| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2004 07:54:30 PM · #1 |
Greetings...
The photographic integrity threads still live with regularity here. I read all of them and I ask myself a lot of questions. The arguments that go back and forth are all impossible because 'photographic integrity' means different things to different people. Maybe it's time to think about what it could mean. After much thought, I have come up with a bit of a new theory on the issue.
Let's talk about photography instead of photographic integrity.
I think I can break photography up into about three different categories as far as this site is concerned:
1. Straight out of the camera
These are photographs that come right out of the camera and get nothing more than some resizing and maybe some very minor sharpening and level adjustments. The image is presented as is. There is no significant change to 'reality'.
2. Photographic Art
These photographs are the basic rendering of an idea. They are the framework for a vision of the photographer. The photographer takes any amount of desired latitude to use the photograph to create his/her own vision of the scene/subject. The image may have 'heavy' modifications if required to complete the vision. However, the image is still based in reality. The image may contain a lot of surreal qualities, but the basic reality of the original scene/subject is still intact.
3. Digital Art
Digital art may be photography based. It may contain elements of one or more photographs. However, the finished product may or may not be reality based. The scene or subject could not or did not exist as shown in the finished image. It may take the form of some altered reality because physical elements have been added that did not exist in the original.
[I have no examples of my own for these]
Each of these forms is acceptable on its own. The real question that comes to mind is how can you compare options 1 and 2 to the category of digital art? In my mind, when the reality (if there is any) is completely manufactured outside the camera or by composing multiple images or whatever editing processes are used (even darkroom processes with film), the photographic integrity is gone and you enter a new realm of artwork. This artwork can be truly phenomenal in its own rite. There is no doubt about that. I am very fond of the second example I posted above in the digital art category. It's a phenomenal image. The question is, would I call it a photograph? No. Even if this had been created with film in a darkroom, I would still not call it a photograph. I would, however, still call it phenomenal art.
Now that I have tried to explain my personal breakdown of these forms of photography/art, I have to ask myself where/if the line should be drawn for allowing option number 3 to compete with options 1 and 2 in a contest.
If the contest is a photography contest, would it not seem logical to keep categories 1 and 2 separate from category 3? If the contest was an open art form contest, I think that all categories, including painting, sculpture and any other form of art could coexist. The WOW factor of digital art that is based in photography can be extreme. I think that if we were hosting challenges where any/all of these three categories were allowed to compete together, the digital artwork would win consistently (if the site/rules were setup to allow for it and everyone agreed that it was acceptable, of course.)
Just some food for thought....
I would really love to see the addition of a photography based digital art challenge on a weekly basis in parallel with the members challenges. This type of art is simply another facet of digital photography. What benefits would be gained by this?
1. Possible increase in membership
2. Probable increase in print sale material
3. Potential people who can teach and share photoshop techniques
4. Create satisfaction for those who want to do digital art that are already members of DPChallenge
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 08:49:27 PM · #2 |
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject and feel you properly categorized these three forms of art. I agree that you cannot compare 3 with 1 and 2. However, I think that your definitions aren't clear enough as to define the line, subjective as it may be, between 2 and 3.
For example:
Wouldn't a portrait of someone with, say, an apple on the table that was imported from another picture still maintain photographic integrity? I'm assuming the pasting job and lighting was done so well that no one would have ever suspected it. In this case, the picture looks like it would fit in category 1, and would certainly have no voting advantge, and would certainly be out of place in category 3.
I would define photographic integrity of a picture as whether it recreates reality, whether it is reality or not. If a completely modified picture could have been taken on regular film, it maintains photographic integrity for me. But that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 11:31:02 PM · #3 |
I accept the categories, but wonder how we could define them better as well. The distinction between Photographic Art and Digital Art is, IMHO, where the fire is.
In the end, I believe, we are left with a photo, which may or may not reveal anything about how it was made.
Exhibit:
Photographic Art (to me) means what it has always meant - 'art' being the only definitive and arguable criterion and challenge. Digital Art (to me), at best and at its most formidable, ceases to be Digital Art. It becomes Photographic Art. In other words, I use and am accustomed to use the term (Digital Art) in an almost derogatory sense to describe a particular niche of photography which relies predominantly on 'effects' as opposed to 'substance'. How can I say this better?
In the equestrian world, we know of trick and circus horses. To the untrained eye, a good circus act can be dazzling. To the initiated, it is a deceptive and sorrowful display implying varying degrees of suffering on the part of the horse and indifference to this on part of his owner.
Yet it is possible to make a horse dance spectacularly without having to inflict any suffering at all. This can be accomplished 'in partnership with the horse' by observing its natural ways and movements. In order to have the horse 'produce' at will, it is necessary to spend a few years becoming a horse yourself. When you're enough horse to be accepted by another horse as an equal and benevolent partner, stuff happens.
This passion and commitment is called dressage. It is also known as an art. The baroque idea of a horse perform like a ballet dancer in order to tame and culture what some perceive to be 'wild and uncultured', is not what this is about at all. It is, instead, an effort to match the naturalness, the pristine 'beauty' of nature with an equally organic and wholly engaging endeavor, something which demands more attention to what is than to anything extraneous, like a concept, a trick or contrivance.
-So when, in the end, we only have a photo without any explanation as to how it was made, we can only look at it and ask:
If there is any energy coming forth, of what sort is this energy? Is it contrived, is it credible, is it convincing? Are the 'effects' integrated well, do they support a sense? Of what sort is this sense? Do I feel something, do I see something I haven't seen before, am I better off for seeing it or not? Does the photo make me feel restless, does it inspire action, thought or consideration? Am I being deceived, bedazzled or sold something? Does the photo, as a thing, exist through itself? Will it endure? etc.
Many photos are quite easily enjoyed, some, however, can be demanding. In the end, I find, my struggle is less one with definitions and categories or definitions for categories. It is a struggle with myself to wrestle acorns from a dandelion or some-such...
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 09:12:36 AM · #4 |
I think I understand in principle where you are trying to go with this, but I have a problem with the concept of reality that you try to hang the classes of image upon.
Examples come to mind very easily that are straight from the camera yet have no bearing on reality as seen by a human, at all. Really fast exposure shots of water, really slow exposure shots of water, very wide angle shots, very long telephoto shots. All conspire to modify reality, straight from the camera.
In your classification, often my 'straight from the camera' images are my most heavily and carefully edited - I try extremely hard to make something look as realistic and yet as good as possible. They are not surreal realisations of my vision.
Perhaps an alternative tack might help, considering creation.
Digital art involves creation of objects and scenes that never existed in front of the camera at the time of the shutter closing.
Photographic art involves enhancement of the objects and scenes that were in front of the lens at the time of the shutter closing.
I feel I cross a boundary into digital art when I start adding or removing significant things instead of enhancing or changing emphasis.
I realise I've still left a door open with the word 'significant' as this then becomes a matter of degree. Is it digital art to remove a pimple ? I think not. Is it digital art to remove a person ? Perhaps. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 09:43:00 AM · #5 |
Maybe I could further refine some differentiation between #2 and #3 somehow. Gordon and Zeus both make good points.
I suppose photographic art and digital art as I described earler are both fairly subjective and there is a very fuzzy line between them, if any line at all.
I like Gordon's comments:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Digital art involves creation of objects and scenes that never existed in front of the camera at the time of the shutter closing.
Photographic art involves enhancement of the objects and scenes that were in front of the lens at the time of the shutter closing.
|
The comment about 'significant elements' is also one that I agree with. *I* have an understanding of what this means to me. Is a person a significant element? A dust spot? Telehpone wires? The nitpicks go on. A significant element is one that plays a strong role in defining the theme or mood of the photograph. If these elements are added, removed or relocated, I believe the category of the image changes to digital art. What would we call this type of image that is created in the darkroom with film images? We can't really call it digital art or photographic art as I defined earlier.
The category of digital art has its own subdivisions too. Some digital art can look completely real. It could look like the simplest of photographs. There could be no visible evidence of editing. Whether or not this type of image 'fails' as a photograph is up to the photographer probably. It may be convincing to the viewer. The question I ask myself when these types of images surface is the photographer's intent. The context of the presentation comes into play at this point. If the venue is one of photography where camera skills are the focal point, is this acceptable?
I think I'm spinning my wheels. There are counterpoints to any point that I could possibly make. The simple concept of reality is subjective.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 10:00:51 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What would we call this type of image that is created in the darkroom with film images? We can't really call it digital art or photographic art as I defined earlier.
|
Typically it would be called Photomontage or a composite, or maybe just plain art. Jerry Uelsmann springs to mind.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 10:08:45 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If these elements are added, removed or relocated, I believe the category of the image changes to digital art. What would we call this type of image that is created in the darkroom with film images? We can't really call it digital art or photographic art as I defined earlier. |
I don't think the two qualifiers you've used, digital and photographic are mutually exclusive though your usage implies it. There's simply no need to qualify art with terms like digital. Art is expressive and creative, sometimes immersive.
We don't walk into a gallery, look at a sculpture and call it rock art (not that sculptures are only created from rock). A photograph, regardless of whether it is manipulated or not, can be considered art; the process does not define it or help when used to qualify it.
Suppose a modern artist creates a sculpture by first realizing their vision using some CAD-based software, then either creates/constructs an object by hand or machine. The process does/should not detract from the fitness of calling it art; that categorization of an object is purely subjective. Still, some people really, really care whether the object was created by hand and/or whether the creative realization employed the use of computers or other tools.
Photographs just happen to have this property that the tools (camera, film, flash, filters, chemicals, computer, etc.) are (maybe?) a necessary part of realizing the creative vision. Also, they (likely) start out as entirely representational; some people prefer they stay that way.
The cheese stands alone.
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 10:34:42. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 10:20:27 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What would we call this type of image that is created in the darkroom with film images? We can't really call it digital art or photographic art as I defined earlier.
|
Typically it would be called Photomontage or a composite, or maybe just plain art. Jerry Uelsmann springs to mind. |
Or just collage, or composite ... I have some in my print gallery made the "old-fashioned way" by my friend Louise about 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 10:22:29 AM · #9 |
The problem is that people want to take art and put each piece into its own little box (classification). Some art:
A) Doesn't fit into any of our pre-defined boxes, so we try to make a new box to fit that or modify an existing box to make it fit.
B) Fits in 2 or more boxes, which makes us want to justify putting it into one box or the other based on some mostly arbitrary criteria.
It seems to make us uncomfortable being unable to classify everything.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 11:55:49 AM · #10 |
| If we are strictly discussing this issue as it relates to DPC contests, then we'd also have to address the time element issue that is part of the DPC rules. To enter a challenge, one has to take a picture during the given week. As this relates to composite images, would it be ok to combine parts of other pictures taken outside of the contest dates as long as the composite were created during the designated period, or would all images in the photo have to be verified as having been taken in that time period? I don't think the latter would really possible as the site council would be inundated with work. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 12:04:25 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 12:28:28 PM · #12 |
photography - could be used as a general term to incorporate any printed work that is the result of a camera exposing a light sensitive surface to light. as painting is a general way to describe the use of paint and brush to apply the paint to the surface - the surface could be any number of things, and the paint can be of any form... the result, however, is still considered a painting.
then of course there are numerous subcatagories -w/in photography - black and white, painting with light, backlighting, and i think any other method using a photo as the basis for a printed work should be considered photography.
whether it's accepted here is another issue althogether.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:30:37 PM · #13 |
Thanks -- I keep forgetting the links are "funny" when it's your own portfolio! |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:12:14 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Thanks -- I keep forgetting the links are "funny" when it's your own portfolio! |
Off the side, under the "Your Collections" box is a Browse Collection link for the current managed collection. That link is the public access link. I think there's something similar for individual images in your portfolio too. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:19:03 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Thanks -- I keep forgetting the links are "funny" when it's your own portfolio! |
Off the side, under the "Your Collections" box is a Browse Collection link for the current managed collection. That link is the public access link. I think there's something similar for individual images in your portfolio too. |
I think you're right. I just keep forgetting to do it when I'm looking for the links.
It would be cool to have a "Collection #" tag like the thumbnail one, which would take as an argument a number or nickname to automatically create a link to the gallery. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/09/2025 05:50:34 PM EDT.
