it, we should strive for an honest and accurate definition of our images. And to me, at least, that means calling a significantly manipulated image 'photo art.'

One thing I can't provide, is a list of finite boundaries that apply; only a general sense of what the final image has become, and labeling it appropriately.

Remember with all this that an awful lot can be done these days in-camera, and more will come. Much, much more.
Take Canon's new multi-exposure mode.
Also, the fact that in the past photographers had to watch over their processes so they count is not a strong criterium since these days we have no qualms letting the camera take us from the shutter button to a fully processed photo instantly. Two different cameras would produce different jpgs. And we only have limited control over that.
Also, different software using clever algorithms to produce dodge and burn effects. Should the more clever ones be considered differently. When does Smart Healing become the computer's work not yours?
Is using a fish-eye lens any different to doing the same thing in post-processing? I know I wouldn't want to do that myself pixel by pixel, I'd let the software do the work. The results could be identical, though.

I'm not implying you or anyone thought this was unfair etc, just trying to illustrate the impossibility of setting a boundary.

In the end I think you only have journalistic photography and art photography, which have separate goals.
I'm only interested in creating art photography and I think anything goes. No one really needs the master painters to provide full disclose, so why should photographers? Just don't mislelad.

Roman, great thread and a topic that continues to hold interest for me. Even though it may be an uphill battle as Bill noted, I think it's important to keep the topic visible in nature photography. I try to take artistic photographs and, for me, if an image only becomes artistic in the computer, it's no longer an artistic photograph but rather digital art. I actually wrote a rather long article on this topic on my blog a couple of years ago -- not trying to promote my site here but I genuinely thought people watching this thread might be interested. You can read it here:

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/...ure-manifesto/

If this is out of bounds, my apologies in advance to the mods :S3:

Cheers,
Greg

Greg, I highly commend to anyone interested in this vital topic, your skillfully written blog article, referenced again with the link here:

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/...ure-manifesto/

I especially appreciate your quest for 'raw perfection' as the foundation for wherever post-processing may take your image.

A photographer knows that if he or she is patient, develops a good eye, respects the subject and environment etc, then they will take the time to get it right in camera and start off with the best possible RAW image. Then without cloning or heavy manipulation, a nice artful clean BKG and subject will be the end result. Way to many individuals depend upon software to correct the image. What's wrong with devulging to your peers and fellow photographers, whom you are trying to impress by the way, that you did that? Why do some feel that anything goes and it is no one elses business how they did it? If you want the respect that comes from being a professional, then learn your craft. Develop high standards and stick to them.

I for one am proud to learn how to use my camera to take the best image at that moment in time. If it is a sticky BKG or a ugly subject, then wait for another image to present itself. It your presence bothers the subject, then find another one. Trampling the home of your subject, or invading it, then broadcasting it via a forum, looking for praise, only invites someone to call you on it. It also encourages those just starting out to copy that behaviour. Then more land gets posted, then no one can enjoy the creatures we all want to image. When those who do not enjoy photography as much as we do see images made to look so different from the reality of what nature presents, we all suffer for it. When these same people see someone, in their view, get to close or trample the home of the animals we are trying to image, then they will further complicate out craft for us. They lobby landowners to close access. It happens up here all the time.

There will always be a market for those who want to push the boundries and "create art beyond what they saw in camera". And that is OK. Just don't say it was what you saw in Camera and try to pass it off as such. That is deceptive! And someone will always catch you at it. If they don't, you will know it and at some point lose the self respect you so want and the respect of your peers. That is how we police ourselves and others without laying down a bunch of "rules".

I have a lot of respect for the owners of this site. They and the original associates like Robert Amoroso, Chas, James Shadle, Artie...they really care about the subject, the environment, doing it the professional way, respecting others view. It is something we all need to remember. I have met many here in person. Roman and others like him who moderate these forums do so out of a love for their craft. And making a few dollars helps the expenses along the way. But let's face it, money will never come the way of most photographers. So we do this for the fun, love of it and to share with others.

Why not just learn it right the first time? Keep your standards high and set the example quietly for others to follow.

I wonder how significant or important the answer to this really is?

The more little boxes we create for imagery which originates from a camera, the more difficult we make it for ourselves and our artistic self as we continually make more boundaries and rules to abide by. I feel that this can stultify our creativity and future growth.

We have managed to survive the "is digital really photography" which was the catchcry of some years ago when dSLRs first made their appearance.
We spend plenty of time arguing about the acceptable boundaries of manipulation.
We have groups dedicated to b & w, and some saying that it is an anachronism now and not something to be valued at all.
We have plenty of divides to try to bridge to get our photographic vision accepted by the masses as something of value and as we try and narrow the parameters of acceptability I think that we are doing ourselves and our profession a disservice.

When it comes down to software produced filters and manipulations, I think that it is a personal choice. No one is trying to trick anyone, blind freddy can see that it isn't "out of the camera" and no one is twisting anyone's arm to either like the product or to buy it. OOTB and its creations is a place where people can go to town and try anything, which can free their minds with their other photography … whether it appeals to anyone else is immaterial really and whether anyone should decide that it isn't photographic is pointless.

As far as whether it is interesting is a seperate issue completely and not one confined to the OOTB creations. I think if many of us were honest, there are plenty of rather uninteresting images in Wildlife, Landscape and (dare I say it?) Avian, but they are hopefully critiqued in the spirit they were presented. What is interesting to one person, may be totally boring to another and it again comes down to the eye of the beholder.

This link is quite interesting and I'm sure many will have seen it but I will post it here
http://guytal.com/wordpress/2011/12/...y-of-critique/

and I feel that the important thing to take from this that we are all in different parts of our photographic journey and the interest value of our product will reflect that. Also of even more importance is the stage we are in our ability and confidence as far as how we should be critiqued and how we offer critiques. Knowing the experience and ability of the photographer does effect what types of critique can be considered useful. Telling a photographer that their image is 'boring' would be less than helpful. I know, I've been there!

When it comes down to it, do we really want to encourage another divide between passionate photographers. Between those who take their cameras out to photograph a flower with the intention of creating an abstract image of great beauty and those who take their camera out to faithfully render a scene in front of them. I wonder who, exactly, determined that photography would be the sole domain of the so called purist and who decided that the rather clunky term 'digital art' would be a suitable term to cover everyone else. And who of us really thinks that an image which began its journey as a digital file from a camera (or in some cases, a digital scan from a negative) should be lumped in with something created in a computer programme of which no part ever saw a camera, lens, sensor or film?

Hillary,

I just fully read the link you gave. I loved it. Especially the last part on "Self Expression". The last 3 paragraph's put's it all in perspective for me. Thank you for your insightful expessions and being so kind in giving your thoughts. My you continue to grow in your artistic endeavours and share them with us.

Hillary, I thank you a lot for this post. I am happy to hear someone else understands the dilemma many of us have struggled with.

As my photographic vision and skills develop (I have a long way to go) I have come to realize that the final image is what is important. I am not trying to produce images for encyclopedias of my subjects that must be exact in every fashion. My vision is to create pleasing - dare I say artistic images - representing the beauty of nature. Not too long ago I felt a huge guilt trip (if you were alive in the '60's you understand this phrase) increasing saturation or cloning a branch. Now I have learned that the image out of the camera is a starting point of a comprehensive presentation of the natural scene at hand. While I try not to misrepresent what my mind's eye saw I do try to convey the emotion of the scene before me when I pushed the shutter release.

Grady, I am striving to improve and have greater insight into my work. It is a long and difficult road but I am having such fun and am meeting so many wonderful people, even though not always in person. I am glad you also got a lot out of the critiquing link.

Ed, I hear you exactly. I've travelled (am travelling) the same path. I gave a presentation for a local camera club and I talked about how I took an image from capture through to final presentation which included the printing process. I looked at some of the photographers at the back of the room, as they sat with arms folded and disapproving looks on their faces, stared them in the eyes and said that I was ok with every step of my artistic processes. Another photographer approached me afterwards and thanked me for not being guilty about using photoshop or textures or any other tool as she has struggled with her desire to be creative when all around her other members were telling her that she was wrong and that it wasn't photography. She said that for the first time she felt that she could follow her own path without worrying about what others were telling her.

I look forward to the day when we can appreciate that photographers are allowed to follow a different drum and that there is room for us all, and that we all have the right to call ourselves photographers and our product a photograph.

Hilary, interesting insights, and I thank you for them. While I prefer minimal post-processing in my own nature photography work, I am fine with all sorts of image expression. The key thing to me is that people disclose how the image was taken in the field and what was done in the computer. I really have a beef with photographers who conceal or give misleading info about what's been done to a photo. If every photographer were open, as you described in your presentation, as to how a photo was taken and processed, I think the field of nature photography will be just fine :S3:

Cheers,
Greg

Greg, agree with you totally. :S3:

A literal interpretation of what is "photography" would probably mean we would have to use a camera obscura and trace on the wall or expose a sensitized plate "all with our own hard work". With digitial photography we start to hand off a lot of the "hard work" of post processing the moment we click the shutter.

I suppose the word photography could also be used as a means of conveying an idea or emotion. This would be the art of photography and "post-processing" would be used to realize our creative vision. The ground work has been laid in the exposure but we now need to do the "hard work" to get the image to the finish line. Photography can be classified in many ways and disciplines, a quick glance at the of the wikipedia entry reflects this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_photography

My feelings are simply this...There is no need for a photographer to explain anything about their image unless they choose to. The viewer can either appreciate or reject what they see as we do with any other art form....

While on the one hand I agree with Hilary's response, on the other hand I also agree with Dave.

Who cares? Why care? Why does it matter?

What is the reason you captured light on the sensor? What did you intend to do with the light captured at the time you captured it; later?

Enter the image in a contest; sell the image; write a story about the image.........................

The questions are as long as a string...........................

In my very limited experience there are very very limited instances when YOU MUST DISCLOSE any postprocessing: photojournalism expanded to include documentaries and other such presentations.

BBC type contests do not permit any but minimal processing so there is nothing to disclose and if you do step over the line you will be caught sooner or later.

Roman, you have several times mentioned DAP and Fractalus - are they "thorns" for some reason?

Why does it matter how/how much post processing was done regarding most final images?

The old cliches apply: beauty in the eye of the beholder; I know it when I see it.

How often have I heard a "teacher" say to a "student" either on BPN, in some BLOG, or in some tutorial: think about the final image when you are setting up for the capture; think about what PP you are going to do to enhance what you have captured.

Me: my images are intended to be Nature Interpreted. Since leaving the World of BIF, I probably shoot only 10% of the RAW images I used to shoot. Unless the scene is time limited, sunrise/sunset, in which case if I haven't been there the previous day to determine the shot I try to get there early enough not to be rushed in the setup.

When I look at the scene I try to envision the final image after PP; and specifically, after I have totally manicured the image. I look at a landscape and I see it without the Hand Of Man (remove everything I can); I look at a beach and I see a clean sandy beach without all of the garbage that the ocean has deposited; without all of the dead material that was accidentally deposited.

Is it photography; is it art? I don't care; really, why do you?

For whom do you create images?

I create images for me; I spend hours on an image until it is "owned" by me.

My new favorite quotation:

"I don’t believe in SOOC shots. I believe in the artistic result and in the visualization of the artist of how he/she sees the world. A camera is just a piece of hardware with no mind, no soul, no artistry, just an object that records a situation, unbiased and emotionless. I’m not interested in the vision of a piece of hardware, I’m only interested in the vision of the artist with a mind and soul, who will alter the image to his reality. It’s the difference between photography and art." Joel Tjintjelaar; http://www.bwvision.com/

One thing you haven't explained: why do you care whether someone calls their images photographs, digital art, or yada yada? Why have you posted this thread; what do you want to learn from this thread and the answers of your family on BPN that will help you grow and understand your pursuits better than you already do?

If I were to describe you - I just looked at your website (http://www.roaminwithroman.com/galleries.htm; again!!) - you are a Master Photographer who captures and processes "light" to create beautiful artistic images.

Jay, I very much agree with Dave and I very much agree with you. And I think Joel is just amazing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilary Hann

Jay, I very much agree with Dave and I very much agree with you. And I think Joel is just amazing!

---

Thank you very much.

I started this thread because I felt like most of you......who cares what I do to the image as long as it pleases me. I was just wondering if there is an "enforcable" line. Jay, For me, DAP and Fractalus do a majority of the work......they are deciding the brushstrokes etc.......so I consider that "photo art". Remember.....I use and like the programs! I don't think there is any hard line you can draw given that it is strictly a personal choice! I'm sure any imaginary line drawn now will only blur even more in the future. I am glad to see that most of us have embraced the spirit of photography but rest assured......there are many that do not share our beliefs.

PS John started the thread in OOTB and it got moved to general. You can find his original link here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...it-photography

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Kurywczak

I started this thread because I felt like most of you......who cares what I do to the image as long as it pleases me. I was just wondering if there is an "enforcable" line. Jay, For me, DAP and Fractalus do a majority of the work......they are deciding the brushstrokes etc.......so I consider that "photo art". Remember.....I use and like the programs! I don't think there is any hard line you can draw given that it is strictly a personal choice! I'm sure any imaginary line drawn now will only blur even more in the future. I am glad to see that most of us have embraced the spirit of photography but rest assured......there are many that do not share our beliefs.

---

It's not so much of an "enforcable" line as IMO no line at all. I have worked and continue to work in scientific visualization which creates synthetic images from numerical data for the purposes of analysis. This is much before I found digital photography as a avocation. From my understanding of how sensors work and the path to the visual image... I wonder if all such paths don't involve some artistic content.

I tend to think that photography is only documentary at certain scales and if the image processing is consistent with an intended scale. For instance, virtually nothing taken over 1/60 is documentary of a person's singular visual impression (our mental film loop can't freeze hummingbird wings or a sprinter's legs for that matter)... so the photograph is documentary of events that we cannot see. When I take a shot at ISO 128K in a darkened room of dancing people, I can't see the expression of horror that someone is giving me (that they are the subject of a photo) until I zoom in on their face after I've processed the image. In what way is this documentary and of what is it documentary? Certainly not of any visual experience that I had looking and taking the image.

Anyway... it would be my opinion that the documentary side of the line would be much harder to prove than the artistic. And if it's all artistic anyway...

Cheers,

-Michael-

I like this definition:
Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either chemically by means of a light-sensitive material or electronically by means of an imaging sensor.
Perhaps the better question would be - What is imaging or image creation?

No matter how much post processing or manipulation that is applied to an image, if it starts out having been created by "recording light or other electromagnetic radiation" it is a photograph - photography.

Personally I prefer to create images using in camera techniques rather than post processing. I also prefer nature photography to wedding photography.
I can do both, just prefer one over the other.

I'll bet that in a box of mixed chocolates there are some chocolate flavors you will prefer over others. That doesn't make those less preferred bad - as a matter of fact, your least favorite flavor will be someone else's favorite.

That's a darn good answer James.

James, good definition and a good analogy. But, I would add that when I buy a box of mixed chocolates, I like the little diagram on the inside of the box explaining what is inside each piece :S3:

Cheers,
Greg

As an artist i reserve the right to use any brush i want ( including Dap, and Fractilius) to paint with light- photography. Disclosure is not a problem for me but neither is it necessary unless I am entering a contest and need to play by the rules. I spend lots of time creating images that express my feelings and yes sometimes a little bit of fractilius or texture masked in with the original image expresses my feelings better than the straight image. I don't like the fact that some think I am not doing photography when I am trying to allow my imagination free reign. As others have said...why is this even a question...don't we want to help each other grow as photographers or are we only allowed to grow in certain directions. Why create this division called digital art? Afterall, Its all just about images...Lets not overthink it!

Earlier I quoted Joel Tjintjelaar. Joel's quote has caused me to give a lot of thought to the concept of What Is Photography. As a result, I have arrived at a description that works for me:

"Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature." Jay Gould