Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 218923" data-attributes="member: 9240">Just so I'm clear, I have absolutely no issue with fully utilizing the art of the darkroom, digital or otherwise.&nbsp; Photography is about creativity, and layering multiple images to create art is not something I have any issues with.&nbsp; I love the idea of realizing something surreal conceived in the mind from images you've taken.&nbsp; When presented as &quot;digital art&quot; they are what they are and should stand on their own merits.&nbsp; When presented as &quot;photographs&quot; the lines become blurred, and I believe there are ethics involved with how we present a &quot;photograph&quot; to the outside world.&nbsp; Post processing is not what I'm talking about here, as even printing from a negative is &quot;post processing&quot;, whether simply exposing or dodging and burning to even an image - that's simple photography.&nbsp; 99% of my post processing is simply manipulating the light information already there.&nbsp; Most of the rest involves removing distractions from the frame, like power lines, dust spots and things like random tourists who got in the shot.&nbsp; I do not believe these manipulations alter the perception of what is in the photo away from reality.&nbsp; It's when something is added to an image that wasn't captured in the original frame that I believe the photographer has the obligation to present it differently.&nbsp; It's no less valid as photography, but to me it's no long &quot;a photograph&quot;.&nbsp; I like the term the author used, a &quot;composite photo&quot;, as it clearly states that multiple images were merged.&nbsp; It's truth in advertising.&nbsp; There's absolutely nothing wrong with it - until you try to pass it off as something else.Making pictures can be as varied as painting a scene - you have many, many choices in how precisely you are going to produce your art, and that's a fantastic thing.&nbsp; The idea of a photograph as a &quot;capture&quot;, however, is very specific, and implies a single instant in a single view of a singular place and time in infinite history, and to present anything else as that, for me at least, is a violation of the truth of that particular art form, but not of photography in general.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 218923, member: 9240"] Just so I'm clear, I have absolutely no issue with fully utilizing the art of the darkroom, digital or otherwise. Photography is about creativity, and layering multiple images to create art is not something I have any issues with. I love the idea of realizing something surreal conceived in the mind from images you've taken. When presented as "digital art" they are what they are and should stand on their own merits. When presented as "photographs" the lines become blurred, and I believe there are ethics involved with how we present a "photograph" to the outside world. Post processing is not what I'm talking about here, as even printing from a negative is "post processing", whether simply exposing or dodging and burning to even an image - that's simple photography. 99% of my post processing is simply manipulating the light information already there. Most of the rest involves removing distractions from the frame, like power lines, dust spots and things like random tourists who got in the shot. I do not believe these manipulations alter the perception of what is in the photo away from reality. It's when something is added to an image that wasn't captured in the original frame that I believe the photographer has the obligation to present it differently. It's no less valid as photography, but to me it's no long "a photograph". I like the term the author used, a "composite photo", as it clearly states that multiple images were merged. It's truth in advertising. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it - until you try to pass it off as something else. Making pictures can be as varied as painting a scene - you have many, many choices in how precisely you are going to produce your art, and that's a fantastic thing. The idea of a photograph as a "capture", however, is very specific, and implies a single instant in a single view of a singular place and time in infinite history, and to present anything else as that, for me at least, is a violation of the truth of [I]that particular art form[/I], but not of photography in general. [/QUOTE]

Verification