Some thoughts on what has been discussed.
The arguement has been put forward that any effect that could be done in the traditional darkroom should be allowed, but this misses the mark by a bit. The photo paper or slide was (and is) a canvas to be painted upon. The control of the development process is just as free as putting a brush into paint and touching it to canvas. In fact, there is no reason to have a camera at all -- photo paper responds to light, it does not care if that light is a reproduction of a scene captured by a camera or if it has been hand-crafted for the purpose of producing the image. That image may be on photo papar, but that does not make the process of creating that particular 'photograph' anything that could be called photography. Photography isn't a final product, it is a process. As such, how the photograph is created is just as important as how striking the image is. That a stiking image can be created in a traditional darkroom without the use of a camera does not make the process of creating that image to be the process of photography. As a process, photography carries the product from conception through to completion -- it does not begin in the middle of the process somewhere. Sure there are those talented enough to pull off starting in the middle, but that doesn't make their work photography.
---
Digital photographic art is digital art. Digital art is any art created on a digital medium, with digital tools. A digital camera is certainly a digital tool that creates a digital medium, so the results of digital photography must be considered digital art (provided the viewer condiders the photo to be art). Digital photography is a much more limited activity than the much broader activity of just creating a digital image.
---
The arguement that voters discourage digital art has been rendered invalid by the rules of the site. How did they do this? They did it with the inclusion of this statement; "If you feel a photograph has violated the site rules, you may click the "Recommend Disqualification for this Picture" link and enter your reason why. You should then vote on the photo as if the rule was not broken, and leave the determination up to the administrators." (emphasis in original) The decision of whether or not an entry has violated the letter or spirit of the rules is a discretion the administrators reserve for themselves (or their designated arbitrators, the site council). However, this runs quite closely along with the lack of definition of what the spirit of the rules actually is, or what use to be referred to as photographic integrity.
Those skillful an an activity are often quite subtle in their use of various tools and techniques, and as such they produce images that do not betray the tools or techniques used. This, coupled with the above mentioned ambiguity in the rules, produces digital art that do not evoke DQ requests and are apparently viewed as valid photographs. The result is that unless the breaking of the letter or spitit of the rules is quite obvious, either to the naked eye or in the post processing steps, the image is considered a valid photograph. If you are going to cheat, do it well. :p
---
Post processing is a wonderful thing, when it is done with the intention of enhancing what is already in the captured light of the image. In fact, it can be a wonderful things even if it produces more than the light contain. This can produce some remarkable images -- but those images can no longer be called just photographs at that point.
David
|
