when do you consider photography as graphic design?

[iPhoto17]

i was at the mall the other day and there was an advertising booth for a "photographer" and the pictures that were displayed up were obviously photo-shopped to the point that i wouldnt have considered photography.

photography to me means capturing a moment in time for what it really is, and by photoshopping a photo to the point that its a completely different photo seems like cheating to me and then i would not consider it as a photograph but as graphic design.

what are your takes when it comes to photoshop in photography? personally i prefer messing around in a darkroom instead of clicking away on a picture until its completely something different than the original photo

 

[Studio7Four]

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with you, there is a point at which it seems like an image has been manipulated too much to be called "photography". It's such a grey area though that I couldn't even begin to define where that line is.

Just to play devil's advocate, "messing around in a darkroom" is still manipulation. Most of what is done digitally in Photoshop these days comes from film/darkroom origins. Actions such as Dodge and Burn (and even the icons for them in Photoshop) reflect those darkroom origins.

"Capturing a moment in time for what it really is" is pretty much the definition of photojournalism, which while a noble endeavor is only a small part of the realm of photography. If you put ten photographers on a street corner you could get ten very different images, from the most sincere photojournalistic attempt, to an image which tells exactly the opposite story, to a completely abstract image capturing a reflection in a puddle. And all of that with zero post processing manipulation. And that diversity is why photography is so popular as an artform and is not simply boring science (for all the science that goes into doing it well).

 

[iPhoto17]

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with you, there is a point at which it seems like an image has been manipulated too much to be called "photography". It's such a grey area though that I couldn't even begin to define where that line is.

Just to play devil's advocate, "messing around in a darkroom" is still manipulation. Most of what is done digitally in Photoshop these days comes from film/darkroom origins. Actions such as Dodge and Burn (and even the icons for them in Photoshop) reflect those darkroom origins.

"Capturing a moment in time for what it really is" is pretty much the definition of photojournalism, which while a noble endeavor is only a small part of the realm of photography. If you put ten photographers on a street corner you could get ten very different images, from the most sincere photojournalistic attempt, to an image which tells exactly the opposite story, to a completely abstract image capturing a reflection in a puddle. And all of that with zero post processing manipulation. And that diversity is why photography is so popular as an artform and is not simply boring science (for all the science that goes into doing it well).

yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography

 

[KmH]

when do you consider photography as graphic design?

When that is what the artist calls it.

yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography

:thumbdown:

Uh!....Every photo every taken is a fake. So are all paintings. So are all sculptures. So are all graphic arts.

One can easily surmise that all art is fake.

 

[iPhoto17]

when do you consider photography as graphic design?

When that is what the artist calls it.

yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography

:thumbdown:

Uh!....Every photo every taken is a fake. So are all paintings. So are all sculptures. So are all graphic arts.

One can easily surmize that all art is fake.

i dont understand your logic on how photography is fake, so i guess your saying the things we see and touch are fake.....and by "surmize" i think you mean summarize??

 

[12sndsgood]

When I first started seeing how much photos are being changed by P.P. I felt somewhat let down, that people were "faking" pictures. but the more I am geting into photography and viewing other people's work i started viewing it as an art form as well, and i realised its just another way for people to express themselves. There is room for all kinds of photography and people should just enjoy the many different styles available.

 

[12sndsgood]

when do you consider photography as graphic design?

When that is what the artist calls it.

yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography

:thumbdown:

Uh!....Every photo every taken is a fake. So are all paintings. So are all sculptures. So are all graphic arts.

One can easily surmize that all art is fake.

i dont understand your logic on how photography is fake, so i guess your saying the things we see and touch are fake.....and by "surmize" i think you mean summarize??

id say since what your taking is just an image of say a sunset, its not a real sunset. a recreation of an actual sunset. in that sence the pictures is just a copy of the real thing. in essence a fake of the original

 

[white]

What I think KmH is saying is the notion that photography represents "reality" or "truth" is misguided at best. I agree. Photographers -- artists -- have been manipulating their photographs for more than a century.

You said:

photography to me means capturing a moment in time for what it really is,

I love this. So narrow-minded. The underlined part of your quote assumes that events, moments, etc. can be distilled into a "true essence", when the reality is that people perceive things in a myriad of different ways. Maybe the essence of the moment a photographer captures and wishes to portray is intangible, like an emotion.

 

[Fedaykin]

I gotta agree with KmH. Not even a RAW file straight SOOC is an accurate representation of reality. Art to me is a way of expressing how you perceive reality through a medium like photography or painting or the written word.

Sorry but to me you're just coming off as an elitist who states that he doesn't photoshop his images in an effort to feel better about himself and how others perceive him.

My 2 cents.

 

[bentcountershaft]

.....and by "surmize" i think you mean summarize??

I'm pretty sure kmh meant, "surmise" but I could be wrong.

 

[LokiZ]

i was at the mall the other day and there was an advertising booth for a "photographer" and the pictures that were displayed up were obviously photo-shopped to the point that i wouldnt have considered photography.

Were the images something he created from scratch by hand? Or did the pictures he created start from a photograph?

If an artist were start out with a painting and then bring it into Photoshop and continue on from there until such a point was reached that one could no longer tell it had started out as a painting does this mean the artist is not a painter?

photography to me means capturing a moment in time for what it really is, and by photoshopping a photo to the point that its a completely different photo seems like cheating to me and then i would not consider it as a photograph but as graphic design.

The art or profession of Graphic Design has little to do with the amount of change that is to be applied to a photograph. It's more about the communicating of information in such a way as to get a desired outcome or effect. That is usually done by the combining of images, words, and ideas. If your photograph is an image, that through it's composition conveys an idea, then it should be easy to see how a clean capture of one moment in time can itself fall into the category of Graphic Design.

what are your takes when it comes to photoshop in photography? personally i prefer messing around in a darkroom instead of clicking away on a picture until its completely something different than the original photo

I'm pretty sure you are not saying that messing around in a darkroom does not allow the photographer to ebb away on a picture until it's completely something different then the original photo.

I say use whatever works for you.

It is my opinion that you can always misuse tools software, chemicals or whatever you may be using at the time. Unless your using a wrench as a hammer or a screwdriver as a punch my thoughts on your use of a tool is really just an opinion not a fact.

 

[LokiZ]

yes, there are things in photoshop that are done in a darkroom, and vise versa, even in a darkroom you can still do seperate foreground background and middleground as well but photoshop just makes that just so much easier to comine 3 or more elements in separate photos and put them together to make a totally different image, so i guess this argument can go both ways and just say that photoshop just makes it easier to fake photos and call it photography

- You call it fake, I call it composite.

- Poor HDR dudes... your images are fake!

- Ask a die hard film guys who has never touched a computer and I am sure he'll tell you photoshop is not easier.

- Filters on the front of a camera distort or bend the truth in order to make it look more closely to the way the photographer wishes. This then makes the image "fake" before it's even downloaded or developed? Rats! KMH, you are right I guess!

 

[KmH]

i dont understand your logic on how photography is fake, so i guess your saying the things we see and touch are fake.....and by "surmize" i think you mean summarize??

Cameras don't work like the human eye. They can only record an approximation of what we see. The human eye works non-linearly, cameras are only capable of linear performance, hence, all photos are fake. There has also been pre and post production, to one degree or another, involved with every photo that has ever been made.
And no, I did not mean summarize. I typed a "z" when I wanted to type an "s" and failed (again) at proofing a post. :blushing:

Surmise | Define Surmise at Dictionary.com

 

[Derrel]

It ceases to be photography and becomes graphic design once it crosses over that imaginary line between photography and graphic design!

 

[Garbz]

It becomes graphic design when the photo itself is either no longer used or there was no photo to begin with. If someone takes a photo it's still photography.

Photoshopping is as old as the art, dating back to long before colour film where people would manually paint colour onto their prints. It was still photography then, why should image manipulation now be any different?