Photography and Art

just a topic from other site...your own opinion counts...

if you apply post processing to a photograph, is it still a Photograph? Or is it an Art?
when does post processing crosses the border between photography and art?


My opinion: post processing of photographs for cropping, levels, balance, and corrections of exposures etc, but no to the extend of changing the main colors and composition..is still a photograph...otherwise adding subject/object, reversing colours or other effects or alike are...Art of Photography..

how about you...what is/are your opinion/s?

When I think of post processing it is exactly what one would do to develop a photo in the dark room. Adjusting your levels, curves etc.. to develop the photo. Anything past that IMO is no longer a photo.

Photography becomes art when you start messing around with what the photograph really was or is.

A camera is a mechanical device. It takes photographs. Once you edit that in any form, crop, sharpen etc it becomes art, it is than something you created from the photograph...

Not all photos are art - just as not all art is a photo...

We begin making something a work of art the second we decide on which lens to use. It becomes art when we start making choices about composition. It even becomes art when we try to come as close as possible to reality. The skill of the cameraman and the photographers ability to pick and use the various tools available to complete the image makes it an art form.

It only becomes a photograph when some one picks up a camera and snaps a shot without a thought about the final outcome - even then one might get lucky and produce some art. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then...

well said Chasrich
I think if you are shooting with art in mind then it starts before you pick up your camera.
I have thought about a photograph for a long time before I even pick up my camera. Then there is the time when I will be looking through the lens and compose a shot with a art like message that I see.
Then there are times when I just get the nut

I would have to agree that once you make a decission about lens, settings etc, than you are having an effect on the outcome, so it would be art...

Such a subjective question.
I like the definitions our club uses for competitions.
The first group of categories (Scenic, Nature, Portarit, etc.) contain the following statement. What follows are those that are different.

Quick Check: Does the image look normal? If so then it meets the criteria of "Digital Realism" where enhancements and modifications are allowed to improve the presentation, but without changing the taken truth of the original image.

If your answer is No, then this image should be submitted in the "Altered Realism" category.

Altered Realism
CATEGORY RULES: Images where the photographer can use the full capabilities of photo editing software to enhance the image, while maintaining a realistic looking picture. Elements, such as clouds, plants, animals, people, buildings, etc., from one or more images may be combined into a single image.

Quick Check: Does the image look realistic? If so then it meets the criteria of "Altered Realism".

Creative or Digital Art
CATEGORY RULES: Images that display obvious "Altered Reality". This category is designed to show the creativity of the photographer, as well as his or her skills with image editing. Images in this category will be judged on their imagination, creativity, uniqueness, and editing skills.

Quick Check: Does the image look realistic? If not then it meets the criteria of "Creative or Digital Art".

---

Rhetorical questions. When does a child's crayon drawing become art? What about DaVinci's sketches?

nice one...i got the point now...thanks sir..

I think the post processing is editing and where it crosses the line into something more is probably subjective. I think if it goes beyond editing the photo it becomes more of an altered photo or a photo illustration; just doing that doesn't necessarily make it art. I think to become art involves a thought process and a purpose as to what you're creating.

Art is the manipulation of nature by a conscious mind.

Photography is using light sensitive materials/devices to create images.

Editing is sorting through a selection of photographs.

There is no such thing as an un-processed or un-manipulated photograph.

"It is rather amusing, this tendency of the wise to regard a print which has been locally manipulated as irrational photography – this tendency which finds an esthetic tone of expression in the word faked. A manipulated print may be not a photograph. The personal intervention between the action of the light and the print itself may be a blemish on the purity of photography. But, whether this intervention consists merely of marking, shading and tinting in a direct print, or of stippling, painting and scratching on the negative, or of using glycerine, brush and mop on a print, faking has set in, and the results must always depend upon the photographer, upon his personality, his technical ability and his feeling. But long before this stage of conscious manipulation has been begun, faking has already set in. In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in dark-room the developer is mixed for detail, breadth, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact, every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." - Edward Steichen in 1903

An interesting essay on art, photography, and technology: www.huntingtonwitherill.com/resources/articles_farewell.php

"The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics." -Manuel Alvarez Bravo