Is it a photo or computer art work

[arthurking83]

Here we go again. These discussions always end up in people denigrating forms of the topic in hand that don't conform to their own version of what is "true". .....

I don't think this is the issue at all.
Maybe for some people it may be(FWIW: certainly not for me).

For me it's simply about differentiating between graphic arts(which can still be great) and photographs.

Like TG(OP) implied .. for some folks their ability to edit is limited, yet for others they seem to be grand masters in the art.

it's not about right wrong, left/right, or black/white at all.

The matter is much more simple than that : is it a photo, or is it graphic art?

I'm happy to admit right here and now, photography which would be pixel content generation of > than 95% by means of a camera is inferior compared to graphic art images which is probably > than 95% computer generated pixel content!

The only thing I believe should happen with respect to this issue is that photography should be categorised for what it is(and has been for nearly 200yrs), and that computer generated art shouldn't be categorised as photography.

The issue was highlighted recently with the AIPP controversy.
Lisa Saad is a great photographer, yet she seems to have won her award without winning any photography categories!
All her images are computer generated graphic art.
While the content within each of those images may have been shot via the use of a camera, the images themselves were not shot with a camera, and they're labelled as such .. either advertising or illustration or whatever.

So to the uninitiated, they go to the AIPP site and see 'photographer of the year'(and all the images she's presented) and they assume ... wow! ... she's some sort of elite camera operating god or something .. how the hell does one capture photographs that look like that?

The question is: if we allow computer generated pixels to count as photography, then why do we discriminate against paint stokes layered by hand as photographs and disallow paintings to be classified as photographs?

[Dug]

Nothing new here.

Examples:
http://obab.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/...point-not.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...r-1754405.html

http://gizmodo.com/see-how-three-fam...pho-1295302631


Side note:
Is it less deceptive to remove things from an image, than to add things?

[Hamster]

Nothing new here.

Examples:
http://obab.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/...point-not.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...r-1754405.html

http://gizmodo.com/see-how-three-fam...pho-1295302631


Side note:
Is it less deceptive to remove things from an image, than to add things?

Or even just to frame the photo in such a way that something key is excluded (such as the building site next to the hotel in the holiday brochure).

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, I've put some replies in line below, hopefully I've picked a colour that shows up in everyone's chosen colour scheme Edit - euurgh, I seem to have chosen poorly for my current colour scheme, sorry folks if this is yours too..) All are within the context of photography as art rather than as a documentary tool (the usage matters) and are IMHO of course...

I don't think this is the issue at all.
Maybe for some people it may be(FWIW: certainly not for me).

For me it's simply about differentiating between graphic arts(which can still be great) and photographs.
Why is this necessary? Within the context of a "photographic" competition the rules define the lines/boundaries. Outside of this, why does it matter?

Like TG(OP) implied .. for some folks their ability to edit is limited, yet for others they seem to be grand masters in the art.
Editing is a part of the art, it always has been, whether in the darkroom or on a computer. Just because some folks have limited editing skills, this does not exclude PP as a necessary part of the skill of photography. In the same way that the fact that some folks have limited compositional skills, does not exclude effective composition as a part of the skill. There are degrees, yes. But those with better editing skills are no less worthy of the term photographer than those with better compositional skills.

it's not about right wrong, left/right, or black/white at all. Agreed, but then....

The matter is much more simple than that : is it a photo, or is it graphic art?
....you pose this black and white question. And I ask again, why does it matter?

I'm happy to admit right here and now, photography which would be pixel content generation of > than 95% by means of a camera is inferior compared to graphic art images which is probably > than 95% computer generated pixel content! Personally, I don't think there is superior or inferior, just different forms of art. If you like it great, if not, maybe appreciate the skill or something or just move on. To me it's no different to being attracted more to black and white portraits over sunset shots.

The only thing I believe should happen with respect to this issue is that photography should be categorised for what it is(and has been for nearly 200yrs) is there a definitive description of photography that we should all be adhering to if we want to call ourselves photographers?, and that computer generated art shouldn't be categorised as photography. Pure computer generated, fair enough. Photographic origins heavily manipulated; well it's far enough away from a "traditional" (if that's a way I can describe the other end of the scale) photo to be pretty obvious what it is (a la Lisa Saad), but why get so protective of the moniker "photograph" and not allow such an image to be called a photograph; again, what's the problem?

The issue was highlighted recently with the AIPP controversy. No controversy really, just one well known photographer clumsily dragging Lisa's name into his own opinions re what photography should be, when he should have left the poor woman well alone to enjoy her moment of success.
Lisa Saad is a great photographer, yet she seems to have won her award without winning any photography categories! She won the category of Advertising photographer of the year, within a national photography competition and conformed to all rules within that competition. How is that not winning a photography category? It might not have won a category in an ArthurKing photography comp because your rules are different, but that's not the one she entered and won.
All her images are computer generated graphic art.
While the content within each of those images may have been shot via the use of a camera, the images themselves were not shot with a camera, and they're labelled as such .. either advertising or illustration or whatever. Technically, not a single image in the competition was shot with a camera. They all had varying degrees of manipulation, from that permitted in a category such as documentary photographer of the year through to the level permitted in the advertising or landscape category

So to the uninitiated, they go to the AIPP site and see 'photographer of the year'(and all the images she's presented) and they assume ... wow! ... she's some sort of elite camera operating god or something .. how the hell does one capture photographs that look like that? ....and that's why they're called "the uninitiated"

The question is: if we allow computer generated (they're not generated, but manipulated..Ok, maybe the odd one is generated ) pixels to count as photography, then why do we discriminate against paint stokes layered by hand as photographs and disallow paintings to be classified as photographs? A good question, and the one that made me pause the longest in this reply. Maybe because the starting point of a photograph has to be the generation of an image by exposing a sensitised medium to light or other type of radiant energy. That much seems to be a consistent definition that would go right back to the origin of the first photograph on bitumen of judea.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, because I think people will always have different definitions that work for them. I'm just giving my view as to why I don't think it matters.



Edit Note: edited blue text to orange for the sake of readability. .. hopefully easier to read now.

[bricat]

Interesting points Hampster. Colour in reply on my iPad is not flash. Cheers Brian

[Hamster]

Interesting points Hampster. Colour in reply on my iPad is not flash. Cheers Brian

It's not flash on my 'puter either, I took a punt and it didn't work out perfectly .

[Phil Mac]

I'm a bit 'old-school' here. Maybe it's because I don't have PS or LR, just the basics (read Apple Macbook).

Tweaking colours, lighting, exposure etc were all available in analogue days. It depended on how long and proficient you were in the darkroom.

Today all this can be done at the click of a button, 'Enhance' and voila, the image pops out how some preprogrammed code thinks it should. No hint of talent involved. There are software packages that 'fix' images and add layers and scenes on request. Once again, it just depends on how proficient you skills are in that department.

Personally, I'm on the minimalist side. I look at a 'photo' these days and also think about how much post-processing might/must have gone into making it it. If a lot, then it changes my perception of the 'photo' and I think of it more as an image created as graphic art. Not that it isn't a great image, I just don't think of it as a photo (any more).

[ameerat42]

Geez, Ham!!! I just went trying to read that post.
I then realised that inside the global QUOTE of AK's post, you have replied as well.
At 1st I thought it was "AK arguing with himself"

It might be tedious to do, but when you QUOTE somebody and want to answer point-by-point,
you've got to put the original QUOTE code in front of each point and the closing /QUOTE tag at each
end...

I'll leave it for others to muddle though (as I did)...

[Hamster]

Sure you weren't a little crazy already? I'm pretty sure I can't take all the credit .
Sorry folks, I thought it was going to work well with the colour change. It does look awesome on Tapatalk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

- - - Updated - - -

Here it all is laid out with the quotes so it's easier to read. I'm going for a lie down now.


OK, I've put some replies below, all are within the context of photography as art rather than as a documentary tool (the usage matters) and are IMHO of course...

I don't think this is the issue at all.
Maybe for some people it may be(FWIW: certainly not for me).

For me it's simply about differentiating between graphic arts(which can still be great) and photographs.

Why is this necessary? Within the context of a "photographic" competition the rules define the lines/boundaries. Outside of this, why does it matter?

Like TG(OP) implied .. for some folks their ability to edit is limited, yet for others they seem to be grand masters in the art.

Editing is a part of the art, it always has been, whether in the darkroom or on a computer. Just because some folks have limited editing skills, this does not exclude PP as a necessary part of the skill of photography. In the same way that the fact that some folks have limited compositional skills, does not exclude effective composition as a part of the skill. There are degrees, yes. But those with better editing skills are no less worthy of the term photographer than those with better compositional skills.

it's not about right wrong, left/right, or black/white at all.

Agreed, but then....

The matter is much more simple than that : is it a photo, or is it graphic art?

....you pose this black and white question. And I ask again, why does it matter?

I'm happy to admit right here and now, photography which would be pixel content generation of > than 95% by means of a camera is inferior compared to graphic art images which is probably > than 95% computer generated pixel content!

Personally, I don't think there is superior or inferior, just different forms of art. If you like it great, if not, maybe appreciate the skill or something or just move on. To me it's no different to being attracted more to black and white portraits over sunset shots.

The only thing I believe should happen with respect to this issue is that photography should be categorised for what it is(and has been for nearly 200yrs),

is there a definitive description of photography that we should all be adhering to if we want to call ourselves photographers?

and that computer generated art shouldn't be categorised as photography.

Pure computer generated, fair enough. Photographic origins heavily manipulated; well it's far enough away from a "traditional" (if that's a way I can describe the other end of the scale) photo to be pretty obvious what it is (a la Lisa Saad), but why get so protective of the moniker "photograph" and not allow such an image to be called a photograph; again, what's the problem?

The issue was highlighted recently with the AIPP controversy.

No controversy really, just one well known photographer clumsily dragging Lisa's name into his own opinions re what photography should be, when he should have left the poor woman well alone to enjoy her moment of success.

Lisa Saad is a great photographer, yet she seems to have won her award without winning any photography categories!

She won the category of Advertising photographer of the year, within a national photography competition and conformed to all rules within that competition. How is that not winning a photography category? It might not have won a category in an ArthurKing photography comp because your rules are different, but that's not the one she entered and won.

All her images are computer generated graphic art.
While the content within each of those images may have been shot via the use of a camera, the images themselves were not shot with a camera, and they're labelled as such .. either advertising or illustration or whatever.

Technically, not a single image in the competition was shot with a camera. They all had varying degrees of manipulation, from that permitted in a category such as documentary photographer of the year through to the level permitted in the advertising or landscape category

So to the uninitiated, they go to the AIPP site and see 'photographer of the year'(and all the images she's presented) and they assume ... wow! ... she's some sort of elite camera operating god or something .. how the hell does one capture photographs that look like that?

....and that's why they're called "the uninitiated"

The question is: if we allow computer generated

they're not generated, but manipulated..Ok, maybe the odd one is generated

pixels to count as photography, then why do we discriminate against paint stokes layered by hand as photographs and disallow paintings to be classified as photographs?

A good question, and the one that made me pause the longest in this reply. Maybe because the starting point of a photograph has to be the generation of an image by exposing a sensitised medium to light or other type of radiant energy. That much seems to be a consistent definition that would go right back to the origin of the first photograph on bitumen of judea.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, because I think people will always have different definitions that work for them. I'm just giving my view as to why I don't think it matters.

[poorman]

A photo will always be the base . Everything after that is how you prefer it and assume how others will take to it...

[Mark L]

Nothing new here.


http://gizmodo.com/see-how-three-fam...pho-1295302631


Side note:
Is it less deceptive to remove things from an image, than to add things?

So that link shows what some may think. You start with something and only manipulate what you have to start with. Yes we now have easier access to manipulative tools but it's a photo based thing.
Your question would be a good thread.

[Dug]

So that link shows what some may think. You start with something and only manipulate what you have to start with. Yes we now have easier access to manipulative tools but it's a photo based thing.
Your question would be a good thread.

Often people suggest removing something from our images to improve the all important composition, but I have yet to see a comment about adding something to fill some negative space for instance.
I'm not above removing things at times if I'm after a curtain look, but I think it can be a bit slavish to always put a clean composition over context and setting.
Perhaps the ease of removing things with the tools available has desensitized us somewhat, it is odd how adding even the smallest detail seems dishonest by comparison.

But yes another topic in itself.
I'm happy to just let people have pause for thought over it.
These sorts of discussions can be fun, but never have a clear resolution.

[Liney]

An interesting thread, and a lot of very thoughtful comments. Personally I have four different post-processing applications installed on my laptop, three are free to use and the fourth I acquired through a little slight of hand. Each one has pages and pages of buttons and controls that you can apply to any image you like, and I don't use more than a dozen of them in any single application.

I've spent hours trying to work out how to use some of these effects, and then either not noticed the difference or never found a use for them again which made me wonder why I bothered in the first place. So I am happy to play with the exposure, the colour balance to some degree, and a bit of sharpening. Cropping is the same as taking a sharp knife to a print so I don't count that as PP, but with the controls I use on a regular basis I get enough massaging of an image to make it look better in my eyes than the original did.

I know a few people who like me treat photography as a hobby. Some of them are much more proficient with PP than me, and it shows in their images. One colleague will sit for hours PPing an image and there is a significant difference between the original and final version, but to me the final image is not a photograph.

I believe that graphic design from scratch, or heavily PPing an original image, are both forms of art. There are some fantastic results, and the artist must get a fantastic sense of satisfaction at creating such images, but one of the reasons I love photography is that I see something I like and I record it for posterity and for my pleasure. The image used to be a negative on film, now it is pixels of data in computer memory, however it is still a record of something my senses detected and that's to me what a photograph should be.

[arthurking83]

.....

is there a definitive description of photography that we should all be adhering to if we want to call ourselves photographers?

and

Maybe because the starting point of a photograph has to be the generation of an image by exposing a sensitised medium to light or other type of radiant energy. That much seems to be a consistent definition that would go right back to the origin of the first photograph on bitumen of judea.

So on what basis would it make sense that "the starting point has to be the generation of an image ...


For nearly 200 years we've had a pretty much definitive definition of what a photograph is and was!
Why do we need to change it?

20 odd years ago that all changed with the advent of easy to use pixel manipulation tools and here we are discussing the same issues over and over again which of course will never end.

The only reason it will never end is because there was a definitive definition and now there isn't .. that always causes discontent.
It's basically a form of anarchy. Of course this is no attempt at over dramatising the topic, but in effect this is what the issue is.
No one(or collective) bodies of authority have come along at made a serious attempt to address the issue. So the issue becomes a polarising factor.

My personal take is that a photograph is one that is made by a camera. It can have massive editing work done to it, but to layer in other elements from unrelated images of any kind/type precludes its inclusion into the realm of photography.

This doesn't mean that all photographs need to replicate 'the real world' in a journalistic manner ... far from it.
The images I most enjoy seeing are the ones that are 'photographs' that really stand out as art(ie. the abstracts and surreal stuff) .. but with the singular point that the image was made by a camera(and not by some mundane automated computer software!)

And the other issue is one that you touched on

..... they're not generated, but manipulated..Ok, maybe the odd one is generated ...

Once they are manipulated(in that Ps additive/cloned/healed/layered manner) then they may as well be all generated. The problem then becomes how do we know what has been and hasn't been 'manipulated' or generated!



The issue that the topic will always continue in this circular argumentative manner is pure and simple.
Just like there are distinctions between painting and photography and literature and poetry .. and whatever other art genres I can't quite think of this late at night! ) .. there should really be clear distinctions between photography as we've known it all of our lives prior to the computer age, and graphic arts.

That way the issue of Lisa as Advertising Photographer of the Year wouldn't even have ever been raised.
She would have easily won Advertising Graphic Artist of the Year without question ... and Ken Duncan would have had nothing to be bitter about!

ps. Lisa Saad won the Professional Photographer of th4e Year award .. she may have won a sub award for the Advertising section as well ... but she got the top award as well .. for those graphic artworks!

[Hamster]

..
For nearly 200 years we've had a pretty much definitive definition of what a photograph is and was!
Why do we need to change it?

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here, but I still don't know what this 200 year old definitive definition is that you're referring to.
It's quite important to me because if you're going to post a link to the universally recognized world wide authority on photography and it defines limits for something to be legitimately called a photograph that line up with what you've been saying.......
Then my next reply will probably have to be "you are correct..."
If it encompasses a range of outputs that qualify as a photograph, then I may be able to continue giving an alternative point of view