Definition of a photograph: A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
So, um, when it isn't that any more, I guess.
I must confess I don't really understand the question. If you're saying that a photo is only "real" when it hasn't been edited, then it's a topic that's been brought up hundreds of time, I'm afraid.
Time to update that definition, unless digital images are not photos?
I'm not saying a photo is real or fake at any point, I'm simply curious as to what other people think. I do not believe there is a right or wrong answer, just opinions to be heard or explained
sorry, I meant post any of your pictures that come to mind when you wonder this yourself
A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
When is a photo no longer a photo? What? I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound cranky, and probably with all respect to this wonderful community should not even be responding to this, but why is this being asked? I took Philosophy in College, and did enjoy it, believe it or not, but as the old saying goes, "what does this actually have to do with the price of butter?"
I apologize for my apparent immature response. Really do.
@beautifulthing ,my bad... sorry. Does that leave it more open for interpretation? o.0
@cluvlj- curiosity that has been nagging and nothing more.
It is by no means meant to be a serious or argumentative, and it doesn't seem immature to want to avoid negativity :p
I think I get what Binny is grasping at - at some point you have crossed from photography into graphic art. But there are so many shades of gray (literally and figuratively) that to me the point is moot. Like the difference between an original music recording artist and a DJ who remixes and combines songs to create a new work of art. So I default to "art is in the eye of the beholder."
Side note - I think most professional portrait photographers use Lightroom or Photoshop for workflow with minimal editing - not because of a philosophical view but because it is not cost effective to do much editing. But I don't think they would say that their photographs are more "real" than a heavily processed photos. It is about what the client/viewer wants.
@binny Thanks. I like what John K has to say. All I can say is, take pictures, images, or whatever you would like to call them. Have fun, and don't go into analysis paralysis. It robs creativity.
How much editing causes it to go from being a photo to not a photo? If it was taken with a camera it is a photo... if it is edited then it is an edited photo, if it is heavily edited then it is a heavily edited photo, if it is edited beyond the point of recognition of the original subject, then it is a photo that is edited beyond the point of recognition of the original subject. Aren't all the canvasses, walls, or whatever by Picasso, Monet, van Gogh, and da Vinci considered paintings? They had way different styles, but all used paint, therefore their works are all paintings. Every shot taken with a camera is a photo... The. End.
This topic has been beat to death! And no good has ever come from it. Try looking under sooc and you will find many discussions about this.
@binny Well, photography means painting with light right?
How is painting with light pixles in post production any different than painting with light when you take the photo.
I think what you're asking is when is a photo no longer the moment captured.
@grecican@veekay Thanks... For some reason this is a very touchy subject with me... probably because I am an editor more than a sooc-er and I feel like I have to defend that to the "purists." I have more patience when it comes to editing than I do trying to capture or set up the perfect shot. My sister is the exact opposite... she will move, wait and arrange to get the perfect shot and not even need to crop it. She used film for years and I jumped on the digital bandwagon when that parade first came to town... I think that plays a big role in our two viewpoints. That being said, she does have fun with editing sometimes and I have fun trying to get the perfect shot sometimes. But, as I stated above... we both start out and end up with photos! And we each totally support and respect the other person's photography.
You have it Neda/ "How is painting with light pixels in post production any different than painting with light when you take the photo...when is a photo no longer the moment captured. "
Here is one: I made a pseudoHDR with Photomatix Pro using the maximum "grunge" effect, to post as a response to ignorant dolts that had kidnapped a discussion such as this right here for their own purposes of inebriation and lackidasical carelessness. The photo now no longer shows the image of the neon artwork, but only an insult to the original artist's intention. The insult was meant for the discussion forum kidnappers. But a lot of folks said they liked the image. So, in the end, I discovered that the moment captured was still there, even though processed to the extreme. However, this has turned art captured by the camera into a gaudy image meant to display the ignorance of the insolent site kidnappers.
I'd actually like to do this again, only a little differently next time.
Then again, who's winning?
Your guess is as good as anyone else's. I view the first two as crossing over the border, more into manipulation, but the last two as photographs. YMMV
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I've no answers for you. Sorry
A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
So, um, when it isn't that any more, I guess.
I must confess I don't really understand the question. If you're saying that a photo is only "real" when it hasn't been edited, then it's a topic that's been brought up hundreds of time, I'm afraid.
I'm not saying a photo is real or fake at any point, I'm simply curious as to what other people think. I do not believe there is a right or wrong answer, just opinions to be heard or explained
sorry, I meant post any of your pictures that come to mind when you wonder this yourself
A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
I apologize for my apparent immature response. Really do.
@cluvlj- curiosity that has been nagging and nothing more.
It is by no means meant to be a serious or argumentative, and it doesn't seem immature to want to avoid negativity :p
Side note - I think most professional portrait photographers use Lightroom or Photoshop for workflow with minimal editing - not because of a philosophical view but because it is not cost effective to do much editing. But I don't think they would say that their photographs are more "real" than a heavily processed photos. It is about what the client/viewer wants.
This topic has been beat to death! And no good has ever come from it. Try looking under sooc and you will find many discussions about this.
How is painting with light pixles in post production any different than painting with light when you take the photo.
I think what you're asking is when is a photo no longer the moment captured.
Here is one: I made a pseudoHDR with Photomatix Pro using the maximum "grunge" effect, to post as a response to ignorant dolts that had kidnapped a discussion such as this right here for their own purposes of inebriation and lackidasical carelessness. The photo now no longer shows the image of the neon artwork, but only an insult to the original artist's intention. The insult was meant for the discussion forum kidnappers. But a lot of folks said they liked the image. So, in the end, I discovered that the moment captured was still there, even though processed to the extreme. However, this has turned art captured by the camera into a gaudy image meant to display the ignorance of the insolent site kidnappers.
I'd actually like to do this again, only a little differently next time.
Then again, who's winning?
Your guess is as good as anyone else's. I view the first two as crossing over the border, more into manipulation, but the last two as photographs. YMMV
@morrisroos- good point as well, it's a pity...
@webfoot- very creative, really love the koi, thank you for sharing :)