This is a photo I took last year:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/es01.jpg
This is another photo:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/es02.jpg
The hardware I used to take them, and the little usual PC processing
(optimization) won't make them less photos than In case I took them on a
daguerreotype, or any other known photographic technology.
This is the use someone made of those pictures:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/es03.jpg
Of course, this is not a photo, despite so much of the original images is
still there (more than in case of Washington's ax), That's an illustration,
purposedly made for such use.
If I did the same for my own pleasure, I could call it either an image, or
(probably) a picture. Not sure, since I'm afraid I can misunderstand nuances
of English, which is not my language.
However, such kind of tricks has not been invented nowadays, hence both the
question and the answer are as old as photography. Is a double exposure on
film a photo?
All the best,
Dario
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
So, at what point does photography become something other ... if you
change
the background in Photoshop, add or remove an object, manipulate the color
substantially, alter skin tone, remove blemishes, lines, and wrinkles ....
at some point there's more Photoshop than photograph. I'm reminded of the
fellow who bought the original ax George Washington used to cut down the
proverbial cherry tree. It had the handle replaced five time and a new
head installed an equal number of times. Is it still George Washington's
original axe?
