Rod,
In the case of your work it all still clearly looks to have come from one original photograph. The case I was questioning was clearly work that had been made from multiple images and had a large amount of creation of non photographic elements via digital paint. I would never single out the specific person to show as an example, nor am I questioning the quality of their work. I just think that there is a certain point where calling it photography is a stretch.
For instance, look at a lot of the work that is posted on the Photoshop Magazine website(http://www.advancedphotoshop.co.uk/). There is clearly a lot of work on there that would really be stretching the definition of photography.
Eric Clay
fadedbeauty.com
--- In artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com, Rod Melotte <grinder12000@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting - I suppose I am a digital art photographer. Heck - I have even had
> people insult me saying "I LIKE REAL PAINT" and then they scurry off. I've also
> had people say "OH - it's all photoshop, not real art.
>
>
> Of course I laugh all the way to the bank.
>
> I like the term "digital art" because I spend half my day telling people just
> what they are looking at. I do draw a VERY sharp line though as I never ADD an
> object, no rainbows or extra unicorns.
>
>
> Notice my business is "Photo Imagery" and not "photography".
>
> I'm not sure your question has an answer since there would be so many rules - Is
> Ansel Adams photos photography? He manipulated all of his! At what point does
> pixel bending stop being photography!
>
>
> (as you can tell - I don't have a clue and my brain hurts now).
>
> Rod
>
> www.melottephotoimagery.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: silenceintonoise <silenceintonoise@...>
> To: artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 6:54:18 PM
> Subject: [artshow_photo] When does a photo stop being a photo?
>
>
> Hello, my name is Eric and this is actually my first post here. I was anxious to
> get some feedback on one of my blog posts regarding an observation I made at a
> recent show and thought this would be a good place for it...
>
> I took some time out this past weekend to walk around the art festival in
> Gainesville that I was exhibiting at. With somewhere around twenty-six
> photographers exhibiting there, I was curious to see what kind of work was being
> shown. Overall, the predominate theme was of Florida landscape and nature
> photography. There was also several photographers with their own niches of
> landscapes and scenery from a variety of regions, florals, and a few unique
> people study collections. However, the one display that really caught my
> attention was from an artist whose work consisted of heavily manipulated
> surrealist images that were very prominently being declared as photographs. This
> lead me to ask myself the often debated question of "When does a photograph stop
> being a photo?"
>
> On a semi-regular basis I get asked, "Did you do a lot of post-manipulation to
> your images?" The answer, of course, is it depends on which image you are asking
> about. With most of the images that I am currently displaying at art shows, the
> editing is usually limited to color correction or conversion, expansion of the
> dynamic range, and on a rare occasion the removal of a distracting element.
> Overall though, in almost all my images the base photo has only had a level of
> manipulation that could have been achieved in a traditional darkroom.
>
> With that being said, I am in no way a photo purist that believes that a
> photograph should appear exactly as the original scene appeared. However, i do
> feel there is a certain point at which a photo has had so much digital
> manipulation that it can no longer be classified as purely a photograph and has
> now crossed a line into what should be under the "digital art" category.
>
> I have noticed that some art shows do have a specific category for "digital
> art". Though, in some cases such as The Melbourne Art Festival, there is
> actually no longer a photography category and only a digital arts category. This
> seems extremely wrong, since a photographer that is still using traditional
> photography is clearly not a "digital artist".
>
> What really bothered me about this one artist though was that he was pushing
> that he was a "photographer" in such a big way. He had a large metallic sign in
> his booth with his name underlined with the title "photographer". In my opinion
> there had been so much splicing of multiple images and digital painting that
> this could no longer really be considered photography. It also kind of makes me
> want to see his source images, since when there is this amount of manipulation
> being performed it would be easy to cannibalize stock images into your work
> without anyone being able to tell.
>
> Really, just like many other debates this is an entirely subjective debate and
> without some clearly defined standard there really is no clear cut answer. So,
> what do you think, when does a photo stop being a photo?
>
> Eric Clay
> fadedbeauty.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment