Photo-manipulations vs. photography

Started 3 months ago | Polls thread
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,368
Re: Computer art vs. photography

Levantinian wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

Levantinian wrote:

Laybourne wrote:

But is the line between the two really as cut and dry as they make it out to be?

What do you think?

The line between photography and decorative art employing a digital image file and computer manipulation is quite well defined.

It is a photograph if the computer manipulation of camera generated digital file is restricted to the following:

  1. Restoration of image perspective to what it would be if the lens axis and the sensor x direction were both in the horizontal plane.
  2. Crop within the existing sensor frame.
  3. Correction of blemishes introduced by the foreign particles on the sensor surface.
  4. Correction for the colour temperature, light sensitivity and contrast, uniform over the whole image frame.

If there is any computer manipulation of the image file produced by the camera, it may well be art, but it is not photography.

Wow is this ignorant of what was done in darkrooms well before a pixel or computers existed.

Not at all. A lot of decorative art (as opposed to photography) in the film era was done using chemical processes. The difference between those times and now is that then it was difficult to do, it was not not done on a massive scale, and that was perhaps the reason it was more readily accepted. But there were many that considered, for instance, Anselm Adams' creations to be crafty graphical decorations, and not photography.

Yeah, I was a bit suspicious about the board name, thank you for confirming those suspicions.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow