When is photography no longer photography? If there is a lot of post development rendering / editing..is it still photography? All images are artefacts, even the original negative, does further processing / computer enhancement make the result less of a photographic achiement? Or should lens captured images only count as a photograph?? For example, is the "Snowscape" picture (or others in my gallery which have been heavily edited post development) a photgraph or not? I'm just curious as to how other people think. Michael

Well we're into philosophy here I suppose..
If you consider a photograph just the light to emulsion then as a purist virtually nothing will pass these days.
Almost everything is edited even if it's just been cropped.

That would mean however that all those terrible "snaps" that everyone has to suffer aka- "bad holiday pics", "red eyed party drunks" and "jam faced children" actually do qualify. Since the perpertrators of these "crimes" wouldn't dream of improving their photo (or reducing the number of snaps).

As a photographer and imager, I would say that a true photograph would alow editing such as tones, levels, and unsharp masks. But exclude cuts and pastes.. The latter I class as Graphic Design ground.
Unfortunately this opens my question...

When "granny's" head is pasted on to a picture of the pet dog... Have we got a budding designer or a new age slide show bore. LOL

Before anyone gets upset.. I accept that ther are good images of Parties, Children and Holidays... But we all have suffered at some time eh?

Cheers Joe :o)

Like I said, real artists don't feel restricted by anything.....fake artists try to live up to the rules they believe the real ones made. It speaks for itself that editing in journalistic or registring photography is just not okay.

How about this one: Sometimes I like to take a scanned photograph, and do postwork that involves only the original data that was in the scan. I mean no masking, or 'painting on' filters or effects - just processing and filtering entire layers at a time. See what I mean? I worked with ONLY the data that was in the original.

Joe

In regards to the B&W image.. I would have to say that while no one wold deny that there is an image here.. It is unlikely that it would be classed as a photograph simply because it doesn't look like one. Don't forget the a massive amount of data has been distroyed here. Filtering is another subject that can raise artist's temperatures. Bear in mind that I quite like filters... Say a poor sighted man is asked to wear some glasses.. This would seem to improve his photo-sensitive skills. If, however the glasses were smeared with gel... While he may experience a more psychadelic outlook, few would say that photo-sensory usefulness is true. Some heavr filters may create art but may distroy the accepted view of "what is a photograph" I guess the least a photograph has to be, is representative of normal vision.. ie not drink or drug induced or that of impared vision. JW :o)

dude, I consider anything that is done in digital, photography, so long as it can be replicated (no matter HOW painfully) in a darkroom which is the (near) original. Most anything that can be done in photoshop CAN be done without it, if yer willing to put all the effort in. Check out my contest entry. Its legit, though 95% of it is photoshop.

even painting on the origianl photo actually, that is easily done on photo fibre paper, so me agree with bstpeh. As long as theres a photo, and no 3d render software. Though I suppose I could extend the rules a bit all depending on what Im looking at... lol

I'm tired tonight, or I'd quick Bryce-up a bunch of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Then we'd have the answer! It's an arbitrary classification for visual representations. If someone adds sound to the dancing lights we can increase the scope. [Please, no smells, Slynky!] Touch, if someone can figure out how, is OK. These are photos because the people here choose to call them photos. And we are eclectic enough to post in other galleries (or even look there, gasp!) if we feel the other galleries are more appropriate. Or, if someone posts (in our opinion) inappropriately, we can gently suggest they may receive a more recepive audience at other galleries. Generally, the images here are based on, or include, some elements captured mechanically, chemically, or electrically from the "real world." This is different from the pure mathematics of the Poser or Bryce forums, or the traditionally manual media of painting, drawing, etc. As a general observation, many of the inhabitants of "Photography" have a deep appreciation of traditional camera technique, and those wishing to post such images will receive a warm reception here. However, most are open minded enough to really encourage truly new ideas. [I don't like to pick on individuals, but Slynkie's use of the scanner in his recient Hands entry is one of the most exciting and innovative new "photographs" to hit this Forum.] If folks post here images that are far different from the expectations of the audience, the images will not get looked at. This may be a loss for all concerned, but if the image departs too radically from expectations it may receive a better audience elsewhere. This may be sad, but not an issue to re-open the C&D Forum over. I'm very sorry if I have sounded "hot" about this subject. I feel I was discouraged from posting in the Poser or Bryce galleries because of irrelevant and esoteric issues of "rendering engine." In "Photo" I can return to my roots of traditional image capture, and if I warp it too much, "2D" is happy to take it.

I had this same discussion with someone recently....and I told them pretty much the same thing that Slynky said...anything done in Photoshop can be done in a traditional darkroom or with filters attached to a camera, so what's the big deal? I have a tendency to get a little irritated with purist's in any medium not just photography....for me anything goes, unless it's been mashed beyond recognition, it qualifies as a photograph.

No it isn't... After all warping and pasting will bring a picture beyond recognition.

Another issue here that is relevent in all of these galleries is that, any opinions here are likely to be those from "artists"... be they digital or manual (photo or rendered).

I suspect that the majority of others would not accept "any altered image as a photograph" so I stand by many of the comments above.

This then may make artists say.. "who cares what they think"?
But whether we like it or not; non artist opinion does shape much of the world around us.
A "photograph" is a specific name that is associated with expected imagery. If this is baulked too much you'll loose your target audience as already mentioned above (Misha883).
I have done the apprenticeship in darkrooms to the point of mixing chemicals (a long suffering job). In many ways Photoshop is replicating the dark room but not all of it. Who wants to replicate the wait, and the chemicals?

As artists we should be responsible; and our "out bursts" controlled.
"Anything goes" is an innocent enough phrase, but it leaves the door open for the "charlatan" who will show what "anything goes" realy means. The artist community gets damaged yet again.
JW :o)

Hmmm.....well to be honest I wrote the above stated before I actually started browsing the gallerys and saw the image in question. ...and although I do stand by what I said about it being a photography unless it's been mashed beyond recognition.....the image that mccanning posted would probably do better in the 2d gallery. Its all very subjective don't you think...one persons photograph is anothers artsy fartsy image. I think I've been hanging out at photo.net for too long, way to many snobs there, purists, and I sort of yelled before I actually saw the image in question. Your point has been well taken. :~)

Has anyone brought up the idea of a completely rendered charachter or object being completely 'skinned' in a PHOTOGRAPHED texture? In that case, really everything you see is PHOTOGRAPHED. (I'm just trying to 'fuel' the debate, I guess.) Joe

Hello Michelle You're exactly right about these areas being "subjective". And we don't have to compromise our opinions in these matters. After all the world would be dull without new ideas. My main concern in this, is that some inscrutable people use philosophy debates as a means of gaining respect, with no tallent. Take the idea of a "Scewed up piece of paper" being labled "art" at TATE MODERN. (Actually happened) This can only damage us, as artists/photographers. JW :o)

The practical reality seems to be that the Forum is defined by the audience, not by the players. Post whatever you like, I guess, but if it is not relevant to the audience it may not receive the appreciation it deserves. A lot of groups have this entirely backwards, defining an elite group of posters. The post has to fit within a very narrow definition before it is allowed to appear. [Or receives severe criticism after.] This is a moderated group, thankfully, to keep out images or ideas of no possible interest to the audience. Some of the other forums or galleries define this interest very very narrowly. The moderators here have set a very eclectic tone. Even so, if sometimes an image gets posted here that may be better appreciated elsewhere, rather than arbitrarily yanking it we gently suggest the artist move it where it will receive more applause. If someone was able to open the glass case in France and scan the Mona Lisa, would it be a photograph? No, but I'm sure it could be posted here to start a lively discussion of archival digital storage, the best resolution and lighting when scanning artwork, composition and portraiture...

If we go into the area of photographs of paintings, what we are realy doing is stepping into a "hall of mirrors" and trying to decide if only the first reflection is true or not. (And we all know, that only the second reflection and subsequent "even numbers" are true LOL). While I agree that the concept of free posting is self governing.. taken to conclusion.. Why then catagorize at all? Is it fair to say "The Audience Expects"? I think so. But! If this is the case, then this issue is more important to resolve than first it seemed. ... Here we go again.. LOL JW :o)

Wait a sec. So If I understand correctly JW. You are saying that a photo of any object or any object covered by a photo itself counts as a photo. However, that can't be correct after all if I take a Poser creature and texture it with a photo it is still a poser creature. It is not a picture additionally I would think a picture of a poser creature is still a poser creature. After all the source image is poser as is the underlying basis. To take a poser creature and create a photo would mean that not only whould the poser creature need to be fully textured but there would probably need to be a second laver of photography. IE. It I take a car and cover it with cake is it still a car. Yes. Is it now full a cake. Perhaps not. BUT if I drive my cake car to a birthday and cover it with candles is it a car. No. It's now a cake!!! Bsteph

Whoa.. Good points -- you're slayin' me B!

Wha! No, Bsteph, you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that general perception (that of non artists) of a photograph.. is fairly clear cut.. ie an obvious facsimile of the "real" world in 2D. If however (as it was suggested by others) a photo of a painting should also be considered, than a rethink would be necessary! For my part I'm nearer the idea of general perception. It seems so are you. A photo skin on a model is still a photo skin. (To me). That example.. and yours is obvious, and fairly clear cut. But cutting and pasting photo images so that the work is seemless is not quite so easily defined. That I believe is where the debate stems... How much digital or dark room modification renders a Photograph into somthing else... irrespective of any gallery accepting the work. The earlier notes that I have posted above should clear up any doubts about where I stand... If you have the time to read them. JW :o)