Where does a photo stop being a photo ....

[Hamish Gill]

... and start becoming something else!

In the last 24hrs this has come up twice

here

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/threads/1478-Hello-from-Wales?p=11310#post11310

where the discussion regards where a photo stops being a photo and starts being digital art

and here

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/threads/1486-Shadow-Dance?p=11317#post11317

where the conversation has (possibly thanks to me) turned to the subject of where the line between a photo being a photo or a piece of art is


I have what i like to think is quite an open mind on this subject and in both cases hold the view that being as photography is, or at least can be, considered a form of art, it is really down to the person who creates it to decide what it is ...
If someone chooses to apply heavy post process (including HDR) to a photo but still call it a photo then they are well within their rights to do that!

BUT, equally, everyone who views that piece of art is well within their rights to question that... that's the beauty of it all, its subjective! That's what makes it fun to be involved in, you can have your own opinion and there is nothing anyone can do or say about it ... you appreciate what you appreciate ... and that's really the end of it

because of this a definitive line is impossible to pin down!

so what are the benefits or downfalls of this?
How does it effect you?
how does it effect how you create and view your work?
how does it effect how you view other peoples work?
what is your opinion on all of this?

 

[Ralph Thornton]

As president of the Front Range Art Association I see this discussion quite often and it takes an almost infinite number of twists and turns. One item that often comes into play is the intended purpose of the captured image.

In Journalism or crime investigation should be a no brainer. The printed or viewed image should remain faithful to what the camera captured.

In my work as a landscape photographer I let the viewer or purchaser of the photograph decide. From that perspective it seems that people in this group will support a certain amount of post processing. Each individual will tolerate a certain level of end product and make their own decision on whether the image is still a photograph or has become art. They will use their own value system in their decision to purchase a particular item. Simply, I let the customer decide.

 

[Larry Bolch]

If you consider photography to be a medium with which an artist can make art, a scientist can document an experiment and a police department shake down motorists, then the discussion loses its energy. Any great photograph is a great work of art if that is its intention. A poor and boring photography is also a work of art—though poor and boring—as long as its inept creator tries to make it so. It is all in the intention.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I was hoping to get more response to this thread but i think that between the three of us we have pretty much covered the most logical outcome of this argument!
Perhaps I should have started the convo with a little more of a controversial perspective

Does anyone have a view that differs?

 

[Larry Bolch]

Not to differ, but I might add that a lot of scientific photography can be very beautiful. Crystals in polarized light, the false-colour images from Hubble and so on. Just because something is shot for scientific research does not exclude it from beauty.

Conversely, photography shot to be art does not follow tight requirements of beauty nor image quality. Much that was shot in the 1970s disdained image quality and pleasant content. Some appeared so devoid of content that it was described as photos about photography. It was not really a roaring success outside of a few art schools and has since pretty much sunk without a trace.

Being a medium, photography does not care what you do with it. During the film era, there was constant experimentation with alternate processes. When there was a Sunday feature coming up, editors would ask me for an eye-catching bit of "darkroom magic" to stop readers from thumbing past the page. Now I use PSP and Photoshop. My aquatints are purely in the photographic medium, but far from straight out of the camera JPEGs. The goal was to reduce the clutter of detail to emphasize the primary elements of composition, through use of areas of colour and line. Obviously there is no intent to use them as reportage.

http://www.larry-bolch.com/Aquatints/

Cliché that it is, let the eye of the beholder be the judge.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

Er..... Nope!!! Sorry guys! I agree with all of the above, your all spot on. Only, if an image is solely created from nothing but Photoshop, or any other software in question, then I would say it becomes digital art, but if the picture has been manipulated from an actual photo, however much, however little, then it from my opinion it's photography. Manipulation or adjustment is part of photography in the modern world. BUT... a photograph can be mass produced so much or a creation from scratch on PS can be mastered so brilliantly, that it will always leave an uncertaincy in our minds on how the image was created, but, I think we sometimes generally forget, the skill, the passion, and the intention that the individual behind the 'image' has gone to, to show others in interest for hope of appreciation.

 

[Pete Askew]

In many ways photography as an art / craft really hasn't changed much over the last 100 years or so. In some instances of course it can act as a means of recording something and in that case, whether it be a technical record of a scientific observation or the pattern of blood spots at a crime scene, it needs to present an accurate and objective record of what was there. However, in the same way that anatomists might have made things clearer in their drawings in the past, there is still room for some 'manipulation'. Look at the false-colour electron micrographs where certain features have been coloured to emphasise or differentiate them or where image stacking algorithms have been employed to create enhanced depth of field or pseudo 3 dimensional renders. Here of course the intention of the manipulation is to clarify what was observed.

With other forms of photography the manipulations take on a different role. Advertising shots are now and have always been a sort of stylised fantasy about a product or what a product can provide. Legs were made longer, complexions smoothed and waists were trimmed long before digital manipulation made it so much easier. Make-up, lighting and props all played their part. At one time the vision was that of the photographer but now they are only one part of the art direction team creating the illusion. All skilled and, often, highly artistic individuals but focused on a specific objective. In many ways the modern wedding photographer is playing a similar role; the couple will look happy, the bride will be a vision of shimmering loveliness... And there is the photographer as artist. Maybe they are a landscape photographer returning to the same place every day for weeks on end until the light is just right and their feeling for a place can be captured. Maybe it's a misty morning with the sun softly filtered in a fiery blur that happens only one day a year and that most of us never see. Maybe it needs emphasising and made more ethereal to suit the mood of the photographer or their memory of time and place. Does it matter? Is it any different to the renderings of sky, cloud and light created by Turner in his great land and seascapes? Watching dancers swirling around a floor, the rhythm of the music, the chatter and background laughter cannot be captured with a perfectly focused flash-lit snap. Something more is needed to hold that moment. Look at the paintings of the dancers, drinkers and prostitutes in the paintings of Henri Toulouse Lautrec and you can almost hear the laughter and the clinking of glasses if you have the mind to! These are more than records of an event. How far the process is taken is really dependent on the vision of the individual. Adding textures and tone to create a mood. Distorting features and combining elements to translate something from the mind to a vision that can be shared by others is all part of the same process. Maybe the vision is not understood, maybe something else is seen, maybe something else is interpreted by what is created by different observers matters not I don't think. I cannot stand the 'art' of Tracy Emin but some people do. They see angst where I see talentless self promotion. I do not really care how much manipulation is done or even how little of a captured image remains in a final piece of work whether created through Photoshop or as a handmade Bromoil print. For me it is whether the image engages me, inspires me, disturbs me, or creates some sort of response. The same is true of the images I try to make. Primarily I am making them for me. Whether this is an attempt to capture a mood, create an illusion / reflect something from my minds eye (make fantasy real), or share something I saw and the impression it made with others (old electrical covers in Prague, graffiti in Athens, a dead flower head on Delos). But if others find something in them as well, then that is certainly a bonus.

I guess all this pretentious arty dribble leads us naturally to a question. I think I know why I make pictures. Why do you?

 

[Chris Dodkin]

It's in the mind of the viewer.

Someone might look at a picture of a dead body and see a crime lab picture, others (including some here) might see art.

And yes, I've been taking my deep thought pills...

 

[Pete Askew]

All 42?

 

[Larry Bolch]

All 42?

Actually it is 420.

 

[Paul Lange]

A while ago I raised a similar question to this -

http://www.realphotographersforum.c...great-without-PP-in-order-to-be-a-great-photo

Some points there that are relevant here?

 

[Ralph Thornton]

I've found that people's perspectives on photographs have changed since the advent of digital. In the days when film was it, anything shot on film was a photograph. I don't think most viewers knew about or paid much attention to how the photographed was processed. Folks didn't realize how much post processing went into work by Ansel Adams for instance. All his stuff were photographs.

Now that we have digital it seems many folks think that post processing somehow destroys the photograph in the process of creating something different. I don't agree with this but I know many who do.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I guess all this pretentious arty dribble leads us naturally to a question. I think I know why I make pictures. Why do you?

Good post! (I think Tracy emin is **** too... She pretty much sums up most of what I dislike in art - elitist, pretentious, art for arts sake crap ... But if she is proud of it, ten good luck to her!)

Why do I take photos, because it is satisfying, both in terms of producing somthing that I find aesthetically pleaseing, and because of the process of getting better at it... I was saying this to Larry the other day else where, part of the enjoyment, a major part, is the learning and getting better at it!

 

[Pete Askew]

That's an excellent observation there Ralph and so very, very true. I guess it stems from most people's experience of being able to take a film into their local drugstore or wherever and getting back an envelope full of pictures a few days later. They never experienced darkroom manipulation and thought the polished images they saw on billboards were the result of makeup, wonderful lighting and cameras vastly superior to theirs. Now, the image is on the computer in minutes and everyone can manipulate them to some extent so post-processing is obvious and, to some, is somehow cheating.

 

[Hamish Gill]

This is somthing that pickles me... I know that even here we have a few people who like to "get it right straight put of the camera" ... I have no issue with people feeling that way, but it makes no sence to me ... The pp is an equal part of it all to me, I take photos with the pp in my minds eye ...
Apart from anything, higher end cameras seem to tend to output lower contrast images with greater DR to allow greater scope in pp! So not using post process techniques is actually effectively crippling the possible outcome ...

 

[Pete Askew]

I agree Hamish and as soon as you select your input settings for a raw file you have started a process. I was reading something the other day (I can't place it for the moment) that discussed process and that questioned whether digital processes and our interaction with things via software (Ah, I remember, it was Jon Honeyball's column in PC-Pro) rather than real engineering may be beginning to stifle our creativity. I'm not sure it is entirely true but I can kind of see where this might affect image making. When running through a digital PP, there is a tendency to follow a workflow of some sort, often exploiting the same or similar method to get a result you had in mind. It is not often you are surprised and you are usually working your way towards an image you had in mind. In some darkroom practices (lith printing is a good example), the process cannot be fully controlled and you quite often get a few surprises and, sometimes, those surprises lead you somewhere new. With digital processing I guess we should all make an effort to push the envelope a bit and experiment more. Maybe look at what the really innovative digital artists are up to and see if there are any 'surprises' in there that we can adopt and adapt to shape our visions. What do you all think?

 

[Ralph Thornton]

... I know that even here we have a few people who like to "get it right straight out of the camera" ...

What comes "straight out of the camera" has still been processed. As we know the camera's sensor records data. That data doesn't mean anything unless it is run through a computer of some kind. On the camera we make a bunch of settings for picture style, sharpness, color intensity, etc. etc. The camera's processor (computer) then uses those settings to produce an image file.

Doing the processing with the camera is OK by me if that is what the photog wants. I personally usually want to do more processing than that so I use my camera settings as a starting point and go from there. Sometimes I dump what I have set in the camera and start all over.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I agree completely Pete, it's why I let my self be influenced so much ...
Sometimes think I have a style, then my style seems to collapse and change ... I get stuck in ruts, but then do a u-turn and go against that rut...
I over processed in an obvious way for a while, thinking it was my style, now I often aspire to achieve somthing that looks natural whilst actually being very processed ... Take for Eg my more recent wedding stuff and the shot of a dead flower in a vase I did...

This of course means for me that I dont have an easy to identify style, which I think in some peoples eyes is somewhat of a failing on my part ... But actually, going through the realisation some time ago that I will always be learning and improving (or at least changing) has, I feel liberated me from any major worries about style or getting stuck in a rut! And as such, I hope, this precludes me from what that chap is saying ... I'm too interested in finding new techniques etc ...

I feel that might sound a touch conceited, it's not meant to, I dont feel that my approach to this pursuit is better than someones who has a style, just different ...

I think, what I am perhaps angling at is that what that chap is saying discounts the possibility that people might and are often inspired by things that might prevent this from happening ...
... And to say that happy accidents don't occur with modern technology is also false I think ... It just takes a little more accidental human interaction to make it happen ... For Eg, once in a while, just swinging the sliders back and forth in lightroom to see what happens ... At least with technology, you can revert back from the accident!

 

[Hamish Gill]

What comes "straight out of the camera" has still been processed. As we know the camera's sensor records data. That data doesn't mean anything unless it is run through a computer of some kind. On the camera we make a bunch of settings for picture style, sharpness, color intensity, etc. etc. The camera's processor (computer) then uses those settings to produce an image file.

Doing the processing with the camera is OK by me if that is what the photog wants. I personally usually want to do more processing than that so I use my camera settings as a starting point and go from there. Sometimes I dump what I have set in the camera and start all over.

I suppose it's just different strokes for different folks ... Different people get different satisfaction from different things ... And I can see how people would find "getting it right out of the camera" satisfying ... But it really ain't for me!

 

[Pete Askew]

Well I suppose we need to differentiate between rescuing something with PP and taking a 'correctly exposed' and composed image and modifying it to get the effect we desire. The important thing is to make sure that the raw files contain the right amount of shadow or highlight detail that you wanted, is focused as you wished (whether sharp or not), displays movement blur or not and has the amount of DoF you need. Then you have the right starting point to go, however far that might be.