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.