Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=264161&Start=1&Artist=mysnapz&ByArtist=Yes

Just having this debate in my head, and with a few of the 2D forum members. Where just does photography stop being photography and become something else? Just how far can we push images using the new digital darkrooms for them to be no longer classed as photography? Would you class my picture as photography? :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

It depends if it was taken with a camera was a close up of an actual object, its Photography! Whats your point?

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

Well Dan, periodically someone will wonder at what point an image goes from being a photograph to being something else. It's been debated here and elsewhere to death. Yikes! But it's all a matter of personal opinion. I will offer my 2 pennies....for me it depends on the image. Some, I still consider photographs, and others I feel have crossed over into 2D. Personally, anything that has been manipulated to the point where I can no longer see the photo in my eyes becomes 2D. Others may disagree....and that is fine too. This image you've posted in my humble opinion is not a photograph....it may have started as one, or more photos combined, but I can no longer see that in the image. Therefore for me...it is 2D........and its really nice too mysnapz!

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

I take your point Michelle, but that was my point!! As mysnaptz gave no clue as to how the image was created in the first place! Or if any manipulation as you call it took place? If it is all in camera, then it is in my opinion Photography, it is simply a close-up or Macro of an interesting POV. If the image has been manipulated in another way then its, and I AGREE 2D.

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

I am a photographer and an artist. I seperate the two because I consider them two very different mediums and types of images. True photos are images as well as oil paintings, and any pen and ink, pencil, charcoal, and now computer drawn. It is very obvious to me that your image is computer manipulated. The skull may be a real photo scanned into the computer but once manipulation such as filters and the like have been performed it no longer becomes a photograph it becomes a digital image. Whenever I sell works of my images in my gallery I am very careful how I present my works I say weather it is digital or photography. I think this is important to note to the buyer. For several reasons. Anyone can take two pictures one of an elephant one of a butterfly and digitally place the butterfly onto the elephants trunk this is made possible by photoshop and various other programs and while it looks like a nice image I would say that it was much more impressive if you actually worked to get a real shot captured on film of that scene. So to answer your question no your image is not a photograph. (even though it may have a photo in it) It is a neat image and I do like it . Hope that helps. Thanks Mike :)

An excellent image mysnapz!

As for the question,
I tend to agree with the others, the photos in this picture
were rather used as a sort of "raw material",
e.g. like one would use a photo textures in a 3D-software.

I would set the limit about what I would call a photo:

1. If "recording light" is still the main purpose.
2. If all that I did in postwork could have been done in a real world darkroom as well.

But that's just me and my 2 cents. ;-)

cheers
Thomas

if you wanna call something simply "a painting, a drawing, a sculpture, a photo, etc," what you do is you fall into predefined monikers that have existed for god knows how long, sometimes centuries. The best thing you can do is to say "fuck those", and make your own, or just say it's "none of the above". The moment you create boundries, you limit yourself. If you're going to limit yourself, what's the fun in making art when half the fun is breaking the rules?

He he, well you asked the question in the first place Slynky!! Who says a Painting, a drawing, a sculpture, a photo is simple!! The question should be is it Art! Artistic expression is there for all of us to exploit and interpret in any way we see fit, whether someone else finds it artistic has nothing to do with what ever label someone ascribes to it in the end if you like it thats all that matters! You can break all the rules you want. What do you think your image is? If you dont want to label it then it does not matter to me where you post it, in whatever gallery you consider it fits into.

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=259631

First sorry for dragging up this old debate, Im sure it wont be the last time it comes around. My reasons are simple. I enter photographic competitions and exhibitions. Before the digital age you could manipulate your pictures to your hearts content. There was never this question, if it was there as a print or a slide and it was excepted as photography. OK the tool set has now changed but the raw material is the same, an photographic image, I am still going out with my camera and taking pictures. its just what I do with them thats changed. Here is another picture is this photography or 2D? OK Michelle Im not sure, I think you would think this image is because you can see the bass player, but you can also see the skull so whats the difference? Mike, Thomas and Dan this is not photography because I did not take it in camera, or reproduce digitally what I could have done in an traditional darkroom. Thats fine a very clear cutting line between photography and 2D. Im interested in your thoughts of limiting the digital darkroom to only produce traditional darkroom images. Slynky fantastic its Space Hopper Art the new art that bounces you from here to there, landing who knows where. I love it:O) Lets get the forum going and the gallery up now. But seriously, If Photography is going to embrace the digital darkroom then this kind of picture has got to be excepted as photography or as I would like to see it called Digital Photo Art. As for the exhibitions and competitions Im going to continue entering my work, if only to confuse the hell out of the judges and selectors. I have yet to get a rejection with we do not consider this photography on it. Im sure the day will come.

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

First of all let me say that is one fantastic image!! I can tell it came from a photograph...the difference with the other is I can't see the skull as a photo...it looks like a 3D model to me. I think I prefer your name for it..."Digital Photo Art". That seems to be a much more acceptable term for it, than trying to say it is photography, because it isn't at all that simple. For me it seems that the deeper I delve into photography the more I have come to look for the pure forms of it. I have nothing against filter use, but for me I limit my Photoshopping to those things that could be replicated in a traditional dark room. I have no desire to turn my photograph into an oil painting or that sort of thing. I'll be honest and say that I'm on the fence on this one...I can see it started life as a photo, but this has been seriously manipulated, and I don't know how you would recreate something like this in a darkroom. It's Digital Photo Art! That's what it is! :~)

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

I see your point Michelle. But the skull is most definitely a photograph and not a very good one. Do you use filters on your camera? To add a little colour into the sky. Have you made multiple exposures or sandwiched images together? Do you use creative darkroom techniques? Do you consider these photography or photo art? :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

The only filter I ever really use on my camera would be a polarizer. shrug ....I have camera bag full of creative Cokin filters...never use them. Multiple exposures...no, but not for lack of trying, my Nikon has auto advance so I'm not sure I can do it, on my old Canon I tried but couldn't get it to work! :~( Bleech... At this point I do not have access to a wet darkroom...my darkroom is the digital one. I think all of the techniques you've mentioned to me are photographic art techniques. Not pure photography....these things can also be accomplished in the digital darkroom which is a great thing....LOL! I'm not that much of a purist... They're all tools...and I can only speak for myself and how I feel about it...it's all subjective. I am just not into heavy manipulation with PS filters.

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

First off Slinky calm down no reason to get profane. Its not limiting anything by labeling something. Its just trying to understand it better by labeling it something. If we can label it then we can better understand it. My personal opinion is this that the only way a "photo" or "photograph" can be made is thru a camera. The camera can be a film or digital camera. It must then be printed with little manipulation. There was a site out but it seems to be down that discussed what is legitamate use of things in all fairness. USM or unsharp mask is ok, cloneing things out is not, adjusting levels, and curves is ok, but adjusting hue and saturation is not. so on and so on. Basicly a "True photo" is as the camera saw it with no touchups or alterations. As far as filters sure I have used them polarizers I think are the most widely used as well as neutral density or graduated filters. While these do in fact alter a scene somewhat I feel that as long as the filter is not way out there that it is still a photo. Wild filters lets say that make the sky green and the grass blue would still in all rights be a photo but would be considered abstract art then. Sandwhiching slides is an old process to get the moon or sunset in the shot you want so are multiple exposures. Once again if it loooks natural I would call it a photo if it is unnatural it would be art. That said I routinely take two photos i haave taken and "sandwhich them" toether in photoshop am I wrong for doing this? NO. Its just a different way of doing the same thing. I think no matter what you do that you be honest with yourself and others in posting an image you be honest in saying what it is you did to the image. I never try to pull one over on someone if I have manipulated an image in anyway I always have somewhere on the image what was done. Its just good buisness. In the example I used in an earlier post about hte elephant and the butterfly. LEts say I take a picture of a butterfly, and I take a picture of an elephant. Ok they are both photos right. Now I whip up a little photoshop magic by combining the butterfly photo and the elephant photo so that the butterfly is resting on the elephanats trunk WOW amazing the power of photoshop. Well we already said that they were both real "PHOTOS" right ? right. but now they have been manipulated. This is what I would now call a digital image. or digital art. not a photo. ITs a fine line I know but thats what its about. Hope that helps thanks Mike :)

"Is it art?" I ask you this. How many times has the "what is art?" question been asked, without a definitive answer, and what makes you think you'll get one this time or the next time you ask? Anyone who can definitively define what art is limits themselves, which, like I already said, takes away half the fun. You (Danob) keep saying "you" in reference to myself.... I'd like to point out that my post you replied to was the first one I posted on this thread... so no, I didn't "ask the question in the first place". The only question I asked was "If you're going to limit yourself, what's the fun in making art when half the fun is breaking the rules?"

I dont limit myself I enjoy breaking the rules slynky and the main difference is I dont call it photography! Not unless as I have made perfectly plain it is in camera. When I do take photographs I dont use filters at all if I want to do something more I then do it and happily post it where I happen to think it fits ok!! There is no definitive answer to the what is art question.

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

I know what art is want me to tell ya. Art - The concious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects : Also Works so produced Sounds like a logical and reasonable explenation to me. By the way that was the Merrian Webster Dictionary. Thanks Mike :)

You think that is a definitive answer Mike?

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

Somebody could put dog shyte on a plate and call it Art would you agree that it's Art or just dog shyte on a plate? I think that is the point of the "Is it art?" question, which in my own mind as well there is no definitive answer.

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

But I digress here I think we're beginning to get off the whole point of the thread which was is a heavily manipulated photograph still a photograph..... I don't remember anyone questioning the validity of it being art, just whether or not one would still call it a photo.....

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

OK I agree Dog Shyte is dog shyte Dont know if we are getting off the point my view is dependant on what you mean by heavily manipulated. I agree also about not questioning the validity of it being art. I have my friend who can do just about anything in a darkroom so thats another Chestnut people are very inventive and creative you would not call that type of manipulation digital photographic art. I go back to the point about being in camera. The term Slynky used for other creative use of digital effects seems to me to be a perfect one Digital Photographic Art.

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

hmmm..getting hot in here...pheeww...some posts need a violence rating :-) @michelle and danob...some italian artist did put "dog shyte" in a tin and tried to pass it of as art...those italians...got to luv'em then there was the room with the light switch which turned the light on then off...tate gallery considederd this art...go figure!! is it art or is it an "'ism"? as to manipulated photos...i am guilty of this as well..(not with much success..lol)...i don't call it a photo or art...just an image where do we draw the line...i'm not sure (some help heh!!) photos have been manipulated for decades and now technology allows us to do even more of this either from scans or from raw digital data. i think that what has happened is that technology has progressed and opened up new avenues to us but personal views and general definitions and labels have been trying to pigeon hole the results because it is human nature to do so since it gives us a sense of understanding of what we're looking at. ultimatly all things will come to pass...(do we still have surealist painters and photographers as an art movement? ...do we still use glass plates as negatives?)... something new will come along and take its place...for me (and others above) that thing seems to be called Digital Photo Art as mysnapz has called it.

Pictures appear to me, I shoot them.   Elliot Erwitt

"I dont limit myself I enjoy breaking the rules slynky and the main difference is I dont call it photography!" it was a question i asked, there was no statement in my question that said otherwise of what is quoted above from yourself, so don't get too pissed off at me for something i never said. "Not unless as I have made perfectly plain it is in camera." you'd then have to define what a "camera" could be. I have seen pictures taken with fruit believe it or not (in the form of pinhole exposure). would you call a hollowed out asparagus a camera? What if you stuffed some film inside it, and an image was made... hmmm... I've also seen extremely large contact prints made with an old Chevrolet (i believe it was a chevy, can't recall). Is it a car, or a camera? I wonder is phosphor burn in could be considered photographic... afterall, after a long enough EXPOSURE, an IMAGe is EMBEDDED on the SURFACE of an OJECT. I only capitalized words that would be integral to describe what "might" make something a photograph or the product of photography... any thoughts?

Hey I not pissed off at you, just giving my point of view! I dont want to get drawn into nit picking about what is and what is not photography or a camera coming to that. I dont think a phospherous burn is in the least bit photographic either! The fact is that I do understand the priciples of photography and does it matter what you call a camera it is possible to make an image out of cardboard boxes etc etc never heard of fruit or asparagus camera !! Sounds a bit messy to me and I have enough problems with dust and scratches to worry about fruit juice getting on the negatives lol Perhaps you are just as inventive and creative with your arguements as you are about yer art.

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

Firestorm said:@michelle and danob...some italian artist did put "dog shyte" in a tin and tried to pass it of as art...those italians...got to luv'em then there was the room with the light switch which turned the light on then off...tate gallery considederd this art...go figure!! Exactly!! That was my point one persons art is another person dog shyte!!

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

...round and round it goes, where it will stop nobody knows.... lol

Pictures appear to me, I shoot them.   Elliot Erwitt

@Dogma......I'm not really sure that anyone was here was trying to do that....we all have opinions, we are all entitled to them, but not a one of us is right or wrong....Quite frankly I could care less what others do with their images or their photography. Someone asked an opionion....others gave theirs....thank you for adding to the useless drivel. Heh.....

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

Amen to that it is intersting to note that some people who appear to have an excellent knowlege of photographic history and yet have no images posted in a gallery perhaps someone who has not the conviction to be honest about thier own gifts! Dogma as a nick you must be joking!! People are entitled to thier own views ! whoever you are!!

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

lol

oh, incidently "dogma" uelsmann was once asked about what he thought of photoshop, and said he didn't particularly care for it, though he more than understood and appreciated its applications. He simply felt that the magic for him was in the darkroom, in watching his prints come alive in front of his eyes during development. An old (emphasis on the OLD) bud of mine got me onto him.. hehheh

but then there's J K Potter, now he did what many would call "embrace", in terms of the tools... jkpotter.com

I'm not quite sure why alot of people here seem to be using the word "LIMIT" over and over again in placing a term or word to something. How is labeling something a limitation? I'm not sure they understand let alone me LOL :) I am not trying to limit anything (not sure about their actions) I can call it whatever I like that doesnt mean I limited anything LOL :) Geewhiz some people. Thanks Mike :)

who's dogma in this thread...has it gone cross forum?

Pictures appear to me, I shoot them.   Elliot Erwitt

I have been steering clear of this, but I guess my time has come to add to the useless drivel heh heh... @ firestorm -- dogma had a message in this thread, but it's not here anymore.

I'm not quite sure why alot of people here seem to be using the word "LIMIT" over and over again in placing a term or word to something. How is labeling something a limitation?

By labeling something, you are limiting it to the label's definitions and parameters. (IMHO anyway.) Now the thing with labels and definitions, sure, we have the dictionary to rely on. But remember, definitions also change and/or evolve (like most things do). There is such a thing as denotative meaning, as well as conotative meaning (something that sometimes the dictionary fails to provide). Now as for the original question, I cannot answer that. The technology of photography has changed a lot since its first inception, ergo old definitions may or may not apply now. Once somebody has cleared out all fuzzy and gray areas of photography (traditional or otherwise) and its definitions, I think that's the time we can truly arrive at an understanding. :-) (* I'm hitting the lights, it's time to say goodnight.

Bloody hell! I take my eye off the ball and someone passes it down the line. LOL Please lets not get into a what is art debate. I think dogma might be Danob just a little messed up LOL Let me re state the question is this a photograph? Given that images made using traditional cameras and darkrooms are classed as photographs by the majority please dont take that as a given as for some people some of these fall out of the photography bag Given that we use the digital darkroom now and given that the components and textures in this image are from photographs does the digital darkroom processes still make this photography or something else? To answer this as individuals you have to consider how far you would use digital techniques before you no longer consider the image a photograph. It is obvious from the thread that we all have different boundaries for this. I feel I know where mine are I was interested in other peoples, I was not expecting us to agree and I did not want to attempt to say there are any limits. So the question is easy and I think you have all answered it. For Michelle the photograph stops at any image not taken in camera or which a creative effect has been applied. I think this is true of Mike and Dan too Firestorm and Star are sat on the fence Im not sure if they have a take on where photography ends and that something else begins and I am not sure they really care. So, I get to Sylinky no limits, no boundaries, its all Art who cares if its photography or what. All this is great and we are all entitled to our opinions I was just glad that I could make you stop and think about the question. Until the next time. :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

He he oh no I assure you I am not dogma my snapz !! I think its great if this subject can be debated sensibly and yeah we do need to think about this very important aspect as we move into the digital age. Hell I want us all to be creative and have no strong views about using digital effects outside of the camera I do it often I just happen to think that there are more than one platform to exhibit this work and can find nothing wrong with the term digital photographic art or whatever rather than call it photography if the effects or whatever are used where it looks like a photographic image then OK. Whenever these effects are used be it with a camera or scanner some very creative images can be produced many scannings as exhibited in Computer Arts Mag for instance are in many ways superior to what can be accomplished in a camera in the first place and the way technolgy progresses these images are making photography as we know it redundant. Perhaps the term photography is no longer applicable to the new digital age and we need to look at what term we use when we think about all of the ways it is now possible to produce images.

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

Hmmm.....trouble maker...

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

I meant that for mysnapz.....hehe... For some reason the posts seem to be taking along time to show up on my end? Danob's post was not there when I wrote my last post to the thread...but look at the time difference. Hmmmm...more weirdness...

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

Who Me Y? :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

Firestorm and Star are sat on the fence Im not sure if they have a take on where photography ends and that something else begins and I am not sure they really care.

Jeff, I dunno whether I should feel offended by this statement or what. I thought my previous statement was clear enough. If you try to reread my post, I hold the same breath as Slynky's stand on labeling things, and dogma's opinion on keeping an open mind. If my post translates to fence-sitting or apathy to you, well, I don't think you have understood my point. (*

Sorry Star and firestorm no offence intended. I am not going to restate your point in fear of digging a deeper hole for myself. :O)

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

none taken mysnapz ...you are correct though...when i see a creation be it a straight photo, a manipulated photo or a photorealistic rendering, i'm drawn to it because it contains elements that i may like whatever that may be... i just like to appreciate the end product and not get too lost in the mumbo jumbo... while i appreciate the debate, i don't think this will be resolved...just enjoy the pictures and making them :-P

Pictures appear to me, I shoot them.   Elliot Erwitt

S'all kewl... :-)