Modified images , is it photography ?

[dvdowns]

I made this image out of a picture of the moon and a picture of a horse on the horizon [ which I am sure you have worked out ] along with a spherised piece of sky to make the earth . Now I only did all of this to try and learn how to use photoshop for future reference . Many people use photoshop to modify images which is artistic but is it really photography ? I prefer to know that the picture I took looks good because I knew what I was doing when I pressed the button , not because I am good at using a computer program , which even a non- photographer* can do .
I somehow feel that this is seperate from photography and should not even be included in competitions . Does anyone agree with this way of thinking ?

[deluco]

This is an argument that can go on forever. Most judges would judge what you have presented as photography. The major elements are captured with a camera.

[dvdowns]

What bugs me is that 10 years ago this would have been done by a highly skilled darkroom operator who would deserve the praise for making a good picture .
Today anyone with a computer can do it , even some guy who has never taken a photo could gather some images and make them into something stunning
and eneter them in a contest , if he wins a photography competition with the picture then the word " photography " has come to mean something other than
what it meant 10 years ago . A good photographer goes out and takes a picture worth 95% , a beginner goes out and takes a picture worth 30% , the beginner sits in front of his computer for hours on end changing all sorts of settings until he has a 97% competition winner because it is so different and imaginative . I understand that we could argue forever but I would rather be known as the guy who got 95% when I pushed the button and came second to a highly modified controversial image that looked unnatural but wowed the judges .

[Alice Morrison]

Good question. I have no answers. My feeling is, if it's good, it's good. I don't often care how photographers get at their final product. I think it's art, so I give latitude.

[deluco]

Originally Posted by dvdowns

What bugs me is that 10 years ago this would have been done by a highly skilled darkroom operator who would deserve the praise for making a good picture .
Today anyone with a computer can do it , even some guy who has never taken a photo could gather some images and make them into something stunning
and eneter them in a contest , if he wins a photography competition with the picture then the word " photography " has come to mean something other than
what it meant 10 years ago . A good photographer goes out and takes a picture worth 95% , a beginner goes out and takes a picture worth 30% , the beginner sits in front of his computer for hours on end changing all sorts of settings until he has a 97% competition winner because it is so different and imaginative . I understand that we could argue forever but I would rather be known as the guy who got 95% when I pushed the button and came second to a highly modified controversial image that looked unnatural but wowed the judges .

I can empathise with your perspective. *The image manipulation isn't "photography" at all. *However, it's just another art form. *I judge at several camera clubs in my region and they too struggle with how to categorize this new medium. * What has occurred at most clubs is that they have a separate category of digital photography that is being displayed with digital projectors. *Slides are being judged separately. *Some have a category within Digital for "creative manipulation" to sort of separate the more "photographic" images from the others. *From what I can see, in the prosumer area, things are moving quickly toward digital and away from film. *It's the same trend in the professional area.

Myself I like manipulating the image, but the art is to make it still look like a photograph. *Retouching to look like a good retouching job, but not overdone, for example. *I also do alot of digital albums, flush mounts, layers, colorization, etc.

[dvdowns]

1.) I agree that it is art and a person needs talent to make a good modified image .
2.) Sometimes it does feel like you are cheating taking a photograph when a painter takes hours to reproduce a similar image .
BUT:
1.) Competitions should be seperate , one for photography and another for modified images .They are both art but as different as painting and photography
2.) in some ways a painter has it easier , he can choose to make the image look better than it is by making a different color sky for example , a photographer has to make the best of what is in front of him which takes more skill .
Just about anyone whether they are artistic or skillful or neither , can accidentally produce a stunning image if they play on the computer long enough and try enough settings whether they know what they are or not . With the image above I just played around with " hue " [ not really knowing what it meant ] until it looked a bit more like night .
I suppose we couild argue forever , we remain at the mercy of those judging competitions and their opinions .

[metalstorm]

I guess that's what advancement in technology does. In the early 1900's you would be called crazy if you drove a car 60mph. Now any joe can do it because of the advancement. In the 1980's I did BW darkroom work. Darkroom, dodging and burning, etc. Expensive chemicals and papers. Now I can get nearly instant results with my digital with a lot less hassle. Composites are just that much easier to do now with a digital darkroom. It's still your creation. I myself, don't do a lot of composite and pretty much shoot and print as if I was using film. Just a few adjustments and touch ups.

btw, i tend to think of a composite as more of a creation than a photo. Though a good composite can be made and people couldn't tell it was made up of differing elements.

[Kevin Barrett]

What is photography?

[metalstorm]

Originally Posted by Kevin Barrett

What is photography?

Derived from the Greek meaning "light drawing"

[deluco]

By the way, I love the original image posted here. Would make a great poster-sized print, framed.

[dvdowns]

I could send you a 2,5 meg file , but you're not supposed to be encouraging me now remember , I'm supposed to be complaining about the fact that modified images are not quite right

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by metalstorm

Derived from the Greek meaning "light drawing"

Perfect! - That covers quite the Gamut (post processed, pre-processed, no process, modified, RAW, composited, stitched,
dodged, burned etc. etc. etc.)

[metalstorm]

Originally Posted by Kevin Barrett

Perfect! - That covers quite the Gamut (post processed, pre-processed, no process, modified, RAW, composited, stitched,
dodged, burned etc. etc. etc.)

Or it can be interprited in a minimalist sense of fixing an image by the action of light onto a photosenstive medium at that instant in time.* I'd like to think it's somewhere in between this and your interpretation.

[metalstorm]

http://glennferon.com.nyud.net:8090/...io1/index.html

Check these touch ups out. Great work but is it photography in a true sense? Some of the final results are very different than the original.

[dvdowns]

With regard to the original meaning of the word photography we all know what the word " photography " meant 10 years ago , or what people understood it to mean regardless of its origins . Ask yourself this question : " If I wanted to employ someone as a photographer to do weddings and assignments ,and stock photgraphy and they produced the above image and told you this is evidence that they are a photographer , would I employ them ?"The generally accepted meaning of the word photography has come to be understood as using a camera to capture images on film and nowadays memory card as well , agreed ? Would you employ someone who is good at photoshop as a photographer as in the above question ? Surely you would want to see samples of pictures he has taken and not modified as well , since anyone can make a bad shot look good with enough computer skills .
If you would still employ the person without seeing originals then you accept this as being photography .
If you would want to see original images first then deep down you don't accept this as photography but rather a useful additional skill which would be taken into consideration if two photographers are equal in all other respects .

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by dvdowns

With regard to the original meaning of the word photography we all know what the word " photography " meant 10 years ago , or what people understood it to mean regardless of its origins . Ask yourself this question : " If I wanted to employ someone as a photographer to do weddings and assignments ,and stock photgraphy* and they produced the above image and told you this is evidence that they are a photographer , would I employ them ?"The generally accepted meaning of the word photography has come to be understood as using a camera* to capture images on film and nowadays memory card as well , agreed ? Would you employ someone who is good at photoshop as a photographer as in the above question ? Surely you would want to see samples of pictures he has taken and not modified as well , since anyone can make a bad shot look good with enough computer skills .
If you would still employ the person without seeing originals then you accept this as being photography .
If you would want to see original images first then deep down you don't accept this as photography but rather a useful additional skill which would be taken into consideration if two photographers are equal in all other respects .

I sympathize with your thoughts and position here. To answer your question as to whether I would hire somebody as a wedding or stock photographer based upon the original posted image I would say no. I would require an extensive portfolio review and would also request references.

Frankly, I don't know how you can separate good darkroom skills from the ability to make the shot in the first place. It's all a part of the photographic process.
I used to labor for hours in the darkroom to get an "ideal" or acceptable print. Solid skills in a variety of disciplines are essential to remain competitive in photography. Probably the least thought of and most important skill is business skill.

I know of a pro that is highly successful in a competitive market. What is the main key to his success? Business sense.
He is a great shooter, and decent with photoshop. However, the skill that has separated himself from the pack the furthest is his business acumen.

If I'm looking for a photojournalist, I'm going to be looking for a person that can think quickly on their feet coupled with a fearless ability to get the "shot" regardless.
The nature of photojounalism demands that the moment be captured as close and as faithful to the event as possible.

I would have altogether different criteria for a fine art photographer. How well and clearly can the artist convey his/her unique message with the tools at hand?

So it all depends and all skills comes into play: Shooting skills (lighting, composition, etc.). Editing skills to varying degrees depending upon the context of what you're trying to
achieve. A strong business sense if your in business for yourself or somebody else for that matter.

In Summary: In my opinion, what constitutes "photography" is not a simple defintion. What's interesting is that regardless of the era, I don't know that a general consensus
definition has ever been agreed upon.

[JCPowell]

Collages or Photo composites/manipulations are just another artform (IMHO)!* *I think my issue is when someone uses ANOTHER artists photos or images as a basis for their own derivative work!* As long as you are using your own images...I have no problem with digital collages!* I've seen some really amazing stuff.. high quality images that would be ideal for print advertising and the like!* We could all debate this until the cows come home, but evolving technology wise...is just human nature!* We are constantly striving to "make things easier"* and it covers just about every aspect of life! There is no escaping it!

Here is an example of a Photo Manip I created a few months ago - I attended an Anime convention back in June! I was taking shots of Cos-players (from the 8th floor of my hotel room) as they walked by the No Parking Zone - I was going to do a series call "In the Zone" but it just didn't work out the way I wanted!* I was gonna SCRAP all the pix...but THIS one...I don't know...I saw....SOMETHING!* *




Then that SOMETHING hit me....like a YELLOW BRICK! After some cloning/color replacements cropping and whatnot....wala
Journey to OZ



Again, I think this kind of ART is just another method (one of many) of expressing yourself! You either accept it for what it is or you don't....simply as that!

[dvdowns]

I think our conclusion is that modified images are a part photography whether we like it or not . It is very articstic to modify images to look better and I like a lot of the modified images . But essentially modified images are not photography , they are a continuation of the process of capturing an image to achieve desired results , in other words , even though it is a useful talent to have and a desirable addition to your CV if you apply for a job , in the same way that putting a nice frame around a painting does not make you a painter , it is nevertheless a process that can make an image more pleasing to the eye or more useful for your purposes .
But , unless the person in question actually took the photographs themselves , it is not photography in any sense .