I am sure this has probably been debated in the past, but maybe it should be given some closer examination. 1. Pure Photography 2. Enhanced Photography Is an image that has been significantly altered using software remain a photograph? When content, color, contrast, saturation, focus / sharpness is significantly altered out side of the camera or the developing phase remain a photograph? Color correction or makeing subtle adjustments for various short comings for a photo not withstanding. The use of composits, rendering, brushwork, selective blurs and a host of other manipulations remove the image from the realm of photography. It becomes a indication of a persons ability in using software rather than a camera. So it is no longer photography. The measure of a photographers skill, is measured on he ability to capture a image that is accurate, conveys a emotion, is properly lit, exposed, and composed. This is achieved by a painstaking process of finding the proper subject, lighting, exposure, composition. Then using the Camera the isntument of his craft and capturing that image. It is not taking any available image and manipulateing it into something else after the fact. While software is a powerful tool it is not photogtraphy, not even by the widest application. The use of software can allow the worst collection of images to look good and the best photographs look better. But it is not talent in photography. I am as good as anyone using photoshop, and can manipulate images to a degree that I can get just about any image that I can think up. But does that make me a good photographer? No I will be the first to admit it does not. Any image I post in the photography gallery has been a straight scan from a actual photographic print. The only post work has been on OLD B&W prints I've posted to clean up scratches and dust spots on the print. I was wondering that to do the photography gallery the most justice would it not be wise to seperate the Photoshop works from the pure photography works? Personally I am not at all that interested in images that have been heavily photoshopped. As it does not teach me anything about photography. It teaches nothing about loghting, composition, exposure, etc. It makes all of the prior values moot. I often find myself annoyed by going throught the gallery and selecting what seems to be a exceptional photgraph only to find when I see it full size it has been through the photoshop mill. Anyway as this is the photography gallery should'nt it be photography? Just my thoughts anyone else?

:: While software is a powerful tool it is not photogtraphy, not even by the widest application. :: This seems to be one of the focal points of your statements. And had this been, say, 50 years ago, I may have agreed. However I think that the line is blurring now with the advent of digital photography. :: The use of composits, rendering, brushwork, selective blurs and a host of other manipulations remove the image from the realm of photography. :: I disagree. What about the editing that can be done in a lab? Softening an image, brightening, lightening. What about a composition of several images? A very good friend of mine did a composition using several pictures where he appeared to be a ghostlike form leaning on a lit stove. It was amazingly seamless, yet it was done in a darkroom. Was that photography? If not, why not? Isn't photography the art of capturing and manipulating light? What is the difference between manipulation done in a dark room and manipulation done on a computer? What is "photography" anyway? Webster defines it as: "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light". In "digital" photography, the sensitized surface becomes some form of memory. Therefore, as long as you're using that "sensitized surface" to "produce images", aren't you still doing photography? :: It teaches nothing about loghting, composition, exposure, etc. It makes all of the prior values moot. :: I guess we'll have to differ there. I have seen a number of photoshopped images that have taught me a great deal. Some of the lessons have been very subtle. But if your goal is what you describe as "pure" photography, then no electronic image would really fit unless scanned by a very expensive scanner is pristine condition that could capture in exacting detail the scanned image. Even then, it may not really be good because what looks good on one monitor can look horrible on another. :: The measure of a photographers skill, is measured on he ability to capture a image that is accurate, conveys a emotion, is properly lit, exposed, and composed. :: Yet these are all very subjective terms. What is an accurate image? I once took a picture of a martial arts instructor throwing a student with a 3 foot staff. When the picture was developed, everything was blurred. The student was a barely visible. Except for his strikingly yellow belt, you could barely make him out. The instructor was a blurred figure that could be clearly seen through him. I hated that picture for over a year. Then it grew on me. Now I look at it as one of the best pictures I've ever taken. Why? Because I've come to see it as capturing the essense of a martial arts technique. It is full of motion; no part of it is static or clear. Everything flows. Yet the picture itself has not changed. It is far from "accurate" in that it is completely not what I wanted. I chose the wrong flash setting, so it came out darker than I intended. I had left the camera set to bulb, so the shutter stayed open for as long as my finger held it (almost a second). I didn't use a tripod so my body's natural motion added camera shake. Yet in reading through books and articles of creative people, I learned that there is a certain kind of perfection in imperfection. That a distorted image can convey as much or more than a static one. It all depends on your POV.

Somwhere in the annals of the forum is this debate topic. Along with digital vs chemical or traditional photography. Cameras vs scanners and b/w vs color. Bsteph

hey dude, I've done a few things in the darkroom that I have absoilutely no clue how to replicate in photoshop, and I must also say that I know my photoshop as good most. If you wanna se what is capable in a darkroom, which I'm sure you would consider to be "pure photo" if as long as it was done in a darkroom (after all ,there was no computer manipulation AT ALL), I advise you to go and look up the galleries of one Jerry Uelsmann, who hasnt touched a computer for photo EVER since he started in the 60's. ry

I'll second Slynky's suggestion pnevai, Uelsmann's works are awesome, check em out! :-)>

You guys had me searching through the member galleries under all combinations! For anyone interested in what they're talking about, do a copy/paste of the name in yahoo or your favorite search engine.

Attached Link: http://www.uelsmann.net

look at it this way. You alled it Pure Photography, and Enhanced Photography. Both of those still have the word photography in them, so that must mean it's photography. lol In the end it's up to the artist. If the viewer figures he has to lop them into some sort of littole bubble, that's there choice. Photography is whatever the artist deems photography, there isn't any strict line that gets crossed to call it something else. We all have our own ideas of what is and what isn't, so we should listen to ourselves when the question is asked.

also, technically, even simple dodging and burning in a darkroom is enhancement, and therfore impure. Whther the alterations are big or small, they are still alterations. If I choose to combine 2 negatives with masking and fading in order to make my own prints, or if I simply do some simple spotting after the print is made, both pictures become "Impure" when I do either of those things.

"composits, rendering, brushwork, selective blurs" are what you say people do in photoshop and other software in order to achive the final image, which does not make it photography anymore. Aside from the rendering part, composits, brushwork, and selective blurs can easily be done in a darkroom. I know this, because I do this in a darkroom frequently. "The use of software can allow the worst collection of images to look good and the best photographs look better. But it is not talent in photography." I can use 3 enlargetrs to combine 3 different negatives in whatever manner I deem fit, and I have done so on numerous occasions. This does not make any of the photographs looks better, rather, it all culminates into one final piece of work. The final work is what does or does not look good, not the individual photos. If you take a shot, and it's REALLY overexposed, you're gonna have to do some darkroom work in order to make the "bad" shot look "good." "Any image I post in the photography gallery has been a straight scan from a actual photographic print." All the images in my gallery that go into the photography gallery are also ALL done in a darkroom, with minor contrast brightness adjustements in photoshop that is done merely to make the print on screen look like the one I'm holding in my hands. One thing I had to get used to was that 35mm and large format negative photography is no longer the only form of photography anymore. Most anything that can be done in photoshop, can also be done without it. Using oil paints and pencils on black and white photographs really is nothing new, so the brushes in photoshop don't yeild any hidden advantages. The dodge and burn tools are self explanatory. Blurring in selective areas really is not that difficult either in a darkroom. Multiple image printing is also a possibility which I have experimented with. This is no different than taking two images into photoshop and combining them that way. Cropping, adding, subtracting, etc, also capable in a darkroom. From what I can surmise of what you said pnevai, true photographic skills are only shown when taking a picture. This simply isn't true. It takes some real fucking skill to make a good print in a darkroom, and I assume you know that. I've spent upwards of 10 hours on a SINGLE print in the darkroom getting it JUST right. Are you saying that darkroom work offers no insight to photographic skill? It takes an eye to be able to take a good negative, and making it into a great print. I could simply set the time to 20 seconds on F-5.6 for each print anmd churn them all out, instead, I spend the hours it takes to get something great. It doesn't always happen either. Just because someone applies 3 filters to an image in photoshop doesn't make it a great image. Personally, if you're unhappy with seeing photoshopped imagery, you can simply never look at the photography gallery again, because something tells me none of us wants to fall into your little ideals of what photography really is, because you are just one person, with one opinion. There are others that agree with you I'm sure, but if you don't like the way it actually is, go find another gallery to look at. the following is a link to your image, "Ferocious". http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=139675&Start=1&Artist=pnevai&ByArtist=Yes You posted this in the lightwave gallery. Now, did you use ANY OTHER PROGRAMS in this image? My guess is that poser was used. If you did, then this is not a pure lightwave image, and according to your philosophy, you proably should have posted thi in the Mixed Medium gallery. Also, a guy by the name of 3DAFX offered this ias a comment... " lose the lights on her body, use a different texture for the skin and give those monsters some gravity and then she will be perfect" At which point you responded "Yo 3D, the image is precisely the way I want it. It's not going to change. Spent a fair amount of effort makeing everything look exactly as it is. So tell it to someone who cares." I got news for ya. One, he was offerering what he thought to be a helpful comment to make the image better, at which point you told him to Fuck Off in kinder words. If you can't take the heat, don't click the comments button. People will not always offer the utter praise you seem to desire, sometimes they will actually say something that they think would make the image better, god forbid. Also, some of the photographers who post to the gallery spend a fair amount of time getting their images to look exactly as they do, using whatever software or darkroom techniques they want, and my gues is that your little idea of what photography really is doesn't mean a damn thing to them, so why don't you go tell someone who cares. ryan

Since Slynky brought up commenting on gallery postings, I
wanted to mention that I "turn comments on" in my postings
for two reasons, mainly. First I think it's kinda rude to
not allow people to voice their opinions in a public forum
(such as renderosity.com galleries), and second, because I
am looking for suggestions for improvement. I'm
never completely satisfied with the stuff I post, and
it can be quite frustrating when I know that something
is wrong, but I can't figure out what it is.

Anyway, to all who care, please feel free to critique my images.
You won't hurt my feelings, and I appreciate your input.

I didn't want to critique one of your latest postings ASalina...I wanted to eat it!!!! LOL! :-)> BTW the first critical advice I ever got from anyone was from the Slynkster and his comment "More Contrast" (you guessed it) and you know what...it was refreshing, and I was grateful! (even if he is a cheeky young punk!)

We punks can smell our own... dude, which pic was that comment on? I'm trying to find it right now... somehow though, the "more contrast" that you claim I said wouldn't surprise me. Contrast is the equivilent to a chocolate bar to me. cheeky old punk!

Wow!! Thanks for the Uelsmann link.......I love his work!

erm, is it just me or is pnevai trying to hark back to the ideals hit upon the last time he came into the forum and slated what we did? Sorry if that seems a bit harsh, pn, but you do have a habit of hacking people off. You talk about 'pure' photography. Take a recently controversial image that appeared in the gallery of a pair of breasts belonging to some guy's wife. I suppose that was photography, as it was unadulturated, unaltered and left as it came out of the camera. My work however involves possibly going back to the same place 2 or 3 times to get the lighting right so that it will merge well with another image that I do in Photoshop. Is that not photography? Ponder, if you will, which is closer to true photography. Why not offer to Mod a new gallery and forum 'Pure Photography?' then you can make your own rules up as you go along. Mike (",)

I've never really liked these "what is art" debates. The only possible answer will ever be an opinion so what is the real point of pondering this? I have to agree with Jordy on this one, while its amusing to sometime have an open debate for fun, its seems to me you just want to vent some frustrations. But hey thats just my two cents -- that 5.99 might get you a small coffee at starbucks

Wow, it's cheap in your neck of the woods!

geesus...6 dollars for a small coffee?

Slynks, it was a B&W of a bollard that I posted months ago and have sebsequently deleted because my gallery was getting ridiculously bloated....I tend to agree with Maygen, all these debates seem to do is go over old ground and elicit different opinions from different people. The reason I wanted pnevail to read the interview on Uelsmann's site was there was a telling comment there about how he showed his photographs, (all produced with "traditional" technique ie Camera, Film, Darkroom, Chemicals etc, remember)...to the Photography department at his college (or wherever, I can't remember sorry) they sort of sniffed, and said "That's all very interesting, but it's not really Photography, is it?" or words to that effect! Beware the dangers of INERTIA, in any field...If everyone had those dudes attitudes throughout the course of human artistic endevours, then I guess it would be quite possible we would all still be daubing clay marks on cave walls, instead of revelling in the wonderful variety of media we have now to express our individual creativity! :-)>

Oh, and just a little thought I had last night after posting; if he's so against us using PhotoShop for our pictures, why is he using 3D software and not paints & paper?!? Same thing to me...... ;-) (",)

I was trying to ignore this thread other than thanking PC for the link to Uelsmann site, because I tend to get all hissy-pissy when dealing with purists, but I couldn't help but feel it was somewhat of a personal attack, since I had only recently uploaded my "What Lies Beyond" image to the gallery. An image which has a large amount of Photoshop work in it. All I have to say is phooey on him! :~/