|
Re: When is photography not photography?
[Re: Peggy Sue]
#31045
09/05/10 05:08 PM
09/05/10 05:08 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
James Morrissey
I
|
I
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
|
Hey Peggy,
Did you know that you always impress me when you share your work? You are always pushing the envelope in some way. That sure is lovely. Photography is an art, so i don't mind manipulating it as such. I wonder though if this really is photography though? As i understand it, what makes it 'photography' is that it was performed on a flatbed photo scanner.
Anyway, oddly enough, I decided to look up the definitions of photography and it DOES seem to fit. It is definitely challenging my assumptions of what photography is. I had always thought that camera was an integral part of photography, but maybe it is not.
Anyway, i definitely think this is art...and really quite lovely. I also think it can be loosely defined as photography, but in my opinion, it only loosely counts.:)
James
|
|
|
Re: When is photography not photography?
[Re: James Morrissey]
#31046
09/05/10 11:56 PM
09/05/10 11:56 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2010
USA, Ohio
Attila Kegyes
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Aug 2010
USA, Ohio
|
This is definietly an Art but not Photography at all. I don't think so we can call everything as photography which provide photorealistic image. This scanner art is a form of digital art, like digital photography, but a digital photogrpahy standing somewhere in the line between digital art and photography. Depending how many, and what kind of manipulations was made on the digital image, it still can be photography, or can step over the line into a digital art.
Why we can't call the scanner art as photography? To understand it, we have to take a look around in other art forms. Let's start with painting. It is a pictorial art form, but just because creating picture like photography or drawing, we can't put them in a same category. They are all pictures but they are not same! But it is not enough, because even the painting is divided mostly for two different category: oil painting and watercolor! Both are painting, and made by hand, but yet completly different! Need different technic, different skill, different materials! They not called just simple as painting a hand created picture. They are called in a distuingished name! Oil painting and water color! It is as much different as digital and conventional photography.
Then here is a drawing. Also can be down using different technics, and tools like pencile, or crayon, or pen. And just because a picture was drew with different tools already get in a separated category! People consider it as a whole different type of art based what kind of technic was used! But basicly a drawing is also a pictorial art created by hand, like painting! Why we do not call just drawing all the art form what create a picture by hand? If we call all the art form as photography, which create photolike pictures, then we should to call all the picture creating art made by hand as drawing. But is not gonna happen! So why not we just give a name for every new art form which is describe it as close as possible? Like the name of watercolor! If we hear that: "watercolor", we know immediatelly, what it is! If we hear, pencil graphic we know what it is. If we hear photogrpahy, we know what it is! Or least we knew before, but todays almost every pictorial art form which involving computer graphic also called photography, what make a lot of confusion! If we can call in a different name the oil painting and watercolor, we should call in different name the digital art forms too! So the scanner art is not photography it is scanner art, or as it called scannography, not photography. Also a picture which was created by digital graphic tools such as Photoshop, should to call digital graphic, even if it was based on a photograp. In this case there is no confusion, and the viewers knows what is it just by the name of the art form!
I shoot on Fuji Velvia and Astia, with Nikon F6 and Pentax Z1p with Sigma zoom lenses.
|
|
|
Re: When is photography not photography?
[Re: Sunstruck]
#31049
09/06/10 04:06 PM
09/06/10 04:06 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2010
USA, Ohio
Attila Kegyes
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Aug 2010
USA, Ohio
|
Quote:
"... since photography is the art of capturing images with light..."
Thank you! So this mean non of the pictures which was manipulated in computer should call photo, because many of the details/features wasn't captured/created by lights! Many of the feature on a manipulated picture was calculated and drew by a computer softwere not created by lights.
Also if we follow the same logic what you follow to make the scannography equal with photography, all the pictures was created with pigmented liquid such as paint or ink, must call painting! So If I print a picture using computer and printer, actually I am a painter. And there is no different what so ever between oil painting and watercolor. Am I right?
But let's go deeper! If everything is photography when a lights created a picture, everything is must be same what was created by a free hand of the artist! So painting and drawing is same too! Now the question is, we should to call a painting as drawing or we should to call a drawing as painting? Why we call them on different name if in both case the artist create the picture by hand?
Because they are different as much as the scannography differ from photography, or as the computer graphic differ from photography. They have similarities, but yet completly different things.
I shoot on Fuji Velvia and Astia, with Nikon F6 and Pentax Z1p with Sigma zoom lenses.
|
|
|
Re: When is photography not photography?
[Re: James Morrissey]
#31050
09/06/10 04:10 PM
09/06/10 04:10 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
CA
StarrLight
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2009
CA
|
Quote:
Hey Peggy,
Anyway, i definitely think this is art...and really quite lovely. I also think it can be loosely defined as photography, but in my opinion, it only loosely counts.:)
James
I agree with James. Everyone will draw a line somewhere for when the action of photography becomes digital (or non digital) art. Once you take a photograph with your camera, isn't *any* adjustment made either in the darkroom, on a computer, or scanner a manipulation of the original image, an therefore probably should be considered a separate piece of work? Do you still call it photography if its only a little bit of manipulation and not a lot? I'm sure there are specific definitions/guidelines that exist?
Just musing...
Its a pretty image in any case. 
Diana
|
|
|
Re: When is photography not photography?
[Re: StarrLight]
#31052
09/06/10 04:53 PM
09/06/10 04:53 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2010
USA, Ohio
Attila Kegyes
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Aug 2010
USA, Ohio
|
Quote:
I'm sure there are specific definitions/guidelines that exist?
In my opinion, a picture is NOT a photogrpah or just a fake photogrpah if wasn't taken with a camera, and/or if those features was manipulated what is possible to achive during a shot with a rigth equipment and a necessary skill.
For example, a motion blure is achivable during a shot, adding it in Photoshop is make the picture a fake photo.
The right darkness/brightness is achivable with a correct light measuring and camera set up, adjust it in a PS is cheating and make the picture a fake photo.
The contrast or saturation can be achive choosing the rigt film and/or right phototechnic such as pull or push technic, or set the digital camera before the shot. Change the contrast or saturation in a PS is make the picture a fake photogrpah.
A disturbing subject in the background can be move over or choose an angle of view to not show in a frame. Clone it out in PS is cheating and make the picture a fake photograph.
Make a picture with other thing than a camera (scanner, computer, typewriter, nailgun, brush, paintspray, rake or showel, pencile, cryon, milk chocolate, etc.) is not photography, and the picture should not be called as photography. It is will misslead the viewers! (I know that is the idea in many cases!)
People are have some basic idea what is a photography, because many people taking pictures, and all of them using cameras! So if a picture called photograph, they believe it was taken a camera! But if it wasn't, actually misslead the viewers. Misslead the viewers actually is a chetaing.
But I have to point out, ANY kind of picture, whatever how it was created, can be an ART!
(just please do not misslead the viewers.)
I shoot on Fuji Velvia and Astia, with Nikon F6 and Pentax Z1p with Sigma zoom lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
1,532
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums6
Topics638
Posts1,023
Members3,319
| |
Most Online4,044 Nov 13th, 2025
|
|
|