leekphotographyclub.myfreeforum.org :: Is it photography, or is it art?

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:24 pm

Here's a chance to get an argument going...

With digital technology so common in photography, there comes a point when an image becomes more than just a photo. I am aware that in ye olden days experienced dark room workers could manipulate images, tint them, alter contrast, etc, etc. Now, a program such as Photoshop allows people to do a heck of a lot more and create some weird and wonderful pictures. Personally, I enjoy looking at these, and some are marvellous. But at what point does an image move beyond being a photograph and becomes an graphic/artistic picture? And at what stage would such an image be barred from one of your competitions?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:27 am

Peter,

I don't think there is a simple answer to that one. My gut feel is that when you go much further than levels, saturation, brightness, contrast, crop and moderate amount of cloning then you stray into "graphics". The further you go the more graphic the image becomes.

In terms of our competitions the only rules on "no manipulation" apply to Photojournalism, and for Landscapes the landscape must be real and not "invented".

Other than that knock yourself out!!! I would suggest though that for Natural History anything too weird or wonderful would not get far in the competition.

Check out Don Barker's gallery on the website. He is heavily into graphics and manipulation.

regards,

Rob.

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:52 pm

Hi guys - this subject is right up my street. To my mind, photography is and has always been an art form. As long as the image has been created using photographic principles then it should be acceptable in competitions, except when a true record is required (Natural History, photojournalism etc). Well before computers came onto the scene photographers were creating images in the darkroom WITHOUT the use of a camera. Experimentation was the name of the game and some images were unrecognisable from what we accept as photographs. Nothing has changed with computers. Its just much easier to do now. Consider the meaning of the word "photography". A good definition is..... "The process of forming stable or permanent visible images directly or indirectly by the action of light or other forms of radiation on sensitive surfaces". So, if your image is created by pencil , chalk or paint, then it is not a photograph. If it is created by the sun burning into your skin through a film of leaves that creates a blotchy mass of red sores all over your back, then this could be described as a photograph (assuming you did it for artistic reasons and the print secretary is happy to suspend you on the easle whilst being judged). I once saw a photograph made of grass. An image was projected onto an area of soil that had been sowed with grass seeds. The grass grew greener and longer where there was light and less well where there was no light. .........Brian