Photography or photo manipulation?

[Buckster]

Photography:

the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.


No where in the definition does is state where the line is drawn as there is no line.

Thank you for the definition...and your opinion for which I asked. While I do agree that photography does include a certain amount of processing, I also think that some pieces would better fit into a Mixed Media category. Is there anything wrong with Mixed Media, absolutely not.

Here's a question: Why does it need to be defined anyway? What good would a "line" in the sand actually do?

 

[jake337]

Photography:

the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.


No where in the definition does is state where the line is drawn as there is no line.

Thank you for the definition...and your opinion for which I asked. While I do agree that photography does include a certain amount of processing, I also think that some pieces would better fit into a Mixed Media category. Is there anything wrong with Mixed Media, absolutely not.

That wasn't my opinion. It was just the definition which you cannot manipulate to fit your opinion.

Where is the line drawn and who will be drawing it? You? Me? Some other person?

 

[GDHLEWIS]

If I had to absolutely draw a line I think once you start messing with layers and other similar processes then your in the manipulation stage. But just adjusting levels, cropping and similar minor adjustments your good.
Am sure others will disagree with me but hay ho such is life

 

[jake337]

But in all seriousness we are just......

 

[Lumani]

I'm just struggling to decide if I should include such practice to help promote my work.

Do you think it will help?

You obviously have a problem with other photographers enhancing their photographs, so why not step back to look at the big picture? IOW: Is it that some folks just use too much and make it seem like it's totally invented? Yes, I've seen that, and it's not my style, but if those folks can sell more photos, then why not?

So you get to decide if more fantastical editing will promote your business.

Actually, your quite mistaken in thinking I have a problem with anything. Of course your welcome to your opinion. As stated, I am a digital painter as well as a traditional painter and I would consider myself a beginner photographer. I have also digitally manipulated several photos into one new completely different image. It is not a lack of skill or jealousy in not being able to do so. I may not have been completely clear in my question and for that I apologize. Digital enhancement and editing are to be expected, and I have 0 issues with that. What I am wondering is, how much editing or digital paint is required before it would fall under a mixed media category. Thanks for your opinions, I do appreciate that you took the time to answer.

 

[Vtec44]

What I am wondering is, how much editing or digital paint is required before it would fall under a mixed media category.

I would say at 50.01%

 

[JacaRanda]

I'm just struggling to decide if I should include such practice to help promote my work.

Do you think it will help?

You obviously have a problem with other photographers enhancing their photographs, so why not step back to look at the big picture? IOW: Is it that some folks just use too much and make it seem like it's totally invented? Yes, I've seen that, and it's not my style, but if those folks can sell more photos, then why not?

So you get to decide if more fantastical editing will promote your business.

What I am wondering is, how much editing or digital paint is required before it would fall under a mixed media category.

You get to decide...............for yourself. Easy.

 

[Dave442]

Here is one definition on when you cross from a photo to a photo-manipulation (something you may have already seen):
Photomanipulation vs. Digital Mixed Media

I think if you can help you business by using your digital artist skills then you are correct to consider doing that.

 

[vipgraphx]

i love to manipulate the crap out of a photo, thats why I bought the software and tend to use if for the purpose intended!

Why not?

 

[unpopular]

1) Be a purist, who does little to no post processing... I call these people "flat earth" photographers, who believe what they believe despite all evidence that shows that there is a better way... (I mean, honestly, if it's a digital image, there is ZERO image purity coming off of that sensor. The sensor is designed to enhance certain things, the lenses are designed to enhance certain things, the camera's software is designed to enhance certain things, your computer's software is as well, yadda yadda yadda...

Such photographers never did exist. They did not exist with film, they don't exist now. There is nothing more intrinsically "native" or "pure" about film, and if anything, film is more response-specific than digital is today.

 

[Derrel]

Digital enhancement and editing are to be expected, and I have 0 issues with that. What I am wondering is, how much editing or digital paint is required before it would fall under a mixed media category.

I think the US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's words of wisdom might be applicable to defining if an image is a photograph, or is a mixed media image. Stewart was attempting to define hard-core pornography, but we can use his wise words to differentiate photographs from mixed media images. He wrote:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

We only need to modify that a little bit! "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["mixed media images"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know a mixed media image when I see it," and BOOM! We're good to go!

 

[Dao]

I really do not think people can draw a line. All images come out from a digital camera are altered some how digitally. And there are photos that you did not even know it was altered.
i.e. Camera Works: Photo Essay (washingtonpost.com)

I will say do not worry too much on what others do. Do what you think is the best for you.

I can ask the same question. Real burger or fake burger? How much fillers or flavors added to the burger will consider a fake burger? A burger restaurant owner can say his/her burger are made with all real beef with no added flavors. However the burger chain stores around the area are heavily manipulated their products to make them taste better. Should the restaurant owner join the game?

 

[vfotog]

while in general I'm not big on rules, it also depends on what you are shooting and why. If it's art photography, or just for fun, the sky's the limit. OTOH, if you are shooting in the area of photojournalism, little manipulation is acceptable. Whether it's news or sports, etc you don't want to change the facts. When it comes to contests and the like, often the rules allow very little manipulation other than some brightness and contrast tweaking. The end purpose is generally going to decide what is "ethical".

 

[vintagesnaps]

I've done sports etc. and my style has always been more consistent with journalistic standards; I'm not inclined to photoshop things and people in and out of pictures. Whether I'm shooting film or digitally I do little post processing, whether it's wet darkroom or digital (of course there's a process to any of it, if I take film out of the camera I'm not going to see any pictures am I unless I get it developed?) - I don't do much dodging and burning, I may do some brightening and adjusting contrast, I might print directly from the media card, depends on what needs to be done.

But I don't think I could change my style to what's popular or the latest thing that some people may want. I mean, if they want cheap that's probably what they'll go with, they can find plenty of that out there. If they want photos that look like they've been photoshopped to within an inch of their lives, that's probably what they'll go look for.

If someone looks at your site and doesn't see the quality or doesn't want gorgeous, beautifully done photographs, then maybe they have rocks in their head. I'd think people would go by what they see on your site. It does seem to be challenging for photographers to stay in business.

I think there can be gray areas, but it seems clear with your work if it's a photograph and when it's digital art. I also do some alt. processes and I usually describe that as such, a lumen print, a double exposure, etc. since I'd consider those photographic processes but not strictly photographs.

I think your photos are incredibly good, I don't think I'd mess with a good thing. I would expect that some of the recent trends may run their course, but of course I don't know, and don't have to make money at it to worry about it.

 

[dennybeall]

Mixed media says two or more medias, not one media manipulated. I would think you'd have to take a photo and then add another media - which you could do with a brush in Photoshop or paint the print or cut it up and paste it on a poster.