should photos that have been altered so drastically/dramatically in photoshop still be called photography?Or?

Question

is it digital art? I believe that real photography lies with the photographer and his lens, polorisers, etc allowed. Doctoring it in photoshop or similar software afterwards turns it into artwork. Any photographers out there? I'm not a purist but I see their objections

Answer 1

No - I believe that digitally manipulated photographs should have another name to differentiate the art of the photograher. I have taken both beautiful and unusual photographs & would find it insulting that they can be thought of as "manipulated digitally," In early photography, photographers were experimenting with different processes, chemicals, ideas even when they processed their own printing paper. They were creative & innovative. It was their own personal work and energy. Photoshop, etc., has simply emulated those early photography processes and ideas. Nothing wrong with this, that's progress, but I do like your thoughts that digital photography should have a different name, because it is artifical photography art. Also, once you have a negative of a photograph, you have total evidence that it is not manipulated and it is totally your own work. Enhancement by Photoshop, etc., is the grey area of the slr film camera photographs. For those interested look up the website, or books, of Michel Tcherevkoff. His large format photographs are absolutely amazing. Digital photographers would swear they were digitally done. They were not. I have been fortunate enough to photograph large icebergs. They are naturally the most beautiful blue - a digital photographer, would say "they had been touched up."

Answer 2

This is one of the oldest debates in photography and has been going on long before Photoshop. In fact this debate has been going on since the days of the Dagguereotype. However for this to be a relevent argument we have to be talking about the same type of photography. As you know there are many genres of photography, ranging from fine art, to commercial, to photo journalism. Each genre has it's own unique protocols which it follows. For example the tolerance level of photo manipulation in the field of photo journalism is not the same as in the fine art field. For photo journalism to be a relevant field in which people trust and subscribe to as a source of information image manipulation must be kept to a bare minimum. On the other hand fine art photography has always been a bastion for those who wish to display a reality which is altered from a state in which we see. Like other people said earlier, members of the F64 group in which Ansel Adams was a member of, a group which founded itself on the premise of straight photography did in themselves manipulate the image in the darkroom quite a bit. If you have ever seen Ansel's negatives you would know what I mean. For example if you have seen the negative of Ansel's moonrise over hernandez you will see that the negative itself is quite flat, and that through burning and dodging ansel was able to get the print that we are all so familiar with these days, although beit there are many different versions of that print.
The way I personally sum up this debate is this, the camera sees a reality which although similar to how we see is a reality which is not exactly ours. Through various cameras, lenses, film, chemicals, and digital tools the reality of the subject can be changed significantly. Photography is not exactly reality. The reality of the camera and the reality of the human mind and eye are different. Though fields such as photo journalism may scorn photo manipulation the fact is simple the camera sees a world different than our own. When I take a photo I close my eyes, previsualize how I will print the scene, then reopen my eyes and photograph the scene. At least for fine art photography, an image is mainly about how we visualize the world, not about how the camera visualizes it.

Answer 3

Like a previous answer said, this discussion has been going on for decades. Even in the days of black and white large format, people Ansel Adams used to slave away endlessly in post production, dodging and burning etc. to get a print just so. They considered that as much a part of photography as taking the picture in the first place.
I also agree that a certain amount of post processing is permissible. I use Photoshop to reduce noise, sharpen, do white balance and color corrections, and dodge and burn without any sense that I'm cheating. Cropping and retouching skin blemishes, etc. is getting pretty iffy. And anything beyond that, I'd consider digital art.

Answer 4

I do not believe that "all" photos are altered. If you consider the judicious use of multiple exposures and layer masking then how can you say that you have altered the image? In my opinion, you as the photographer have brought together your collective skills (hardware, software, and knowledge) to produce an image that would otherwise be unobtainable on film or any other type of media without hours of post processing. However I do agree with the previous users in that if you are editing images for personal gain as in the recent incident with CNN, then that is fraud.

Answer 5

You can get away with a limited amount of alteration to make the photo neat and tidy such as colour balancing, desaturation to b&w, or removal of unwanted artifacts such as pixels of bright colour (which digital camera images sometimes suffer from on long exposures, similar to dust on a negative) or a blurred bird flying by - typical stuff that a pro would have done to their master print in a dark room, any more and it becomes art or some other thing.

Answer 6

Photo shop is just a bit of fun but why not take out pylons or wires
in an otherwise lovely view and for children putting heads back and front on a swan eg it won't go away so try to accept it for what it is and don't take it seriously and didn't the masters have 2 or 3 goes before they got it right

Answer 7

This debate has been raging since Photoshop hit the shelves.
Basically, photography is capturing an image using a camera.
Tweaking or enhancing is changing the colour, hue, cropping etc.
Photo manipulation is adding anything to the image. And its an art form.

Answer 8

Id say its an art anything done to the picture after it was taken besides croping and similar things that don't alter the photo as far as content.

In a court of law, usually, any photo doctored up will be thrown out as far as evidence is concerned.

themindzeye gave a good answer also.

Answer 9

Sorry about this.
A photograph is take in the traditional way with a traditional camera.
The film developed traditionally, and care taken to convert the negative into a posative image in the darkroom.

An image is anything that is done digitaly

Answer 10

Depends on what you're talking about, when you say alter?

I.E. turning it from color, to black and white... Improving color.. removing red-eye?
I.E. Taking a picture, might not turn out quite bright enough...Brightening it, I think is fine..
Enhancing what's already taken, I think, is fine.. as it's just improving the quality of what you actually took..

Adding things that aren't there, however, is artwork..
I mean, if you have two people in two seperate pictures, then you want to put them together as if you took one photograph of them, I think that's just artwork...