when a photo is no longer a photo

[Bambi]

all good points!
(Just looking for a little discussion to liven up a cold january day! )

I agree that even if I say something is no longer a photo that that's not a slight. I quite like abstract art and dont care if it stemmed from paint or pixels. I too like the term 'artography' and plan to use it in the future.

I actually don't have a problem with processing-whether it occurs in a darkroom or a computer. I do get annoyed when people think that the only reason a photo is good is because of PS.

[jchurill]

It's all in the eye of the beholder. I've been struggling with others on this same question? Not on the question itself, but rather the way my work is critiqued?

I had one PS artist say I can do that with some simple filtures and textures. Well that's true, but this is real! I've also had a photographer say I don't know what I'm looking at, rather then just appreicate the textures, colors and shapes.

The real question is, no matter how much PS is done, it's weather the origin is real or not! Fiction or non-fiction? Based on a true story if you will. It adds a level of interest to the piece! Just as much as knowing a piece is near 100% as shot! That's what excites me!

So to answer the question.......I don't think you can!.............It's just not that B&W!.............

[Marko]

We have had this one before for sure

I mostly agree with A.L and MA here, but we are old timers (even though we are not that old...but we come from darkroom world thinking), and our points of view are dying fast.

I'm pretty much okay with basic editing in pshop...and there is a HUGE muddy middle ground after that. Certainly, for me, running a filter and achieving a result that I could never obtain w/my camera, makes the image digital art/mixed media and not photography...... and almost NOBODY cares about this...except the purists

[Michaelaw]

Great ... but for what???

For being too cryptic. All I meant was that it's a matter of personal opinion but I've seen the debate get pretty heated when that opinion is attempted to be forced on another.

[Foots]

Okay - it is a blah January day and all I am doing is chores - so I would like to throw something else in the mix.

You all have probably seen the Dove commercial on YouTube - where a woman was processed to look essentially more beautiful - although she looked perfectly fine beforehand.

This whole world of modelliing, magazines and advertisement to a whole new level of "digitally enhanced".

Is the image of a model, digitally enhanced, a photo of the model or is it art?

Did I mention I was doing chores .............. must be making me crazy .....

[AcadieLibre]

Okay - it is a blah January day and all I am doing is chores - so I would like to throw something else in the mix.

You all have probably seen the Dove commercial on YouTube - where a woman was processed to look essentially more beautiful - although she looked perfectly fine beforehand.

This whole world of modelliing, magazines and advertisement to a whole new level of "digitally enhanced".

Is the image of a model, digitally enhanced, a photo of the model or is it art?

Did I mention I was doing chores .............. must be making me crazy .....

Digital art, and there is a backlash against all this digital enhancements of models, although I really doubt it will stop it is just a current topic and backlash until the next thing to rail against comes along. I have been shooting a lot of models as of late and do not digitally enhance at all, so again it is up to the photographer and the people paying for the work.

PS: Why I am here blah January day and I cannot even do housework so I am really bored lol, and need a break from looking at my own work so here I am just rambling on.

One more PS: Just saw this on Newsweek and just recently did a small photo story on it.

[Mad Aussie]

For being too cryptic. All I meant was that it's a matter of personal opinion but I've seen the debate get pretty heated when that opinion is attempted to be forced on another.

Ah ok. Hence why I said 'my eye' and 'to me' to make it clear this is 'my' opinion ... at present at least.

[Mad Aussie]

Okay - it is a blah January day and all I am doing is chores - so I would like to throw something else in the mix.

You all have probably seen the Dove commercial on YouTube - where a woman was processed to look essentially more beautiful - although she looked perfectly fine beforehand.

This whole world of modelliing, magazines and advertisement to a whole new level of "digitally enhanced".

Is the image of a model, digitally enhanced, a photo of the model or is it art?
.....

I'm going to say 'photo' because she still looks real. Assuming that she does.

Although ... if it includes making her more skinny .... bumping up the boobs, adding beauty spots etc then I'd go for 'digital enhancement.'
If all they've done is brighten her lips and eyes, some sharpening, smooth the skin, maybe remove a blemish or two, that sort of thing ... then I'm perfectly fine with accepting it as a photo.
WHICH is almost a double standard ... but where do you draw the line? How much digital enhancement is too much? Subjectivity comes into play big time here I think.

Although many of the digital techniques and tools are actually digital copies of long practiced photography and film techniques from the film glory days, they are actually able to be applied in stronger ways than ever before in many cases.
I'm happy to accept this as technological improvement and can't see much point in using a digital camera if I wasn't willing to accept that, and enjoy the choices it provides and extra ways to express our 'art.'

I don't call myself a purist, and my film camera days amount to not a lot really ... just a hobby I had for a short while. The digital age and the internet have provided me with a medium to express my creativity through photography but also to be able to share it, receive feedback, help others, and even make a few bucks from it from time to time.

[casil403]

That newsweek article just makes me mad looking at it....mad to the point I just can't even go there as far as being able to competently express myself.
When are body images in print going to get realistic?

[Marko]

That's right, the whole hyper-retouching thing.....yup it definitely applies here....AND it gets my blood boiling more than overfiltering a subject. At least there, it's obvious the photo is no longer a photo.

With over-retouching, the photo still looks real (usually).
It is just that it is completely fraudulent and meant to sell more panty hose, make-up, the magazine itself etc. It's a pernicious force; especially in the beauty industry.