This type of argument is reminiscent of the early twentieth century when painters developed styles that were merely abstract representations of reality rather than literal interpretations. The cry went up from many critics that these works were not "art" and should be given a different name. Digital manipulation is part of photography's future. By the way, manipulation of photographs has been around for a long time. My dad did it when he worked as a retouching engraver on Life and Time magazines in the late forties through the mid sixties. He frequently was told to remove an element from a photo or to change the color of a piece of clothing. Some of those shots became famous examples of photographic art. Paul
> I never considered adding and removing elements to a photograph as > photography. That was all done later, after the photo was taken or made, > using a variety of techniques that only sometimes took place in a darkroom. > There was physically pasting and cutting of different elements into and out > of a photograph (making a collage) and then rephotographing the result, air > brushing , masking and painting on negatives (done that myself), tinting or > colorizing a photograph, and so on. None of these are photographic > techniques, and none required a darkroom. > > I'm not saying they are not valid ways of expression, but I just don't see > them as part of photography, or the photographic process, per se. They are > all manipulations done TO a photograph after the photograph has been made. > > The point of the article, as I understood it, is that it doesn't matter > what you "capture," you can always change it later in Photoshop. Instead > of relying on your eye for framing properly and good exposure techniques, > or seeking out a good subject and waiting for good light, Photoshop will > allow you to make something that wasn't there. The article suggested that > this is consistent with "making a good photograph." May I suggest that it > should more correctly called something other. > > I don't hear any "quacking" coming from my computer when using Photoshop. > Perhaps I need to turn the sound up. > > Using > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Christian > > > If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, what > is > > it? > > > > "photographers" have been manipulating images to the same extent as today > > since the first picture was made. changing backgrounds, adding elements, > > removing elements etc has all been done in the darkroom before the advent > of > > "digital" photography/processing. > > > > If the final result is something that includes many pieces and most of > those > > pieces were made with a camera (and perhaps manipulated in a PC or a > > darkroom ) and it is printed either digitally or in a darkroom, it must > be a > > "photograph" and the process of producing it must be "photography." > > > > Photography is an art, whether it is snapshots of your kids or street > > photography, journalism, nature photography or heavily manipulated > collages. > > They are all done by "painting with light" and there are many ways of > > producing and interpreting said "art." > > > > Really what Shel and E. are saying is that they don't like this FORM of > > photography; purists that they are. > > > > Honestly, as a graphic art, I think it has a place but I don't pursue it > as > > an art form because I'm not interested in the process. But to me, heretic > > that I am, it's still "photography." > > > > Christian > >
