Well, after posting some of my older stuff at the gallery over the last couple of days a semi regular response seemed to be generated. "Is this a photograph?" That brings up a good question. Can a still life for that matter be a photograph, or rather, can one photograph a "created" setup and call it a photograph, or should it then be considered "mixed medium?" In my book the answer is yes, its a photograph, which is why I posted here. I had another image that I posted yesterday in which I scratched the emulsion on the 4x5 down and then painted it for a background. To me, that crossed the line into mixed medium and I posted there. If you feel that any kind of photograph in which the photographer manipulates any of the elements in the image before the shutter is tripped is not a photograph than you may want to reconsider portraits and such for if one can move a body around what difference is the movement of an inanimate object. (Damn thats a long sentance for an ex-journalist.) The reason I bring this up is just to get some of you thinking about what you're doing. Come on folks lighten up a bit. There's some wonderfully creative and talented people that I've seen here. You all should feel like you can experiment and hang it on the line and then bring it back here to get constructive criticism on your vision and technique. That way everyone gets a little better...which is a cool thing. See your photography history for the f64 group. With the internet you don't have to travel to Carmel or New Mexico. Oh, and by the way, nothing I post in the photography gallery is digitally manipulated. Its straight stuff with a 4x5 or an RZ. The trick is the lighting. Keep creating everyone!

tell'em to go phuck themselvews. There are a lot of pretentious whiners who bitch and whine about little things like using setups and whatnot, and questioning different techniques, likely because they themselves don't have the courage to get themselves out of the rut they are obviously in and try something new. These people limit themselves and limit what they feel allowed to do. There are no "rules," though art theory majors will tell you different. These people also probably wouldn't dare quetion Man Ray's techniques, nor Jerry Uelsmann. even so bro, i still figure you coulda posted that 4x5 in the photo gallery. It's a photographic technique after all. People will do all sorts of crazy things and still call it a painting. In the end though, it's up to you. For all the people that have sticks up their asses as of late, see a proctologist already. This is gonna turn into photo.net pretty soon if everyone doesn't lighten up a bit. What you I call a photograph you may call utter trash, but that's okay, just don't be offended when I say the same about your stuff.

uh, oh maybe what i'm going to say may offend some "photographers", but frankly my dears.... Photography is a craft, not an "art" in itself. It's a technique used for artistic expression, just as "painting", "sculpting", etc... are crafts. I couldn't give a damn if someone calls my work "photographs" or "mixed media" or even "digital imagery": with my digicam + photoshop I feel that i'm able to express myself artistically. Of course, I want to improve the technical quality of my work and that's the reason why I spend quite some time on the internet and buy quite a lot of books on the subject of photography and digital darkroom. But it's not the "essence" of what i call "art". Maybe it would be a great thing if some of those "pretentious whiners" should exchange their expensive camera-equipment for a cheap plastic snapshooter, rid themselves from complicated technical concepts for a while and really start "photographing" for a change... Maybe their work would acquire some genuine creativity instead of the often sterile technical perfection they are constantly trying to achieve. there, i just had to get that off my chest... Hope my 2eurocents worth answered your question.

Actually looking at your work Jay, reminds me very much of Jerry Uelsmann's wonderful stuff...although yours is in color and his is in B&W.....Had I or starshuffler felt it didn't belong in the photography gallery we would have moved to the appropriate place. So keep posting where you feel it belongs. I'm enjoying your images very much too!

OOPS! my fault. Hey don't think Jerry Uelsman never heard "there is no way you didn't use photoshop" (after it was available) Keep up what you do, and don't listen to me.......mouth opening......foot inserting..... I would just take it as a compliment....If you can do that type of work "in camera" and make people think you used photoshop. It takes skills. btw, this place is far from being photo.net.

If you pointed your camera at it, pushed the button and it ended up on film or a digital array then it's a photograph. However, you have to understand that yours is a very artistic and unique style on a site dominated by digital artists. It's always a good idea to give some info on how the photo was taken (that applies to everyone). Not only does it stop people from trying to guess how you made it, but it also helps for those who want to comment on it. Even a simple tagline of "No Photoshop postwork used" would be enough. -=>Donald

Donald, fair enough, although please understand that I'm really not trying to stir up a hornets nest here. For the record, anything I post here will NOT be photoshop manipulated other than minor color correction, spoting, or maybe a little blur tool. Most of what I've posted in the last couple of days is light painting with a fiber optic light and an open shutter on either a Sinar 4x5 or an RZ. -jay

Don't get me wrong...I am in no way supporting either side of this one..just throwing out what I hope is a helpful hint. Just remember that probably 95% of the people coming to this site will never read this forum or your messages and will only judge your images as they perceive them in the gallery. I think that if you posted your last sentence as the tag for your images, then not only would people not figure they are digital manipulations but would be as incredibly impressed with your images as I was when I looked at them again with the knowledge that they were all created with lighting, setup and technique. With that knowledge, your work becomes even more impressive. -=>Donald

I think if I had the skill to do work like Jay's, with only a conventional camera and wet darkroom, I'd actually be sort of flattered when puzzled folk ask if it is really a photograph. [Actually, if I had enough skill to do this sort of thing with ANY tools, I'd be pretty proud of myself!] Maybe Star can talk Jay into doing a tutorial?

What is it, have the PhotoShop Police started patrolling here or something?!? All of my Most-Viewed pictures are in the photography gallery, and ALL of them have had (sometimes massive amounts) photoshopping done. When this came up quite some time ago, it was deemed that if a picture was based on an images / images from a camera, it was ok for the photography gallery..... (",)